[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let me let everybody in on society's dirty little secret: it exists only because 99.99% of people are interested in maintaining it. If that number was 95%, everything would have devolved into chaos long ago.

The fact is it's just too easy to do something like the Boston Bomber did. The reason it doesn't happen more is, very simply, more people don't want to do it.

...and in the countries where more people do want to do things like this, it happens so often that it doesn't even make the news anymore. I hope the US continues on with 99.99% of society wanting to maintain order.

Also: it's not like the guy didn't have a right to an attorney and a trial just because he wasn't immediately read his rights. From what I can gather they were more interested in finding out if he had accomplices, if there were other bombs that were an immediate threat, etc.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If we forget our rules, our constitution, just to slaver over a perpetrator like a pack of wild dogs, then we lose our society, and become just like the other packs of wild dogs in other countries, shouting death to America.

It's not slavering "like a pack of wild dogs" to want true justice for this muslim cockroach. Justice is NOT sending him through an American court system with all of its favoritism, checks and appeals that defendants enjoy and often abuse. The result:

** Potentially, YEARS will go by before there's even a verdict (anybody know how Nidal Hassan's trial is going? It's been almost 4 years since the Fort Hood shootings, but he hasn't faced trial yet...and that's in a military court, which is typically more efficient and streamlined....the last I saw, they were arguing over whether his handlers could forcibly shave his beard or not, because shaving a muslim's beard might violate his so-called "religion").

** MILLIONS of dollars will be spent. Endless motions by attorneys trying to make a name for themselves. Entire blocks and streets will shut down for security during the trial. Massive expenditures for cops, helicopters, and extra security. Appeals after the verdict based on "bias" of the jury pool, or some other ridiculous technicalities, which start the whole process over again.

** AND THEN there's the cost of his incarceration, paid by tax payers who already don't have enough money for basic infrastructure or education reform....ie, the extreme cost of putting the cockroach to death, which is what he deserves, or the lower but still considerable cost of feeding, clothing and housing this maggot for the rest of his life, including giving him better health care than many tax paying Americans enjoy.

It's a travesty. It's a pathetic joke. ***** All for someone who had been a citizen for only 7 months, and was trying to kill as many Americans as he could, for the simple fact that they were Americans.**** What he did was an ACT OF WAR. He needs to be dealt with by the standards of war. We are at war with Islamic terror, are we not? And what was the muslim wacko's act, if not one of Islamic terror?

This country has soooo lost its moral bearings. During WWII, when saboteurs were discovered, they were killed quickly. We knew we had the moral right to do that, and by doing it so swiftly, we actually strengthened our moral position. Swiftly killing a saboteur was a statement of how vile we considered that act. It helped set clear limits and standards for behavior. Now a days, even someone who shoots up a movie theater or bombs a beloved sporting event gets treated with a lightest touch.

And this is called civilized?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by cgc 

And in my estimation, a backbone means standing up for the Constitution even if it doesn't please you (e.g. right to free speech when that speech is anti-American liberalism).

That's a no-brainer. It's Tea Party activism or conservative media banter that really challenges our allegiance to free speech.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by k2director 

This country has soooo lost its moral bearings. During WWII, when saboteurs were discovered, they were killed quickly. We knew we had the moral right to do that, and by doing it so swiftly, we actually strengthened our moral position. Swiftly killing a saboteur was a statement of how vile we considered that act. It helped set clear limits and standards for behavior. Now a days, even someone who shoots up a movie theater or bombs a beloved sporting event gets treated with a lightest touch.

During World War II if you were an American of Japanese descent, you got stripped of your individual rights and sent to "War Relocation Camps."

[The Final Shortcut]

Yes. By randomly imprisoning Americans because of their ethnicity, you helped set clear limits and standards for behavior, and strengthened your moral position.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

During World War II if you were an American of Japanese descent, you got stripped of your individual rights and sent to "War Relocation Camps."

Some may not know George Takei was in one. Obviously a foreign saboteur.

As an aside, George is pals with Tokyo Rose, who I've met, because she used to run a store down the block from me. Rose (who had dual Japanese and American citizenship) was imprisoned in Japan after Pearl Harbor as an American spy (edit: she lived in America, she was unlucky enough to be visiting family in Japan when Pearl Harbor went down). Because she spoke English and Japanese, they forced her into translation duty, and ultimately put her on (unwillingly) as a propaganda machine.

I didn't know most of this until a few years ago. I had first met her as a kid, and it was mentioned in hushed tones outside her presence "that's Tokyo Rose".

I had always assumed this was irony. Tokyo Rose ended up in the country she "hated". The reality was after Japan surrendered, the Americans arrested her. They ignored the testimony of British POWs (to whom she was attached to for translating duties) who said she tried to help them at every turn.

The worst part was getting an interview with Rose was one of the big post-war "gets". They weren't letting her talk from prison, so a writer just made up an entire story (edit: not really a "story", it was an entire bogus interview) casting her as an America-hater.

So many people bought this as truth, she rotted in prison for 20 years until LBJ quietly pardoned her.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

And in my estimation, a backbone means standing up for the Constitution even if it doesn't please you (e.g. right to free speech when that speech is anti-American liberalism).

There's a reason you can't yell, "fire," in a crowded theatre. I'll give you a hint: it's actually not anti-American liberalism.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's a no-brainer. It's Tea Party activism or conservative media banter that really challenges our allegiance to free speech.

MORE Tea Party BS? State your sources, because as far as many of us know thou can't trust the MSM to get any characterization right. We are for SMALLER GOVERNMENT, not controlling your right to free speech.

Its jerks like Mayor Bloomturd and and the nanny-staters you should be worried about.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

MORE Tea Party BS? State your sources, because as far as many of us know thou can't trust the MSM to get any characterization right. We are for SMALLER GOVERNMENT, not controlling your right to free speech.

Its jerks like Mayor Bloomturd and and the nanny-staters you should be worried about.

Slow down hoss...

cgc had suggested that Free Speech is important even if it means allowing for the distasteful speech of anti-american liberals. Anti-American liberals have always been the poster-child of the importance of free speech whereas nowadays the apparent threat to be marginalized and silenced is pro-American conservatism. I wasn't saying the Tea Party poses a threat to free speech, but should be used as a reminder to anti-american liberals who would love nothing more than to stuff a sock into the faces of those who disagree with their world views.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

During World War II if you were an American of Japanese descent, you got stripped of your individual rights and sent to "War Relocation Camps."

Germans and Italians were also sent to camps during WW II. German were also subject to internment during WW I.

[subego]

Were those native Germans and Italians, or Americans with German or Italian blood?

[Chongo]

Both

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

cgc had suggested that Free Speech is important even if it means allowing for the distasteful speech of anti-american liberals. Anti-American liberals have always been the poster-child of the importance of free speech whereas nowadays the apparent threat to be marginalized and silenced is pro-American conservatism. I wasn't saying the Tea Party poses a threat to free speech, but should be used as a reminder to anti-american liberals who would love nothing more than to stuff a sock into the faces of those who disagree with their world views.

Oh, for course. Unless it's the pro-American conservative who'll pass laws to stuff the face of the anti-American liberal. Can't have scientific facts get in the way or their imaginary view of how the applied sciences work.

I've noticed an increase in this Glenn Beck style trend of attempting to equating conservative with "pro-American" and liberal with "anti-American." Less we forget (and I know how much Conservatives "never forget"), the guys that flew their airplanes into the WTC were some of the most vocal, anti-American conservatives on the planet.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Oh, for course. Unless it's the pro-American conservative who'll pass laws to stuff the face of the anti-American liberal. Can't have scientific facts get in the way or their imaginary view of how the applied sciences work.

I've noticed an increase in this Glenn Beck style trend of attempting to equating conservative with "pro-American" and liberal with "anti-American." Less we forget (and I know how much Conservatives "never forget"), the guys that flew their airplanes into the WTC were some of the most vocal, anti-American conservatives on the planet.

I think ebuddy's post may have gone a bit over your head. I'm also not sure what "scientific facts" have to do with a thread about moral, legal, and ethical implications.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think ebuddy's post may have gone a bit over your head. I'm also not sure what "scientific facts" have to do with a thread about moral, legal, and ethical implications.

Apparently they have very little to do with public education in the South. Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws forcing children to adopt religious propaganda in the science classroom of public schools. It's not only imoral and unethical to teach children in public schools that your religion is factually on level with scientific theory, but it also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There's a reason we have private schools.

You can't stand on the First Amendment platform divulging the superiority of the conservative pro-American lifestyle while simultaneously violating that very same Constitutional amendment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Oh, for course. Unless it's the pro-American conservative who'll pass laws to stuff the face of the anti-American liberal. Can't have scientific facts get in the way or their imaginary view of how the applied sciences work.

Now what are you on about? Science? You'll find no greater abuse of this discipline than among the left -- sorry. Otherwise, we're talking about whether or not the Boston bomber should have been mirandized. Everyone's trying to stuff the face of everyone. It's just particularly amusing coming from the fairness doctrine, planet-saving left. I know I know... conservatives hate clean air and water and want people to die without their single-payer health care scheme.

I've noticed an increase in this Glenn Beck style trend of attempting to equating conservative with "pro-American" and liberal with "anti-American." Less we forget (and I know how much Conservatives "never forget"), the guys that flew their airplanes into the WTC were some of the most vocal, anti-American conservatives on the planet.

Yeah, Glenn Beckisms like "racism" and "homophobe" for not marching in lock-step with the preferred ideology. Spare me. Quit projecting on conservatives.

To be clear, I was responding to cgc's post as he had framed the issue. Conservatives in the US are attempting to preserve one of the most liberal ideals of governance on the planet. You nanny-staters are the ones trying to bring back the old guard here, don't pin that crap on conservatives.

[subego]

Jesus. I vote you both suck.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Apparently they have very little to do with public education in the South. Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws forcing children to adopt religious propaganda in the science classroom of public schools. It's not only imoral and unethical to teach children in public schools that your religion is factually on level with scientific theory, but it also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There's a reason we have private schools.

A sticker in a textbook reiterating the importance of critical analysis? What gives any such idea traction is quack "educators" indoctrinating students with pictures of human gill slits and other such nonsense debunked in the early 1900s pedaled by ignorant zealots who have no business teaching science. Don't look to creationists for the abject failure of the US public school system -- that's a bastion of left-wing stupidity run amok from the Unions-down. Sorry, you own that.

You can't stand on the First Amendment platform divulging the superiority of the conservative pro-American lifestyle while simultaneously violating that very same Constitutional amendment.

You'd have no problem violating any Constitutional principle you saw fit as long as a (D) came up with the idea.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Jesus. I vote you both suck.

If it looks ugly, it's because it was. I don't come at people like this unless they've proven to me that's all they'll understand.

Otherwise, I'm not your role model.

[subego]

Sorry. That didn't really read right.

I should have said both your sides suck. Neither of you actually suck.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There's a reason you can't yell, "fire," in a crowded theatre. I'll give you a hint: it's actually not anti-American liberalism.

No kidding...glad you brought up that old argument as it wasn't what I was referring to. For the record, I was sayhing conservatives protect the Constitutional rights of those they don't agree with while liberals call people they don't agree with names and bully them.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A sticker in a textbook reiterating the importance of critical analysis?

Stop being so willfully dense. That wasn't the intention of the sticker, and you know that. The school board themselves admitted it as much, and the morons that voted for it were very vocal about it being a way to put their religious viewpoint into the science classroom. It also wasn't just a sticker, it was also to allow "supplemental material" to be taught along with real science. Critical analysis already demonstrated that intelligent design is not science, nor does it belong in the science classroom except, perhaps, as an example of why it doesn't belong in there. The sticker did not promote critical analysis, it promoted religious dogma.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What gives any such idea traction is quack "educators" indoctrinating students with pictures of human gill slits and other such nonsense debunked in the early 1900s pedaled by ignorant zealots who have no business teaching science.

This isn't your religion. This isn't indoctrination or zealotry. It's a process of discovery. Pharyngeal slits are a fact of life, they're found in all developing humans. Ernst Haeckel's postulate, while wrong, still provides insite into the development of species and was instrumental in the discovery of vertebrate pharyngeal; the concept has not been taught since the 1970s. Some text books may show the pictures, but keep in mind the majority of educational text books are printed in a state where their education board thinks that Unicorn Rainbows and Pixie Dust are the fabric of the universe.

This doesn't make his work any less important or significant. He made several important discoveries about human development, and many of his ideas still hold true today. Yes, some turned out to be wrong, but that's how science works. Not by fiction or belief, but by testing, observation, and discovery. Incidentally, vertebrate pharyngeal and not human gills are in the official science curriculum, and have been for a very long time.

Religion (intelligent design, or otherwise) can not be tested, ergo it is not science and does not belong in the public school science curriculum. There are plenty of private schools out there if you want to teach them that magic elves created the universe.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'd have no problem violating any Constitutional principle you saw fit as long as a (D) came up with the idea.

No. I don't subscribe to any political affiliation, and it isn't ever a consideration when I make my decision.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

... conservatives protect the Constitutional rights of those they don't agree with ...

Except when they don't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Stop being so willfully dense. That wasn't the intention of the sticker, and you know that. The school board themselves admitted it as much, and the morons that voted for it were very vocal about it being a way to put their religious viewpoint into the science classroom. It also wasn't just a sticker, it was also to allow "supplemental material" to be taught along with real science. Critical analysis already demonstrated that intelligent design is not science, nor does it belong in the science classroom except, perhaps, as an example of why it doesn't belong in there. The sticker did not promote critical analysis, it promoted religious dogma.

How'd that go? If this is to be the sole cause of the US' abysmal performance among OECD nations in science, how are these stickers or the failure of implementing the "supplemental material" causal of our poor performance? Answer: they're not, regardless of whether or not you appreciate their intentions.

This isn't your religion. This isn't indoctrination or zealotry. It's a process of discovery. Pharyngeal slits are a fact of life, they're found in all developing humans. Ernst Haeckel's postulate, while wrong, still provides insite into the development of species and was instrumental in the discovery of vertebrate pharyngeal; the concept has not been taught since the 1970s. Some text books may show the pictures, but keep in mind the majority of educational text books are printed in a state where their education board thinks that Unicorn Rainbows and Pixie Dust are the fabric of the universe.

Leave your religion out of this. I said "gill slits" and yes while pharyngeal arches or flexion folds of the foregut contain a great deal of genetic information in embryonic development, no respectable embryologist would suggest they develop from or to serve any respiratory function whatsoever. Recapitulation was debunked in what, 1897? Make a fist -- SCIENCE!™ you now have arches and folds on your index finger! Poor performance in science as in most other academic disciplines is overwhelmingly a socio-economic phenomena and has nothing to do with creationism. People need to get a grip.

This doesn't make his work any less important or significant. He made several important discoveries about human development, and many of his ideas still hold true today. Yes, some turned out to be wrong, but that's how science works. Not by fiction or belief, but by testing, observation, and discovery. Incidentally, vertebrate pharyngeal and not human gills are in the official science curriculum, and have been for a very long time.

But that doesn't do a thing to curb rogue teachers educating on "recapitulation" and the fact that you're still calling them "slits" is fallacious and exhibit A of the problem.

Religion (intelligent design, or otherwise) can not be tested, ergo it is not science and does not belong in the public school science curriculum. There are plenty of private schools out there if you want to teach them that magic elves created the universe.

Yes and your odds of superior academic achievement in the private school setting are exponentially greater than that of the public school system. Maybe your concerns here are entirely unfounded when considering... I don't know, data? Otherwise, without it we're left with your fiction and belief which seems no more meritorious than the product of the most zealous of intelligent design/creationist advocates.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Except when they don't.

Obviously, but thankfully they generally do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Obviously, but thankfully they generally do.

There is no "generally." So long as they're pushing for crap like DOMA, they're ignoring the First Amendment and establishing their religion as the law for everyone else.

Fortunately it's looking likely it'll be overturned.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There is no "generally." So long as they're pushing for crap like DOMA, they're ignoring the First Amendment and establishing their religion as the law for everyone else.

Fortunately it's looking likely it'll be overturned.

The problem with the current attitude in America is that people all just want to do whatever makes them feel good, they stand for nothing other then their own selfish desires and don't care about the country as a whole. America is on the decline and liberals are celebrating.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How'd that go? If this is to be the sole cause of the US' abysmal performance among OECD nations in science, how are these stickers or the failure of implementing the "supplemental material" causal of our poor performance? Answer: they're not, regardless of whether or not you appreciate their intentions.

I blame underfunding. 50% of California's budget used to go to education. That was true for most states in the union, even in the south. Now it's less than 1%. The school for which I work has to set up a non-profit organization just to collect donations simply to cover our operational costs. 98% (no joke!) of our operational costs come from the PTA and city, not from the state. Less than 1% of our schools' funding comes from our state.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Leave your religion out of this.

Logic, observation, and testing is now a religion? Sign me up!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...no respectable embryologist would suggest they develop from or to serve any respiratory function whatsoever.

Now they wouldn't say that. 100 years ago, we didn't know. That's why it's a process of discovery.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Poor performance in science as in most other academic disciplines is overwhelmingly a socio-economic phenomena...

Wow, we agree on something.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

and has nothing to do with creationism.

It has a lot to do with creationism. "Tides come in, tides go out, we can't explain that!" is not an answer. Once you start teaching kids that whenever they don't understand something, to just throw up their hands and say, "God did it!" you've lost the absolute core of what it is to be a scientist at any level. Discovery and critical analysis are absolutely essential to the scientific process, and forcing kids to adopt religious dogma as an "answer" to their questions will hurt them in the future. Let them wonder. Let them ponder about how and why something happens. Don't just automatically attribute it to some mystical being.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But that doesn't do a thing to curb rogue teachers educating on "recapitulation" and the fact that you're still calling them "slits" is fallacious and exhibit A of the problem.

I agree 100%, all teachers should be held to the same standard of accuracy.

Y

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes and your odds of superior academic achievement in the private school setting are exponentially greater than that of the public school system.

They have something that public schools don't, money and support. Private schools, generally, are populated with children from well off families. Regardless of the school's underlying platform (be it simply a private school or a Catholic school), they are better funded, attract better teachers because of it, and have parents who are more active in the school and its students. Private schools also don't have to deal with the same problems as publics schools, such as accommodating special needs children and having funding dependent on local and state taxes (of which people don't want to pay.)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There is no "generally." So long as they're pushing for crap like DOMA, they're ignoring the First Amendment and establishing their religion as the law for everyone else.

Fortunately it's looking likely it'll be overturned.

Yeah, damn Clinton, that bastard.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I blame underfunding. 50% of California's budget used to go to education. That was true for most states in the union, even in the south. Now it's less than 1%. The school for which I work has to set up a non-profit organization just to collect donations simply to cover our operational costs. 98% (no joke!) of our operational costs come from the PTA and city, not from the state. Less than 1% of our schools' funding comes from our state.

Once again I must admit to being highly skeptical of your claims. Revenue estimates for your enacted budget FY2010-11 totaled $94.8 billion of which approximately $30 billion went into California schools which is more than 30% of California's General State Revenue 2010-11.

Otherwise, California is understandably in a state of dire austerity, exactly what we dogmatic conservatives warned you about years ago. Y'all are also using Obama's strategy of making "political" cuts to assuage the whiny conservatives by placing the cuts on the backs of children and elderly to ensure they're as visible and painful as possible. California's entirely broken and the state of your school funding is just another symptom of it.

Logic, observation, and testing is now a religion? Sign me up!

Unfortunately, you're not employing any of the above to make your points here.

Now they wouldn't say that. 100 years ago, we didn't know. That's why it's a process of discovery.

Right and the only explanation for the continued teaching of this nonsense is obligatory atheism or abject ignorance. Either way, that's not an indictment against a failed attempt to get stickers into textbooks advising critical analysis.

Wow, we agree on something.

So... why would you suggest sending students to private schools for their religious dogma when they're consistently outperforming the public schools teaching your preferred dogma?

It has a lot to do with creationism. "Tides come in, tides go out, we can't explain that!" is not an answer. Once you start teaching kids that whenever they don't understand something, to just throw up their hands and say, "God did it!" you've lost the absolute core of what it is to be a scientist at any level. Discovery and critical analysis are absolutely essential to the scientific process, and forcing kids to adopt religious dogma as an "answer" to their questions will hurt them in the future. Let them wonder. Let them ponder about how and why something happens. Don't just automatically attribute it to some mystical being.

Of course, that's what all the self-professed God-fearing founders of the scientific method were content in doing; proclaim GOD DID IT! Again, you're long on opinion, short on logic and observation.

I agree 100%, all teachers should be held to the same standard of accuracy.

So... quit pointing at the limping ant when the menacing elephant is staring you in the face. It makes you appear more bent on some antagonistic philosophy than truly interested in academic achievement.

They have something that public schools don't, money and support. Private schools, generally, are populated with children from well off families. Regardless of the school's underlying platform (be it simply a private school or a Catholic school), they are better funded, attract better teachers because of it, and have parents who are more active in the school and its students. Private schools also don't have to deal with the same problems as publics schools, such as accommodating special needs children and having funding dependent on local and state taxes (of which people don't want to pay.)

Right and of course, none of the above differences involve religious indoctrination. Again, quit pointing at the little ant while the raging elephant is charging you, it makes you appear less concerned for students than peddling antagonism.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, damn Clinton, that bastard.

Yeah, one of his biggest mistakes. It was a Republican bill, though.

[subego]

DADT was worse.

This mandated discrimination against government employees.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yeah, one of his biggest mistakes. It was a Republican bill, though.

Looks like it was pretty bi-partisan, to me.

[subego]

Seeing how the MFIC felt it was okay for him to fire you if you were gay, not really much of a surprise.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Once again I must admit to being highly skeptical of your claims. Revenue estimates for your enacted budget FY2010-11 totaled $94.8 billion of which approximately $30 billion went into California schools which is more than 30% of California's General State Revenue 2010-11.

Let me make this a little more clear. State funding is 11.91% of our operational budget for Santa Clara County, which is where I work. Not 50% like the CBP says. Monies from the state budget are portioned to county, then to city, based on various demographics. A huge portion of that budget is reserved by State and Federal requirements for our special education students, and is not reimbursed through the state general funds. The effective state funding for this year is just under 4% -- adjusting for special education -- and that is for everything: operations, salaries, materials, transportation, cafeteria, insurance, lawyers, charter schools, and finally education.

For 2011 it was barely 1%, for 2012 it was effectively 0%.

Speaking of charter schools, for our county anyway, our public schools pay for their students, but state or federal funding go to the charter school. So for expenditure purposes, charter school students are treated as if they are a part of the public school system, but for revenue purposes, we don't see money from Federal or State.

The costs of what is required of our public schools far outweighs any funding we get from the state.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, California is understandably in a state of dire austerity, exactly what we dogmatic conservatives warned you about years ago.

Despite that we're recovering rather nicely, I don't disagree with you entirely on this point. I do absolutely believe this state could use some more conservative (not politically) spending measures. I do think our state spends more than it should.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

California's entirely broken and the state of your school funding is just another symptom of it.

This is true for many, many conservative states, as well, especially other border states and states with high immigration. The only clear indication to me, anyway, is that neither side has any clue what the answer is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right and the only explanation for the continued teaching of this nonsense is obligatory atheism or abject ignorance.

You're pretending that this is some sort of wide spread case. I'm still not even certain what teachers you're talking about, much less even entire schools, considering that it isn't apart the official science curriculum. Googling about it, it's clear that many, many, many conservative websites jumped on the bandwagon regarding outdated text books with pictures, but there isn't any indication that it's actively taught. And it shouldn't be.

Also, the important difference is that there are zero credible scientists fighting for text books to continue teaching about gill slits in human embryos (in fact, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't even apart of the curriculum), but millions of conservatives are voting to put something that is demonstrably fiction into the science text book; something so removed from anything that approaches scientific method that not only is it not right, but it's not even wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Either way, that's not an indictment against a failed attempt to get stickers into textbooks advising critical analysis.

It wasn't advising critical analysis, it was promoting religious dogma.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... why would you suggest sending students to private schools for their religious dogma when they're consistently outperforming the public schools teaching your preferred dogma?

I already told you, they're better funded and have more parent involvement. Two things that public schools don't have. Also, science isn't dogma.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course, that's what all the self-professed God-fearing founders of the scientific method were content in doing; proclaim GOD DID IT! Again, you're long on opinion, short on logic and observation.

You misunderstood what I stated. Proponents of intelligent design are the ones who proclaim "God did it!" simply because they don't understand how or why something works. Once you take away scientific method from the students and have them give up and explain things they don't understand in terms of magic fairies, they lose the drive to discover and explain how and why things really happen.

Light passed through a prism doesn't create a spectrum because a unicorn shits a rainbow through it, but that's what Intelligent Design proponents would have you believe simply because you don't understand it. So if magic unicorns create rainbows is your answer, then there's no need to investigate further. Your answer is that "some higher mystical being did it," be it God or magic unicorns.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... quit pointing at the limping ant when the menacing elephant is staring you in the face. It makes you appear more bent on some antagonistic philosophy than truly interested in academic achievement.

Knowing the difference between fiction and fact is pretty damn important for academic achievement. Funding and parent involvement are deeply important, but so is teaching our children critical thinking. Methodically sneaking religion into the school science curriculum hurts our kids' education. When they stop asking questions because the answer is "God did it," they no longer have the drive to learn and explore. If our community is giving up on these kids, it's wrong of us to tell them to give up, too.

For all the malice I shed towards religion in general, Catholicism does, at least, try and toe the line between their religion and science. There is an important distinction between how Catholic schools teach their science curriculum, and how Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, et al teach theirs: Catholics say that human evolution is a fact, the world is roughly 4.54 billion years old, and this is how scientists came to that conclusion; however, we (Catholics) believe that regardless of how and why it works, that it is one of many tools that God uses. Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc., simply state that once we don't understand how, God did it, and that's it.

If you send your kid to a Catholic school, you can get a well rounded education, and it's relatively easy to disseminate God from any of it. Ironically, you can get a very good science education in a Catholic school because they don't discourage learning and discovery; God, while important and always in the forefront, is independent of the learning process.

I wouldn't care one bit if those States wanted to incorporate a separate elective course for discussing their ideas. But that isn't what they're doing. They're replacing science education with mythology, and claiming it's factually on par with applied sciences. It's immoral and unethical, and its hurting our kids' education.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Looks like it was pretty bi-partisan, to me.

All Republicans voted for it, of course, except for the 1 openly gay Republican senator. 2/3 of the Democrats voted for it. So, yeah, I suppose in terms of passing it, it's bipartisan. The bill was authored and promoted strictly by Republicans, though. I think part of it was Clinton's insistance that DOMA wouldn't be used for discrimination, but that was a ridiculous notion considering the bill itself was discriminatory in nature. I would imagine that a large part of it was that most of the Democrats that voted didn't want to alienate the President in a Republican controlled House and Senate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Let me make this a little more clear. State funding is 11.91% of our operational budget for Santa Clara County, which is where I work. Not 50% like the CBP says. Monies from the state budget are portioned to county, then to city, based on various demographics. A huge portion of that budget is reserved by State and Federal requirements for our special education students, and is not reimbursed through the state general funds. The effective state funding for this year is just under 4% -- adjusting for special education -- and that is for everything: operations, salaries, materials, transportation, cafeteria, insurance, lawyers, charter schools, and finally education.

For 2011 it was barely 1%, for 2012 it was effectively 0%.

I still don't fully understand. If 30% of the State's general revenue went to the public school system and your system is starved of vital funds, it sounds to me like there's a fundamental management issue within the public school system or a failure of distributing funds efficiently and effectively. Is it possible some districts bear responsibility for their issues such as in this case where Federal school meals money was diverted to a local TV Station for roofing and sprinkler systems? Otherwise yes, California may have to choose between the fraud and waste in its E-Waste Recycling Program or throwing more money into a school system obviously ill-equipped for effectively distributing and overseeing funds.

Speaking of charter schools, for our county anyway, our public schools pay for their students, but state or federal funding go to the charter school. So for expenditure purposes, charter school students are treated as if they are a part of the public school system, but for revenue purposes, we don't see money from Federal or State.

The costs of what is required of our public schools far outweighs any funding we get from the state.

And the truth is there is probably plenty of blame to go around including the management of your county's school district.

This is true for many, many conservative states, as well, especially other border states and states with high immigration. The only clear indication to me, anyway, is that neither side has any clue what the answer is.

Because the primary problem is in the home and throwing money at growing a dependency class is coming home to roost.

You're pretending that this is some sort of wide spread case. I'm still not even certain what teachers you're talking about, much less even entire schools, considering that it isn't apart the official science curriculum. Googling about it, it's clear that many, many, many conservative websites jumped on the bandwagon regarding outdated text books with pictures, but there isn't any indication that it's actively taught. And it shouldn't be.

You're pointing fingers at one problem and I'm indicating how small a problem it really is in context. You're insisting the whole ID/Creationism teaching is more prevalent than it is and I'm telling you the only problem is that atheists are not yet as organized. They're working on it, but they're not there yet.

Also, the important difference is that there are zero credible scientists fighting for text books to continue teaching about gill slits in human embryos (in fact, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't even apart of the curriculum), but millions of conservatives are voting to put something that is demonstrably fiction into the science text book; something so removed from anything that approaches scientific method that not only is it not right, but it's not even wrong.

Again, atheists just aren't as organized yet. They're working on it. That's the only difference. The public school system is a bastion of Unions and leftwing sensitivity, it's not being overrun by Christian zealots with stickers for text books. Again, they're not getting anywhere. This is like blaming the underwear bomber for taking down an airplane that never went down. He failed. The airplane didn't go down. It didn't work. The organized attempt failed.

Don't take my word for it, poll the science teachers in your district and ask them if embryos have gill slits. Report back with your findings.

Otherwise, you're finger-pointing for no logical reason or fruitful cause other than being bent on antagonistic worldviews.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still don't fully understand. If 30% of the State's general revenue went to the public school system and your system is starved of vital funds, it sounds to me like there's a fundamental management issue within the public school system or a failure of distributing funds efficiently and effectively. Is it possible some districts bear responsibility for their issues such as in this case where Federal school meals money was diverted to a local TV Station for roofing and sprinkler systems? Otherwise yes, California may have to choose between the fraud and waste in its E-Waste Recycling Program or throwing more money into a school system obviously ill-equipped for effectively distributing and overseeing funds.

That's certainly part of it, there's no delusion that a good chunk of that money goes into the coffers of special interest and not the schools. The other part is that schools have increasingly become more responsible for things they never used to be responsible for a few decades ago. Special education being the biggest one, but if you look at the budget I linked to, how much money we throw at lawyers, nutrition, transportation, child care services, etc., things that the State and Federal governments don't reimburse, but are essential for students.

Times have changed, but our governments are slow to adopt, and now our schools are hurting.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because the primary problem is in the home and throwing money at growing a dependency class is coming home to roost.

Providing resources for before- and after-school programs is essential in keeping these kids interested in learning and out of trouble. I'm a firm believer that if these kids are well educated, they can lift themselves out of poverty. The school is a much more centralized area for us on which to concentrate our efforts, and will have the biggest impact on the community. If parents don't want to be involved in their kids lives or their education, it's more cost effective to concentrate on the schools than on every single parent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're pointing fingers at one problem and I'm indicating how small a problem it really is in context. You're insisting the whole ID/Creationism teaching is more prevalent than it is and I'm telling you the only problem is that atheists are not yet as organized. They're working on it, but they're not there yet.

If they're making decisions for the entire state, it's pretty prevalent, especially for places like Texas where the textbooks for our entire nation are published.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, atheists just aren't as organized yet.

It doesn't have to do with atheism, but secularism. Religion is important to many people, and it even has a place in a public school... it just doesn't belong in the science classroom.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, they're not getting anywhere.

Setting state policy is certainly getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't take my word for it, poll the science teachers in your district and ask them if embryos have gill slits. Report back with your findings.

Sure thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

All Republicans voted for it, of course, except for the 1 openly gay Republican senator. 2/3 of the Democrats voted for it. So, yeah, I suppose in terms of passing it, it's bipartisan. The bill was authored and promoted strictly by Republicans, though. I think part of it was Clinton's insistance that DOMA wouldn't be used for discrimination, but that was a ridiculous notion considering the bill itself was discriminatory in nature. I would imagine that a large part of it was that most of the Democrats that voted didn't want to alienate the President in a Republican controlled House and Senate.

By the numbers, looks more like 4/5ths, but who's counting? It's still shitty legislation and none on the Left should have voted for it. It wouldn't pass today, of course, since gays are such a hotly contested voting block and all the asshats in DC are trying to squeeze out every vote they can wrangle.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

...If they're making decisions for the entire state, it's pretty prevalent, especially for places like Texas where the textbooks for our entire nation are published....

For the record, that's not the case now that we've got Common Core. Nearly every edu project I've worked on in the last few years has been driven by Common Core compliance. Since Texas has yet to officially adopt the Common Core, they've made themselves an afterthought. Still, a very important and valuable afterthought. I imagine we'll be going back to those Common Core projects over the next few years and adding in the Texas-centric content they demand.

Sorry. Carry on.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

For the record, that's not the case now that we've got Common Core. Nearly every edu project I've worked on in the last few years has been driven by Common Core compliance. Since Texas has yet to officially adopt the Common Core, they've made themselves an afterthought. Still, a very important and valuable afterthought. I imagine we'll be going back to those Common Core projects over the next few years and adding in the Texas-centric content they demand.

Sorry. Carry on.

True, but the Common Core does not preclude states from making their own changes, so long as the core requisites are met. States such as Kansas, who have officially adopted the Common Core curriculum, have amended it to add "supplemental learning materials" to the classes. It doesn't stop states from forcing kids to adopt religious dogma as fact.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

By the numbers, looks more like 4/5ths, but who's counting? It's still shitty legislation and none on the Left should have voted for it. It wouldn't pass today, of course, since gays are such a hotly contested voting block and all the asshats in DC are trying to squeeze out every vote they can wrangle.

Well, I was counting. Of the voting Democratic Senators, 15 voted nay, 39 voted yea, 9 abstained. 38% against, so a little less than 2/3s voted for it.

I agree that zero should have voted for it, but it's politics. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it, it's what your lobbyist tells you to do.

[subego]

Abstaining is voting for the winner.