Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Textbook Curriculum Passes Final Vote In Texas
suraj.sun sends in a followup to a story we've been following about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their state's textbooks. From the Dallas Morning News:
"In a landmark move that will shape the future education of millions of Texas schoolchildren, the State Board of Education on Friday approved new curriculum standards for US history and other social studies courses that reflect a more conservative tone than in the past. Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade. Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country. Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Welcome to the new American Taliban.
Finally they are no longer pretending to be like the rest of us.
Still fighting the American Civil War in 2010.
Setting aside questions about Texas itself for the moment, I wonder if this will cause other states to go to greater lengths to separate their curriculum from Texas's. The curriculum change got a lot of opposition in Texas, and I can only imagine it would get a far greater amount in many of the other states, especially the more liberal ones.
God, these are idiots.
Idiots? Why are you being so polite to those dunderheaded inbred fucking morons?
This ain't rocket surgery.
Akin to dyslexia or mild retardation, and we should show a little extra respect and admiration for those who manage to overcome their Texasism and not be imbeciles.
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.
You can't handle the truth.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
If someone were to do this in Holland there would be outrage! I don't understand how you can allow your children to be indoctrinated like this.
History books should be produced by experts in the field of history, just like math books by mathemeticians.
You can't democratize facts, wtf guys?
If other states could be pressured into boycotting any publishers giving in to Texas curriculum demands, we could have a very interesting situation here. Texas can legislate what they want in their textbooks, but that doesn't mean anything if no publisher big enough to supply the books is willing to do so. I'm sure there are states which would be happy to boycott- I'm just not too hopeful it would be enough to make Texas untouchable for publishers.
My webcomic
Dunderheaded inbred fucking morons? Why are you being so polite to those goddamn piece of shit cum-stains on humanity who would regress us back into the dark ages due to a selfish, head-up-their-haemorrhoid-filled-assholes mentality?
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
... a sign of some elements of Texas pushing harder for secession from the rest of the country? If so, I say bring it on...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...You can always home-school or send your child to a private school.
Get your outdated, bigoted stereotypes right. "Inbred" is reserved for Appalachian hillbillies and such, not Texans. I suppose ignorance is an excuse, but then ignorance and bigotry go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation -- a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing? If you blindly follow what the government says, democracy in a free society falls apart.
A free thinking individual should be skeptical of all things the government has done, question the motives for various laws and if they believe they are unjust, vote against them or otherwise try to get them repealed.
There are some good examples in this particular case. It just comes down to interpretation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
Really, out of all the things wrong in the Texas curriculum why does TFS point out something that could very well be a benefit. Teaching students to question government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Well, this makes it supremely simple to evaluate any applications that come from Texas or any other state that uses these "standards": into the recycle bin.
It's one thing to disagree politically, but the amount of bigotry on display in this discussion is really distressing.
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion."
Any bigots are welcome to reply as to how they are totally justified in displaying their ugliness to the world.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
Questioning's good. Education should encourage questioning. And questioning the basis for legal doctrines is vital to a healthy democracy. If there's anything wrong with the standard adopted then I suspect it will be in the areas where questioning isn't encouraged rather than where it is. Are there any examples of that?
I, for one am all for bombing the whole state back to the time the beliefs they now uphold were in vogue.
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
Why are you being so nice to these almost as bad as progressive liberals?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
"We need to have students compare and contrast this current view of separation of church and state with the actual language in the First Amendment," said McLeroy, who like other social conservatives contends that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I don't suppose this and statements like "Christian land governed by Christian principles" would provide ammunition for a lawsuit that the State Board of Education is itself guilty of a violation of the separation of church and state? It's not evolution, to be sure, but the motivation sounds, based on these accounts, to be highly suspect.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
... is what has gone into textbooks in the past properly described as 'liberal'? If not, why not?
Does anyone have a copy of the actual documents outlining this curriculum? I'd like to see with my own eyes what the fuss is about.
Are you referring to /. posters who are making knee-jerk hostile comments without having any idea what changes were actually made to the curriculum? Yes they are.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Well, at least this means that Texans no longer has a right to complain about other states brainwashing kids into political sockpuppets. They now rank right up there with progressive societies like North Korea and Iran. GOOD JOB!
I'd be willing to bet money that the GOP members of this board and their supporters view this as payback for what they perceive to be decades of a classroom dominated by ideas that are "liberal". Payback's a bitch, right? While I can't say what they're doing is cool, you can't exactly say that Education has been an institution free from political influence up until this point. To me, this is just another reason to send your kids to private school, or home school them..either way put them in an environment where you have more control over curriculum and can be certain that this kind of material does/n't get pushed onto your kids.
For the TLDR: More of the same. Raise your own damn kids.
You guys are trying really hard to become a third world theocracy.
The conservatives often complain that we spend too much money on education costs. But yet they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history. In the end, aren't they just increasing the costs of education, by forcing schools to buy new textbooks that meet the new standards? This seems counter to the "free market", "don't tread on me" idealism that they were pushing not too long ago...
While what is going in Texas is absolutely disgusting, it will not increases costs. Textbooks are bought (adopted) on a cycle. I don't know how it is Texas but every 7 years new textbooks are purchased to replace all the current textbooks that are at a school.
What this does basically, is limit what textbook choices a district can consider when purchasing for a new adoption. It will not force districts to have to replace their current books until the district's/school's next adoption period.
Dear Texas,
Remember when you wanted independence from Mexico? You went and had that little revolution. Now you brag about how you're the only state to have ever been its own republic, yada, yada.
Tell you what, you can have your independence back. The rest of us never really liked you; we kinda think you're douchebags. So, go raise that Lone Star flag and tattoo "In God We Trust" on all of your children.
Sincerely,
The Rest of Us
----- obSig
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use? Creative Commons licensing (oddly enough, CC has a link right now to Virginia's Department of Education and some work they are doing) and (insofar as is humanly possible) a focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material. The final form of the textbook delivered to students wouldn't necessarily include those references, but they would be present online and mandatory for anything that reached the "final" version. Let the broader college professor community decide on the acceptability of/validity of any particular cited source.
Not only would this provide a mechanism for creation and distribution of textbooks that wouldn't be easily influenced by political agendas (tenured professors are about as pressure-proof as we're likely to get and still have sufficient domain knowledge to do useful work) but it would make good quality teaching materials universally and cheaply available. If school districts didn't have to pony up so much money for textbooks, what else could they do with the money?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'm not going to create an account just for this, but there are a few points to make.
First, this isn't really 'technology' or even 'science' news. This is at this point political news and it seems many slashdot posters are simply taking a liberal/bi-coastal position against the conservative (sometime evangelical christian) position in many other states. This could be discussed on any number of sites; slashdot isn't really the best place for another offshoot of this typical argument.
Second, most of slashdot rails against central control, jack-booted thuggery of the RIAA or national censorship. However, when a community or state exercises its power to mandate community values which conflict with the particular person on slashdot, all that speech about freedom goes right out the window. Centralization to a DOE, mandated this and that, imposing morals on everyone - hypocrisy is exposed.
Examine yourselves.
They have a ways to go to get to Arizona levels of excellence.
But it won't work, because Texans don't read their schoolbooks, they just keep them in big "depositories" hidden away on upper floors of buildings.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"What we have is the history profession, the experts, seem to have a left-wing tilt, so what we were doing is trying to restore some balance to the standards," board member Don McLeroy said in March.
In other words: "Despite being a two-bit politician on a school board, I'm going to ignore what even I call the experts' views and bend curriculum to support my political whims because I am a fucking retard."
This is nothing short of an attempt to implement thought control in the US by selective control of information to brainwash the next generation. These are the very people who worship McCarthy and vilify "godless communism", and they're engaging in the very same practices they condemn. Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
In Japan, school children learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but aren't told about the Nanking Massacre, Pearl Harbor, or the Bataan death march. As a result, when they talk to outsiders about WWII they have a very warped view of what happened and why it happened that way. We all need to know as much of the truth about history as is possible, whether we like it or not, or we're going to tackle the future from a very warped and distorted viewpoint. Good decision making is based on knowing the facts, including the context, not on wishful thinking about the way the world ought to be.
The really sad part is that children are victims in all of this.
"And the good Lord said "Magic everywhere in this bitch," and there was. Thus was the United States bestowed upon us, the virtuous defenders of democracy." -From Houghton Mifflin's upcoming 'God, Country, and YOU' textbook series.
become a dirty word?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I always assumed inbred was reserved for the inbred, e.g. people who marry their cousins and have lots of genetic defects as a result, like Texans.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
They don't sound so "conservative" to me. Lies are conservative?
Environmentalism=conservation, "conservatives"=anti-environmentalism.
Constitution: separation of church and state (what could be more conservative than the basis of all US law?). "Conservatives": church in state=sponsored schools.
The list goes on. The only thing they want to conserve is the rich's wealth. "Antiprogress" is a better label than "conservative".
These "conservatives" are anti-American.
Free Martian Whores!
First, this isn't really 'technology' or even 'science' news. This is at this point political news
Wow. That explais why it's in the "politics" section! I'd been trying to figure that out. Thanks. One question though: why would you think it had anything to do with science or technology?
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
social conservatism is all about a simplistic model of human behavior: teenagers, just don't have sex, homosexuals, just stop being homosexual, just say no to drugs, etc.
ironically, social conservatives always wind up breaking their own principles. just examine the folly of anti-homosexual activists found in homosexual situations form throughout history, especially recent, for examples. and you can bet the daughters of politicians who rail against abortion are secretly flown to canada when a "problem" happens
social conservatism is always "do as i say, not as i do". and there isn't really any malice in their simple-mindedness. most of them sincerely believe their own dunderheaded takes on human nature, and then wind up paying the price for their simpleminded edicts on human behavior
human nature is complex, and when forced into simplistic models, you just wind up causing more suffering than you are attempting to stop. this isn't an attempt to excuse lack of responsibility or criminal activity, its a simple obvious statement that the real world is more complex than very simpleminded teachings
social conservatives are not evil, they're just stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum. The more local the control of education the better.
I don't mean to sound all Orwell 1984, but there is a huge danger in allowing one entity to dictate what history is, its meaning, and its intent.
Regardless of what decisions they make, does it bother anyone else that a board or 15 people apparently decides the curriculum for the whole country? Seems like that would be the first thing to fix.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?src=fftb#!/pages/Boycott-any-publisher-that-changes-its-content-to-suit-Texas/107361885959456?ref=ts
Texans don't read their schoolbooks, they just keep them in big "depositories" hidden away on upper floors of buildings.
From what I've heard (I do not live in the USA), everything is bigger in Texas... including the people. That trek up the stairs is just too much work, I guess.
What you call 'bigotry', (ie. the harsh animosity towards people who are plainly illustrating how they are going to lie to our children and strip history of truth and lessons in order to fit a terribly mislead political agenda) can hardly be viewed as entirely unjustified.
This is not a difference of opinion. This is an angry outlash at those who would take their obstinate or intolerant devotion to his or her own opinions and prejudices, look at it and say "Hm...well, I could just poison my OWN children with these lies, but I think I am going to have laws pushed through that can spread the deception to every single child in the state."
Setting up situations where your academic record has the potential to be coloured by your belief in a god is disgusting. It deserves to be railed with the foulest language available. It's the same thing as teaching creationism in science class. You're lying because it's not science, it's hocus pocus. If you want to believe in giants at the top of beanstalks or whatever, fine. Live your fantasy. But you can't take your made up lah-dee-dahs and force the general public to believe them through indoctrination.
Really, we don't need to worry. See, parents will teach their kids the importance of separation of Church and State. The parents will teach their kids the use of skepticism and logical thinking.
Wait. Oh... no. Yeah, we're fucked.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I believe some of your premises are incorrect.
First, the quality of education directly affects the quality of science and technology that can emerge in the future. Hence the prominent place that education news has on Slashdot. Also, whether we like it or not, politics do play a role in shaping the state of science and technology.
Second, this isn't about censorship or centralized jack-booted thuggery, although it's not surprising that the arguments eventually swung that way. The base reason why people reacted to this is because the generalized group that self-identify and represent themselves as "conservatives" have earned a poor reputation for upholding the quality of science and technology education. This reputation carries over into the current attempt to rewrite history based not on careful study, but on the old feel-good "the victor writes the history books" attitude and approach.
"Constitution: separation of church and state "
Please point out to me where in the Constitution it says: separation of church and state
*crickets*
Oh wait, it does not. The 1st Amendment has the no establishment clause; IE, the government shall not establish a religion...
If you do not even understand the most basic tenants of the Bill of Rights, do you expect anyone to take your rants seriously?
http://www.facebook.com/votejudyjennings
This is not "Conservative"! Using "Conservative" to describe this is like using "Hacker" to describe script kiddies, or "Canadian Goose" to instead of "Canada Goose". It's popular, but it's still wrong!
Conservative means a limited government with limited power to interfere in the lives of individual citizens; That is, the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials, etc. These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government to force their social and religious agendas on the citizenry; That is not conservative! It's the opposite! Stop calling it that!
the free market will decide. I do not think that they thought their cunning plan all the way through, when their children will not be able to go to a college outside of Texas due to their education. There's no need to get angry or to fight back, only watch as the current generation of children in Texas public schools become a generation of uneducated and unemployable due to the decisions of the Texas school board.
I feel bad for the kids, but we reap what we sew. The parents of these kids has far more to lose than the kids do,proper education is only way we can get out of the current slump America has been in since the end of the Cold War. Great for everyone living outside of Texas though. That's an entire state that we don't have to compete with in 10-20 years.
These Texas Conserva-tards have fiscal conservatism taking a back seat to social and religious conservatism.
I bet 99,9324% of the angry people on this thread never really read the fucking document, they just mount stereotypes given by left propaganda media in their heads and spit out the only thing they can, which is the repetition of the same parroting we hear on the media.
Read the Fucking Document !
The civil war was about slavery. Viewed from the perspective of 2010, it was good (abolitionist) vs. evil (slavery). Why, then, do outspoken Christians seem to always be stretching to push the confederacy as a just cause? Jesus preached 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Doesn't that golden rule clearly lay down an opposition to slavery?
Reducing the role of Thomas Jefferson? Why? He's one of my favorite founding father. The person who writes so eloquently about freedom and dares to question the validity of God by cutting and pasting his own version of the bible. Yet, he still chooses to keep slave and may have even father children with slaves. To me, Thomas Jefferson personifies the constant struggle we all have between liberty and financial reality.
Our society is best served when we base our laws and actions on our collective logic and reason. What ever flaws DOE or any other government bureaucracy has is infinitely better than having our laws decided base on a illogical text supposedly written by God but in reality is written by men masquerading as God. The social conservative can't win their arguments base on science or logic so now they are trying to subvert our nation with politics staring with our children. I am ashamed to be a registered Republican. Damn, when they said small fiscally responsible government I didn't know the plan was to save money by moving city hall to the local christian churches and hand everyone a bible as an all purpose first aid kit, universal text book, and life's decision maker. . . . .
Just because /. posters "are making knee-jerk hostile comments without having any idea what changes were actually made to the curriculum" doesn't always mean they're wrong. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.
Current view? If by 'current' he means 'over the last 200+ years'. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." Doesn't sound very 'current' to me.
TPJ - Founder, The Amazon Basin
"There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum."
Yes. The difference is that the former has happened and the latter has not.
Why do I find it so disturbing that the very history taught in American education institutes are dictated by market forces pro-dominantly by one single state? Sounds completely moronic.
It's a very clever scheme in which they're trying to lower the cost of education in the long run. High quality textbooks cost more money than low quality textbooks. Dumb people don't need no high quality textbooks. And yes, I know that's a double negative.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The entire education system in U.S. has a very left bias. Our kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. This is good because these textbooks return facts to the books. The left wing bias of most posters here is disconcerting. You all post as if your minority view is the correct one. America is a Center-Right Country. Always has been. Our kids need to be taught facts, not leftist ideology and indoctrinated with lies and bias. So, any movement to put facts into textbooks is a good one.
Read radical news here
These changes won't seem dangerous, to anyone who believes them.
It won't seem strange to a UFO believer if the school curriculum started to include advice on how to deal with abductions.
A child love advocate wouldn't find it strange for lessons to be given in how to blow the teacher.
It all depends on how you view the world.
What seems clear is that the new system seems to want to rewrite history, this is not without precedent. A certain german did pretty much the same thing. What was his name again?
Now the truth of the matter is that any approach to any subject will most likely be biased:
10. A new addition to world history: "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict." Now that's not at all a loaded statement, is it?
This must be the ultimate example, how exactly would you instead introduce this subject without it showing your own bias to this subject?
The sentence itself is true, it was the will of the internation community that Israel would be founded, the territory belonged to the UK and the UK agreed to this. The arab world sought to defy the will of the UN and this has led to the conflict. But there is far more going on in the background. First of all, the UN members had their own reason to found Israel. The US as a bastion against communism, the USSR as a bastion against capitalism (yes really).
Take the insistence by some that the area be called Palestine. A loaded thing in itself, since we are dealing with ancient history for a region that has had many names. Why pick that one? Why pick the name chosen by the romans to remove the original name of Judea after the Jewish revolt? Odd that the occupied terroritories are using the name of an occupier?
And it don't really matter what you think yourself on the subject, just trying to show how insanely complex a unbiased answer is.
If there is current bias in the school books, then the answer is to neatralize that bias, not to slam it in the other direction.
And I really don't think that a nation who thinks that healthcare means death camps needs anymore right-wing bias do you?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
fuck america
Oh wait, it does not. The 1st Amendment has the no establishment clause; IE, the government shall not establish a religion...
You're both wrong. It says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That means a bit more than not establishing a religion. It means congress can't pass any laws whatsoever with a basis in any one religion (ie, respecting the establishment of said religion). It also can't pass any laws that prohibit the free exercise of said religion.
The waters are muddled with respect to public schools, because they are state sponsored. Congress obviously can't pass a law to require prayer in schools. Congress also can't pass a law that prohibits prayer in schools. "Separation of church and state" seems like an apt interpretation here, but "you're not allowed to pray in school" doesn't follow from that. Seems to me like in a community where the majority of people are of a certain religion, there's nothing wrong with having prayer in schools, so long as people from other religions / people with no religion at all are allowed to opt out, and form their own groups during that prayer time. That would seem to follow the letter of the law. In addition, of course, none of this applies to private schools, where they can do whatever the hell they want.
That said, why would anyone want school-sponsored prayer time anyway? Can't religious families take some time out of their day and pray together at home? Can't they pray together with their religious community? Can't the kids who want to pray just take a minute or so before the bell rings / before eating their food, and choose to do it by themselves, without the school-sponsored time?
You forgot to end your post with 'Discuss !'.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
These things can be fixed by a couple of well placed SAT questions.
(So, is it time the country to secede from Texas?)
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum.
How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
So you're okay with children in Texas now being indoctrinated with this drivel, growing up to become a new generation of "Christian soldiers", and then entering national politics to do to the rest of the country what their "forefathers" started in Texas with them?
There's a lot of conservatives who hate the idea of state education and want all the schools to be private with no government standards. Cynthia Dunbar, one of the bigger whackjobs on the board, isn't a fan of public schools according to her book where She calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion." The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical".
I wonder if that motivation isn't at play here, try to politicize the education standards so much that people lose faith in a state run education system.
I stole this Sig
For somebody who talks so much about bias you seem to have plenty of it.
What seems clear is that the new system seems to want to rewrite history
That's exactly what does not seem clear. Does mentioning Clinton's impeachment amount to rewriting history? Or perhaps mentioning the "conservative resurgence" during Reagan years. Or asking the students to evaluate the impact of global organizations on US sovereignty, or to evaluate the "constitutional" church and state separation - which is regrettably (speaking as an atheist) not in the constitution. Which of those amount to rewriting history?
And I really don't think that a nation who thinks that healthcare means death camps needs anymore right-wing bias do you?
Now, that's just crazy. The issue is not about "healthcare" (who doesn't want healthcare?), the issue is about who pays for it which is a perfectly legitimate discussion. I think you will find it was "death panels" not "death camps" and the issue is a legitimate one. In a single payer system the "payer" (the government) determines what it will pay for and how much. If for example there is an extremely expensive procedure that will only marginally if at all prolong the patients life it is routine in single payer countries for the government to not approve such procedures. In a system where everybody pays for their own care the decisions like that are up to the patient.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I've yet to see an unbiased point-by-point comparison between the new and old standards. Everyone reporting on the issue seems to have an axe to grind, and most often with the aim of inflaming as many of those who agree with their view as possible. Most of what we've seen reported hasn't even been actual text from the books - but rather paraphrased 'goals' written by those with an agenda, or out-of-context quotes.
Until we see that sort of comparison, I would suggest that most of the hyperbole and histrionics are premature.
The students who actually study the issues will see the differences of opinion and fact, and draw their own conclusions.Those who just accept the printed information usually do not care one way or the other.
As the students raise through the educational system, they will be exposed to other viewpoints, and can decide for themselves.
There is an assumption in these posts that all students in Texas are no more than blank screens waiting for the bigots of this view or that to propagandize them into mindless conformity. When the hell have teens been in conformity to anything adults value?
I believe that the Texas School Board is doing nothing but posturing for future political purposes.
Hoping someone here can answer this. Throughout coverage of the debate and adoption of these new standards, and the hoopla over Texas' science curriculum some months ago, it's been stated and written repeatedly that this is a national concern because textbook publishers try to conform to Texas' standards because of how many textbooks they purchase. That makes sense, except that California is the most populous state, with approximately 50% more people than Texas. It seems to me that California would be a substantially larger purchaser of textbooks than Texas.
The only reasons I can conceive that Texas would purchase more textbooks than California are (and they all seem damned unlikely or unable to make up for the difference in population):
1) Texas' age demographics are skewed way to the younger end than California
2) More Texans send their kids to school than do Californians
3) California replaces their textbooks far less often than Texas
So, why do the publishers follow Texas?
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
While it is true that the interests of the ultra religious poor and middle class aren't the interested of the monied elite, you'd be hard pressed to find the religious that believe that. God wants you to be rich. Taxes are an affront to the Lord. Global Warming doesn't exist, because God would protect us, therefore we should eliminate pollution regulation. It's all part of the their "Prosperity Theology" movement.
You should meet these people. It's quite a sight of intellectual discord.
My little brother is a Boy Scout, so I've attended some of the ceremonies. One thing that's always struck me is there's usually a period in which the leader of the ceremony says something along the lines of "We now ask that you join us in a moment of silence/prayer (I don't remember which), each in your own way." followed by the moment of silence.
Why couldn't the schools take the same attitude? It's not that acknowledging religion is illegal/unconstitutional, it's that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (although that, of course, only applies to Congress, not the states).
No, I'm serious.
If nothing else, the frothing nerdrage here on slashdot could now be tapped as a viable alternative energy source.
-Styopa
Where is the silent majority? Most of them ignore the Texas debacle. Most know that it really does not apply to their state. Only people on ./ think that their children shall be forced fed creationism during the upcoming school years.
Why would anyone think that a NEA member would teach creationism?
I think that we should also take a poll. We should see how many ./ posters are Catholic. I tend to see the whole thing on ./ as a Catholic vs Southern Baptist issue. They're really upset because most people in Texas do not believe in the social justice that Catholic church demands. Has anyone noticed the direction of all the asides on this thread? People are insinuating a lot of stuff as the expound past the issues germaine to the topic. I am left wondering why.
Not only reasonable, but justified...
I have to agree with your position. None of the requirements seem egregious or erroneous, even if I don't personally agree with the positions taken, they are all on topics which are legitimately debatable.
I believe the thinking of the board was that the perceived current bias in textbooks needed to be addressed. This is particularly evident from them specifying what shall be included, and not specifying any exclusions. They obviously wanted specific things included, and didn't bother specifying the inclusion of the other point of view because they felt that it would be included there anyway.
Responding point by point specifically to Newsweek's "10 silliest changes" http://www.newsweek.com/id/238322:
(1) Globalism is a real issue; many of the people at the Brookings Institute and the Hoover Institute see globalization as the single most important driving factor in increased terrorism, as "if you don't like it here, go some place else!" doesn't work very well if there's isn't some place else.
(2) Long term entitlements are something which should be considered carefully, in light of the current example of what Germany and France propping up Greece's state entitlements is currently doing to the economy of the European Union.
(3) Separation of church and state is an issue, and has been ever since churches and schools were forced by court decisions to stop sharing resources, such as buildings, particularly in rural states where population density is drastically lower. It continues to be each time someone like Michael Newdow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow files a new lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments on courthouses, or prayers at the opening of a session of Congress.
(4) There is no "instead" here; again, the intent appears to be to include contrasting opinion, not replace one opinion with another.
(5) Joseph McCarthy's crusade via the H.U.A.C. is generally acknowledged as a bad thing, even by the most right-wing people. But it's also correct to acknowledge that it was reactionary, and didn't originate from one man's mental instability.
(6) I'll grant #6; it seems like a case of successful lobbying for a particular composer. Although there is a lot of cultural baggage and context tied up in "Old Man River" which could help to explain certain aspects of U.S. society, it's not a necessary Schelling point to explain these things.
(7) Imperialism implies "British Empire"-like colonialism, with the taking and intention of permanence in holding of territory. This is probably a semantic argument not worth fighting over.
(8) "The conservative resurgence" in the 1980's and 1990's largely characterizes those decades, in the same way that the anti-war movements and the civil rights movements characterize the decades before them. Unless there's no intention to talk about those decades, I don't think it's possible to escape talking about the underpinning social events.
(9) As one of only two presidents to have ever been impeached, it's probably worth noting Bill Clinton's impeachment. While proceedings were dropped, I'd keep Nixon in the list (and they do).
(10) "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict", I think, refers more to the refusal of diplomatic recognition leading to ongoing conflict. You could easily replace this with something like "Explain how Western rejection of the State of Myanmar has led to ongoing conflict", and teach the same lesson, although with probably more controversy.
The fact that Newsweek, a supposed bastion of balanced reporting, takes such a strong side on these issues over which there is reasonable disagreement with the current doctrinal position in most textbooks indicates that the requirement to include opposing points of view is not only reasonable, it's justified.
-- Terry
I had a 5th grade teacher who liked to brag that she encouraged "creativity," but I quickly learned that she didn't actually want students to have their own ideas--she wanted them to express "her" creativity. Similarly, teaching students to be skeptical and to think for themselves is certainly a good thing. On the other hand, singling particular things out as targets for skepticism is not teaching skepticism--it is teaching a specific point of view. There are certain "key words" that reveal when a curriculum is pushing a particular point of view under the guise of "skepticism." For example, instead of being asked to "compare" two things, students will be asked to "compare and contrast." At first glance this seems reasonable, if a bit redundant (because of course comparison entails consideration of similarities as well as differences). But when the assignment includes "contrast," students will be given a lower grade if they fail to come up with reasons why two things are different--the approved reasons, of course.
Remember, Keep America Safe from Retards!
Don't Hire Texans!
Or for that matter anyone from Arizona, both of them are full of Idiots!
Deleting Jefferson is rewriting history.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
Francis Bellamy was OMG a socialist! Really. And a Christian Socialist at that. See his Wikipedia entry.
Imagine the reaction nowadays if schools anywhere in the U.S. were to adopt anything written by a socialist!
America is a Center-Right Country. Always has been.
Wow, talk about indoctrination and bullshit.
Er, as an Illinois citizen I recognize I have zero influence over Texas politics. Unless you suggest we go invade Texas and disband it as a state, the publishers are the only part of this "education" plan non-Texans can do anything about.
My webcomic
It seems that is also BS. According to an article in WSJ which magically became subscription only after I read it, Jefferson is all over the history curriculum, he was only removed from the list of the the most influential political philosophers which is fair enough since he wasn't one, but they they added him back in before the final draft was approved.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Why are they even reading a single compilation of history put forth by a select few? They should be reading a variety of sources over years of time in school. The US public education system is indeed broken.
If you do not even understand the most basic tenants of the Bill of Rights, do you expect anyone to take your rants seriously?
If you don't understand the difference between "tenants" and "tenets", do you expect anyone to take YOUR rants seriously?
and i would respond by saying that a society lorded over by social conservatives is better than a society without any standards
in other words, i understand your point, but you don't understand mine
yes, you need standards. but what i am asking for are standards that take in actual truth of human nature. for example: "teenagers: use protection when you have sex." that's a standard, and it recognizes teenagers will have sex no matter what you do. and when they do have sex, they won't get stds and get pregnant
but a social conservative will say: "teenagers: just don't have sex." but then they do anyway, that's what teenagers do. and because you haven't prepared for it, you get teenagers with clamydia and babies. in fact, in traditionally social conservative areas of the united states, teenage birthrates are higher than more liberal areas. what does that tell you? just look at sarah palin's daughter: my point is right up there for all to see about the failure of social conservative teachings: it doesn't stop teenagers from having sex. the desire for teenagers to explore their budding sexuality is a hardwired biological desire that no morality will ever overcome, or ever should try to overcome. if sarah palin had liberal leanings, she would have given her daughter a condom, and there would be no teenage mother up on stage with sarah palin screaming as a symbol for anyone with a true moral compass: "HYPOCRISY"
the point is NOT to have no standards. lack of responsibility, accountability, and outright evil trangressive criminality are horrible, and yes, are worse than social conservativism, i agree with that. a society with horrible crude abusive social conservative standards IS better than no standards at all
what i am asking is not to excuse the inexcusable, to have no standards, what i am asking is to have the RIGHT standards, which are often more complex, involve recognizing certain aspects of human nature you don't want to admit, and incorporate those realizations into your principles
for example: it is not lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, or criminal transgressive behavior when two men or two women have sex. so why prosecute people who do so? why tell teenagers sex is bad? homosexuality or teenagers having sex IS NOT WRONG. but social conservatism tells us they ARE bad. that is homosexuality is criminal. that teenagers having sex is irresponsible. but the genuine truth is that homosexuality is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK and that teenagers having sex IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK
you look at me and see someone who is trying to destroy morality. no: i am making morality BETTER. we NEED morality. what we don't need is simpleminded social conservative morality, we NEED BETTER MORE INTELLIGENT MORALITY
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Jefferson? Not a political philosopher? Did you grow up on the Texan curriculum or something?
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
hopefully a warning, an alternative reality future, where social conservatives overwhelm the usa: flight by hypocritical americans to canada for abortions
in reality today, daughters of conservative politicians just go to more liberal areas of the usa to have their abortions today anonymously, not canada
but in a future where the usa is overrun by the zombified morons of social conservativism, that is what is going to happen, as well as other challenges to canadian integrity. man the bulwarks, canucks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I took Texas history back in the 60's, and once I had the chance to read some real history, I was shocked to discover how dishonest and misleading the curriculum had been, mostly in ways that seemed designed to promote racism.
The actual goal is to finally kill free public education, reserving opportunity to those with means for private education or time for quality homeschooling.
The side effect they're ignoring is that this will complete the US' transition from global leader to second-world status.
A stereotype based wholly in ignorance. Texan stereotypes are different, but as an ignorant bigot, you wouldn't know. All you know is you must hate these people, and therefore anything goes.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In a system where everybody pays for their own care the decisions like that are up to the patient.
That in itself is a bit of right wing spin because, of course, healthcare is really expensive and most people can't afford to pay for their own healthcare, which means the decision is not theirs to make.
In the USA, I understand you have thought of that and people who have a moderate amount of money (and who are in good health) can get insurance. This means that in the USA it is the insurance corporations that make the decisions, not the government or the patient.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I prefer my friend's idea of a giant Gort-like Constitutional Robot. It would tramp down to Texas give the School Board a good Constitutional whoopin'.
Bloody stupid old fossils.
Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
Jefferson was a great man but I think to list him as one of the most influential political philosophers is the wrong category. Which original ideas did he contribute that were so influential? He was himself influenced by a long line of enlightenment thinkers but his own writings didn't really amount to much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Writings.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Nope, just based in the law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_in_Texas_to_marry_your_first_cousin
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Most houses don't have a second story. Instead they're 'Ranch' style.
Disallowing prayer in schools *IS* "prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Oh pleeezzeee. What a crok. You can pray before or after school. Or at school during recess.
The laws are a blatant attempt to convert other peoples children to Christianity. As such, they are completely odious.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Keep trolling. Who can cite an actual argument made by the board on a change they're making on the curriculum? Know why they're talking less about Jefferson? Read.
I bet a lot of people on here are disappointed there is no mention of how America under Democratic leadership is finally moving beyond the radical Capitalist experiment.
Thank you. It fucking annoys the hell out of me when people label me a right-wing religious nut-job for being a Conservative.
The 'cool' thing now is to call oneself a libertarian, but I think it gives you just as bad a rap, due to the crazies who covet the moniker. We won't even the mess of a party by the same name.
So what do I, a conservative, believe?
(0) As a baseline, I am a white 30 year old professional with advanced degrees in science, engineering, and law who came from a lower-middle-class family in the Midwest.
(1) I have never been to church in my entire life. I'm not an atheist, but at best I'm a deist.
(2) I believe every citizen is equal under the law, regardless of race, creed, or national origin. Legal non-citizens are to be treated as citizens until they muck up and then they can go home or to jail. Illegal aliens don't deserve to be handed citizenship, but I don't think it is unreasonable to allow them to earn it. At any rate, we need to close the border first, then worry about what to do with them.
I can't stand political correctness, color-blindness (or the far opposite, racism), discrimination, or affirmative action. Stand on your own two feet if you can, help your fellow man if he can't, treat each other with respect, and relish in your own unique cultural origins. This is America man.
(3) That governs best which governs least. The Federal government is supposed to be one of very limited, enumerated -- but plenary -- power. It does the things it is supposed to and holds some trump cards against the much more powerful state governments below it, such as the 14th amendment. We are not a heterogeneous people. Do you really think that Californians and Texas agree on most issues? Then why should they have the exact same laws? Sandra Day O'Connor, I'm with you on this one.
(4) Personal responsibility. The government is not your nanny and not your provider. Private charity is a wonderful thing, although I'm not opposed to a limited amount of government assistance for those in dire need.
It always irks me when folks say,"But to the rest of the world, your 'liberals' are 'moderate right-wingers'!" You're damn right they are. Until recently. we've always been a nation of individuals and rugged self-reliance. We've never conformed to the rest of the world. Whatever happened to terms like Yankee ingenuity? It doesn't mean we're wrong -- god only knows, conforming to a majority surely doesn't make something right -- just that we do things differently. There certainly are pressing issues we need to address, but there are other ways to address them.
(5) CAPITALISM. It's the best damn system out there. Is it perfect? Hell no. But we've never really had capitalism here anyway. Competition is very, very important; the government does have a role in any free market, to make certain the rules stay fair. That means busting or heavily regulating monopolies. I'd say Adam Smith never foresaw how powerful modern corporations could be but I don't know... Jefferson certainly seemed to appreciate the threat.
(6) Gay Marriage? Homosexuality isn't natural to me. It bothers and disgusts me on more than one level, and I hate having it shoved down my throat as 'normal' by the media. But you know what? The rights of the individual to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they aren't harming anyone else, is paramount. I've had gay friends. I may never understand them, but then I don't need to. My stance on gay marriage is one of semantics. Why the hell is it the government sanctioning marriage anyhow? That's a matter between an individual and his or her religious organization. Let the government recognize ONLY civil unions -- for anyone of legal age, regardless of orientation -- and let people who want to be recognized as married go on to get married in their organizations. Several countries do that, so why don't we?
(7) Health Care: As someone who has not had healthcare in seven years and has had to deal with massive bills and stres
Conservative = Someone who wants to control society so that they can keep getting richer. Religion is a method of control. Liberal = Someone who wants the government to hold each individuals hand to the detriment of the individuals growth.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Wait, what the hell are you claiming "progress" to be in the first place?
As far as I can tell, from all the comments listed talking about it, progress = socialism. If that is the case then being anti-progress is about as American as you can be.
So, someone is wealthy. Just because you think they shouldn't have something you want for yourself or others doesn't make it yours to give away. Asking the government to do it for you is just theft via mob mentality. The government didn't earn it, you didn't earn it, and who ever you want to have it didn't earn it either.
Your version of "progress" is why Europe is failing and countries like Venezuela are on the verge of complete collapse. It's so damn predictable ... once the product of ones labor doesn't belong to them they lose the motivation to produce it. Quality and Quantity suffer and those with the means break free and escape from the system do so, which results in both an economic and brain-drain. In the end all you end up with is a country full of dependents and no suppliers which is when things turn violent. That is when walls to keep the population in all the while the government turns their frustration and anger towards its own people.
If you are so anti-wealth why aren't you living your life as a non-profit individual? Why aren't you only spending the minimum of what it takes to sustain your life while giving everything left over to those that can't. Or are you, like most others that preach such, under the delusion that as long as you preach the message you are immune to actually living what you preach.
I didn't see any democrats, liberals, or the other irate minority of Americans that wanted this health-care bill demanding that Ted Kennedy be denied any special medical treatment in the last six months of his life. Yet they expect everyone else to watch their elderly loved ones be told that, even if they could afford it, that it would be a drain on resources that other need and be left to hospice.
How is any of that "progress" ?!?
And progress from what? I find that most liberals, when they talk about progress, are focusing on the progress of the human race as a whole which always ends up ignoring documented human nature proven throughout all of our written history. As they speak they make it very apparent that they don't feel they need to be confined by laws of countries, or the beliefs of people, and that the ends justify the means. That is not the type of person you should trust the keys of government too because at the core they believe that all government is transitory to a paradise that has no foundation in reality.
So, in short ... screw your so-called progress. Those that believe in it are the Anti-Americans.
"Efforts to put a more political spin" on textbooks? The article's summary assumes that before this round of meddling, the curriculum was perfectly objective and definitely uninfluenced by politics.
Revive the Constitution.
Inbred used as an insult to Appalachian hillbillies is still sort of a bad thing to say. There was just to few of them so they were forced to marry cousins.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Actually, American citizens are extremely generous as individuals. They give huge amounts of their effort and wealth to foreigners as charity, and sign up for voluntary military service knowing they'll be dropped into inept hellhole nations around the world, not even counting the benefits of American businesses to the world. We simply don't like having some gang of self-appointed do-gooders order us to be "social" in ways that involve granting them unlimited power over us.
Revive the Constitution.
The root cause of this insoluble problem is state education. With separation of education and state, it would not have arisen.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Under what clause of the Constitution would you justify federal control over education standards?
Revive the Constitution.
Of course I'm Canadian so we get all kinds here in Canada now - but those from Texas need not even bother applying unless they can show that they were educated prior to this year.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
It's not spin at all. There are more people without health care coverage by choice in the US then there are because of resources. The US doesn't abandon most of it's poor population, they get handouts like free medical coverage and so on. Between the welfare role and medicare, the US was already paying for roughly 60% of the non-elective medical treatments i the US.
It doesn't really matter who can afford coverage or not or if you purchase insurance or not because you still have the choice of who pays for what. Also, in the US, it's illegal for a hospital to deny life saving treatment on the grounds of someone's ability to pay. So no, it's not the insurance company taking on the role of the death panel unless you specifically allow them to. Talk about spin.....
Take that into contrast with the system in the UK for instance. Suppose there is some miracle drug that cures 50% of people with a specific condition during trials. Now gov' health won't cover the drug or treatment because it isn't established, it's expensive, and the results are 50/50. If you as a citizen of that country, secure funding for the drug and seek treatment outside their health system in hopes of being cured, they will refuse to ever treat you or pay for your treatment for that illness again. SO potentially, here is Johny, a 30 year old Cancer patient who gets his care from the government, he heard about a break through drug and has the opportunity to try it because a rich uncle died and left him with just enough money to pay for the treatment, and if it doesn't work, he will be broke and without coverage because the gob'ment got their feelings hurt when someone attempted to better their life without them.
But hey, I guess that's better then then the free systems where the patient still has some choices.
There is no single payer system. If the government or the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for a potentially useless and expensive procedure, just pay for it yourself. You can do that even with socialized health care.
Nothing in the new Texas curriculum is factually incorrect. I challenge you to point out one thing, just one thing. Just because the truth hurts you doesn't make it factually incorrect.
> How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all
> children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and
> the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a
> curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Allow me to translate what you wrote from NewSpeak to English:
How is this different from Texas using their citizens tax dollars to switch from one politically correct (and factually incorrect) motivated curriculum to one that is also politically motivated, yet politically incorrect (while more factually correct) and the United States spending every Citizens tax dollars to enforce a curriculum chosen by Bill Ayers and other politically correct educrats.
Stated this way, the answer becomes obvious.
Democrat delenda est
Dear Texas,
Remember when you wanted independence from Mexico? You went and had that little revolution. Now you brag about how you're the only state to have ever been its own republic, yada, yada.
Tell you what, you can have your independence back. The rest of us never really liked you; we kinda think you're douchebags. So, go raise that Lone Star flag and tattoo "In God We Trust" on all of your children.
Sincerely, The Rest of Us
P.S. Please take California with you.
For a long time I couldent belive people could be so dumb, so branwashed.
Untill I was fowarded this site: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/
Go through it, read a few posts, your gonna shit bricks. (It's so stupid I'm not 100% it's even real even tho the amaunt of posts sugest it is)
Just to get you started:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=508591 -> 5 Reasons why WOMEN should NEVER be on the Internet!, also read the first reply by Rev. Jim Osborne
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=505253 -> The "For NOOBS" section, Not shure if this is a White supremecy site or a church....
etc, etc.
Basicly internet isn't all good.
PS: Freedom of speach should have a "IF ($spaker_dumenss_level > $max) { mute($speaker); }" clause.
Decisions like this are likely to improve our economy, living standards and interest in science in the long term.
Of course, I should tell you... that I'm an offshore contractor for US companies living in Argentina.
Elections have consequences. Good to see liberalism rolled back in our schools.
an ill wind that blows no good
To hell with Texas. Give it back to Mexico. That would solve many of our countries ills. Build a huge fence around Texas, all those right wing nut cases can move there, a great place to dump all those Mexican invaders along with all the farms and companies who hire them illegally.
Damned do gooders have done it again. What a sad state humanity is in. I have always wondered how it is their brothers, fathers and cousins can all be the same person. Now we know, too much blue blood and the result is a right winger.
10. A new addition to world history: "Explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict." Now that's not at all a loaded statement, is it?
The sentence itself is true, it was the will of the internation community that Israel would be founded, the territory belonged to the UK and the UK agreed to this. The arab world sought to defy the will of the UN and this has led to the conflict.
It's such a small slice of "truth" that I'm not sure it escapes being dishonest--you've barely scratched the surface of the complexities involved. (E.g. Jewish terrorism against Arabs before Israel was created, the transformation from the ideas of living in harmony to ardent opposition on both sides, etc. etc..)
And, UN and UK aside, you could phrase it as "explain how Jewish apartheid in Israel has led to ongoing conflict" and be just as truthful as with the above (which is to say, the literal truth of the matter, while not entirely absent, is insufficient to consider the statement honest if presented alone).
Fortunately, school tends to be horribly boring, and most students won't pay significant attention to such lessons anyway, accurate or not, so the stakes are somewhat lower than one might fear when one realizes how hard it is to present information instead of propaganda in some situations.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement if they look at how it was passed. There wasn't enough time to read and comprehend the bill before the vote.
HR 3200 was introduced OVER A YEAR before the final bill passed. HR3950 was passed in December of '09, over 4 MONTHS before the final vote. To claim that there "wasn't enough time to read" the bill is complete horse shit.
A lot of the rejection of the health care bill has to do with how it was created and passed. The current administration ran on being open but this thing was created in some back room deal and all members of his party was expected to bless it without even knowing what was in it.
And the only reason for all that backroom debating crap was because of people, on both sides, toeing the party line and the Republican threats of filibuster. If it hadn't required 60 votes to override the Republican filibuster, a lot of those back room deals wouldn't have been necesary. But since the Dems had to effectively buy off a hand full of legislatures who were all "the 60th vote", we wound up with a worse bill.
That the Republican party been willing to take part in the democratic process, the health insurance reform bill would have been significantly better.
Hell, one of the main claims about covering children with preexisting conditions wasn't even going to take effect until 2014
Which was due to the REPUBLICAN introduction of the mandate. The purpose of the mandate is to keep people from abuisng the preexisting condition rule, and so the two were linked. And since the mandate doesn't kick in till 2014, neither does the preexisting coverage rule.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Funny thing the word church is not even listed once in the constitution. The idea behind the separation was that the government could not run the church as was done in Europe at the time. The founding fathers doctrine many if not all were believers in GOD. Probably more pure beliefs and understanding of the principals in the Bible than we have in the churches today.
I have a better idea, since the federal government has taken charge of the schools our education system has gone from number one to way down on the list. The schools should be managed at a local level and leave our government out of it all together. If the community wishes to combine the education and Christian beliefs then that is fine. If another community wishes to do otherwise then fine. But our federal government mandating what is really "good for all" has not worked in the past 30 years. Lets go back to the way it was originally when it worked.
The ironic and scary part is that the conservatives, while railing against socialism, have adopted the National Socialist worst tactics. They believe they have a divine right to do the things they do, they believe in both propaganda and indoctrinating the young with their ideas. They feel that the ends more than justify the means, and that they commit no sin so long as they are working to further the movement, in fact they view these trespasses as badges of honor. Oh, and one last thing, they only want the rules to apply to others, they have earned the right to exempt themselves from the rules they impose on others. If only UPS didn't have a copyright on brown shirts....
The only thing they are good at is being told what to feel about , well, everything. They are outraged about abortion and yet when they controlled the white house, congress, the senate, and the judicial system they did..... squat about abortion. I think that is a part of their hatred of Obama. He said he was going to do a hell of a lot and is actually doing it, even after he lost the senate. If they don't keep their flock too riled up to notice this some of them might catch on to their tricks.
Man I am glad I already finished school. Who the hell decided to let Texas control this crap anyway? If I have kids I'll have to move to California or something. They're already moving to block all the Texas textbook changes in their state.
how does "slightly less liberal" equate to "one-sided"? Did they require that the founding fathers, in aggregate, get as much space as Rosa Parks? It's been 15 years, but my US History book (high school) had more bio on Rosa Parks than it did total information about the first 4 presidents, in aggregate? That's what the right wing is reacting very poorly to.
Oh yeah, it had 3 sentences on Stalin's regime. 3! And the nubmer of people they admitted he murdered was low by 3 orders of magnitude.
Question the separation of church and state?
If you want the church in your state, you deserve the state in your church.
You might want to rethink your cunning plan, cowboy.
--
BMO
Texas Board of Education.
You transcribed that wrong. It's Texas: Bored of Education.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Where's any actual data that supports your assertion that the USA innovates more because it's more right-leaning?
...with church-state separation will suffer in a government-funded HELL for eternity.
The ability to move out of Texas if you don't like it. An interesting thing to note is that the Federal Government expects you to keep paying taxes even after you leave the country. The same is not true for Texas.
That is the reason that it is always better to have states take part in these social experiments.
The same is true for other social questions like universal health care. If for instance California wants to provide free care to anyone in the state they are more than welcome because anybody that doesn't want to take part can easily move out.
Or asking the students to evaluate the impact of global organizations on US sovereignty
As long as the impact of the US on the sovereignty of many other (generally smaller and/or poorer) countries in the world is evaluated too. But of course, that won't be in the textbooks.
Marrying cousins doesn't result in genetic defects significantly more than marrying non-relatives. I recommend you read up a little on the topic. South Asians have been doing it for thousands of years without problems.
well moving out of state may not be something that is easy or easily achieved.
However, that's sort of besides the point in that the federal government is not empowered to take on health care or dictate education to the country. The federal government is supposed to be nothing more then a state figure head to deal with the complexities of state with foreign leaders. It also does some very specific things like build and maintain post roads and so on. All of this is power surrendered by the states when joining the union. That's why things like the 10th amendment reserves everything not surrendered to the federal government for the states of the people of the states.
The US constitution is a permissive document detailing what the US government is allowed to do and some things that it is expressly restricted from doing. It's not supposed to be some massive government in charge of everything like other countries have. This is why federal law can only be enforced when federal jurisdiction becomes relevant. Take murdering your wife, there is a federal law against murder but they can't prosecute you unless you go across state lines or do it on federal property or do something else that invokes their jurisdiction.
Why are you being so nice to these almost as bad as progressive liberals?
YES! PROGRESS SUCKS!
I want to regress all the way back to barbaric cavemen time, just because progress blows.
I think the next step for Texas is to reform the system of government to having a King and Queen, and then a Pharaoh, and then eventually hopefully they'll all be eaten by dinosaurs.
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
The only difference I can see is scale (one nationwide decision vs state-by-state decisions).
The sad thing about this whole controversy is how many people seem to assume the status quo is free from bias.
It's not. It never was, and never will be. History is a story we tell about the past based on our imperfect knowledge and our cultural biases, even when we do our best to be objective. Which is why in the US we view our Founding Fathers as courageous freedom fighters rather than opportunistic, treasonous rebels (same facts, different viewpoint!).
I don't necessarily agree with certain of the Texas changes (I've only read some of the 78 pages of the diffs).
But maybe some good will come of the controversy. Maybe students and parents will be reminded that history, like real life, isn't black and white. That multiple viewpoints exist (and that even a dominant viewpoint may be later reconsidered). Certainly I think they've been reminded that history classes have limited time, and deciding what parts of history make the cut is a subjective but societally important set of decisions.
All true. In this part of the world the usual solution is to specify the transferable skills that should come from studying history (critical approach to sources, different kinds of evidence, etc.) and a vague indication of the periods to be covered.
This curriculum seems insanely over-specified (and a but amateur) (and no, I haven't read the whole thing either.
You mean a political spin in a direction other than the usual. I haven't read the list of changes or the textbooks, and I don't agree with some of the changes I have read about, but textbooks have been political for longer than I've been around, and I'm not sure that, once the government started using education to mold children to their liking, it has ever been any other way.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Unfortunately for you, the new curriculum covers topics like "science". Thus Slashdot is appropriate. The fact that your views are not appealing to a wider audience is not Slashdot's problem.
You seem to be missing the point where the Texas DOE is imposing it's morals on everyone in the state. Morals that are apparently so unpopular that the conservative members of the board are losing elections over them.
McLeroy was narrowly defeated for renomination to the SBOE in the March 2 Republican primary. He lost to Robert Thomas Ratliff (born ca. 1967) of Kyle in Hays County, a son of former State Senator and Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant. McLeroy received 57,528 votes (49.6 percent) to Ratliff's 58,388 (50.4 percent). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McLeroy
Strikes me as ironic that the people of the United States of America have a significant amount of money invested in ongoing research and development in Texas (Texas ranked 5th among the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in terms of the amount of federal R&D dollars received annually in 2000).
Ironic, because as the Texas Board of Education makes obvious, many of the people of Texas are hellbent on returning to the Dark Ages...to those benighted and dangerous times when you could burn people who didn't have the "right" religious beliefs at the stake. (I do hope that people understand that the terms "religious" and "political" become interchangeable once the situation has deteriorated far enough...far enough, say, that the use of propaganda as a weapon becomes overt.)
I feel for the children of Texas...but they can - for the time being - find and learn the truth on the internet if they are so motivated. I do hope, however, that Texas' unabashed and expanding use of political indoctrination isn't catching...I really don't want to be forced to spend what little free time I have ensuring that the politicians of my state avoid the temptation to grant themselves the power of Kings - the power to rewrite history as they would have it.
We cannot tolerate government by an aristocratic elite convinced of their right to dictate what children shall believe. There is no avoiding it: To attempt to polish and spin the mistakes of history is to teach that those mistakes should be repeated .
I find it difficult to believe that the Texas Board of Education - and the Texas GOP - are unaware of what they are setting into motion.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
OK, can I just say for the Slashdot record that Zionism is not right-wing, and there is no "right-wing bias" about giving a Zionist-slanted (but factually correct) reading of the history of the modern State of Israel and its surrounding region.
Once again, I acknowledge that the issue of the Middle East is hugely complex, leading to a very real capability to make factually correct statements that appear to slant this way, that or the other, but I don't like seeing it turned into a wrecking ball of left-right Western politics. When this happens, many of us Zionists wind up thrown into political wings that we ordinarily don't align with, or even ordinarily detest (that's the American right, for me), but suddenly feel completely unwelcome on the wing to which we thought we belong. Of all the issues in American left-right politics, the Middle East is actually the one where the talk of "polarization" is true. The Left, even the Jewish Left, has almost entirely taken up the Arab side and historiography, and in response the Right has integrated Jabotinskyist Right-Wing Zionism into its "clash of civilizations" neo-conservative project. Honestly, if Texas introduces some factual, informative lessons on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, with a Zionist slant, that departisanize Zionism and Arab nationalism by making them into matters of national self-determination, as they are in fact, rather than matters of whether one votes Democratic or Republican, then they'll have accomplished one little bit of good in a storm of ignorance and anti-intellectualism.
So yeah.
You do understand that the facts do not support your assertion, right? From Congressional Budget Office summaries for 2007 (latest common year I found from a quick search) Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were $1.215 trillion. Total military retiree costs (active, reserve, disability retirements and survivor benefits) were $44.44 billion. Total military retiree costs were 3.66% of the major Federal entitlement programs, hardly a "large portion".
Other points of interest:
Active duty military pay into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just like any other wage earner.
Retiree health care is not a freebie (pay an annual premium, have co-payments, or both, depending on the specific plan).
Non-disability retirement income is taxable income.
Most military "retirees" go into the civilian workforce, paying additional income taxes, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on those wages.
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
You should go correct wikipedia I suppose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
As someone who's lived in the UK I've never encountered such a thing.
But insurance companies stump up every time, God bless 'em!
If you're David Beckham or Warren Buffet you can decide on whatever treatment you want no matter where you live.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't know about you, but I'm not so insecure about my particular biases that I think everyone should be forced to be exposed to them. So I guess the real question is, how do you cull out the bias-laden subjects? Maybe you can't - I mean, you could even make arguments that math can be taught with a political slant. So maybe the right answer is to scale back the scope of boards of education to establishing quality gates for education, rather than mandating the manner in which the education is delivered.
"Death panels" in the US have existed for a very long time. They are called "health insurance claims adjusters", who have long held sway over who gets what treatment. It's silly to think that things will get worse.
As this comment says, governments who run single-payer health systems frequently exercise judgment over whether treatment will be administered or not. Going on the waiting list for a procedure and being dropped from the list before treatment is very common.
Some schools do have moments of silence (mine did). Usually concerning special events, like a serious community incident or after 9/11 (again, in my HS). Why there's still a hullabaloo about prayer in schools I have no clue.
You mean "up to the insurance company the patient is covered under." And that's if they're covered at all. Many people simply can't afford the insurance to begin with, much less the "decisions like that." Those that can pay for the insurance are still at the mercy of their insurance provider, or otherwise are forced to pay for whatever they need themselves -- in addition to being expected to pay their insurance costs.
So really, you mean to say, the only difference between the single-payer system and the system we had/have now is who decides what care you get and when -- and you may still not get any care at all if you happen to fall on hard times. That's not good enough.
The textbooks are out there, there are hundreds of authors clamoring to get their books accepted. Textbooks aren't the major expense in education, and they're reused until they are physically unusable. Generally, the government committees making the choice aren't actually authors.
The reason this is such a big news story is that the liars that have been making the books for decades now have their tits in a wringer, and their friends are the press.
Texas is meerly switching to a different variety of liars.
The shame is that in this country, the political philosophy with rational economics and a slightly more pro-freedom standpoint is also the philosophy entwined with religion, which is being defeated by science at every turn. We have two distinct choices, the bad and the much worse.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Give it back to Mexico, already!
Yes.
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/conservativism-isnt/
And of course
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/liberalism-isnt-either/
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
After reading the linked article above I got curious as to what exactly the proposed changes were. I had a sneaking suspicion that someone wasn't telling the whole truth and after some searching it turns out that I was right. It seems that Jefferson was never going to be cut from the curriculum and most of the other changes the article mentions (which is based off an AP story) were either over exaggerated or flat out lied about. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. This is just another example of how the media is just swallowing the lies the progressive wing is just throwing out there without doing any damn fact checking. Just like how they keep promoting net neutrality as good even though members of the administration have said quite openly that they have every intention of using the legislation to censor content: http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/05/20/dont-let-them-tell-you-they-dont-want-to-censor-the-internet/ How does the old saying go? Trust half of what you read and none of what you hear? With this administration that quote has never rung truer.
This is amazingly similar to the educational programs and revised "history" that the Soviet government forced on its citizens.
Textbooks were inaccurate and biased before now, and they are still inaccurate and biased after.
This makes a good argument for homeschooling.
Will the people of slashdot ever see that PopeRatzo and a few others have an anti-capitalist pro-communist/socialist agenda to push? They will strew together random facts that remotely fit the topic of discussion in order to be able to say change the discussion from the topic to capitalism vesus communism. EVERY POST THE PAST YEAR! Take a look at the PopeRatzo post history. Almost every single post will lead into an argument for communism and against capitalism. He is nothing but propaganda to be spun on every possible posted slashdot article.
I just can't figure out why someone would waste so much time pushing for more government and less freedom.
Newsbusters? Really? They make Glenn Beck look sane!
How about an actual news source -- Or better yet, the actual curriculum.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I am Roman Catholic by birth. But, am not a practicing Catholic now. I believe in Christ and God, and do my own thing. I think children ought to be taught the strictures in the Bible like the Ten Commandments, and major stories. It's interesting and I believe it to be educational. I don't believe that the Earth is 5000 some odd years old, and don't know anyone who does. How anyone came up with that figure is beyond me. I don't believe the story of creation in the Bible is 100% accurate. I think it's just a story. It was handed down orally for generations. Who knows how much it changed from the first telling when it was finally recorded in writing? I'm sorry to say that I don't take the entire Bible as gospel truth. I think there is a lot to learn from it as there are from lots of other spiritual writings. I think portions are inspired by God. I don't think the genealogies are. The Gospels surely are. I think the New Testament has a lot of good lessons in it. But, I don't think that even the New Testament is a 100% accurate recording of the events of the time. Nonetheless, I think that all the different creation myths should be taught in schools. Kids should also read the Greek and Roman Mythology. The American Indian Myths and Legends, the Asian Myths and Legends. Kids should be exposed to a wide range of things to spark their imaginations. Kids should also read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and other classics. Kids used to. And then someone dumbed down our curriculums and decided these things were too difficult for kids. They weren't too difficult for dozens of preceding generations... Our children need to be exposed to the beliefs of 99% of the citizens in the world, not the lack of of belief of 1%. That's "Tyranny of the Minority". Nowhere in the American Constitution does it guarantee citizens a right to being unoffended. Adults have to develop a thick skin and be tolerant of the beliefs of others. If people don't want their kids exposed to the classics. Maybe they need to homeschool them, or register them in a Private Areligious School.
Education is very important. Investitions in the education always is the best. And the government of each country must develop and perfect this sphere.
My blog
The curriculum was linked to in the article I posted, which you would know if you had taken the time to read it.
Newsbusters is one of the best news sites on the web and Glenn is one of the most accurate opinion guys out there. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them wrong. How about you put your considerable bias and ignorance aside and read the article. Of course that would require you to be intellectually honest, something that is alien to the political left as the article notes and your post proves.
I suggest you check the Battleground Poll, question D3 which has for the last decade recorded approximate 60% of respondents as Conservative. You might wish to be red-faced with the projection your message demonstrates.
let them secede, i don't give a fuck about texas anymore
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Some teachers need to step up and teach the truth; discard the curriculum.
This is how I know you haven't thought about this at all. -- The "counter" part of the article, put simply, doesn't. If anything, it validates the claims made in the AP article!
Then again, if you think Glenn Beck is 'accurate' I don't expect you to be terrible good at critical evaluation.
A simple example, because you obviously need the help: The article doesn't bother to counter the first claim: "Teachers in Texas will probably be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers -- but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state." Instead, it lumps it together with the second claim, and hoped you wouldn't notice. (Hey, it worked! You didn't even think about it did you? I know, Glenn does your "thinking" for you.)
That particular claim, by the way, is one of the most frightening aspects of the curriculum changes. It's also the most obvious example of a 'far-right' change.
Newsbusters is one of the most bias sites I've run across. How you can claim it's "one of the best" is beyond me -- unless by "best" you mean "reinforces my beliefs". If that's the case, you've got a lot to learn about critical thinking.
Let me help you get started. Read this site: http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm
Pay particular attention to critical question #4 "What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?" As you're a Fox viewer, you need to be especially careful -- Bill O'Reilly is notorious for not only inventing studies that support his claims, but even entire journals! (An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8K4YPi-v0 ) (Oh, he's also been known to outright lie about studies that actually exist. See this example: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/oreilly-46-physicians-may-leave-medical-pr )
Seriously, you really really need to learn to think critically. The future of our nation depends on people like you educating yourselves.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Just because you think they shouldn't have something you want for yourself or others doesn't make it yours to give away.
Your straw man is on fire, but let me add a little gasoline to him. George is a roofer, risking his life to put roofs on houses. Phil is a stockbroker; in essense, a riverboat gambler without the boat. But Phil pays capital gains tax while Grorge pays income tax, and Phil pays a lower rate than George. This is unfair and plain wrong; progress is fixing that inequality.
Phil does not creat wealth, but George does. We are encouraging the lazy-ass gambler while penalizing the hard working wealth creator for his work. Progress is doing away with the CGT and replacing it with income tax; GRADUATED income tax. Government is necessary, and has to be funded, and the rich benefit from overnment far more than the lower classes. It only makes sense that those who get the most benefit pay the most.
You talk of the "the product of ones [sic] labor", but the rich do no labor; they direct the labor. Trading stocks is NOT labor, running a corporation is NOT labor.
Asking the government to do it for you is just theft via mob mentality.
When your house catches fire, don't call the government-run fire department, put the damned thing out yourself. When you get mugged, don't call the government run police department. And stay the hell off my government-built roads, hypocrite.
If you are so anti-wealth
I have no idea where you think I'm "anti-wealth", except as a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh reactionary who reads into statements things that aren't there. Compared to what a McDonalds' fry cook makes I'm wealthy, and compared to what my friend who owns a bar and construction company earns I'm poor, and I'm fine with both. But I'm NOT fine with IBM and Kodak paying no taxes. I'm not fine with a CEO who nearly bankrupts the company getting million dollar bonuses, plus tax breaks. I'm not fine with the fact that the only way a rich powerful man goes to prison is if a richer, more powerful man puts hum there. I'm not fine with offshore tax havens that allow the rich to legally dodge paying taxes. I'm not fine with someone from another state (or even foreign country) having greater access to "my" elected representatives than I do.
I'm not fine with McDonald's and WalMart benefitting from their workers getting food stamps as a way to not have to pay them a living wage. Note that for the poor (but not the rich) to get any kind of government help, they have to be employed or disabled, so "helping the poor" actually benefits the rich.
Progress is fixing what's wrong with America, true conservatives want to protect what's right with her. Neocons want neither.
Free Martian Whores!
1. I don't watch Fox News (except for Bret Bair's show) so keep your bias and misinformation in check. I agree with you on O'Rielly, he's an intellectual lightweight but he's also irrelevant to this topic. Stop trying to change the subject.
2. I see no problem with highlighting the judeo-Christian influences of the Founding Fathers. The separation of church and state has been twisted and manipulated by the courts to mean almost the opposite of the original intention. It was originally meant to a) prevent a state run religion and b) keep the state out of the churches. Ya know like having politician proselytize to congregations like the Dems love doing. I think by moving the curriculum to the right they are bringing it back towards the center after the curriculum has been manipulated by progressives for decades who have purged anything from the history books that didn't support their ideological slant on things.
3. I'm well aware of bias in the media. What you don't seem to get is that all news is biased. The only difference is in which direction and by how much. And of course whether the source is actually telling the truth or are they just making stuff up like MediaMatters and Huffpo tend to do. Newsbusters is very reliable as they source everything they write about. Yes they are slanted to the right, that however does not make them inaccurate.
By the way you should follow your own advice:
Seriously, you really really need to learn to think critically. The future of our nation depends on people like you educating yourselves.
Anyone? In the constitution? In law? Anywhere? Does it say anywhere that any government (federal or state) shall hold no position and make no commentary or endorsements on religious matters?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What does the Department of Energy have to do with this?
Or did you meant the the Department of Education!
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Son of a... Where are mod points when I need them. This should be +5 "fucking obvious". I am intrigued by your outlook and would like to subscribe to your newsletter - seriously. I couldn't agree more.
Funny how a political group often takes a word that is opposite of their goals.
Progressives are not for progress. Unless you just mean progress to be progressively more government control over your every move.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Wow, you really are a moron.
"I see no problem with highlighting the judeo-Christian influences of the Founding Fathers."
Add history to the list of things you need to learn.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I see now, you have no interest in an actual discussion and simply wish to engage in ad-homonym attacks and spew ignorance. Forgive me for mistaking you for a thinking person. Enjoy your ignorance.
What a wonderfully hypocritical post.
I especially love how you consider your opinions well informed -- it's people like you that lead the nation into the sink-hole it's in now. Now you're ACTIVELY fighting against those of us out to fix it!
I pray you don't have any children.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Thanks for making me laugh!
Making our children recite any kind of loyalty oath is weird. It sounds like something you hear about happening in a communist country or in Iran. That it has been perverted into religious indoctrination makes it even worse, but that's still not the primary problem I have with it.
You can't call it the Judeo-Christian God. Remember it's a non-specific, non-religious phrase that doesn't actually mean anything at all, or at least that's the excuse courts keep using to keep phrases like that in the pledge and on our money. If you specifically say it is the Judeo-Christian God, then we can't have it on our money or in our pledge, so it definitely couldn't be that. I need a "roll eyes" smiley right here. Sigh.