Rex Kickass

Your argument could be described as quite religious. With all the gaps, I can't really call it anything but hole-y. First you argue that ID should be included in education because it's a valid alternate theory to evolution. You ignore the situation that the scientician community at large disavows it, ignore the situation that ID is not a testable theory - and therefore is more philosophy than biology - and ignore the fact that its growth as a "science" has been more political than experimental. Then you argue that ID textbooks for high school students are inadequate because they are for high schoolers. So let me ask you something, what are high school teachers supposed to use for textbooks? I haven't read the nuts and bolts of ID, this is true. Maybe its because I'm a biased liberal blah blah blah... or maybe its because the subject simply doesn't interest me that much, especially given that the established scientician community, which really doesn't have that much of a political axe to grind, has pretty much disavowed ID. I have, however, followed the political movement behind ID. And I can say this about that: These days, legitimate science findings generally don't need political movements to give themselves acceptance in the scientician community, or in the classrooms.

Actually, I call myself a salesman. Because I'm not a teacher. But from Wikipedia, here's ID in a nutshell When you look at the fact that ID is not in fact an actual testable theory, that makes it, by definition, not really scientific. It's instead, more of a philosophy. They have classes for philosophy. I think they're called philosophy. The theory of evolution is backed by scientists and data. The theory of ID is back by politicians, conservative theologians and a few pop science books which contain largely debunked material. I'd rather my kids learn what scientists learn in their science classes. Let them learn what others think in Social Studies.

I guess this is where we disagree. You feel that "compelled activity" constitutes freedom and that "non-compelled activity" constitutes censorship. Not starting the day with publicly led Christian prayer is not censorship. You seem to be confusing that an awful lot. Compelling people who don't agree with your practices and beliefs to participate in them is not acceptable under any circumstances in a social, community project or activity, such as the publicly funded education of a republic's citizens. If a mostly muslim public school had its students observe the various calls to prayers throughout the school day, and asked the Christian kids to sit silently and respectfully through this - there would be outrage by the same folk who find it outrageous that those non-Christian students of a school might not find it a proper use of their time or day to pray to a God that they simply don't believe in.

It would also help if Education departments weren't among the easiest to be accepted in at most colleges. And if teachers, rather than schools were held accountable for the general "range of improvement" of their students rather than schools at large.

Open Minded Intelligence in the classroom: including science that has been for the large part validated by the vast majority of scienticians across the globe. Closed Minded Intelligence in the classroom: presenting "scientific theories" that have very little science to back it up and has been repudiated by the scientific community in general as an equally valid option in a "debate" that frankly doesn't exist in the scientician community.

He's no more creepy than any other Evangelical Christian Youth Minister who does the same thing with their flocks.

Teachers who are forced to curtail academically sound curriculum for matters of politics (i.e. Intelligent Design forced inclusion into a discussion on Evolution) is by definition - curtailing academic freedom.

Because a Republic is a land where the rights of the minorities are respected and protected. It's what sets us apart from true democracy. If 99% of a school believes in prayer and starts off each day with it, the 1% who find it morally objectionable should not be compelled to participate. Now you tell me an 8 year old Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian kid in a class doesn't feel compelled to participate in someone else's religion if the class he's in starts off the day with a Christian prayer.

Wow.... that's a lot of f-bombs. If that post was a tv show, it'd be F-Troop.

I think the three best comedies on TV right now would be Chappelle, Reno and Arrested Development. I'd be more eager to say that AD is by far the funniest out there. "Who is this 'Hermano?'"

I'm sure they got the cholera discount. I wonder how many tourists headed that way decided to volunteer and help those affected instead of cancelling the trip outright.

That makes sense.

The more I read this quote from the UN dude, the more funny it seems. He never mentioned the US. He referred to the Western countries as being "stingy" with aid - partially having to do with a G7 agreement to raise the percentage of GDP to somewhere close to 1%. None of them have. It's not the raw numbers, its the percentage donated. Folks in the "liberal media" took it to mean us, in particular. Commentators and Wingnuts and apparently our own president jumped on it to mean specifically us - or, more realistically, to give themselves another excuse to bash the UN - while it's doing the things it does best, helping the poorest among us survive, after disasters of horrifying scale.

Just curious Tex, where do you get that figure?

*puts on Noam Chomsky mask* It's alright pumkin. Come to Noamie.

The EU entity (separate of the individual states) donated 33 million Euros. (40+ million Dollars)

Works for me. Gotta do something to keep the poo squirting screamers in line.

That's the funniest thing I've seen in days.

Bad call screening policy. Call screening is an art. Better callers make a better show. Those talk show hosts with a good idea on how that makes a good show tend to have good callers.

For the record, the UN dude referred to "rich countries" as "stingy." Oxfam called us stingy - in comparison to other G8 countries. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...mCSW6Y&refer=uk

Yes, our 3-4 record against the Yanks is what doomed us this past year in the AL CENTRAL.

Depends on the word, depends on the setting.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said. Maybe it was a little confusing. I'll try to share it with you monosyllabically. I. Don't. Care. What. Makes. Me. Gay. It. Was. Not. My. Choice. To. Be. It. I don't pretend to speak for any other gay person on this planet. I only speak for me. But I have talked to enough people and called 911 to help stop enough suicides to realize that the idea of being gay as a conscious choice, is frankly laughable in most cases. I respect peoples' freedom to think what they want about gay people - because frankly I don't give a s***. But when people insinuate that queer folk are "less than equal," I reserve the right to call that person full of s***. You can claim to say that you haven't done that, but the backhanded insults in what you write are pretty clear to me. And I'm generally oblivious. America is as much a land of tolerance as we are a democracy. The truth is that we are neither. We are a republic based on the notion of equality. Equal rights for equal people. According to the founding documents of our country, all men are created equal, not tolerant. And there are several people that have been on this board that are good examples of that.

Any 500 team most years can make a bowl game. There are something like 26 or 27 bowls now. I'd just like to see the ND-Marshall Motor City Bowl myself.

You're welcome.