Kudos to UMN students

Can I expect these students in 3 years? The hope, the fear.

Fox news gets it up the Uumpa Luumpa highway

Suck IT Faux News or "the 22 hours of psychopathic right-wing fear mongering gnus station" gets slapped, biOtch style!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bernie Goldberg Fires Back
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

BTW Faux news and associated fans of Faux news.

Go Fuck Yourselves.

Dad decides science bad in science class

The Scopes trial took place 85 years ago in Tennessee. Scopes lost, he violated the Butler Act, which...prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State... Clearly, this law was enacted because religious members of society could not allow their small ideas about the world to be impacted by reality (or a closer approximation of reality). This was clearly religion versus science, which I hear all the time is compatible and get along famously.

After Scopes, things eventually changed a bit, although it took several decades and Supreme Court decisions. Religion held sway over a good part of the 20th century in many parts of the country and science took a back seat. Although science eventually took the lead, on paper, it has been embattled at every turn. Google Don McLeroy or Louisiana evolution in public schools for examples.

Well, we're back in Tennessee (did we ever leave) and the religion versus science divide continues (again despite all the claims that these two world-views are wholly compatible). This time Kurt Zimmerman does not like certain claims in the science textbook regarding what his religion says is the way the world and life came to be.

The specific phrasing that led to the issue is "...creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the 'Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.'" At issue is the word "MYTH." See Mr. Zimmerman thinks the term is offensive, and he is a Christian. Using his profound skills in logic, Mr. Zimmerman then concludes that the term is offensive to all Christians. Actually, I expect he believes this, like most, if not all, fundamentalists what he thinks is correct and everyone else is wrong. Any Christians ok with the creation story as myth meme is not a true Christian™ I'm sure.

So is the 7 day creation story a problem? Well, in this country it sure as hell is. Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution, the fact of evolution, the big bang theory, the physics of radioactive decay, the speed of light, plate techtonics, etc. And the reason they don't is because some small minded tool stood at a pulpit and said these things were wrong when they were kids. (I know there are exceptions, but this is why it's so important to get kids into the church early. Once the mantra in instilled, it's much easier to keep them as adults). So Kurt Zimmerman has an interpretation of a few passages from the Bible, one which is not close to universally shared (even within the Bible itself), one which is not shared by most of the members of the religion that ostensibly wrote the passages, but we better stop the planet and stroke the arrogance of this guy.

Now Ill note that every other religious story of creation is a myth and none of these stories are described as a myth in the textbook. So clearly this is just more oppression of fundamentalist Christianity right? Wrong. I do not hear about children being told the most of the major ideas of science are wrong because of the Hindu mythos or Inuit stories. Even in states that have solid public science education standards, ~25% of kids are exposed to creationist teaching at some point and many do not hear about evolution at all because teachers are fearful of parental repercussions. So, one thing this statement does in the textbook is provide a counter-point to "Liars for Jesus."

Of course Faux News is all over this. Mr. Zimmerman notes that he is a Sunday school teacher. I expect he has a real job, but this demonstrates it's clearly a religion versus science issue for him. As bleach blond notes, the problem isn't taking religion out of school, but being offensive to religion (of course we mean fundamentalist christianity here). See education must never interfere with religious belief or indoctrination, maybe we should go back to teaching the earth is the center of the universe or at least solar system, maybe we should stop teaching the germ theory of disease (that is offensive to several religions, which argue that disease is caused by sin or being not-right with god). We better stop teaching about π, since that's offensive to those who believe that π=3 based on some bible verse or other.

See that offensive passage! "Creationism: the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days." What the hell fundies, grow a pair. A definition is offensive? Its only offensive if you deny several centuries of information and understanding that has developed on the planet. If you are happy with the understanding of stone age sheepherders, fine. But please don't ask the rest of us to be content with that. The kids that are continuously referred to probably have heard of creationism, like maybe from their Sunday school teachers, so when these kids are getting real information that fundamentally disagrees with what their Sunday school teacher says (including the admittedly ignorant one being interviewed) it seems reasonable to me to have some discussion therein.

Finally, what the hell is bleach blonde going on about how much work it's taking to get the school to change textbooks and by definition the curriculum for? Does she have any idea how much work it takes to write a textbook? get it approved to be in a school? write a curriculum? teach a class? You know Im all for parental involvement, but that does not mean every Tom Dick and Harriet gets to have an immediate and unilateral say in everything done in a school. If that is how you feel, take your kids out of the school and teach them yourself, then you won't have to worry that your kids might think something different than you do or even worse get a great education and become that horror of horrors, an elitist!!11!!

Words dont matter, do they?

Thanks in large part to the right wing over the last decade, I think the chickens are coming home to roost. WIth Limbaugh becoming mainstream, Faux gnus spewing 22 hours of vitriol (followed with 2 hours of news) using the vitriol as an independent source, and our politicians playing on and up the fears of the masses things like this are bound to happen and will happen more frequently unless people start standing up to the hatemongers.

Road Rage, Accident Centers on Obama Bumper Sticker

Mar. 26, 2010

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville man says he and his 10-year-old daughter were victims of road rage Thursday afternoon, all because of a political bumper sticker on his car.

Mark Duren told News 2 the incident happened around 4:30p.m., while he was driving on Blair Boulevard, not far from Belmont University.

He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper.

Duren had just picked up his 10-year-old daughter from school and had her in the car with him.

"He pointed at the back of my car," Duren said, "the bumper, flipped me off, one finger salute."

But it didn't end there.

Duren told News 2 that Weisiger honked his horn at him for awhile, as Duren stopped at a stop sign.

Once he started driving again, down Blair Boulevard, towards his home, he said, "I looked in the rear view mirror again, and this same SUV was speeding, flying up behind me, bumped me."

Duren said he applied his brake and the SUV smashed into the back of his car.

He then put his car in park to take care of the accident, but Weisiger started pushing the car using his SUV.

Duren said, "He pushed my car up towards the sidewalk, almost onto the sidewalk."

Police say Harry Weisiger is charged with felony reckless endangerment in the incident.

Happy Belated Blogoversary

I just realized I missed the 3rd anniversary of this blog. Although I've continually been a sporadic blogger, I still enjoy it and will continue to post here throughout at least another year....Maybe some interesting information will come from the upcoming meeting Im attending...

Education and parental rights

There is an interesting discussion going on at WEIT, which began here, here, and here. It has also been addressed in several places (for example) on Greg Laden's blog as well as here at angrybychoice.

There is much interesting reading in the WEIT posts and comments, and I want to touch on one issue raised repeatedly in basically any thread on homeschooling. The idea of parental rights. Now I want to express from the get go that this is a complicated issue and that I do not have an immediate solution. But I will also say that the starting and ending point is flawed and wrong, but accepted because it is the status quo (and therefore must be a reasonable position).

The basic idea is that parents have absolute control of the educational decisions of their children (although many people would also like to have absolute control over the educational decisions of your children too). It's parental right. Thus, no matter how despicable it may be, there are numerous people who understand the truth of evolution, yet weakly shake their heads about children being homeschooled in creationism and agree it's a parental right. Some will go so far as to argue about freedom of expression (as if that is remotely relevant).

First, we should discuss what is a right. A right is a universal thing you are born with, it applies to everyone not just the few. Because of this, a right is something you may freely wield barring that this does not in turn impact the rights of others. The Declaration of Independence specifically notes the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness at least for white Europeans. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 constitutional admendments, are familiar to most of us and include the freedom of speech (expression above) in #1 . It is worth noting that rights are not given to us by these or other documents, they are simply expression of universal truths.

Nowhere in the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to I see anything akin to the parental right to educate children in any way the parent deems. In fact, I would argue that liberty and pursuit of happiness puts the onus on the parents to make sure they are acting in the child's best interest educationally. The bill of rights is also devoid of mention of parental rights in education. For those of you getting ready to use the "freedom of religion" card, stow it. Nowhere in these or many other posts have I seen the recommendation that parents not be allowed to teach whatever religious mumbo jumbo they want to their kids. Noone has requested that Sunday schools be banned, or children be prevented from attending church after school, or a church-sponsored school (as long as said school was actually educating the children).

Alright so do parents have the absolute right to educate their children in any way they see fit? I say NO, but first I want to get back to the idea of rights. This idea of parental rights is at odds with some basic ideas of a right. First, universality is out since parents have it and children don't. I realize this is a weak argument since children do not have many rights that adults do, but bear with me. However, this idea of parental rights is a right for one person (the parent) to impose a specific education or viewpoint on another (the child). So if a pastor tells a parent the book of genesis means the earth is 10,000 years old, they can teach that to their child as geology, lie about the actual facts, and even do their utmost to make sure that child is not exposed to the actual information or is trained to hate those who have this information. See that's protecting the parents right. But their right to do what? Do children have a right to an education about the real world they live in? If majors problems arise, do the children have the right to be educated in a way that best prepares them to address this problem (unless you really feel praying for rain is a solution or that Haitian great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren should be punished with earthquakes because their ancestors weren't good little slaves)?

Ok, maybe the evolution-creation isn't that important to you (and thus not important). Is it a parental right to educate that 2+2=5? That numbers are demonic? That reading is evil? Again, what about the rights of the child and the idea of the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If an adult wants to live an isolated terrified little life, fine. That is definitely their right. But I do not believe that gives them the right to crush other little lives to be similar. So, obviously I defer to the beneficial government to educate the children. Hell NO. The government should be trusted about as far as the electorate can throw them. Our government has one advantage (at least it does as of this posting), there are checks and balances. We can fire all the bastards and replace them. This is also a problem, because the ignorant and terrified, but vocal, minority has much pull in current politics and thus evolution has been under fire for 90+ years. But again I would not put this in the hands of an administration that supports warrantless wiretaps, prosecutorial immunity, and other clearly unconstitutional activities like the Obama administration (much like the Bush administration only less stupid sounding).

OK, I don't like parental rights, nor government control. What now? Maybe having a panel of experts (I know expertise is currently a bad thing in the US) in education and the area being discussed to devise curricula. Maybe we could look at what the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences have done for science standards? Repeat as necessary using elite (another bad word) organizations in math, language arts, history, etc. These organizations working in conjunction with states or school districts could be a fruitful endeavor.

One final point on parental rights, parentalrights.org wants the following admendment passed "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right." This group is really opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, which includes the following article:

Article 28: (Right to education): All children have the right to a primary education, which should be free. Wealthy countries should help poorer countries achieve this right. Discipline in schools should respect children’s dignity. For children to benefit from education, schools must be run in an orderly way – without the use of violence. Any form of school discipline should take into account the child's human dignity. Therefore, governments must ensure that school administrators review their discipline policies and eliminate any discipline practices involving physical or mental violence, abuse or neglect. The Convention places a high value on education. Young people should be encouraged to reach the highest level of education of which they are capable.

The problem being that allowing these rights to children may impact the parent's right to completely fuck up their children in any way they see fit (excepting the obvious physical abuse right, which we've decided is NOT a parental right.........anymore).

Theocratic instruction by legislation

Well apparently evolution has a new friend. Kentucky is currently dealing with a bit of "teach the controversy" legislation. Usually this is focused specifically on evolution, but now global warming is thrown in as well. Similar legislative assaults are also under way in South Dakota, have been won in Oklahoma, and lost in Texas and Louisiana. How soon before Minnesota gets one? or even your state?

This is probably a smart strategy (if you're evil that is), by wrapping evolution and global warming together you can get more public support all those who hate evolution but are ok with global warming + all those who are ok with evolution but hate global warming = a bigger group of morons who think sound bites and gut thinking is as valid as 1000s of hours of study research and work/scientist.