The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.
Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."
[right][snapback]85150[/snapback][/right]

SOP

Don't like the definition? Redefine it.

Don't like the intelligence? Make some up.

Don't like the rules? Change them in the middle of the game.

If there was ever a more dishonorable group of scoundrels in office, I'd be mighty surprised.
[right][snapback]85222[/snapback][/right]

American optimism stuns pollsters
The Washington Times, by Jennifer Harper



Posted 5/19/2005 1:20:30 AM

[B]The American spirit is alive and well: A landmark study released yesterday from a New Jersey medical school finds that the majority of us are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future, even if catastrophe looms on the horizon. A sampling: 82 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 feel optimistic about their futures; 82 percent of those ages 25 to 44 do so as well; and 75 percent of those ages 45 to 64...   
[right][snapback]86241[/snapback][/right]

You can look for reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic and find them.
[right][snapback]86254[/snapback][/right]

Yes. Or even without reasons other than the grand one of being alive. 
[right][snapback]86256[/snapback][/right]

If I can get out of bed it's a good day. The fact my freezer froze up and I had to take the whole thing apart this AM is hardly a blip on the radar scale of life. What might happen in the next 50 years is likely to be much like the last. Sad as that may seem.
[right][snapback]86258[/snapback][/right]

Heaven forfend we return to the direness, doom and gloom of the almost wholly abominable 70s from which little good even seemed eventually to come.
[right][snapback]86260[/snapback][/right]

Interesting Medved. An Oregon principal putting up a bill to save illegals 12 k a year on college tuition. Moving them from in-state to out of state tuition.
[right][snapback]86285[/snapback][/right]

Say what? 
[right][snapback]86287[/snapback][/right]

She's on right now. The cost goes from 17k to 5k for illegals. Laura  Lanka is her name.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/22/im...ant.tuition.ap/

More in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

Thursday, May 22, 2003 Posted: 11:30 AM EDT (1530 GMT)
SALEM, Oregon (AP) -- Nineteen-year-old Francisco Urenda wants to become a doctor. The state of Oregon may help him make his dream come true -- even though he is an illegal immigrant.

Oregon may be about to join a growing number of states that are offering cheaper, in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants in a move supporters say will help them become productive, taxpaying members of society. Opponents say the idea will only encourage illegal immigration.

Without the change in Oregon's law, Urenda, who came to the United States from Mexico after being orphaned at 10 and is now a freshman at Chemeketa Community College in Salem, worries he will not be able to move on to a four-year college and get the degree he needs to go to medical school.
[right][snapback]86292[/snapback][/right]

I never could understand the nostalgia for the 70s craze that's still, to some extent, under way.  To me, the 70s and 80s seemed to be pretty much without redeeming social value.
[right][snapback]86269[/snapback][/right]

Sounds like the state of Oregon is harboring illegal aliens must not be any laws against that
Our school district received 5+million-dollar windfall
They do not know what to do with it.
Amazing how these decisions come to fruition during non-election years
I’m leading towards the NASA education project that is gaining a following
Any other ideas?

I have the theory of progressing with the times rather than the theory that progress means just to spend the money….
[right][snapback]86321[/snapback][/right]

But I was a teen.
[right][snapback]86331[/snapback][/right]

Your kiding right?
[right][snapback]86507[/snapback][/right]

Your kiding right?
[right][snapback]86507[/snapback][/right]

more blogs


[right][snapback]86485[/snapback][/right]

no, why?
[right][snapback]86571[/snapback][/right]

[center]Pedant Crossing[/center]
[right][snapback]86608[/snapback][/right]

I am pissed off that government employees have unions which enable them to get better working conditions, better benefit packages, and decent pay than I get.

I have the skills and could become a government employee myself. I do not like the work, the climate, the mindset, etc.. Therefore, since I refuse to join them, I am going to keep bitching and moaning about their ability to collectively bargain and get the above advantages over comparable private sector employees.


[right][snapback]86646[/snapback][/right]

I am pissed off that government employees have unions which enable them to get better working conditions, better benefit packages, and decent pay than I get.

I have the skills and could become a government employee myself. I do not like the work, the climate, the mindset, etc.. Therefore, since I refuse to join them, I am going to keep bitching and moaning about their ability to collectively bargain and get the above advantages over comparable private sector employees.

Oh, and I am on a mission to get 'the pedant'.
[right][snapback]86646[/snapback][/right]

I am pissed off that government employees have unions which enable them to get better working conditions, better benefit packages, and decent pay than I get.

I have the skills and could become a government employee myself. I do not like the work, the climate, the mindset, etc.. Therefore, since I refuse to join them, I am going to keep bitching and moaning about their ability to collectively bargain and get the above advantages over comparable private sector employees.

Oh, and I am on a mission to get 'the pedant'.
[right][snapback]86646[/snapback][/right]

Funny, that type of argument could be made for all those corporate folks you want to tax and regulate more.
It's a fairly free market and people should know what the deal is. I'm sorry bart's state gave away the farm on public employees, but they did and I don't think it should preclude state employee unions from trying for better pay and benefits OR states from trying to keep prices down. (or taxpayers from complaining and refusing to pay more taxes)
[right][snapback]86663[/snapback][/right]

Forgive me, but I just had to point that out.
[right][snapback]86665[/snapback][/right]

It's funny, indeed, and I thought to add a paragraph to that effect. Generalities notwithstanding, I think you'll find that 'envy' is not what motivates most of my arguments. Robert (I think that's his first name) Nozick's arguments about 'envy' as a poor basis for any kind of serious thinking, let alone policy proposals have stayed with me from college. Mind you (on a tangent) Nozick and Hayek were required reading in my Political and Social Theory classes in my VERY liberal CT liberal arts small private university alma matter.
[right][snapback]86683[/snapback][/right]

I think I finally caught you not catching a subtle point of mine . . . I was "channeling" lil bart . . .
[right][snapback]86684[/snapback][/right]

Mine are not politics born of envy.
I don't know if Bub did catch that or not.
[right][snapback]86744[/snapback][/right]

It's funny, indeed, and I thought to add a paragraph to that effect. Generalities notwithstanding, I think you'll find that 'envy' is not what motivates most of my arguments. Robert (I think that's his first name) Nozick's arguments about 'envy' as a poor basis for any kind of serious thinking, let alone policy proposals have stayed with me from college. Mind you (on a tangent) Nozick and Hayek were required reading in my Political and Social Theory classes in my VERY liberal CT liberal arts small private university alma matter.
[right][snapback]86683[/snapback][/right]

LP, has it ever occurred to you that you're in 100% agreement with the worse of the left as far as schools go?  You and the left differ only in WHAT propaganda you want to put in the kids' heads, not about whether schools should be political indoctrination centers.
[right][snapback]86271[/snapback][/right]

Media vs. the Military
Washington Post, by Howard Kurtz  -  5/23/2005 9:16:12 AM 
 
The bashing of Newsweek over its horribly handled item on Koran desecration has mushroomed into a sweeping indictment of the media, which some conservatives now accuse of deliberately slandering the military. Newsweek "wanted the story to be true," says Rush Limbaugh, because the media "have an adversarial relationship with America" and "end up siding with the bad guys."
[right][snapback]87505[/snapback][/right]

The Yale student did not like what he heard. Sociologists derided religion and economists damned corporations. One professor pre-emptively rejected the suggestion that "workers on public relief be denied the franchise." "I propose, simply, to expose," wrote the young author in a booklong denunciation, one of "the most extraordinary incongruities of our time. Under the "protective label 'academic freedom,'" the institution that derives its "moral and financial support from Christian individualists then addresses itself to the task of persuading the sons of these supporters to be atheistic socialists."

For William F. Buckley Jr., author of the 1951 polemic God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom" and a founder of modern American conservatism, the solution to this scandal was straightforward: Fire the wanton professors. No freedom would be abridged. The socialist professor could "seek employment at a college that was interested in propagating socialism." None around? No problem. The market has spoken. The good professor can retool or move on.

Buckley's book can be situated as a salvo in the McCarthyite attack on the universities. Indeed, even as a Yale student, Buckley maintained cordial relationships with New Haven FBI agents, and at the time of the book's publication he worked for the CIA. Buckley was neither the first nor the last to charge that teachers were misleading or corrupting students. At the birth of Western culture, a teacher called Socrates was executed for filling "young people's heads with the wrong ideas." In the twentieth century, clamor about subversive American professors has come in waves, cresting around World War I, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and today. The earlier assaults can be partially explained by the political situation. Authorities descended upon professors who questioned America's entry into World War I, sympathized with the new Russian Revolution or inclined toward communism during the cold war.

Today the situation is different. The fear during the cold war, however trumped up, that professors served America's enemies could claim a patina of plausibility insofar as some teachers identified themselves as communists or socialists. With communism dead, leftism moribund and liberalism wounded, the fear of international subversion no longer threatens. Even the most rabid critics do not accuse professors of being on the payroll of Al Qaeda or other Islamist extremists. Moreover, conservatives command the presidency, Congress, the courts, major news outlets and the majority of corporations; they appear to have the country comfortably in their pocket. What fuels their rage, then? What fuels the persistent charges that professors are misleading the young?

A few factors might be adduced, but none are completely convincing. One is the age-old anti-intellectualism of conservatives. Conservatives distrust unregulated intellectuals. Forty years ago McCarthyism spurred Richard Hofstadter to write his classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. In addition, a basic insecurity plagues conservatives today, a fear that their reign will be short or a gnawing doubt about their legitimacy. Dissenting voices cannot be tolerated, because they imply that a conservative future may not last forever. One Noam Chomsky is one too many. Angst besets the triumphant conservatives. Those who purge Darwin from America's schools must yell in order to drown out their own misgivings, the inchoate realization that they are barking at the moon.

Today's accusations against subversive professors differ from those of the past in several respects. In a sign of the times, the test for disloyalty has shifted far toward the center. Once an unreliable professor meant an anarchist or communist; now it includes Democrats. Soon it will be anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. Second, the charges do not (so far) come from government committees investigating un-American activities but from conservative commentators and their student minions. A series of groups such as Campus Watch, Academic Bias and Students for Academic Freedom enlist students to monitor and publicize professorial conduct. Third, the new charges are advanced not against but in the name of academic freedom or a variant of it; and, in the final twist, the new conservative critics seem driven by an ethos that they have adopted from liberalism: affirmative action and a sense of victimhood, which they officially detest.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050404&s=jacoby

The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives.
[right][snapback]87507[/snapback][/right]