Kansas: It's BAAAAAACK!!!

What's the Matter with Kansas?

I don't see how this could help dems. Except that it'll be easier to tip the board to their side next election. But, for the sake of the children who are forced to learn, i think its immeasurably important that they don't teach creationism. I hope in social studies class they atleast mention this story, and how ID/creationism is so unpopular with the most of the scientific community, and most of the country, and most of the world.

Corn fed diet - vitamin deficiency.

An excellent book that every American should read. Really, no kidding.

Final word: Don't punish your kids by making them go to school in Kansas, or they'll suffer the consequences of a flawed education.

I'm sure that the people in Kansas are really nice, but I remember looking through the Barron's Guide to Colleges, and the Kansas state system universities had the lowest ranking, which is noncompetitive. In other words, the top schools are basically like community colleges.

Now there is nothing wrong with a basic OK college education for the people who got C+ grades in high school. But when 60% of people in a state go to the state colleges because they are cheaper it should be at least medium range for colleges, not community college level.

The problem with Kansas is that it is TOO FLAT!

As you know, shit rolls down hill, but there is no 'down' in Kansas so their fundamentalist bullshit just sorta hangs around cluttering the streets and sidewalks. Apparently it also has their schoolyards all mucked up.

And please, noone suggest a big broom or a spiritual enema. I live in Missouri and don't want to take part in any collateral damage.

Paz

Their football teams play like one.

I was interested in some polls on this, mainly because they always scare me so much. Kind of like looking at a car wreck I guess. Here's a good one.

First of all, the basic fact of American life is that a solid majority of the country rejects biological evolution. That may be mostly indifference or lack of education, but it doesn't really matter, we Americans reject it and are creationists. And if anything, what little support there is for biological evolution seems to be waning. This effort by critics is working.

But there are some pretty clear differences among different categories of people. Take this question "Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?" Only 38% said yes, and 54% said no.

But here are the percentages of different types of people saying yes to this question:

High school: 32
College: 46
Grad school: 60

Republicans: 27
Democrats: 48

Conservatives: 25
Liberals: 56

South: 28
Northeast: 52

Still, under 50% in that poll even believe plants and animals evolved. I wonder to what extent it's just a "foolish consistency" thing - "I said that humans didn't evolve, so dammit, plants didn't either!" I wonder if you switched the order of questions how much of an effect that would have.

BTW, there's a special issue of Scientific American on the newsstands now called "Becoming Human" about human evolution and language and brains and apes and stuff. There's some good stuff in there.

Dang, I thought you meant the band.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

Well they voted for sanity.

They aren't Darwin defenders. They're defenders of the science behind the theory of evolution.

soo much worse than a car wreck. much sadder and more disturbing.

how far back was evolution brought to HS? anyone know? its kind of surprising, to me, to see 35% of hs grads don't believe in evolution; basically the whole year of my bio class in hs was evolution. i wonder if it is ignorance of the evidence, or disagreement about the interpretation.

Well, the only problem is that they will keep on bringing the issue to the table until they succeed. And with the rising power of Christianity in the USA, it is only a matter of time.

Oh I think that's not going to be on the rise for very much longer. It has a lot to do with who's in the Whitehouse. It's really been on the rise noticbly since Mr. Bush has been in office and they've had a field day for the last 6 years. Everytime we have someone who supports the ultra right wing ( extreme ) christian movement in charge they come out of the wood work. When it's run by someone else they tend to go back.

I have nothing against belief in god but there are some groups that want to only have you beieve as they do or else ( fanantic ). They only come out when they've got political support. Otherwise you can ignore them.

I'm not sure about the 'rising power of Christianity", but they will keep bringing it up. Local school boards (like their local churches) are one of the very few places where people can control their destiny. For about 40 years, left-wing nuts with backing from the ACLU have forced 'political correctness' down their throats and they are pissed off! They can't say prayers at school events, or pass out bibles, or preach on school grounds. The 10 C's can't be displayed in lots of places, and they are pissed off! They think the ACLU is the devil incarnate, or the anti-christ.

Here is an example of how deep this hatred/fear goes. I buy electric service from a 'co-operative' like most rural folks. Most co-ops publish a monthly little gazette to keep their users informed of stuff like how to save on elec. bills and conservation and stuff. There are also articles about (in my case) local Missouri people who do cool stuff, like make boots, or covered wagons, or run a catfish house. Sounds quite pastoral, does it not?

Well, a couple of months ago there was an article concerning one room schools and the pledge of allegiance was mentioned. Then someone wrote a "letter to the editor" voicing an opinion on the inclusion of "under God" to the pledge as it was added during the Eisenhower administration as a counter to the "Godless Communists".

This letter to Ed sooo pissed off some little old lady that she responded this month with the following ......

I read a disturbing letter entitled "A pledge for all?" where Robert Talbot argued against having 'under God' in our pledge...
This man is not aware of our nation's history. Thhis country was founded by people who came here for religious freedom...
Our Founding Fathers believed there was a God in heaven that guided the affairs of men. These men many not have believed in God as their savior, but they know and believed there was a God.
Our nation was founded as a Christian nation. There are plenty of heathen nations where this Robert can go if he despises our country and our God. America: Love it or Leave it
Second, this idea about people being forced to hear the words "under God" is absurd. Christion young people are forced in public schools to be around drugs, sex, and other horrible things. At the same time they are not allowed to pray or carry Bibles. Would you rather our childen believe in God and follow biblical principles or be a generation of drug/sex-obsessed people?
[end of quote]

Sunday morning TV evangelists all say the same thing: We need to TAKE BACK AMERICA from the godless communists/terrorists/liberals/ACLU/government/blah blah blah

I don't believe they are going to "go gently into that good night".

Paz

I read it from cover to cover and it is a pile of crap. A gigantic personal narrative posing as a policy book.

As for the rest of it, while you contend that you can screw a group of people because they are willing to use the EXACT words, but instead are told that this is not acceptable because you have the wrong THOUGHTS when using those words, then you will probably have this keep popping back up.

Nick

I haven't read it, so I can't comment on that but you have to explain this...

I've read similar things you've posted in the past, and I've never understood it. Explain.

I thought that was pretty clear.

Basically since the man grew up in Kansas and still resides there, it is his personal history and opinion about what has happened in Kansas. You would think that little things like facts, charts, studies, etc would be presented. Instead it is just one long rant/personal view/journey. It would have been great for example to show a chart showing median income declining or something along those lines. Instead there is nothing of the sort. There is in fact not a single factual table or chart in the entire book.

Many of the endnotes were actually just personal anecdotes further explaining the personal narrative. I really wish I could get away with that when writing.


This mostly relates to what we all remember as the sticker decision. It was the decision in which it was proclaimed that even though evolution is called a scientific theory, the school board could not point this out because when THEY used the word theory it was secret conservative code that activated certain unacceptable thoughts in certain students and parents.

It basically amounts to an attempt at thought control. You can use a word because you have correct thoughts. I cannot because my thoughts regarding the word are not correct.

When the criteria is not just did you learn the right facts, did you learn the correct vocabulary, but also did you have the correct thoughts regarding a subject, it is going to continue to come back up because no one likes thought control.

Nick

Nick, the argument is more like this: you shouldn't be able to put theory on there for the same reason "dick" is censored on the radio when referring to the anatomy but not when referring to the name.

Of course, if the right would give up censoring anything I'd make the concession for the sticker, just to be fair.

Actually that isn't anything like the argument but nice try. Here's a cookie.

Nick

Yes folks, remember it isn't paranoia until it is in the actual case decision.

Nick

Actually, it is. You aren't allowed to say dick on the radio when your intention is to describe a body part. You aren't allowed to put theory on the book when your intention is to promote a religious agenda.

See, if your thought is to use an unapproved definition, the right will censor you. According to the right's logic then evolution is a scientific theory, not a "it's just a theory! creationism is therefore valid too!".

Again, remove censorship from TV & radio and I'll gladly concede the sticker.

Either that or you've got to have stickers plastered all over every book about the "theory" of gravity and a few thousand other things.

Why make the trade for free speech at the expense of the separation of church and state?

Ah, OK. But I think it was about how the sticker singled out evolution rather than "thought control."

The issue there is that you are discussing two different definitions for two different uses.

To make your use similar to the case example you would basically have to that someone like Howard Stern is forbidden, by court injunction to have someone named Richard on his show because although he might use the name in the correct manner, he has incorrect thoughts related to that name.

I say this because while someone like Stern couldn't say dick/penis on the radio, he has made an entire living around the thoughts instead of the literal word definitions. It is rather easy to imagine him having someone name Richard along with three female fans and spending an hour letting them compete in some dimwitted manner for a "Date with Dick." It is precisely that sort of schtick that he has been doing forever and it cannot be censored because it amounts to thought control. Do Stern's listeners snicker throughout the entire hour when Howard is promising that the girls will see plenty of Dick on their date. Of course they are and there isn't and shouldn't be a damn thing the government can do about it.


I'm a very strong free speech advocate. The only thing I do like is the ability to have awareness and control regarding the speech I care to enjoy. We have the V-chip now and if we wanted to say, parents it is your responsibility to screen and the networks are going to show whatever they want, I'm good to go on that. I think we must be 98% of the way there already.

Nick

I would disagree. The decision specifically mentioned the community and the understanding of certain parties in it when reading the word theory. If I remember correctly, the decision stated that when certain parents/creationists read the word theory in the textbook, they would know that it denoted coded support for creationist viewpoints and thus the sticker was actually a religious endorsement.

The statement on the sticker was entirely innocuous.

Nick

The sticker was innocuous except for the fact that it singled out evolution. I don't see how you can ignore that as key.

But intent is important - it is really the only thing that matters in our legal system. Our VP shot a guy in the face with a shotgun. Why wasn't he convicted, or even arrested? Is that thought control, because Cheney didn't have bad thoughts while he was shooting a guy?

Intent is key in determining if someone is innocent or guilty in a criminal act.

You note that your VP shot guy in the face which is normally a crime. He wasn't convicted or arrested because of the intent.

Now here is the key question...

When did stating that evolution is a theory, or speech in general become a crime?

Perhaps you will see my point yet.

Nick

First of all, I think considering intent makes these disclaimer stickers look pretty bad. Regardless, the fact is that we're talking about something which would be an ongoing policy, and for which there is plenty of time to consider the implications of such a policy.

If you knew Dick Cheney was going to accidentally shoot someone in the face tomorrow, you couldn't just sit back and let the shooting happen just because you knew Dick wasn't going to intend for anyone to get hurt.

If the effect of the disclaimer sticker policy is a violation of the establishment clause, you can't sit back and say, "Well, yes, but they didn't intend to violate the Constitution, so let's let 'em go ahead with the policy". If there was some sort of penalty for trying to enact Constitution-violating policies, you might take intent into account and reduce or dispense with that penalty, but you certainly don't let bad policy continue because of mitigating matters of intent.

First a big mistake here is that the stickers are inanimate. They cannot have an intent. It is people that have an intent. If the people say the right words with the wrong thoughts, then the right words are now said to be wrong. Think about that. In otherwords You say evolution is a theory and it is legal. I say evolution is a theory and it is illegal. That is thought control. How else do you explain it?


I really cannot address that statement as it is not understandable. You have a person purposefully planning to do an accidental harmfu action that is claimed to be not harmful. On my planet, words have meanings.

Now to attempt to fix your analogy, here is what you need to do. You need to have Dick Cheney say that "Security is in the national interest" and then make it illegal for him to say that. You can say that security is in the national interest but Dick Cheney cannot because that phrase is understood as code for all conservatives to pick up their rifles and begin shooting anyone they see in a Starbucks in the face.


The sticker wasn't a violation of the establishment clause. It was a terrible decision. The text of the sticker had no religious language or even means of being associated with religion. The court rules, understand this because it is very important, that when certain parties read the sticker, when taken in the context of that community, that it would be a code that showed the school board had some sort of empathy for creationist parents. The only way it was an endorsement was because certain parties would read the exact same words that other parties read, and give them a different understanding or thought. The understanding or thought wasn't associated in anyway with the definitions of the words, primary secondary or otherwise.

Nick

I do see your point. But 1) you seem to be suggesting it is some kind of unprecedented thought control to consider intent, when actually discerning intent is the foundation of our legal system, and 2) you haven't addressed the basic fact that the sticker singled out evolution.

I also will say that the sticker decision was a tough one, because what they said was truthful - evolution IS a theory, and it SHOULD be carefully and critically considered. But to me, the key is that it singled out evolution. It was like a history book with a sticker saying that the truth about the Holocaust should be critically analyzed. Well yeah of course, but given the fact that the school board are known to be holocaust deniers (the intent aspect), and nothing else was singled out, it's a tough call. If I were a judge, I'd be inclined to just let it go as silliness, and let the people decide whether that's really what they want to do. But I think it was a tough call and I understand the decision.