"you've all been kissing her hindparts so much I'm not sure you have much to share other than the feces you've allowed her to deposit in your waiting, open mouths."

WTF's up with the quote button? Anyway...yuck! That was gross SC! But I gotta admit...eh, never mind.

Glad to have been part of pulling you in! Muahahaha!!

If there were signs like that, I would be marching along side you against it.  But it isn't up to the city, county, state or federal government to dictate to businesses what benefits they must or must not offer employees.

For the record though, in states where same sex marriages are recognized, I do think it would be discrimination to offer benefits for traditional spouses but not for same sex spouses.

Our Constitution and system of government is based on government situations being handled by the smallest jurisdiction possible, with oversight by the next highest jurisdiction.  However, people just can't stand it when other communities do things differently than their own.  It's like everywhere has to be exactly the same as everywhere else for some reason.

For example, I think San Francisco does things about as "obviously stupid" as it gets.  But that is the way the people of San Francisco want to do things, so, unless they are violating the state and/or US Constitutions, so be it.

If the people of a community in Kansas think that teaching ID is best for their community, then they should be able to do it, as long as the schools meet the minimum standards set by the state. 

Oh, so not only do you want to tell other school districts what they can and can't teach to students, you want to dictate that to parents too?  Do you respect any freedom at all when it comes to teaching kids?

And thousands of scientists disagree with you.  The whole "consensus" thing is a lie.

Oh yes, let's not mess up all those trees and undergrowth at ANWR. ;'~D

Who said anything about "magically solving our problems"?  Right now, oil is the lifeblood of our society.  It is moronic to have our president go over to other countries begging them to increase oil production when our government refuses to allow increased production here in the US.

So we're supposed to make billion dollar decisions on what "might" happen?

But it's ok to use the resources of other nations, no matter what it does to the environment?

Thanks for the bit of stereotyping here.  And the personal attack on Bristol.  Apparently to you all kids follow their parents advice all the time.  But than again, you don't want parents teaching their kids anything that you don't approve of anyway, so why don't we just let the government raise our kids for us...

Zoologist for Secretary of the Department of Childraising.  ;~D

You could use Ayn Rand's book Anthem as your guide.

Can you be specific?

You gotta check Drudge today -

Made my morning.

But it's not science, it's thinly disguised religion.  That's my issue, Ted.

Umm...that's not how I would put it.  Some things need to be taught(math, reading, science), some things can be taught(whatever seems fun), and other things shouldn't be taught(religion) as part of a school curriculum.

Yes, I do.  That's why I'm against those damn state proficiency exams.  Teaching should be done in a way that engages the learner, not teaching to an arbitrary standard.  I just don't think religion should be a part of that seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with schooling.  If you want to have Jesus class in between math and social studies, then by all means go for it.  However, God is completely and utterly superfluous when it comes to learning math, science, English, reading...well, everything academic really(unless you're taking a religion class).

There's hardly ever a "consensus" with anything.  Scientists are notoriously conservative(with ideas, not politically)...the scientific community is very abrasive to new findings until it is thoroughly peer reviewed.  Even then there are those people who don't believe a lick of it.  Personally, I'm growing rather convinced...but it's always up for debate.

And of all the places we have, first we should open up Alaska?  There's a lot of oil sitting in the ground in places oil companies already own...but there seems to be some rush to rip open ANWR...why is that?  I say drain what you have before opening up a wildlife refuge.

There's a billion dollar polar bear industry?  They must be delicious.

No, other nations should also do their best for conservation.  I totally support most conservation efforts.  Screwing up the environment anywhere pisses me off...goes along with my area of study.  However, I do understand the need for harvesting of certain animals and natural resources- it's unavoidable.  Care must be taken when doing so.  Chop down too many trees or catch too many fish and they'll end up gone...and then not only will the environment suffer, but people will too.

Stereotyping? Yeah, a bit...but I'm not wrong.  Admittedly I was a bit of an ass taking a dig, but hey I don't have to be nice all the time. 

No, kids don't follow their parent's advice all the time...but you'd think the kid would think about a condom or the pill or something.  I'm on a college campus where phenomenal amounts of sex are had and yet I don't see that many pregnancies(I think 2 in the 2 years I've been here).  I'm sure a little education makes a difference...just saying, "Don't do it." Isn't helping much.

As for teaching what I don't approve of?  Go ahead, parents of the world, teach your kids anything you want...but when it comes to formal education there are certain things that must be addressed and certain things that have no place in the classroom- when homeschooling that classroom still exists in the home.  There's nothing that I could possibly not approve of in a school environment...all of it is necessary.  I just don't take kindly to the urge for some school boards to crack open the Bible and teach Genesis as some crazy science.  Beliefs being taught in schools is the only thing that I don't approve of.  By all means discuss beliefs and different perspectives, I think that's extremely important in learning about other people...but teaching particular beliefs...no, not cool.

Oh, I don't do childrearing...but I can teach them about stuff pretty well.  

~Zoo

Except for there are scientists who don't believe in God who accept ID and reject the idea that it has anything to do with religion.

But that isn't the point.  The point is that community standards should be respected unless it breaks state or US Constitutions.  Otherwise we tip the balance of power to the state and federal governments, which means a loss of personal freedom.

We have already given too much by insisting the President and Congress micromanage the states and cities.

Maybe I misunderstood you before.  Are you saying that homeschoolers shouldn't include any kind of religious instruction to their own kids?  Or are you saying that they have the right to teach anything they want, but there needs to be a minimum standard that includes math, reading, science... etc.?

If you are saying the later, then we agree here.

And "man caused" global warming is no different.  There is real "concensus" among scientists about it, there are only those who accept it and those who don't, but many who accept it as fact want the others to shut up.  Now, I don't know how much of that is more from politicians and within the politics of science (which is rampant in peer reviews, but you know that much more than I), but it is far from generally accepted.

If the scientific jury is still out, shouldn't both sides be taught, if it's taught at all?

That's a pig in a poke argument from the Congressional Democrats who have seen the reports and know that those parcels have already been surveyed and found to be either dry or not economically feasible to squeeze whatever oil is left in them.  They might as well be telling the oil companies, "you can drill all you want, as long as you drill where there isn't any oil".

The arguments against drilling in ANWR were all used against building the Alaskan Pipeline, and not a single one actually occured.

No problem, that's why I resonded in kind.  We all take our digs at times. ;~)

It's all just conversation and discussion here, right? ;~D

But there's no evidence for design...none. It's like teaching spontaneous generation or something.  Some off the wall hypothesis should not be treated seriously.  If anything, let it be an example of something that doesn't work.  I like my science with at least a decent theory holding it up.  In my opinion we don't need to teach kids what I like to call "crap."

I lean towards the latter, yes.  Parents are often involved in teaching religion to their children, I wouldn't deny them their right to do that. 

It's just that if you teach math   1 sinner + 2 sinners = How many years of eternal damnation?    is not how I'd like to see children learning.

Okay, here's what I understand from global warming as of right now.  Fact: the earth is warming.  The debate is about whether human activity has caused it...which I'm thinking is rather plausible. Though it hasn't been "proven" as science doesn't really do that.  Models have predicted warming when human contribution has been added to the data set, without the human part it doesn't predict warming.  That's damning evidence, in my book...although I don't have the sources to point you to as I've only really discussed it in the classroom....perhaps if I stumble across it I'll make an article or something.

As for political interference...they've been keeping the whole global warming thing on the down low for awhile now.  In fact, I just wrote an essay on politics and science.  Check out this website to learn more about that.(Here's an A to Z list of some articles about political interference...it gives examples of stuff that happened.)

Well, I like my wildlife refuges...so bleh!  If they could drill without screwing everything up...then that wouldn't be a problem...but wherever industry touches, the environment takes a hit.  I guess in today's world it sucks to care more about the environment than glorious black sludge from the ground. Someone's going to drink Alaska's milkshake.

Oh, aye.  That it is.

~Zoo

I thought the earth was cooling again, Zoo?

True, in the last 100 years the temperature of the earth increased a degree, which we have all been told is majorly significant, and I have no reason to doubt that.   On the other hand, last winter the earth's temperature decreased by about 0.75 degrees, but we're told that isn't significant at all?   Also, none of the "models" seemed to have seen that coming.

Also, it may be warmer were you are, but here in Wisconsin, our temperatures over the last 12 months have been normal month by month, they haven't strayed more than 5F up or down from normal all year.  Which is kind of interesting because we also had one of the heaviest snowfalls on record.

So, is it cooling, warming or both?  Or do the actual facts really matter since Global Climate Change is all things to all people?

Hmm, well would you look at that.  Wonder why that happened.  I know large volcanic eruptions can cool the earth in about a year...but I don't recall hearing about any of them happening.

Anyway, a 12 month trend compared to a 100 year trend is fairly insignificant, unless it continues...then we might have a problem.  I don't deny that there's still stuff up in the air(heh, pun) about climate science and unfortunately I'm a bit lacking in knowing how the whole thing works.

Well, over time it seems to be warming.  Those last 12 months you mentioned seem to be showing a dip in that trend...whether that's indicative of a new trend or merely an anomaly in this one, I cannot say one way or the other.

Oh, actual facts matter...to the people studying it anyway...but when politics gets involved...well, you know what happens with some people and their views....crazy one way or the other.

~Zoo

In my own opinion, the Earth is certainly warming up, when the orbital cycle should be encouraging a cooling effect, but that's hardly the doomsday people predict. If the earth got too messed up, then gases in the sea-beds would be released (like in the Bermuda Triangle at the moment) and what would result is the heating would rocket, which is exactly what happened with the dinosaurs. This would throw the earth so out of whack that it would encourage the densest and most tropical (and ironically most effective plants) to rocket in population, while it would kill of animals and poorer humans which all contribute the the emissions on earth (for instance, if the world were vegetarians, and human global-warming exists, it would be virtually halted overnight) and the earth would begin to recover, just like it did after the dinosaurs.

People underestimate the brilliance of the earth's system. Yes, the eco-system we know and love is very fragile, but the poles once had literally 0 ice/snow, and housed plants which are commonly found in tropical areas (which are a particular favourite of hippos) and that wasn't the earth evolving to what it is now, the earth moves in cycles.

I can't be bothered putting in links, so you'll just have to believe me or not, I need sleep

Zoo

I agree that politics has reared it ugly head in just about everything.  The problem with the politics here is, we know that it has colored the results, but we have no idea how much it has colored the data collection, computer model engineering or the concept from its inception.

One of the first things I learned in Emergency Management is, if you rely on forecasts, past trends or scientific data, you will breath a sigh of relief when you should be preparing for the one that breaks all the records.

Heh, well anything with the word 'emergency' in it certainly implies that you should be on your toes.

Hmm, maybe we should give San Cho his blog back now.

~Zoo

Awwww, but it's been so much hijacking it. :~D

SanCho, we now return you to your blog... already in progress.

I don't think San Cho wants it back.  He certainly hasn't shown his face here yet.