• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Jindal and the exorcism

Jindal again.....

I know this guy has kinda faded away, but I had to post this...I mean he straight out LIED about being involved in a story that he wasn't....
Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.

In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.

Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.

This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen.

There's a larger point here, though. The central anecdote of the GOP's prime-time response to President Obama's speech, intended to illustrate the threat of excessive government regulation, turns out to have been made up.

Maybe it's time to rethink the premise.

Watch the relevant section of Jindal's speech:

Link with him telling his "story" pretty hilarious when you know he's completely made up his own involvement...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8U4zVmJPs
 
creationism is a belief just as many other things we teach on... shoot... we talk about beliefs here all the time... politics is a belief.

BELIEFS have no place in a science classroom. I see no reason why students can't read bible stories along with Greek creation myths in English classes when studying "creation literature" or "stories." I did. It was probably the first exposure to the Bible I had ever had.

But in science we teach theories and theories must be testable. You cannot design and implement an experiment to test for the presence of a divine creator. The point of being religious revolves around faith, and faith means "believing without clear proof." If there's no clear proof and never will be, it cannot ever be a theory, so keep it out of my science classroom.

The day they tell me I have to start teaching creationism will be the day I pack my bags and leave.

It doesn't even remotely fit any curriculum within public schools, nor should it. It really is a foot-in-the-door for religion.

I disagree. I think you can safely teach comparative religions to high school students in a religious history or world cultures class, and I think there is a value to doing that. How much has religious permeated our political climate of late? How often do we hear things about the Mormon's and their polygamist ways? How often do we hear the violence of select groups of individual Muslim's being blamed on the Qu'ran? If children were taught, in school, about the world's religious in the scope of world culture, it would help to explain a lot of what goes on in today's world.

Like or not, religion does serve as a "moral" and "political" guide to a lot of people these days.....
 
I did not throw myself into the fracas the first time around for several reasons, I guess. Primarily, and I don't mean to sound lazy or like a cop out, because I trusted the rest of you guys to do a perfectly good job on your own. And you did. And you are.
What I don't want, is anyone to think I am blind or indifferent (passively or actively) to what's going on only several blocks from where I live and where I work. Literally several blocks. I have an innate distrust of politics and politicians (just google history of Louisiana politics), and have never really expected them to put, or be capable of putting, my thoughts and beliefs into their agenda. To me elections are too often the lesser of two evils.
This debate/discussion and its' roots and branches and tangents has circulated in my head and spilled across my lips since I was old enough to know that people had different beliefs, rights to believe whatever they were, and no right to force their beliefs on others---which I'm proud to say was pretty early. Luckily I grew up with enlightened, relatively open-minded parents and teachers who encouraged me to think and come to my own conclusions. So boy, did I.
I am a gay Christian who believes in the Bible and Evolution. Difficult to get all that to mix...??? No, for me, not in the least.
The important thing to me is this : the Bible is a book by very inspired men and/or women to describe the world in the contemporary terms of their times (hence some very extreme parables), and to give their world some structure (hence some very extreme laws). I think social thinking beings long for and will generate structure, especially when and where there is none. And, there are very decent notions on how to treat others, and how to live a peacefully content Life.
Anyhoo....this Bible of mine, leaves the door open entirely to people of ANY time to use the knowledge at their disposal to characterize the universe. We wouldn't have minds and mouths and language if we weren't meant to think and talk, etc., etc., etc.
No worries. I show a video on Galileo in class and have to spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to explain how he was persecuted by the Catholic church without offending the religious. ;) I have to choose words carefully!
D80
Brent, I feel you. I've spent roughly 35 years, give or take, trying not to offend the religious, with my religion. LOL. Sometimes very successfully, sometimes not. So I just clammed up. Sometimes. If I could make myself. :D ;)

Actually it's not that he's pro-creationism, people can believe whatever they want...I'm personally a spiritual person so there is definitely room for creationism in my personal beliefs. What I meant to point out is that he allows it into his politics, He signed a law in Louisiana that was basically designed to allow the teaching of creationism in schools!
That is more than wrong!
If you want to start teaching anything non-scientific in public schools then the doors are open to anything from Wicca to " the final solution".
Kyle, and I know how you mean it and meant it, but I have to say....what's so wrong with teaching about things Wiccan, or about Hitler's "final solution"? Or the Koran, or Buddha, etc. LOLOL. Yes, yes, I know how you meant it.
Like I was, I would want my kids to be exposed to as much as possible, theoretically everything. So their conclusions will be their own, based on thought...and Logic. Which is a vital course, that I loved, that as I read everyday...I see that so many people never took. Along with Philosophy. At least an introduction to the landscape of the many different philosophies of the world.
Creation theory...yes, expose them to it. Greek/Roman/Norse/Hindu mythology...likewise. In proportion to the evidence supporting it. Evolution...yes, present it to them in direct proportion to the evidence that supports it. And I think I know (wickedly) what their conclusions will be.
I think withholding ideas is dangerous. And I have not really looked into, or kept up with, what Jindal is up to....I strongly suspect he is trying to garner points with the increasingly conservative right, with the rest of his political career in mind. Boring stuff to me. I truly in my heart believe that the human heart and the human mind evolve independently of, and in spite of, politics.
And discovering politicians in lies serves two purposes, it proves they are politicians....and it guarantees that people will still use their own heart and their own mind in the evolution of their beliefs.
I hope politicians never stop betraying themselves. That would be the day we started putting way to much faith in them. :D :D :D
 
To follow up on the two previous posts and to make myself clear:
Of course we can teach about anything in our schools " the world is an oyster"...and I'm not a censorist and it's not 451 degrees in here either...lol
I have absolutely no problem with any of that from bees to Bach to bestiality...but it's the way it is done...Like Eric said, teaching about anything is fine... teaching dogma in any form or class or public school curricula is NOT.
I think any rational person can see that by introducing creationism in a science class the attempt is to open the door to religion, if you can't see that than it's because you either don't want to see it or you want your own personal beliefs to be taught.
Could it be taught about? YES. but keep it as far away from the sciences as possible and offer other beliefs as well...Mayan's have a pretty cool creation story as well as many others...
 
I disagree. I think you can safely teach comparative religions to high school students in a religious history or world cultures class,

I agree with this statement. I see no problem with doing comparative learning, and learning about different religions in general...I love learning about religions and I watch a lot of documentaries on different religions. I remember learning about buddhism, islam, christianity, hindu, shintoism, and others in various high school and college courses. I remember researching the five pillars of islam in world history in high school....and learning about buddhism, shintoism and hindu in a "cities of asia" course. Frankly, I think it makes a person MORE well rounded and open minded when they understand a religion.

However, it's when a religion is imposed on the students that it could become a problem (such as a creationism teacher saying "this IS how it was and is" rather than "this is what some people beleive") Though I think these types of studies should be limited to courses specifically designed for them such as world history or history of religion, etc... I don't think it should to be taught in science courses like biology.
 
Kyle regarding who was where when the shooting stopped (or started, for that matter)...many of us remember Katrina like it was yesterday. We almost all of us remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the levee gave way at the Industrial Canal.
For New Orleans residents and frequenters and lovers of New Orleans, the subject is still painful and sad.
I went to New Orleans yesterday, and it was the first time I had been past Kenner since Katrina.

Personally, I don't remember Jindal in New Orleans until that Wednesday or Thursday, or even Friday. After Mary Landrieu. But I may be wrong.
While reviewing this link on Saturday afternoon....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina
....I got too depressed to respond or talk about it any further.

But I will say this, there was MUCH ugliness that went on that no one will ever admit to. The staff at OPP (the famed Orleans Parish Prison) Locked up, chained the doors shut, and walked away that Sunday evening. And left the inmates....who were not rescued until Wednesday or Thursday by federal rescuers.
Inmates on the lowermost floor drowned, those ambulatory treaded water for air against the ceiling. The infirmary and psychiatric areas. Some on the second floor drowned. Inmates on the second floors, and up, watched and listens to the sight and cries of people drowning. Harry Lee has lied about this for going on 4 years now.
There are to this day scores of unidentified/unclaimed bodies at St. Gabriel, at various stages of red tape, in the process of being cremated and or buried. None of the authorities want a body ID'd as having been an individual locked in OPP for 4-5 days with no food or water.

Harry Lee went to his grave lying about this tragic story. If he will deny this ghastliness to save his reputation, I am skeptical of any and all details of his account. And he knew he carried secrets to the grave. If you want to call that honor. Or preserving the honor of his office, or state.
And he was not the only one standing shoulder to shoulder to prevent the rest of the world from finding out about the ugly details of the storm and its' aftermath.

As far as Jindal's future and 2012, he's doing perfectly fine on his own (in the undoing) having to change his mind and back out of hasty decisions.
My concern is Rush Limbaugh's momentum. God spare us all.
 
Eric, I'm really very sorry to hear how painful this has been and is, for you to remember. I apologize for dragging this up.
You are right though about Rush!
Although I highly doubt he would ever consider any political office. His agenda is greed and notoriety. Although I would like him to show me where in the Constitution it states we were founded on Capitalism.
 
Thanks, Kyle. The memories and experience are not unbearable, for me. The people of the Ninth Ward, Gentilly, Elysian Fields, and St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes---who are alive to remember---may very well find the rehashing of things unbearable.

My stepdad was in New Orleans, as a senior agent of Bell South, trying to re-establish communications from Tuesday, 30 Aug 05....until November 05.
He kept us by photo and video (against our will at times) appraised of the sights that followed, from that Tuesday the 30th onward. And I discovered the CSI's were right....first a body sinks, then it floats, then it sinks again.

But, I have not missed your second point, and am very annoyed and disgusted that now Gov. Jindal (not governor at the time) would glorify himself by saying he was down there early in the chaos....if he was not. First Harry Lee seemed to indicate he wasn't, then Harry Lee seemed to say he was (from other google searches, newspapers, etc.,....that I did).
Sheriff Harry Lee waffling on a subject would seem to underline an "inconsistency", to say the least.
 
CNN: The creationism debate rages on:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/index.html


Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- Dueling theories of how the universe was created got a split decision Friday night from the Texas Board of Education, which required examination of "all sides of scientific evidence" in new science standards, but rejected language requiring teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.
A woman stands in front of a mural depicting the development from ape to computer user.

A woman stands in front of a mural depicting the development from ape to computer user.

The debate pitted proponents of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution against supporters of religion-based theories of intelligent design, or creationism.

"Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this," board chairman Don McLeroy, a creationist, told the Dallas Morning News.

A final 13-2 vote approved language that will be printed in textbooks beginning in 2011 and remain there for 10 years, CNN affiliate KPRC-TV in Houston reported:

"In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

Earlier, the board rejected two sections written by McLeroy on identical 8-7 votes, the Dallas Morning News said.

One section required teachers to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information," and the other required high school students to study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of key principles of evolution.

Opponents were pleased with the board's action on McLeroy's sections, but unsatisfied with the final result.
Don't Miss

* Darwin still making waves 200 years later

"The phrase has been an open door to religious indoctrination in public schools," Mark Finkelstein, a lawyer with the Anti-Defamation League, told KPRC, referring to the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase in the material voted down.

"This document still has plenty of potential footholds for creationist attacks on evolution to make their way into Texas classrooms," Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, told the Dallas Morning News.

She predicted battles over textbooks in the coming years, a prediction McLeroy bolstered.

Publishers, he said, will "have to get their textbooks approved by us in a few years."

The size of the textbook market in Texas gives it influence nationwide, as publishers adapt their material to its standards.

Darwin's theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved over millions of years from animal species -- including, most famously, early primates that also are the ancestors of modern-day apes. Such thinking, which challenged religious accounts of a deity creating humans, was considered radical, even blasphemous, when Darwin published it in 1859.

Central to Darwin's thesis was his scientific explanation of life's diversity: that natural selection is enough to explain the evolution of all species.

The scientific community has overwhelmingly scorned creationism and its latest incarnation, intelligent design, as a pretext for biblical explanations of how the world came to be, and asserts that there is no weakness or doubt in the scientific community about evolution.

Last year, the National Academy of Sciences called for the public to be better informed about the importance of understanding and teaching evolution. The academy released a booklet titled "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" -- the third explanation of evolution put out since 1984 by one of the nation's leading scientific organizations.

However, those who take issue with evolution believe it should be treated with healthy skepticism and argue that having high school students question a scientific theory overwhelmingly accepted by scientists teaches them critical thinking.

"This debate will impact whether students are taught to think critically and scientifically when you learn about evolution. It's important for students to learn how to think like scientists and not be forced to treat these controversial topics like a dogma," Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the Discovery Institute, a group that questions the theory of evolution, said in an article in the San Antonio Express-News.

Proponents of evolution say the dogma is on the other side, with the Discovery Institute and others purposely distorting and ignoring scientific evidence to reach their desired conclusion.

For decades, the teaching of evolution in public schools has been a flash point in some states, with proponents of ideas such as creationism and intelligent design trying to gain a place in science classes.

The issue has been before school officials, legislators and courts in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia.

The controversy over the teaching of intelligent design came to a head in Pennsylvania, where the Dover School Board voted that ninth-grade students must be read a statement encouraging them to read about intelligent design. A federal judge said the board violated the Constitution in doing so because intelligent design is religious creationism in disguise and injecting it into the curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Academic freedom" bills have emerged but failed in various state legislatures, the National Center for Science Education said.

An "academic freedom" act has been adopted as law in Louisiana, and there is legislation in Florida calling for an "academic freedom" bill that would mandate a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."

The center says such bills are strategies by creationists to appeal to the American sense of balance, and give the false sense that there are different sides to scientific issues such as evolution.
 
Back
Top