Page 1 of 35 | Next
5 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on March 16 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It wouldn't be so bad if the Texas State Board of Education decided the curriculum for its state alone, but being the largest market of public school textbooks, Texas often determines which textbooks will be used by students all across the country.
This is just a preliminary vote for these revised standards, but if they approve this decision on the final vote in May (after a period for public comment), students throughout the nation could be stuck with a Rush Limbaugh version of American history for the next decade.
Some of the decidedly conservative spin the board have approved are:
- Teachers will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.
- Curriculum standards will also describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic republic".
- Lesson plans will herald "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, and promote the Republican philosophy that the economy thrives best absent government intervention.
- In addition to learning about the Bill of Rights, the board required special reference be paid to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
- The board also included provisions to ensure that students learn about the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.
- The economics curriculum will have no mention of the word “capitalism” which has been replaced throughout the texts with the term “free-enterprise system".
Thanks, Texas. First you gave us George W. Bush, and now you give us THIS!
On The Textbook
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on March 9 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aces25-
In my opinion, this cartoon is aimed at those within the anti-abortion movement who have great concern for the well-being of someone until he or she is actually born. But once someone is actually breathing on their own- all bets are off. If you truly believe that life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred.
I have no problem with a pro-lifer who would protest the death penalty as well as abortion, or who would exercise compassion or extend charity to an individual either before or after their birth. There are many within this movement, however, who would gladly force a woman to reproduce, but would show little concern about the welfare of the child afterward.
On Please Help!
Posted on March 6 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The neighborhood around the Kanku's store saw this kind of trouble coming from a mile away. They petitioned to stop the construction of the store, urging that the area was already dangerous, and that a service station selling beer would only make matters worse. Despite their protest, the zoning change was approved, and the Kanku's on Wilcox Boulevard was built.
I think increased security could well make things better. Remember, the guard that Kanku's currently employs works from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. None of the recent shootings have taken place during those hours. They now pledge to start the security guard's shift at 6:00 p.m. and add a second guard at 9:00 p.m. four nights a week.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 20 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only positive aspect of Zach Wamp's campaign for governor (that I can think of) is the cartoons we'll being seeing in the month's to come. He really must be a cartoonist's dream come true!
Which leads me to ponder, does Clay hope, for the sake of Tennessee, that Zach Wamp loses, or does he hope, for the sake of satire, that he wins?
7 of 7 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 13 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Walden-
I too, was struck by your peculiar take on reality. Global warming has been debunked? How did I miss this news?
The latest figures I've read indicate that the past decade was the warmest in history. NASA (that hotbed of socialist propaganda) studied of the planet's surface temperatures and found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880 (when modern temperature measurement began). The warmest year on record being 2005 and the other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998.
A separate analysis of measurements taken on land and sea by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (another radical fringe group), found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record. The NOAA study concurs with the the NASA report, that the last 10 years have been the warmest decade ever measured.
And despite the recent rash of cold and winter storms (due mainly to this year's intense El Nino conditions), this past January was the warmest on record. Satellite measurements from a study by the University of Alabama in Huntville (a front group for Greenpeace, no doubt) support this conclusion with January, 2010 being the warmest in its 32-year data record.
But I guess all of this doesn't matter since a few suspicious sounding e-mails on global warming throws the whole theory into doubt. This is not anecdotal evidence, as AndrewLohr describes it. This is research by thousands of scientists worldwide that supports a theory that you folks don't want to believe because combatting it might take a few bucks out of your pocket.
Believe what you want, but please don't condemn the rest of the world to the grim prospects of doing nothing because you don't trust the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts in this field. Please, don't base our future on the expertise of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Because as far as I know, not one of those pompous blowhards has the seal of approval from the American Meteorological Society.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 7 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Woody-
Interesting observation, but I think the left, right orientation of the signs is not about politics, but is more about placing the punchline after the setup (with our eyes typically moving left to right). Having followed Clay's work for years, I don't think he would ever equate 'reality' with the political 'right'.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 3 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nurseforjustice stated, "toonfan, your point is about as appropriate as a murderer saying that it was his "orientation" to kill someone because he could not stop his feelings."
So you're equating being gay to being a murderer? Excuse me if a take some offense at that.
nurseforjustice continues, "I am truly sorry for the abuse you have suffered regarding your choices. Mistreatment of a person like yourself is wrong in itself."
You're sorry about my mistreatment, but you don't want to do anything about it, right? I don't want your pity. I want justice.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 3 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OllieH is absolutely right about the term 'choice' versus 'orientation'. And before even one more person uses the unfortunate 'choice' misrepresentation, let me make one point.
If it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? What would they gain? Alienation? Intimidation? Abuse? Prejudice?
Being gay has made me a target of physical and emotional abuse. It has lost me friendship and cost me a relationship with my father. I have been fired from jobs, and been denied apartments. It lead me to feelings of isolation, loneliness and depression, all the time being told that people like me were either immoral, perverted, or just plain 'broken'. All in all, it has not been a pleasant experience.
The only choice that was involved in my lifestyle, was the one to come out of the closet, to live my life openly and be true to myself. Homosexuality is my orientation. Honesty was my choice.
5 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 3 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aces25 states, "Homosexuals should (and do) have the freedom of choice of whether or not to serve in the military."
Gays and lesbians cannot serve in the military if their sexual orientation become known, so there is no choice.
aces goes on to say, "I could care less if the law is repealed or not. Frankly, this is being made more of an issue than it is in actuality."
Would you care more if African Americans were being barred from military service? Would you be alarmed if Jewish Americans were restricted from joining the armed forces? If you find those restrictions unacceptable than the ban on gay soldiers, then it is the victim of the policy and not the issue itself that you find so unworthy of your concern.
Page 1 of 35 | Next
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on March 17 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Roland writes, "Clay, you have not only gotten stale, you are getting b-o-r-i-n-g."
What irony- roland accusing someone else of being boring.
Clay may being presenting a consistent view, but at least he finds new, imaginative, and VERY creative ways to express it. Rolando, on the other hand, keeps making the same points, in the same way, day after day after day after day. And he doesn't even use his own arguments, rather he regurgitates the same points and slogans (his constant use of the moniker 'dear leader', for instance) that litter the far-right blogosphere.
Rolando also writes, "The House, Senate, and Presidency are owned -- lock, stock, and barrel -- by Democrats"
Now, how many times have we heard lame argument? Talk about stale and b-o-r-i-n-g.
On First Aid Kit