In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I've never understood why public education can't be pro-choice on specific topics like creationism. If some districts want to teach it, go ahead. If others don't, then they don't have to.
I personally think it is a ridiculous thing to try to tack on to biology and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we classify organisms and study them. It's also bad science, bad philosophy, and bad religion because it represents a complete stop to the discussion. God created life. The end. Knowledge should move in a positive direction so that each discovery enables us to reach a deeper understanding and ask more questions, get ever more detailed. I would point out that there are some evolutionists who are a little too much in the other direction too, insisting Darwin got it right and religion sucks, the end, which is also incorrect and incomplete.
But perhaps the only important point to make to kids in a science class is that basically nobody in this debate is a bona fide scientist and then get back to working on the mechanics of evolution and genetics. No matter what, you will never get far in a career in the biological sciences if you don't know the basic facts and models.
I don't think it's convincing to put this in a true/false dichotomy because, strictly speaking, teaching Newtonian mechanics and Mendelian genetics is also "false information". You would have to draw new lines around what is pedagogical and what is factual per se, which is a much more involved discussion.
To be fair, lots of people are very unhappy with pedagogical changes in the Common Core math program. Which is probably the more relevant discussion to have rather than creationism.
Not really; the dispute over the Common Core's conceptual approach to math is really a dispute amongst math teachers rather than any meaningful critique of the curriculum itself. The demonstration of conceptual understanding in math has been a controversial subject for decades now, and though I hope the proliferation of matrices and odd operative schemes gets scaled down a bit, there really isn't much to discuss outside the hilariousness that is a Republican Party that uniformly supported the Common Core until Obama decided he liked it too.
The US has proposed higher and more extensive tariffs on Chinese solar panels.
The Department of Commerce said it plans to impose duties of between 18.56% to 35.21%. That is much higher than the tariffs announced in 2012.
The duties will be levied on solar panels and the cells used to make them. Previously they covered just the cells.
The US has said that import duties will help offset the subsidies given by China to solar panel makers.
China is the world's biggest maker of solar panels. But US manufacturers have alleged that government subsidies have helped Chinese manufacturers flood the US market with cheap goods, hurting US companies.
The ruling is a major setback for the entire US solar industry because it will immediately increase the price of solar power and cost American jobs”
They have argued that higher tariffs would ensure a level playing field for all.
Teach Creationism if you 'must', as part of religious studies or what have you. It's when you tack it into science lessons that is ridiculous. Science literacy is bad enough, people's critical faculties are bad enough without you adding stuff like this to formal education.
On June 05 2014 00:23 Wombat_NI wrote: Teach Creationism if you 'must', as part of religious studies or what have you. It's when you tack it into science lessons that is ridiculous. Science literacy is bad enough, people's critical faculties are bad enough without you adding stuff like this to formal education.
I agree. Creationism should be taught as part of a completely optional religious studies, and science (real science) should stay mandatory. We really don't need any more dumb people who are incapable of telling science from pseudoscience or even from superstition/religion, and that goes for both republicans and democrats. I honestly wish we could have forced standardized tests about politics and the given thing being voted on before people could vote on anything, but that's going off topic from this.
He and his younger sister, Sky, were home schooled by their devout Calvinist parents, instructed in religion and morality.
We don't know he was a deserter yet XDaunt (I know that's what others in his unit have said), but yeah maybe you wanna join in the chorus with Fox news and talk about how 'his dad looks like a Taliban' or 'learned the language of the Taliban' or 'looks like a Muslim'. People make me sick. This is America if his dad wanted to be Muslim (instead of Calvinist) and learn Pashto (to try to speak with his sons captors) it's certainly not any crazier or inherently worse than his 'Christian beliefs".
Let's just get this out of the way first. XDaunt what would you have expected to be done differently about the Berghdal situation?
Perhaps he was just suffering from 'battle fatigue' maybe he thought too long about what he was doing (many of my veteran friends contemplated leaving at least once after having to do something horrible for a war they didn't think was right.) There are millions of potential reasons for doing whatever he may have done. Some of the reasons mean that we should probably execute/whatever we do with traitors anymore, others suggest he desperately needs mental health help.
Of course not knowing the facts never stops some people from speculating the worst about a veteran, social decency be damned.
But if we are going to speculate based on incomplete information....In an interesting twist, his homeschooling may have been a significant reason for whatever his actions may have been...
"Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ and renewing our wills, He persuades and enables us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel."
It sounds like he had an 'effectual calling' which explains pretty much everything. If that was the case his 'desertion' was actually just him freely exercising his religion (conscientious objector). Christ certainly would not be in Afghanistan with a rifle, so why should someone who is trying to be 'Christlike' be there shooting at people? The only reasonable thing for someone who is trying to be 'Christlike' would be to leave the American military. So while his parents teachings (had they been followed strictly) would of never allowed him to join the military in the first place (good ol' teenage rebellion), it is still very sensible to think that they struck a note with him in Afghanistan.
So if he deserted it may very well be because he sincerely believes with all his homeschooling that God himself called him to put down his equipment and walk away. Which is a dramatically different narrative than what right wing shills have been pushing without truly knowing the situation.
One wouldn't want to infringe on his parent teacher relationship that formed that understanding of the world, or infringe on his right to practice his religion would one...?
After yesterday’s “Super Tuesday” (eight states holding primaries), there remain 28 states with nominating contests on tap, and another six with runoffs. But all of the closely contested Republican Senate primaries that represented most of the national excitement prior to November have come and gone — except for runoffs in Georgia and yes, improbable as it might have seemed, in Mississippi.
Had Thad Cochran eked out the narrow victory early returns seemed to indicate, the results, along with Joni Ernst’s comfortable win in Iowa, might have finally laid to rest the fears of Beltway Republicans that they are in danger of giving away Senate seats via erratic Tea Party nominees like 2010’s Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle and 2012’s Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. A Cochran win would have been especially gratifying to the GOP Powers That Be, given the strong commitment outside conservative groups made to challenger Chris McDaniel, the state’s fertile ideological soil, and the aging incumbent’s inability to adjust to the savage tone and substance of contemporary conservatism.
But now a deeply wounded Cochran faces a three-week runoff campaign in which many factors — especially turnout — favor his opponent. And with the heavy investment of groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth in Mississippi as their best prospect for a Senate RINO “scalp,” it would take a phenomenal effort by the incumbent or a big gaffe by the challenger to change the momentum in this race. When the smoke clears on June 24, Mississippi will likely join Kentucky and Georgia as states where the loss of a Republican Senate seat in November is possible, and the dissipation of GOP resources better spent elsewhere is certain. Beyond that, Republican pols everywhere would know that not even four decades of genial service and effective money-grubbing for a very poor state, or the support of virtually everyone there ever elected to a position above dogcatcher, is enough to survive the ever-rightward tide of the conservative activist “base.”
Looking at Iowa, and more generally the post-primary Senate landscape, a likely Cochran defeat isn’t the only problem facing win-hungry GOP “pragmatists.” Joni Ernst joins North Carolina’s Thom Tillis — and potentially Georgia’s Jack Kingston, if he wins the July 22 runoff — as “Establishment” figures who’ve chosen the easy way to the nomination by adopting the most conservative positions and messages available, thus giving their Democratic opponents important general election talking points. As the king of GOP “pragmatists,” Mitt Romney, showed in 2012, it’s not always so easy to “etch-a-sketch” a new swing-voter friendly persona after spending months rushing to get in front of every movement conservative parade in sight.
He and his younger sister, Sky, were home schooled by their devout Calvinist parents, instructed in religion and morality.
We don't know he was a deserter yet XDaunt (I know that's what others in his unit have said), but yeah maybe you wanna join in the chorus with Fox news and talk about how 'his dad looks like a Taliban' or 'learned the language of the Taliban' or 'looks like a Muslim'. People make me sick. This is America if his dad wanted to be Muslim (instead of Calvinist) and learn Pashto (to try to speak with his sons captors) it's certainly not any crazier or inherently worse than his 'Christian beliefs".
Well, apparently the guy left a note (which has not been publicly released yet) explaining his desertion, but if you prefer "alleged deserter," that's fine with me.
Let's just get this out of the way first. XDaunt what would you have expected to be done differently about the Berghdal situation?
Given that it's pretty clear that he's a deserter at best (and who knows what he is at worst -- it could be pretty bad based upon what I'm seeing), I'd have left him there to rot. The military sure wasn't in a hurry to rescue him even though they apparently knew where he was. I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps he was just suffering from 'battle fatigue' maybe he thought too long about what he was doing (many of my veteran friends contemplated leaving at least once after having to do something horrible for a war they didn't think was right.) There are millions of potential reasons for doing whatever he may have done. Some of the reasons mean that we should probably execute/whatever we do with traitors anymore, others suggest he desperately needs mental health help.
Of course not knowing the facts never stops some people from speculating the worst about a veteran, social decency be damned.
Frankly, I don't really care what he is, if he deserted, why he left, etc. The bigger issues are 1) who Obama released to have this guy returned, and 2) that Obama apparently broke the law by arranging for this release without consulting Congress. Just one more example of this president abusing his power. As one writer has put it, Nixon has nothing on Obama.
Whatever. If Obama had let this soldier sit in captivity until the end of his term, I'm sure xDaunt and the right-wing talking-points would of been singing Obama's praises, right? Right? Right.
It gets more than a bit transparent at a certain point. We're all watching the sausage get made, because it's open-house at Righty's Outrage-Sausage Manufacturing. Yummy.
He and his younger sister, Sky, were home schooled by their devout Calvinist parents, instructed in religion and morality.
We don't know he was a deserter yet XDaunt (I know that's what others in his unit have said), but yeah maybe you wanna join in the chorus with Fox news and talk about how 'his dad looks like a Taliban' or 'learned the language of the Taliban' or 'looks like a Muslim'. People make me sick. This is America if his dad wanted to be Muslim (instead of Calvinist) and learn Pashto (to try to speak with his sons captors) it's certainly not any crazier or inherently worse than his 'Christian beliefs".
Well, apparently the guy left a note (which has not been publicly released yet) explaining his desertion, but if you prefer "alleged deserter," that's fine with me.
Let's just get this out of the way first. XDaunt what would you have expected to be done differently about the Berghdal situation?
Given that it's pretty clear that he's a deserter at best (and who knows what he is at worst -- it could be pretty bad based upon what I'm seeing), I'd have left him there to rot. The military sure wasn't in a hurry to rescue him even though they apparently knew where he was. I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps he was just suffering from 'battle fatigue' maybe he thought too long about what he was doing (many of my veteran friends contemplated leaving at least once after having to do something horrible for a war they didn't think was right.) There are millions of potential reasons for doing whatever he may have done. Some of the reasons mean that we should probably execute/whatever we do with traitors anymore, others suggest he desperately needs mental health help.
Of course not knowing the facts never stops some people from speculating the worst about a veteran, social decency be damned.
Frankly, I don't really care what he is, if he deserted, why he left, etc. The bigger issues are 1) who Obama released to have this guy returned, and 2) that Obama apparently broke the law by arranging for this release without consulting Congress. Just one more example of this president abusing his power. As one writer has put it, Nixon has nothing on Obama.
I'll just leave this here because it seems those who only read TPM and other such journalistic endeavors are a bit in the dark.
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — A soldier claims that he was told by his chain of command to not say anything about Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walking off an Afghan base in 2009.
Retired Army Spc. Josh Fuller told Fox News Wednesday that he was told to keep quiet about Bergdahl leaving his post and getting captured by the Taliban.
“We had all known that he had deserted his post and there was never anything about him getting captured or a POW until a little while later when it came down from the chain-of-command that we needed to keep quiet about it, not say anything and that we’re going with the narrative that he’s captured,” Fuller told Fox News.
Fuller, who stated that Bergdahl pretty much kept to himself and didn’t socialize with other soldiers, said that attacks on the base increased after Army sergeant left.
“Whenever he went and walked off the base, only stuff that we know, that we trained for, that the sports that we know on vehicles, how are moves are, stuff like that, they were getting hit very precisely,” Fuller explained to Fox News.
“And the ambushes we used, the certain tactics that we used, the Taliban was picking up on those things and the Haqqani network started using the same things as well.
“So they were very precise and very accurate. You could tell it was somebody on the inside that had that info.” Since Bergdahl was exchanged for five high-level Taliban members who were detainees at Guantanamo Bay, reports have surfaced that at least six U.S. soldiers were killed searching for him.
Matt Vierkant, 27, a team leader of another squad in Bergdahl’s platoon, told The Associated Press that soldiers from his unit and other units were wounded or killed on missions to chase down leads related to Bergdahl.
He said Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers knew within five or 10 minutes from the discovery of disappearance that he had walked away. In retrospect the signs were there, he said, but there was nothing so definitive that would have prompted action.
“He said some strange things, like, ‘I could get lost in those mountains,’ which, at the time, that doesn’t really strike you as someone who is going to leave their weapon and walk out.”
Vierkant said he believes it’s paramount that an investigation determine whether Bergdahl deserted or collaborated with the enemy.
“It shouldn’t even be a question of whether, it should question of when,” he said.
U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that the Army may pursue desertion charges against Bergdahl.
Bergdahl disappeared on June 30, 2009. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that the evidence was “incontrovertible” that he walked away from his unit, said a former Pentagon official who has read it.
The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn’t formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews as part of the probe, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, “delusional” person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his Army post, said the official, who was present for the interviews. Nabi Jan Mhullhakhil, the provincial police chief of Paktika province in Afghanistan, where Bergdahl was stationed with his unit, said elders in the area told him that Bergdahl “came out from the U.S. base … without a gun and was outside the base when he was arrested by the Taliban.”
After weeks of intensive searching, the military decided against making an extraordinary effort to rescue him, especially after it became clear he was being held in Pakistan under the supervision of the Haqqani network, a Taliban ally with links to Pakistani’s intelligence service.
Nonetheless, individual units pursued leads as they came in. The Pentagon official familiar with the talks said, “I know for a fact that we lost soldiers looking for him.”
But the Pentagon maintained the circumstances of his capture were irrelevant.
“He is an American soldier,” Rear Adm. John Kirby said. “It doesn’t matter how he was taken captive. It doesn’t matter under what circumstances he left. … We have an obligation to recover all of those who are missing in action.”
During a press conference Tuesday in Poland, President Barack Obama defended his decision to exchange the detainees for Bergdahl.
Regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he’s held in captivity,” Obama said. “We don’t condition that.”
He and his younger sister, Sky, were home schooled by their devout Calvinist parents, instructed in religion and morality.
We don't know he was a deserter yet XDaunt (I know that's what others in his unit have said), but yeah maybe you wanna join in the chorus with Fox news and talk about how 'his dad looks like a Taliban' or 'learned the language of the Taliban' or 'looks like a Muslim'. People make me sick. This is America if his dad wanted to be Muslim (instead of Calvinist) and learn Pashto (to try to speak with his sons captors) it's certainly not any crazier or inherently worse than his 'Christian beliefs".
Well, apparently the guy left a note (which has not been publicly released yet) explaining his desertion, but if you prefer "alleged deserter," that's fine with me.
Let's just get this out of the way first. XDaunt what would you have expected to be done differently about the Berghdal situation?
Given that it's pretty clear that he's a deserter at best (and who knows what he is at worst -- it could be pretty bad based upon what I'm seeing), I'd have left him there to rot. The military sure wasn't in a hurry to rescue him even though they apparently knew where he was. I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps he was just suffering from 'battle fatigue' maybe he thought too long about what he was doing (many of my veteran friends contemplated leaving at least once after having to do something horrible for a war they didn't think was right.) There are millions of potential reasons for doing whatever he may have done. Some of the reasons mean that we should probably execute/whatever we do with traitors anymore, others suggest he desperately needs mental health help.
Of course not knowing the facts never stops some people from speculating the worst about a veteran, social decency be damned.
Frankly, I don't really care what he is, if he deserted, why he left, etc. The bigger issues are 1) who Obama released to have this guy returned, and 2) that Obama apparently broke the law by arranging for this release without consulting Congress. Just one more example of this president abusing his power. As one writer has put it, Nixon has nothing on Obama.
You clearly don't know much about the military... The military has pretty much universally come out in support of NOT doing what you suggest.
No respectable military figure in the US has even suggested leaving him there... (You probably missed that even many Republicans were pressing the administration to bring him home...) Most of them are disgusted by the proposition.
The military sent several missions to try to rescue him? So I don't know where the hell you are pulling that from.
1) What is so scary/wrong about who he released?
2) Well exigent circumstances blah blah blah...(we won't know if it was legal) Let's say what he did was illegal (it will never come to that because it's far to grey to prove anything malicious) it's not even in the top 1000 illegal or corrupt things done in Afghanistan by the US.
I could only imagine if Obama/Biden was a former top guy at a corporation that was making billions of $$$ off of no bid contracts what conservatives/republicans would be saying... Yet they said nothing for all those years...
When it comes to stuff like this Conservatives/Republicans act like children who thrashed their bedroom and are now complaining about how their parents are cleaning it up for them all wrong.
On June 05 2014 02:49 wei2coolman wrote: Even if he deserted his post. He's still a US citizen. US still has an obligation to get him released.
Pretty sure there is significant overlap between the people who would of rather seen this American 'rot' in enemy hands and those who would want people to die in the streets cheering here
No idea what conservatives/republicans want to do with the people in Guantanamo anyway? Just imprison people forever with a bottomless budget and no charges to bring? That doesn't sound very 'American' at all.
NEW YORK (AP) — Shares of First Solar rose Wednesday as the Commerce Department clamped down on Chinese solar equipment companies by imposing preliminary anti-subsidy tariffs.
First Solar is one of the U.S.-based solar companies that stands to gain from such a decision. First Solar Inc. is based in Tempe, Arizona.
The U.S. Department of Commerce announced on Tuesday that it is imposing preliminary anti-subsidy tariffs of 18.56 percent to 35.21 percent on Chinese solar panel makers, effective immediately. The decision takes into account solar panels that include solar cells produced outside China. Joseph Fong of Jefferies said in a client note that Chinese solar panel makers previously avoided paying duties by sourcing solar cells from Taiwan.
The Commerce Department is also expected to announce tighter anti-dumping tariffs next month.
Fong said that the preliminary anti-subsidy tariffs will likely result in higher module prices in the U.S., "benefiting domestic manufacturers at the expense of end consumers."
Chinese solar panel maker Trina Solar Ltd. said Wednesday that it was disappointed by the Commerce Department's decision but that it believes it will continue to have a profitable business in the U.S. and serve customers in the region. And with demand for solar panels in the U.S. easing, Chinese solar companies may not be that hard hit by the Commerce Department's decision. Trina Solar said that it is seeing growth specifically in countries such as China and Japan.
First Solar's stock gained $2.14, or 3.4 percent, to $65.07 in morning trading. Tina Solar's U.S. shares dropped 39 cents, or 3 percent, to $12.58.
On June 04 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote: I've never understood why public education can't be pro-choice on specific topics like creationism. If some districts want to teach it, go ahead. If others don't, then they don't have to.
I personally think it is a ridiculous thing to try to tack on to biology and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we classify organisms and study them. It's also bad science, bad philosophy, and bad religion because it represents a complete stop to the discussion. God created life. The end. Knowledge should move in a positive direction so that each discovery enables us to reach a deeper understanding and ask more questions, get ever more detailed. I would point out that there are some evolutionists who are a little too much in the other direction too, insisting Darwin got it right and religion sucks, the end, which is also incorrect and incomplete.
But perhaps the only important point to make to kids in a science class is that basically nobody in this debate is a bona fide scientist and then get back to working on the mechanics of evolution and genetics. No matter what, you will never get far in a career in the biological sciences if you don't know the basic facts and models.
Want to teach scientific controversy in science classes, fine. It is bad teaching method as all scientific controversies are completely beyond material that the kids have time to be taught and ability to comprehend, but if you really want to, go ahead. Creationism though is not a scientific controversy and thus it does not belong to science classroom. Might as well start allowing faith-healing in medical courses in universities if particular state has religious enough voters.
There is a reason why modern states are not direct and pure democracies. Those suck.
EPT
