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.
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
The part at the very end (~15 seconds before the end) of the video sums up my thoughts.
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
I already knew that, my first sentence about failed promises showed what I was going for. But this is, again, something people should really be paying attention to. The status quo today sucks, but we shouldn't ignore it just because it's business as usual (I suppose that's slightly redundant).
Promises to end practice, does it more than the last two presidents!
Danglers makes an excellent point- it's transparent because his motivations for these picks are so clear! So he HAD to do this, one promise failed to fulfill another!
Trust me, I am exceedingly cynical and pessimistic, it's one of the primary reasons I'm a small government conservative.
Even beyond ambassadorial appointments, it doesn't get much more transparent than saying
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
-- President Barack Obama
He had prior made recess appointments when the senate was not in recess, which I guess technically would be using his assumed powers before announcing his intentions. I'm curious what comes next. We all are witness to history in the making. Who besides FDR has moved in this fashion in the modern era?
An Ohio association funded by oil and gas drillers has been paying for teacher-training seminars in which industry-funded representatives demonstrate how students can learn about oil and gas extraction in fun ways, the Columbus Dispatch newspaper reported.
Environmentalists said Saturday that the program, being conducted by the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP), is an interference in the state’s public education system by an industry that has come under increasing scrutiny over practices including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The seminars, which are held around the state, show teachers how to use props such as Twinkies to demonstrate how gas drilling works: Teachers are instructed to ask students to think of the cream in the Twinkie as oil, and a straw to demonstrate how gas drillers find their target.
“It’s $100,000 every time you stick it in,” a workshop leader joked to the Dispatch.
But to environmentalists, the programs are not funny. Some of them say that the seminars are part of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly inappropriate influence in Ohio’s public schools. As more and more controversial fracking wells are drilled in the state, they say schools should not allow an organization with a vested interest in increasing oil and gas production to mold school science curriculums – or should at least give environmental groups the opportunity to present their side of the story.
“The industry is welcome to promote whatever they want, but it seems a little inappropriate to be minimizing the risks of this highly industrial activity using props like Twinkies,” Jack Shaner, deputy director of the Ohio Environmental Council, said Saturday. “Schools should be offering a balanced presentation, not a one-sided traveling medicine man-style show.”
Al Jazeera could not immediately reach the OOGEEP for comment Saturday. A representative had earlier pointed out to the Dispatch that the organization has been educating Ohio residents and science teachers about oil and gas drilling for 16 years.
So, environmentalists don't want to teach the science, they want to "teach the controversy"? That's what I'm reading from this...
I think the point is more not having industry people tell teachers what to teach children. In the same way you probably wouldn't want a guy from Marlboro deciding how to talk about smoking in school.
Basically, children are impressionable. They should be protected from propagandists and be given the most impartial education possible. Thus you really don't want obviously biased people having a deciding role in how and what will be taught.
An Ohio association funded by oil and gas drillers has been paying for teacher-training seminars in which industry-funded representatives demonstrate how students can learn about oil and gas extraction in fun ways, the Columbus Dispatch newspaper reported.
Environmentalists said Saturday that the program, being conducted by the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP), is an interference in the state’s public education system by an industry that has come under increasing scrutiny over practices including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The seminars, which are held around the state, show teachers how to use props such as Twinkies to demonstrate how gas drilling works: Teachers are instructed to ask students to think of the cream in the Twinkie as oil, and a straw to demonstrate how gas drillers find their target.
“It’s $100,000 every time you stick it in,” a workshop leader joked to the Dispatch.
But to environmentalists, the programs are not funny. Some of them say that the seminars are part of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly inappropriate influence in Ohio’s public schools. As more and more controversial fracking wells are drilled in the state, they say schools should not allow an organization with a vested interest in increasing oil and gas production to mold school science curriculums – or should at least give environmental groups the opportunity to present their side of the story.
“The industry is welcome to promote whatever they want, but it seems a little inappropriate to be minimizing the risks of this highly industrial activity using props like Twinkies,” Jack Shaner, deputy director of the Ohio Environmental Council, said Saturday. “Schools should be offering a balanced presentation, not a one-sided traveling medicine man-style show.”
Al Jazeera could not immediately reach the OOGEEP for comment Saturday. A representative had earlier pointed out to the Dispatch that the organization has been educating Ohio residents and science teachers about oil and gas drilling for 16 years.
So, environmentalists don't want to teach the science, they want to "teach the controversy"? That's what I'm reading from this...
I think the point is more not having industry people tell teachers what to teach children. In the same way you probably wouldn't want a guy from Marlboro deciding how to talk about smoking in school.
Basically, children are impressionable. They should be protected from propagandists and be given the most impartial education possible. Thus you really don't want obviously biased people having a deciding role in how and what will be taught.
You should look at the OOGEEP website and their coverage specifically. It is very clear that they are not a science first kind of organisation. They have several stories spreading the good words of sir Pickens and sir Bill Johnson. The rest of their news are positive spins on oil and gas news. I would not trust their independence or their scientific balancing.
That was kind of my point. Of course the Oil and Gas industry isn't impartial, thus they shouldn't be the ones deciding what is being taught to children about the subject at a basic level.
If it goes into exact engineering details, it would probably be good to ask them, but that is more something at the university level of things, and at that point i trust the students o be less impressionable.
My point was that you don't need the philosofical level to see the problem here.
You can find more or less impartial industrial organisations. This particular organisation doesn't seem that concerned about the science as fighting the good fight politically. The question becomes, "who is teaching the science?".
I would trust neither OOGEEP nor OEC to teach children about this subject and yes, having two opposing sides in science class would be "teaching the controversy" as opposed to science.
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
I already knew that, my first sentence about failed promises showed what I was going for. But this is, again, something people should really be paying attention to. The status quo today sucks, but we shouldn't ignore it just because it's business as usual (I suppose that's slightly redundant).
Promises to end practice, does it more than the last two presidents!
Danglers makes an excellent point- it's transparent because his motivations for these picks are so clear! So he HAD to do this, one promise failed to fulfill another!
Trust me, I am exceedingly cynical and pessimistic, it's one of the primary reasons I'm a small government conservative.
Even beyond ambassadorial appointments, it doesn't get much more transparent than saying
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
-- President Barack Obama
He had prior made recess appointments when the senate was not in recess, which I guess technically would be using his assumed powers before announcing his intentions. I'm curious what comes next. We all are witness to history in the making. Who besides FDR has moved in this fashion in the modern era?
On February 09 2014 23:12 Simberto wrote: That was kind of my point. Of course the Oil and Gas industry isn't impartial, thus they shouldn't be the ones deciding what is being taught to children about the subject at a basic level.
If it goes into exact engineering details, it would probably be good to ask them, but that is more something at the university level of things, and at that point i trust the students o be less impressionable.
Of course it's not going to go into the EXACT engineering aspect. These aren't sophisticated classes, but what exactly do you expect them to be taught? I personally think it's a really good idea to teach them what it is and the mechanics involved at a very rudimentary level.
On February 10 2014 01:36 radiatoren wrote: My point was that you don't need the philosofical level to see the problem here.
You can find more or less impartial industrial organisations. This particular organisation doesn't seem that concerned about the science as fighting the good fight politically. The question becomes, "who is teaching the science?".
I would trust neither OOGEEP nor OEC to teach children about this subject and yes, having two opposing sides in science class would be "teaching the controversy" as opposed to science.
I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
On February 09 2014 23:12 Simberto wrote: That was kind of my point. Of course the Oil and Gas industry isn't impartial, thus they shouldn't be the ones deciding what is being taught to children about the subject at a basic level.
If it goes into exact engineering details, it would probably be good to ask them, but that is more something at the university level of things, and at that point i trust the students o be less impressionable.
Of course it's not going to go into the EXACT engineering aspect. These aren't sophisticated classes, but what exactly do you expect them to be taught? I personally think it's a really good idea to teach them what it is and the mechanics involved at a very rudimentary level.
On February 10 2014 01:36 radiatoren wrote: My point was that you don't need the philosofical level to see the problem here.
You can find more or less impartial industrial organisations. This particular organisation doesn't seem that concerned about the science as fighting the good fight politically. The question becomes, "who is teaching the science?".
I would trust neither OOGEEP nor OEC to teach children about this subject and yes, having two opposing sides in science class would be "teaching the controversy" as opposed to science.
I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
I am not being denominational here as OEC is meant to refer to the environmental group mentioned in the snippet.
The problem here is the question of what they have an interest in teaching. You could argue that their agenda on public education easily could get some spillover from their political interests. I don't suspect lying, more an interest in omitting certain aspects from their education.
Edit: I guess the issue basically boils down to what you see as the important aspect. If any information breeds further reading, then there is something to be said for it, but first of all it is a very basic level so we are dealing with people too young to really search outside their textbooks. And second of all the "doctors dilemma" apply: Should you trust your doctor when he subscribes a product he has been pitched by a medicinal company?
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
I already knew that, my first sentence about failed promises showed what I was going for. But this is, again, something people should really be paying attention to. The status quo today sucks, but we shouldn't ignore it just because it's business as usual (I suppose that's slightly redundant).
Promises to end practice, does it more than the last two presidents!
Danglers makes an excellent point- it's transparent because his motivations for these picks are so clear! So he HAD to do this, one promise failed to fulfill another!
Trust me, I am exceedingly cynical and pessimistic, it's one of the primary reasons I'm a small government conservative.
Even beyond ambassadorial appointments, it doesn't get much more transparent than saying
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
-- President Barack Obama
He had prior made recess appointments when the senate was not in recess, which I guess technically would be using his assumed powers before announcing his intentions. I'm curious what comes next. We all are witness to history in the making. Who besides FDR has moved in this fashion in the modern era?
dont be mad, go win the election
The Constitution doesn't go up for election. We don't elect dictators. We elect our representatives (Congress) and the man we trust to execute Congress' laws (the president).
We elect someone who says “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Not "I do solemnly swear that I will occasionally execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, when it suits me, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If it was just about winning elections than the left should stop whining about every "abuse of power" from GWB. But they don't.
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
I already knew that, my first sentence about failed promises showed what I was going for. But this is, again, something people should really be paying attention to. The status quo today sucks, but we shouldn't ignore it just because it's business as usual (I suppose that's slightly redundant).
Promises to end practice, does it more than the last two presidents!
Danglers makes an excellent point- it's transparent because his motivations for these picks are so clear! So he HAD to do this, one promise failed to fulfill another!
Trust me, I am exceedingly cynical and pessimistic, it's one of the primary reasons I'm a small government conservative.
Even beyond ambassadorial appointments, it doesn't get much more transparent than saying
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
-- President Barack Obama
He had prior made recess appointments when the senate was not in recess, which I guess technically would be using his assumed powers before announcing his intentions. I'm curious what comes next. We all are witness to history in the making. Who besides FDR has moved in this fashion in the modern era?
dont be mad, go win the election
For some odd reason I think that if it was George W. Bush or any Republican president doing this the blithe nature of your response would be missing. There were plenty of people saying "don't be mad, go win the election" after 2004. How did that work out for them? Going that route is either the most juvenile or most myopic kind of politics.
And not to rag on you too much but if this was delivered with a straight face, or straight hand rather, it's banal to the point of being useless. "Don't be mad, go win the election" is the right thing to do. So much so it goes without saying. But if people didn't get mad then whichever side could get the most miniscule of people who would still get mad anyway to get mad would dominate. Exceptions are few and far between when it comes to the rule that hegemony by one side in a country breeds sloth and incompetence in that side and sooner or later very bad results. Or people wouldn't be people if they didn't get mad, which renders the advice even more than useless than banality, which is pretty near the top of the futility ladder.
Now to more amusing politics. George Zimmerman and DMX are not gonna tangle. I'm disappointed, America always delivers on opportunities to display its neuroses about race and this time it passed on that opportunity! People getting hot and bothered about race is where our human nature gets more fully involved than anything else I think, We may go (sometimes wayyyy) more lizard-brain than any other time, but if we didn't, we wouldn't be so driven about it and since most people are driven about racism these days to continue stamping it out, that's a good thing. Also come on just admit that either DMX tearing Zimmerman up or the neighborhood watch superhero winning for Murica while being half-Hispanic would have been funny as hell to watch.
Also Wendy Davis just keeps messing up down there in Texasland, now she's got her own party and voters all angry (there it is again!) because she said open carry should be legal in Texas. This may be a surprise to many here at TL, but in Texas if you want to carry a gun in public, you have to conceal it. No sauntering down to the saloon with 2 AR-15 Deathstars strapped on your back. Since she announced her candidacy for governor, she's made two huge rookie mistakes. 1. Pissed off the Texas media, liberal and conservative 2. this open carry mistake. If you want to be the national standard-bearer for womyn fighting the white capitalist patriarchy, be Elizabeth Warren or Sandra Fluke and don't stray from the party line. Don't be Wendy Davis and alienate your base with a shameless pander to Republican voters you need to win but aren't going to vote for you period unless Greg Abbott is caught in bed with a Portuguese underage male prostitute and an armadillo. Davis is not a rookie politician but it looks like she isn't ready and maybe never will be (or maybe she will!) to handle the big stage over the long course of a campaign.
There was some other funny thing - my definition of funny is different from yours up to half the time - going on in the world of US politics but I can't remember it now.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
Not even close. That's a bullshit simile. It would be closer to Taco Bell teaching kids how to make food for college kids and stoners.
Why make it so if you carry a gun it has to be concealed? That just seems odd to me. I'd have thought the point of an armed citizenry was to deter crime, and deterrence tends to be better when it's visible.
On February 10 2014 06:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: For some odd reason I think that if it was George W. Bush or any Republican president doing this the blithe nature of your response would be missing. There were plenty of people saying "don't be mad, go win the election" after 2004. How did that work out for them? Going that route is either the most juvenile or most myopic kind of politics.
Well if the Republicans weren't so busy sabotaging anything the current government would try to do I think people would be less inclined to leave comments like that. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2014/02/07/republicans-using-fake-websites-to-trick-donors-and-the-troubling-ethics-of-online-political-campaigns/)
There's literally nothing constructive coming from the GOP. I don't know how they want to win an election again if all they do is stop the government from functioning and starting smear campaigns.
It would be closer to Taco Bell teaching kids how to make food for college kids and stoners.
And you think that should be part of the curriculum, or what's your argument?
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
How is the conflict of interest benign...If you're a company that stands to gain billions of dollars from something which is detrimental, that sounds pretty malignant.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
How is the conflict of interest benign...If you're a company that stands to gain billions of dollars from something which is detrimental, that sounds pretty malignant.
It's about as benign as a math teacher advocating math.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
How is the conflict of interest benign...If you're a company that stands to gain billions of dollars from something which is detrimental, that sounds pretty malignant.
Jury's still out n how detrimental it is, but I still don't want corporations dictating school programs in their own best interest.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
How is the conflict of interest benign...If you're a company that stands to gain billions of dollars from something which is detrimental, that sounds pretty malignant.
It's about as benign as a math teacher advocating math.
A math teacher makes billions in profits from people being interested in the idea of math at the cost of phys ed? I don't see how your comparison is in any way analogous.
On February 10 2014 02:32 aksfjh wrote: I'm just not understanding the hate for OOGEEP. Yes, they have an agenda of public education about the oil and gas industry, primarily the benefits of such. However, I don't see that as having such an effect on kids that the kids completely ignore the environmental side effects. If anything, I think it would have the opposite effect, with them taking more interest in the subject itself and paying more attention to any news along the subject.
It seems as if you're not bashing the oil and gas industry these days, you MUST be some sort of anti-environmentalist lackey.
People who have a conflict of interest on a specific subject shouldn't be responsible for educating young children on those topics. I mean, an oil company teaching children about the oil industry is like Taco Bell teaching kids nutritional science. Schools shouldn't be corporate recruitment centers.
The conflict of interest looks pretty benign here, let's not get hypersensitive.
How is the conflict of interest benign...If you're a company that stands to gain billions of dollars from something which is detrimental, that sounds pretty malignant.
It's about as benign as a math teacher advocating math.
A math teacher makes billions in profits from people being interested in the idea of math at the cost of phys ed? I don't see how your comparison is in any way analogous.
Actually we do spend billions on education. Can't have firefighters talk about fire safety either, since they're biased as well.
EPT
