Texas Board of Education at it again Banning textbooks

[Graham]

I've had a dig. Wikipedia has more information on the situation between the US and the International Criminal Court.

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

Don't forget that as as jesus was concerned, he was not forming a religion. he never even claimed to BE the messiah!

We don't actually know WHAT he said of course. All we have are "n'th-hand" reports, written down between about 30 and 80 years after his death by people in a different country who spoke a different language, and who are extremely unlikely ever to have met anyone who knew or saw the man. Chinese whispers taken to extremes.

[GlennD]

Elfwreck, I agree with you, just explaining the thought process as I understand it. I think for the most part the statement in the GOP platform is aimed at soldiers (which is why the statement continues directly into "honor all of those that serve and protect "), although some people do think it should apply to civilians as well.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Soldiers are no more permitted to commit criminal acts in other countries, or upon their citizens, than anyone else. There are international guidelines and treaties about how prisoners should be treated; any nation that fails to follow them leaves its soldiers open to civil prosecution instead of the military courts.

"All nations are equal, but some are more equal than others." The right-wingers think America is above the law and above accountability, and for now, at least, might continues to make right. This century will be a humbling experience for the jingoists as our power and wealth and influence over the rest of the world continues it's current plummet. (This century will belong to China, and maybe India.)

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Graham

I've had a dig. Wikipedia has more information on the situation between the US and the International Criminal Court.

Graham

Thank you, that saved me a little digging.

There have also been some cases where US judges cited decisions in foreign courts in their own decisions, which most conservatives would think is objectionable from a sovereignty standpoint. See this link for more info (it's more historical than current; I'll try to find some recent cases where this was an issue).

[Graham]

Originally Posted by GlennD

There have also been some cases where US judges cited decisions in foreign courts in their own decisions, which most conservatives would think is objectionable from a sovereignty standpoint. See this link for more info (it's more historical than current; I'll try to find some recent cases where this was an issue).

Interesting; that is a complex issue, and not something I've ever thought about.

Graham

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HarryT

All sockpuppets of terrazoids. All now banned. Terrazoids has now been banned permanently.

Just out of curiosity, was terrazoids MR Mathias? All this happened just after he was banned, and yesterday I was suspicious of that. But now that I see that JamesRead was MR Mathias, too (which he just admitted in his soon to disappear JameRed account, after being deleted as JamesReed, after being banned as JamesRead) I'm thinking that he was terrazoids and company even more than ever.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We don't actually know WHAT he said of course. All we have are "n'th-hand" reports, written down between about 30 and 80 years after his death by people in a different country who spoke a different language, and who are extremely unlikely ever to have met anyone who knew or saw the man. Chinese whispers taken to extremes.

true enough. but even with the closest read of any of the scriptures the claims were never made

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Just out of curiosity, was terrazoids MR Mathias? All this happened just after he was banned, and yesterday I was suspicious of that. But now that I see that JamesRead was MR Mathias, too (which he just admitted in his soon to disappear JameRed account, after being deleted as JamesReed, after being banned as JamesRead) I'm thinking that he was terrazoids and company even more than ever.

boy that's a mouth full!

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Just out of curiosity, was terrazoids MR Mathias? All this happened just after he was banned, and yesterday I was suspicious of that. But now that I see that JamesRead was MR Mathias, too (which he just admitted in his soon to disappear JameRed account, after being deleted as JamesReed, after being banned as JamesRead) I'm thinking that he was terrazoids and company even more than ever.

And a JamesReat has just popped up...

Graham

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you perhaps mean the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault? I'm not familiar with the practice of "labelling" a person with their political beliefs in this way.

My point being that Foucault is some variety of Marxist. The Stearns academy in Los Angeles had a year in which they revolved their curriculum around his works.

I can go on and on giving examples of liberal bias in California schools.

And nobody in Texas is banning books. They adopt a standard. Books have to meet that standard. California does the same thing. Do they "ban" books?

[ardeegee]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...tion_hey_t.php

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Just out of curiosity, was terrazoids MR Mathias? All this happened just after he was banned, and yesterday I was suspicious of that. But now that I see that JamesRead was MR Mathias, too (which he just admitted in his soon to disappear JameRed account, after being deleted as JamesReed, after being banned as JamesRead) I'm thinking that he was terrazoids and company even more than ever.

I don't think so. I was exchanging polite PMs with terrazoids when he was banned, about religion; JamesRead sent a flurry of short, offensive messages with an entirely different writing style.

As ebooks get more popular, MR is going to get more mainstream attention, and more random trolls who have only an incidental interest in ebooks. I'm not surprised by two in a single week.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by nguirado

And nobody in Texas is banning books. They adopt a standard. Books have to meet that standard. California does the same thing. Do they "ban" books?

Well, yes. By definition if you set a standard and a particular textbook does not meet that standard then it is banned from being used officially, at least until it is updated until it is deemed suitable.

The point isn't the banning, it's the reasoning behind the banning.

Graham

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I can go on and on giving examples of liberal bias in California schools.

And nobody in Texas is banning books. They adopt a standard. Books have to meet that standard. California does the same thing. Do they "ban" books?

I'll agree with the liberal bias in CA schools; it's one of the reasons I put up with the cost of living here.

And yes--not "banning" books. Using their buying power to influence the market, which every consumer, at whatever level, has the right to do. If they want books of a certain type, they have the right to tell publishers "change them, or we won't buy them."

This does mean that smaller states get squeezed out of the process. The solution isn't to force the big states to change their standards (although it might include forcing them to keep their standards in line with more of their populace, rather than the most vocal majority); solutions might include more small-press publishers who are able to cater their productions to smaller groups, or shifting educational standards to allow for more regional variations (get rid of national standardized tests), or splitting big states into multiple smaller states.

TX has the right to do this (it never will; it'd lose too much political power); CA would nicely split into Southern, Northern & Jefferson, three regions with vastly conflicting political goals and social standards.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...tion_hey_t.php

The link from that through to the refutation of the 'facts' in the resolution is worth adding here too:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...n_Brief_LH.pdf

Graham