Toadfish Monastery

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 20, 2012, 09:18:06 AM
Do you have the web addresses for the online catalogue(s)?
Any concrete info (author, title etc.)?

http://www.ub.hu-berlin.de/standorte/archiv/
I'm looking for Karl Leonard Falk's file. The article I found it referenced in didn't give a link or a way to find it at all (it just said it's in the University of Berlin's possession). I have the names of a textbook he wrote for HU and his doctoral dissertation, but I'm not particularly interested in the contents of either, per se, so much as the rest of his file (letters, apparently, details of his doings/travels when he was the Reich's pet American, etc.). Some of it only became available once the Berlin Wall fell, if that helps somehow.

Edit: Oops.
Berlin Universitatsbibliothek Archiv certified copies of official documentation of immatrikulation of Karl L. Falk No. 802 05-10-32; resume; travel records; employment record; diploma, records, and correspondence,commendations, requests, academic examinations

From Thinkprogress

QuoteThe Roberts Court is rightly mocked for its seemingly single-minded willingness to immunize corporations from the laws intended to protect ordinary Americans, but the question presented in a corporate immunity case the justices just agreed to hear is so stark that a decision granting such immunity would verge on self-parody. Or, at least, it would if the consequences of such a decision wouldn't be so tragic and far-reaching.

Indeed, as Judge Pierre Leval explains, if the Supreme Court upholds a Second Circuit decision holding that corporations have total immunity from a law holding the most atrocious human rights violators accountable to international norms, it would enable corporations to profit freely from some of the greatest acts of evil imaginable:

QuoteAccording to the rule my colleagues have created, one who earns profits by commercial exploitation of abuse of fundamental human rights can successfully shield those profits from victims' claims for compensation simply by taking the precaution of conducting the heinous operation in the corporate form. Without any support in either the precedents or the scholarship of international law, the majority take the position that corporations, and other juridical entities, are not subject to international law, and for that reason such violators of fundamental human rights are free to retain any profits so earned without liability to their victims. [...]

    The new rule offers to unscrupulous businesses advantages of incorporation never before dreamed of. So long as they incorporate (or act in the form of a trust), businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot's political opponents, or engage in piracy – all without civil liability to victims. By adopting the corporate form, such an enterprise could have hired itself out to operate Nazi extermination camps or the torture chambers of Argentina's dirty war, immune from civil liability to its victims. By protecting profits earned through abuse of fundamental human rights protected by international law, the rule my colleagues have created operates in opposition to the objective of international law to protect those rights.

The centerpiece of this case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, is a U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute which allows private parties to be sued for the very worst violations of international law. Nothing in this law distinguishes between violations by actual persons and violations by corporations — and indeed a footnote in a 2004 Supreme Court opinion strongly suggests that the opposite is true. Nor is there any international legal consensus granting lawsuit immunity to corporations. Rather, the Second Circuit's majority seems to have invented a new corporate immunity doctrine out of whole cloth.

Moreover, lest there be any doubt, Judge Leval's warning of the consequences of their decision is not hypothetical. Earlier this year, the DC Circuit parted ways with Leval's colleagues — holding that corporations are not free to commit mass atrocities. Had the court gone the other way, it would have completed immunized Exxon from allegations that their agents committed shocking human rights violations while in Exxon's employ:

QuoteIn addition to extrajudicial killings of some of the plaintiffs-appellants' husbands as part of a "systematic campaign of extermination of the people of Aceh by [d]efendants' [Indonesian] security forces," the plaintiffs-appellants were "beaten, burned, shocked with cattle prods, kicked and subjected to other forms of brutality and cruelty" amounting to torture, as well as forcibly removed and detained for lengthy periods of time.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider this issue, Exxon gets another bite at the apple. If the Roberts Court rules their way, Exxon may be the first corporation to celebrate the birth of Leval's nightmare scenario.

"Dreadfully sorry, but the bottom line requires the death/enslavement of you/your family/your town/your people. Here, here's a shovel; dig the grave and get in/run along to the factory now."

There's an old family recipe for this, which I'm not using, but might next time if this doesn't work out. This is a very imprecise version, but that's ok. I started it two days ago, fyi, and it's already started developing alcohol.

Dump a bunch of sugar in the bottom of a glass jar. Carefully wash and halve nine ripe peaches - leave the pits in, though. Layer them in the jar, adding more sugar between layers. When you've got everything in there, add enough water to fill it up to an inch from the top. Poke a hole in the lid (because this stuff will bubble really, really fast and you don't want the jar to explode) and put it away some place dry and cool.

That's all I've done so far. I tried a little bit of it a couple minutes ago and it's delicious. I'm not calling it done until February, though. I'll let everyone know how it goes.

I has them. PM me your (gmail) address if you want one.

Quote(CNN) -- The mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on American soil is dead, U.S. President Barack Obama announced late Sunday night, almost 10 years after the attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

Osama bin Laden -- the longtime leader of al Qaeda -- was killed by U.S. forces in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad along with other family members, a senior U.S. official told CNN.

U.S. officials have taken custody of bin Laden's body, Obama said. No Americans were harmed in the operation, he added.

Up-to-the-minute updates on bin Laden | President's statement

U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world were placed on high alert following the announcement of bin Laden's death, a senior U.S. official said, and the U.S. State Department should be sending out a new "worldwide caution" for Americans shortly. Some fear al Qaeda supporters may try to retaliate against U.S. citizens or U.S. institutions.

Hundreds of people arrived at the White House late Sunday night and chanted, "USA! USA!" They then chanted, "Hey, hey, goodbye!" in reference to the demise of bin Laden and then spontaneously sang the national anthem.

Osama bin Laden, the face of terror

"This welcome news is a credit to our intelligence efforts and brings to justice the architect of the attacks on our country that killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, in a statement issued Sunday night.

The news brought some relief to the grieving family members of those killed on 9/11.

Celebrations in front of the White House Video

"This is important news for us, and for the world. It cannot ease our pain, or bring back our loved ones," Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93, said in a statement. "It does bring a measure of comfort that the mastermind of the September 11th tragedy and the face of global terror can no longer spread his evil."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.dead/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Up to the minute here
I'm really happy for the 9/11 families right now, more than anything. I know a woman who lost four members and she's ecstatic right now.

Prediction tiem!

A rash of suicide attacks in Afghanistan, in which a few Americans and a lot of locals will die. No real turmoil in Pakistan. Obama's numbers will jump and then when people start calling for us to withdraw, it won't happen and his rating will drop. Increased likelihood of a Repug president next time. Repugs in general will worship Bush for starting this (and the fool's errand that is Iraq). al Qeada will not actually be affected, or if they are, it will be because they get more volunteers. bin Laden was quite ill (iirc), so I don't think he was much involved with the major stuff anymore. And it's the many headed hydra thing, too. Someone will step into his shoes.

I hate Republicans.

QuoteWASHINGTON -- On Thursday, the House took up the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010. The bill would ensure that child marriage is recognized as a human rights violation, and develop comprehensive strategies to prevent such marriages around the world. The legislation seemed likely to garner strong bipartisan support in Congress, and in the Senate, it did. But last night, the bill was voted down in the House by Republicans who argued the bill is too costly and could lead to increased abortions -- gripes the measure's supporters say have no basis in reality and are just excuses to kill the popular bill.

The measure, introduced by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), passed the Senate by unanimous consent and attracted a list of 42 cosponsors, including Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). It also had the support of nonpartisan groups like the YWCA. On Dec. 6, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post, praising the United States for stepping up: "This act illustrates how support for securing a just and healthy life for every woman and girl transcends politics."

The House version, introduced by Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), had 112 cosponsors. What's interesting is that some of them -- such as Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) -- actually voted against the bill. In the end, only 12 Republicans backed the measure; nine Democrats defected to the GOP side. So what happened?

This week, a GOP whip alert went out about the child marriage legislation, saying that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Committee on Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) all oppose it. The email:

    S. 987 authorizes $108 million over 5 years without sufficient oversight of the taxpayers' money. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no available, confirmed figure on how much taxpayer funding is already being used to fight child marriage in developing countries and this bill does not address that issue.

    In contrast, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen has introduced H.R. 6521, which would result in no more than $1 million in potential costs, while making it clear that child marriage is a violation of human rights and that its prevention should be a goal of US foreign policy; requiring the creation of a multi-year strategy; requiring a comprehensive assessment of what the United States is already doing and funding in the effort to fight child marriage; and requiring that the practice of child marriage in other countries be reported each year as part of the annual Human Rights Report.

   There are also concerns that funding will be directed to NGOs that promote and perform abortion and efforts to combat child marriage could be usurped as a way to overturn pro-life laws.

The prevalence of child marriage remains alarmingly high worldwide. As CARE, a leading humanitarian organization fighting global poverty and supporting the child marriage prevention bill notes, "More than 60 million girls ages 17 and younger -- many as young as 10 -- are forced into marriage in developing countries. Many of these girls are married to men more than twice their age. Not only does this unacceptable practice thwart a girl's education, it endangers her health and often locks her into a life of poverty."

On Thursday, Durbin's office put out a statement sharply criticizing the House's failure to pass the bill: "The action on the House floor stopping the Child Marriage bill tonight will endanger the lives of millions of women and girls around the world. These young girls, enslaved in marriage, will be brutalized and many will die when their young bodies are torn apart while giving birth. Those who voted to continue this barbaric practice brought shame to Capitol Hill.

GOP concerns over abortion and the cost of the bill are puzzling. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $67 million over the 2011-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting S. 987 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation."

Conor Williams writes in The Washington Post blog PostPartisan, "How can Republicans explain efforts to defeat a human rights bill because of $67 million in potential spending while simultaneously pushing for a tax cut deal for wealthy Americans that will add $858 billion to the deficit? Is this at all credible?"

On abortion, the bill never mentions either "family planning" or "abortion."

Friday morning, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the bill, took the House floor and called out his Republican colleagues for their objections to the measure, saying such arguments amounted to nothing but politics:

Quote
    Yesterday, I was on the floor, and I was a co-sponsor with a piece of legislation with the Gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, that would have moved money -- no new money -- would have moved money so that societies that are coercing young girls into marriage, we could build them latrines so they could go to school. Or we could make sure that they stay in school so they're not forced into marriage at the age of 12 and 13.

    But all of a sudden, there was a fiscal argument. When that didn't work, then people had to add an abortion element to it. Look, this is a partisan place. I'm a Republican. I'm glad we beat their butt in the election; we're going to be in the majority next year. But there comes a time when enough is enough, and McCollum's bill was a good bill last night. ... We should stop the nonsense, approve the bill and move on.

I am appalled but not shocked. House Republicans are only pandering to NIMBY-I-don't-care-they-ain't-white-and-it's-my-money fuckers who make up part of their base and it's absolutely vile. I mean, I realize that some of them don't value women - their autonomy, their equality, their quality of life - or even see them as real people - but this is the worst. Absolute worst. PARTICULARLY because these assholes will promptly turn around and use child marriage as fuel for their hate and justification for it. There's a long history of colonial powers using the treatment of women in the societies they've taken over to justify their own treatment of those people, while not actually treating their women that much better (sure, she has better over all living conditions, but you sure think she's not much smarter than a damned gorilla) and this is pretty much the same behavior in places we're not actually colonizing.

I can't even think of a way to comment on the abortion thing. I really can't. It's flabbergasting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maoFv4bleV0
(the coding wasn't working, or more likely, I have forgotten how)
Kindly watch this and give me feed back! The sound quality is kind of rough and there's some editing I need to re-do, but any thing else I can improve on?

If you hear one say something that makes you want to laugh, scream, shake, or slap them, post it here.

Christine O'Donnell lost, but here's one anyway:

QuoteNIES: I tell them to be careful. You have to wear a condom. You have to protect yourself when you're going to have sex, because they're having it anyway...There's nothing that you or me can do about it.

O'DONNELL: The sad reality is -- yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not --

NIES: You're going to stop the whole country from having sex?

O'DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah!

So, I have done every single thing I can think of to get rid of the fucking thing.  I have uninstalled the program, I have uninstalled spyware terminator, I have uninstalled firefox, I have made google my default search engine three separate times, I have removed crawler from the search engine list, and IT STILL USES IT WHEN I SEARCH USING THE URL BAR. It's not in my toolbar menu, it's absolutely no where I can find, or I would have removed it already.




Help?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i266ae09ea03f4027cccdd97e17eb34c1

Quote
Proposition 8 was overturned today by a federal judge, who ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in California.

The judge said that the proposition was unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.

Ellen DeGeneres reacted to the ruling with a jubilant tweet, saying, "This just in: Equality won!"

Such Hollywood heavyweights as producer Bruce Cohen, director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner and writer Dustin Lance Black played a key role in bringing together the two attorneys, Theodore Olson and David Boies, who took on the case, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Filed by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, the plaintiffs' suit argued that Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008, was an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

The ruling by Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, sided with the plaintiffs.

Reacting to the ruling, Olson said that he hoped the case would "make a change in this country so that gay and lesbian individuals are treated with the respect that other citizens take for granted and the freedoms that other citizens take for granted. We hope that that will be the outcome at the end of this trail."

Cohen -- an Oscar winner as producer of "American Beauty" and a producer of the upcoming Oscar show -- sits on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights along with the Reiners and Black. The nonprofit, headed by political activist Chad Griffin, was created to help steer the case through the courts.

"It's a great moment," Cohen said of the judge's ruling, which he was still working his way through early Wednesday afternoon. "We were hoping that Judge Walker, when he heard all the evidence which we heard in court, would come to the conclusion that there is no doubt that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, but to have it be official and to see it the actual court documents is incredibly thrilling and exciting."

He praised Olson and Boies, who had famously faced off against each other before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, which decided the contested presidential election, but who joined forces to challenge Prop. 8.

"Having met them, spent time with them and heard them both argue in court, it's hard to describe the complete brilliance and dedication that they bring to this case," he said. "Our hope was that we could get a ruling very much like this one."

The case is expected to be appealed and eventually to find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And as I hear it, the judge is denying the defense's motion for a stay. 

So Robert and I were IMing each other and cooked up this silly little movie idea today, based on le Sapeurs. We thought we'd put it before you, dear siblings, for a NAY or YEA vote as to whether it's an idea worth pursuing.

Setting: The Congo

Premise: Etu is the sole survivor of a recently burned down village. This was done on the orders of Geslin Kabuli, the Fashion Warlord, who also a Seeker of the Relics Moste Fashionable (items which bring the wearer immense power), because another Seeker (Yang Wang) was hiding there. Yang, after the fires have died down, wanders the village and finds Etu, who is sitting in the ruins of his home and nearly blind with grief. He promises to train Etu in karate so that he might avenge his family and friends. Geslin, however wields the Fancy Sword of Instantaneous Death, so he must train hard. Also, it must be said that Geslin has broken the Code of Fashionable Gentlemen by personally participating in combat (All members of the Cult of Fashionable Gentlemen, known to the unenlightened in these days as le Sapeurs, must live by the code of Fashionable Gentlemen).

It turns out that Geslin (and many others) are seeking the Cuff Links of God, which will grant absolute power to whoever wears them. The other Seekers are  Abu Khan, the Sorcerer of Style and his lefthand lady, the Leopard Skin Jacket Woman; Gegiel the fallen angel (who wants to use the Cuff Links to open the gates of hell); The Boss/Mr. Makubwa; and The Pimp, Manjano Biri.

Cast:
Etu Mwanamume: Our Hero


Yang Wang: Sidekick, mentor, Karate master!


Geslin Kabuli: the Fashion Warlord


Abu Khan: the Sorcerer of Style


The Leopard Skin Jacket Woman: Abu Khan's Lefthand Woman.


Gegiel: Fallen Angel


The Boss/Mr. Makubwa


and his Four: front man, Nili, and back row, right to left: Batamwanzi (Bata), Damushati (Shati), and Kidogo.


The Pimp: Manjano Biri


Tommy Gun Wielder: Baya Degaga


Driver of The Pimpmobile:Refu Tai


The Pimpmobile



So. Thoughts?

via BoingBoing

Quote from: article
Daniel sez, "I made an Undertaking (subway) map for Ankh-Morpork [ed: Terry Pratchett's imaginary city, from the Discworld books], set about 50 years in the future (from canon 'now'). I took some liberties with names of places, given the time gap. For instance, Dolly Sisters has become Dollisters, the Whore Pits has become Harpits. Locations are based on the canonical Ankh-Morpork map. Note that the logo is actually octarine -- your monitor may not calibrated to display that color properly."

The concluding sequence from Making Money implies that the next project for Moist von Lipwig will be this subway -- that's a book I'm anxious to read.

Me, too!

A bit of background: I've been unemployed since October and I thought I had picked up a little bit of a gig from my high school debate coach. She's consistently disappointed and angered me (not telling me when practice was canceled on multiple occasions (it's a two-mile bike ride out there), ignoring my texts/emails*, never treating me professionally, etc.) and taken advantage of my willingness to help, but there was the promise of money, so I stuck around.


I was promised $250 minimum. Then it dropped to $200 because of the money problems the district was having (that school, being poor, is getting the short end of the stick) and I was ok with that, sort of - if there's nothing she can do, why get mad? Then there was the garage sale to raise the amount for myself and the other girl working for her. I got my payment today - $200 square. I know $80 was made from that sale - she told me that, anyway. Where's my $40? It's not a lot, but I have no money. Every little bit helps and I more than earned my keep (three 12 hour days, one 18 hour day, and 2.5 hour days twice a week from October to about February - works out to about two grand, assuming $8/hour).

Oh yes, and then she doesn't need me next year ("after much deliberation" my foot - I was never an employee in her eyes and I doubt it was very hard all things considered). I'm fairly sure she picked someone else for the second position and I will wheedle the answer out of the person I think it is. If she had given me a straight answer, I wouldn't be nearly so pissed. She asked me to keep in touch, too. Once I get a letter of rec out of her in the fall for school applications - which I will guilt her into if I have to - I'm dropping all contact with her because this is the last straw. She's flaky, unprofessional, disorganized, inconsiderate, and I really don't want to deal with it anymore. I should have known better to begin with - I've known her seven years and none of this is new, so I suppose it's my own fool fault for accepting the offer.

*she jumps to answer texts and emails from other former students and yet, would rarely answer mine. That should have been a freakin' clue.

Really useful if you tend to fritter time away uselessly online.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4476

You can add the page to the list and block it for certain times (ie, mine is everyday, from midnight to 5pm) and there's even a way that will let you unblock it for (x) amount of time every hour or every few hours.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-korea-sunk-south-korean-warship-killing-46-sailors/story-e6frfkyi-1225856989612

Quote
AN elite North Korean suicide squad of human torpedoes may have been involved in the sinking of a South Korean ship in mysterious circumstances.

South Korea's Defence Intelligence Command had alerted the Navy weeks ahead of the sinking that North Korean suicide squads were being deployed, according to reports in Seoul, Sky News reports

The "Human torpedo" squads were said to involve small submarines, Sky News reports.

They are navigated so close to the target that their torpedoes or explosives blow up both target and the attackers.

They can also be timed to explode while the attackers escape from the vessel, the mass-circulation South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported.

The attack by North Korea on the 1200-tonne Cheonan claimed the lives of more than 40 sailors and  was in retaliation for an earlier naval defeat, the report added.

"It is the military intelligence's assessment that the North attacked with a heavy torpedo," a military source was quoted as saying by the news agency Yonhap.

"The military intelligence has made the report to the Blue House - the Presidential residence - and to the Defence Ministry immediately after the sinking of the Cheonan that it is clearly the work of North Korea's military," the source added.

South Korea now plans to raise the front half of the Cheonan, which went down near a disputed sea border with North Korea.

It will issue its verdict on the cause of the explosion that sank the warship after that.

If Pyongyang did carry out the attack it would be the deadliest confrontation between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.

The North has denied it had anything to do with the sinking.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13141

Quote
Last week, the Utah House and Senate passed a bill that would make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and would in most instances make induced abortion a crime. The bill still needs the signature of the governor to be signed into law, but already it is causing concern across the United States.

The bill amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state [t]o charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The case on which the bill was based was one in which a 17-year-old girl who was seven months pregnant paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. She gave birth and later gave the child up for adoption, but was initially charged with attempted murder. The charges, however, were dropped because under Uta[h] law at the time, a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, whether it was lawful or unlawful. The bill recently passed by Uta[h] legislature would change that.

The bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, but it does criminalize the actions taken by a woman to induce a miscarriage or an abortion outside a doctor's care. Penalties range up to life in prison.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the bill is a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by so-called "reckless" behavior. Under the "reckless behavior" standard, an attorney only needs to show that the woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she did not intend to lose the pregnancy. Under this law, if a woman drinks too much and has a miscarriage, she could face prosecution.

Many states have fetal homicide laws, most of which apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill, however, would apply through the entire duration of a woman's pregnancy. Even common first trimester miscarriages could trigger a murder trial.

The bill does exempt from prosecution fetal deaths due to failure to follow medical advice, accept treatment, or refuse a cesarean section.

Oh, yes, let's investigate every single miscarriage to see if she meant to loose her baby. Or hell, if her untied shoelaces made her fall down the stairs, let's charge her with murder! Why yes indeed, a life sentence will make all those reckless, clumsy mothers tie their shoes properly!

Ok, not really, but-!

I've mentioned I want to teach high school history, right? From here.

Quote(Jan. 19) – "History is written by the victors," Winston Churchill famously said. In Texas, that may mean removing mention of Ted Kennedy and Cesar Chavez from textbooks in favor of new entries on the National Rifle Association and Phyllis Schlafly.

For much of the past year, the Texas State Board of Education has been considering changes to its social studies curriculum, hearing from community members and debating alterations to the way the state will teach history.

Jack Plunkett, AP
"I don't see any evidence that people are pursuing any political or personal agendas," Gail Lowe, the chair of the Texas State Board of Education, told The Daily Texan newspaper.

Many on the board, which is made up of 10 Republicans and five Democrats, seem to have concluded that Texas' classrooms have been infected with a liberal bias. As a result, the board has spent numerous hours hearing from members of the community on subjects such as whether labor activist Chavez and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall deserve space in history textbooks alongside founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin.

Also at issue is whether Christianity deserves more classroom time in the Lone Star State, and whether Abraham Lincoln deserves so much.

Last week, the board voted 7-6 to make some changes, so that the state standards will mandate that lessons include the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including anti-feminism advocate Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.

It wasn't clear which grades would be affected.

In a written statement, the measure's sponsor, board member Don McLeroy, explained why he believes the current textbooks are unacceptable and needed revising.

"These standards are rife with leftist political periods and events: the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society," McLeroy wrote. "Including material about the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s provides some political balance to the document."

McLeroy also succeeded in making changes to how Sen. Joseph McCarthy will be taught, painting the man – whose use of Congress to investigate alleged communist behavior in the 1950s has been widely repudiated – in a more favorable light.

The board's preliminary vote has met with some opposition.

"When partisan politicians take a wrecking ball to the work of teachers and scholars, you get a document that looks more like a party platform than a social studies curriculum," Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that monitors public education in the state, told the Houston Chronicle.

The final vote on the new standards will be held in May. There are 4 million children in the Texas public school system, making it the second-largest market for textbooks in the country. As a result, changes to the Texas curriculum are likely to impact other states as well.

I mean, oh yes, let's remove important things that ARE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE in favor of making Texas the most conservative state ever* from the ground up. Also? The article mentions that because of Texas's market size it will effect the rest of the country's text books. So let's hear it for a more conservative America; less Lincoln, more Red Scare! Because who doesn't love a man who used Congress to get back at his enemies and destroy lives? (not to mention basically okaying the KKK)
And more Jesus, too. I swear to god this country does not understand the division between church and state most of the time.

This directly effects me and what I'll be allowed to teach. I had already planned to give plenty of extra credit (what we can teach here in the US is terribly narrow because of standardized testing) but now there's even more reason. Gives my future students more opportunity to learn, really.


_{*I swear to god, this is like the Conservative Bible project all over again. "Hey, let's re-write the book we're supposed to live by! It doesn't say what we want it to--it's too liberal! (What's all this about 'love one another'? Sounds like some damn hippie thing to me and Jesus wasn't a hippie.) And as everyone knows, 'comrade' is a dirty word and we can't have the Lord sayin' that."}

Big ol' dose of truthiness.

We're getting another dog! He's a border-aussie mix like the one we already have. We went to look today and we picked this one out:

Everybody's heard about it, I'm sure. What's your opinion? Too early? Undeserved? Why do you think he got it?


_{Edited to correct the title}

AT&T is so screwed. I'm not a fan of the site, but AT&T picked the wrong people to mess with.

What's interesting, is this: "Telcoms have got no liability for illegal things being transmitted over their networks as long as they are completely neutral in serving it. Once they start filtering or censoring, they're responsible for filtering all the bad stuff out." (Project AT&T)

Quote"And in a similar case, Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945), the court stated that absent illegal use, "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." 53 NYS at 131. The court went on to quote approvingly of a California case (People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965) where the police exercised veto power over telephone installations. The California court, found the arrangement unenforceable and stated, "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

Quote"In National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 992, 96 S.Ct. 2203, 48 L.Ed.2d 816 (1976) (NARUC I ), we observed that the essential element of common carriage is the carrier's undertaking " 'to carry for all people indifferently.' " [60] In the communications context, this means providing a service whereby customers may " 'transmit intelligence of their own design and choosing.' " Computer and Communications Industry Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 693 F.2D 198, 209, 224 U.S.APP.D.C. 83 (D.C. Cir. 1982)"

Courtesy of Cybertelecom::Common Carrier and Cybertelecom::Telecom Carriers. Emphasis mine.

Thoughts? Will AT&T back down or is this going to get hilariously bad?