Oh Belushi your rant was lol!

Here's a news story about the avoidance of sensitive history lessons by
schools in the UK:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1600686.ece

"Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence

Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and
the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause
offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.

A lack of factual knowledge among some teachers, particularly in primary
schools, is also leading to “shallow” lessons on emotive and difficult
subjects, according to the study by the Historical Association.

The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education,
said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial
history, their motives were generally well intentioned.

“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to
individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers
of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged
versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their
community or in a place of worship,” it concluded.

However, it was concerned that this could lead to divisions within
school, and that it might also put pupils off history."

Update on the sailors time in Iran:

"The British sailors and marines held captive for nearly two weeks in
Iran were blindfolded, bound and faced constant psychological pressure,
a Royal Navy lieutenant said Friday.

“All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and
presented with two options. If we admitted that we’d strayed, we’d be on
a plane to (Britain) pretty soon,” Carman said. “If we didn’t, we faced
up to seven years in prison.”

‘They rammed our boats’
Royal Marine Capt. Chris Air said the crew of 15, which was out on a
routine operation on March 23, was confronted by members of Iran’s
Revolutionary Guard.

“They rammed our boats, and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs, and
weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us,” Air said. “We
realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one
we could not have won, with consequences that would have major strategic
impacts. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians....”

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday that the
Britons would be released—a breakthrough in a crisis that had raised oil
prices and escalated fears of military conflict in the volatile region.
The move suggested Iran’s hard-line leadership had decided it had shown
its strength but did not want to push the standoff too far.

But Iran did not get the main thing it sought—a public apology for
entering Iranian waters. Britain insists it never offered a deal,
instead relying on quiet and sometimes silent diplomacy.

Countries ranging from Syria to Colombia pressed Iran for the release of
the crew, whose capture began at the start of Iranian new year
celebrations.

“By the time the senior Iranian leaders were getting back from their
holiday, they were finding that their phone was ringing off the hook and
they were finding that an awful lot of countries—including some quarters
they weren’t expecting—were ringing them and saying they were in the
wrong place and they should be releasing the people quickly,” the
official said, on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of
the situation."


Hmm... it looks like the hostage was bad left Iran with a worse image
and as a public relations move released the Brits.

Looks like the Brits didn't fall in to Iran's trap to apologize. But if
only the sailors hung in there and stayed silent then Iran would have
looked bad in the eyes of their own people.

I've heard that in England that they're very politically correct. In
schools for instance "Bah, Bah, Black Sheep" nursery rhythem was change
to "Bah, Bah, Rainbow sheep" so that none of the black children would
feel left out. In school they don't teach the history of the Crusades
because it could stir up anti-muslim sentiment, the same with
colonization period of parts of African, India, Asia. The Holocaust is
not taught either because of the fear of muslim anger of those who deny
it ever happened. Gaps of history about the British Empire are left out
in order to not offend anyone.
It seems that Brits want to avoid conflict before it happens and it
could make them appear weak. In light of the salior hostage situation,
with some of the saliors "confessing" and appearing in "good spirits" on
the cammera it doesn't help British image as a strong nation.

I only been here a little while but long "winded" condenscending
statements have a familar tone of filabustering. Your not going to win
over with you arguments only strengthen the other side resolve that way.
It's akin to starting a fight instead of reasoning and swaying opinion.

Not to sound so dire but this asteroid mention here is not a global kill
per say. But it's big enough to potencialy cause over $400 billion
dollar worth of damage along the Califorina coast and into Mexico. They
say the chances of it hitting is 1 in 10,000 chance, but that the same
odds of a guy getting into a car accident.

From the Space Review"

"While many people spent the final days before Christmas 2004 preparing
for the holiday, the small group of astronomers devoted to studies of
near Earth objects (NEOs) focused their attention instead on a
newly-discovered asteroid, 2004 MN4. That small asteroid, orbit
calculations showed, had a small but non-zero chance of colliding with
the Earth on April 13, 2029—a Friday, no less."

"...by Christmas Eve the chance of a 2029 collision was 1-in-60, giving
2004 MN4 a rating of 4 on the 0-to-10 Torino Scale of asteroid impact
hazards, the highest such score to date."

"...archival images of 2004 MN4 dating back to March 2004, months before
its discovery, further refined its orbit and ruled out any chance of a
collision in 2029..."

But we're not out of the woods yet. "....While the asteroid poses no
impact threat to the Earth in 2029, it will pass within about 30,000
kilometers of the planet—closer than satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
That passage will be close enough to allow the Earth’s gravity to
significantly alter the asteroid’s orbit. The change in the asteroid’s
orbit will depend on exactly how close to the Earth 2004 MN4 approaches,
a degree of precision not yet possible with the currently-known orbit of
the object."

"...focused on a particular scenario where the 2029 flyby puts 2004 MN4
on a new orbit with a 7:6 resonance with the Earth’s: the asteroid would
complete six orbits of the Sun in the time it takes the Earth to
complete seven. That would bring the asteroid back into the vicinity of
the Earth in 2036.

"... if 2004 MN4 passes through a “keyhole” in the error ellipse just
640 meters across—about twice the diameter of the asteroid itself—the
object would enter a trajectory that would result in a collision with
the Earth on April 13, 2036."

Which brings me up to this question. Suppose an asteriod that's been
traveling through the cosmos since the dawn of civilization is now
heading towards earth. Could that asteriod, traveling since the dawn of
creation be God's will for man's Armagedon? And suppose man has the
techology to alter the direction of the asteroid (man's hope to alter
his destiny) would that attempt go agaist God's will? Coversely could
God have given man's intelligence to prevent the destruction of earth
(God created man to take care of the earth)?

During the 50s conservates were in power. The Red Scare, McCarthy
hearings.

In the 60s the pendlum swung to the to the liberals. Civil Rights era,
counter culture revolution, "flower power."

The 70s was mix of the two. Workfare not welfare by Nixion, the end of
Vietman war, anti-nuclear weapons prolification pact signed, Watergate,
the sexual revolution.

80s was clearly convservate times. End of Communism in Europe,
corporations received more power, Regan's trickle down economy failure
and increased homelessness leads to...

...the 90s liberal power play for president. Economic reforms lead to
national economic surge. Internet is the new media and new cash cow for
tech stocks. Gun control law, the Brady bill, is proposed and passed.
But Republican take control of Congress.

The 00's... the conversatives divide nation in 2000's presidential
election. 9/11 causes War on Terrorism. The tension between europe and
US rises due the Iraq war. The US ignores the rise of socialist
popularity in South America. Increase anti US resentment around the
world. Poor US military management in Iraq and Republican scandels lead
Democrats to take control of congress.

The 2010s....

What are your predictions for the next ten years?

"just did a google search and the number of states won by Bush in 2000
was 31 so all the states are now accounted for."

I think you caught the fuzz math bug, Gore won 20, Bush. New Mexico went
to Gore.

Was the US ever really a true democracy when you consider that it's the
electoral college that chooses the presidency and not the people who
actually vote?

Gore won the popular vote, Bush won by the electoral college.

It was the founding fathers who thought that American populace couldn't
choose who the president would be. So they instead placed a electoral
college to do so.

"Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29"
19 + 29 = 48 A total of 48 states?

Professor Joseph Olson must be using Fuzzy math because there are 50
states not 48.

The difference between Creationism and Evolution:
Creationism explain the WHY.
WHY there are humans on this earth? The answer to creationists is that
God was lonely and He created man to fill that emptiness. They take this
belief on faith. It gives them belief in spirit, a purpose to live and
it inspires them. Conversely one can say man, through blind faith, needs
God to give him purpose to live.

Evolution explains the HOW.
HOW humans came in to being on this earth? To evolution proponents that
answer is evolution. A graduate transition from chemicals interacting in
a pond of "goo" to, and through billions of years of evolution, the
present day plants and animals. Animals which are at a basic level are
walking breathing sacks of chemicals.
God is not nessarily in the equation. Those in scientific field are
interested in how the universe came into being in all of it's
complexities. Scientists can not believe on "blind faith" alone because
"blind faith" is not based on facts. Their purpose for living is to
explain the universe to prove God existance.

Fedman: "fitnessfanatic insects and viruses do not evolve, they mutate,
there is a difference"

Mutation and evolution are almost the same thing. When a mutation
occurs, depending on whether it's benificial or not to the organism it
changes the circumstances of the survival of it's self and possibility
of have more offspring. Say a cat developes a stripe coat of fur caused
by a mutation, and this new stripe coat helps in staying camoflagued
while hunting, this is a benefit. That mutation cause the cat to evolve
and eventually that cat will have great, great, great x100,000
grandchildern that are tigers. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Adaption is one of the main forces of evolution. Why don't you read a
book instead of making a statement that proves my point.

Skyscapers aren't living beings, Roads aren't living being. They can't
repoduce. And even with the odds of 1 out of a 100 trillion for life to
"sprout", there are billions of years for it to eventually happen. Given
enough time "life will find a way" Perhaps if you look at a different,
though, one can say that the law of evolution is one of God's law of
nature.

There is evidence of evolution today. Today's insects are far more
resistance to bugs sprays of the past. We have to keep creating a more
toxic chemicals to kill them. Also viruses have also become resistance
to the older anti-biotics so new anti-biotics have to be develop.

The reason is that insects and viruses have shorter generations cycles
than other animals, so they evolve faster.

There your evidence of evolution.

McCain is BIG on National Security but he's also BIG on apologies. Some
have speculated that he'll apologize to win votes. Remember he said
sorry to Vietnam Vets for signing US war agression that the Viet Cong
gave him while as a POW, though he WAS torchered for it.

Hmm... John Edwards. Though I think he might another Al Gore, he does
come from a southern state where as the last 2 Democratic elected
Presidents were from the south.

Who would you like to win the Democratic Presidential nomination if
McCain won Republican Presidential nomination? Or if Giliani (fromer NYC
mayor) won?

Who do you want to win the Republican presidential nomination if Ms.
Clinton won the Democratic nomination? Or if Obama won the Democratic
nomination?