An old cartoon but relevant to today’s blog post!
Why should a religious school that refuses to teach evolution be accredited?
This issue has always bugged me. I support the right of parents to send their kids to a religious school. I believe that under our Constitution you have that right.
However, since school is mandatory, the students need to be taught the basics they need. They need to be taught facts. Otherwise, you’re dooming their future at a time when they cannot make that decision themselves.
If a religious school taught that 1 + 1 = 5, there is no way a state would allow them to continue. But somehow, they can teach that humans and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time and it’s perfectly fine. What nonsense. That’s not education. That’s child abuse.
Sadly, there are even some Christian colleges that do this. You get credit for saying the earth is 6,000 years old. It’s the only school where you can fail by getting the answer right.
So when you see that new picture floating around the internet which purports to show a test where the student is rewarded for this nonsense, remember: It’s not made up. There really are schools like this. And Snopes even confirms it.
And that is something we should all be ashamed of. No wonder the rest of the civilized world beats us in science scores.
I’m happy to see little Rhode Island has just passed a bill extending marriage to all loving couples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/rhode-island-gay-marriage_n_3149877.html
This is democracy. This is not “unelected judges imposing their will on the people.” And this is the future.
I am embarrassed to be in a state that still discriminates, and hope that Pennsylvania will one day join the rest of the civilized world.
It always amazes me how politicians who hate “Big Federal Government” can say with a straight face that people should have few rights when they are accused of a crime. Recently there has been a rash of complaints from these idiots over the fact that the Boston bomber was (gasp) given his Miranda rights.
Last I checked, the first ten amendments weren’t called the Bill of Privileges.
Rights are meaningless if we only give them to people we like. Who needs freedom of speech when you say nothing offensive? Why care about freedom to assemble if you’re just having a picnic? Rights are there for unpopular views and the things we don’t like.
Giving someone the right to remain silent, to see a lawyer, and to not be railroaded by Big Government protects all of us, and keeps us from becoming a police state. I am astounded how conservatives who rail against government “ruling over us” never complain when they rule over us in criminal proceedings.
People also misunderstand Miranda. (I know many of my clients do.) They think that if the police don’t “read you your rights” that the case will be thrown out of court. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Let’s talk about the original Miranda case, which happened in the early 60s. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for suspicion in a terrible kidnapping and rape case. The police took him in and questioned him without a lawyer and without telling Miranda (who barely spoke English) that he had those rights. He eventually confessed. The Supreme Court held that because his confession was not given “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” it could not be used in court. So did he go free? Not at all. They had plenty of other evidence to convict him even without the confession. And he spent years in prison.
There are some times when all the police have is a confession. Then the case would die. I had a case like that. I won, the DA appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and I won again. My client was a scared woman who had never been arrested before, was coerced by an officer and told that if she didn’t confess to a theft, he would handcuff her and drag her out in front of all her co-workers and tell the media. Clearly that was not a “voluntary” confession.
But that doesn’t happen very often.
Generally, police like giving Miranda rights because it protects them. If someone talks after being given the rights, it is practically impossible for an attorney to keep that out of evidence. You’d be surprised how many accused criminals talk before seeing a lawyer, stupidly thinking they can make things better by just telling their side of the story. And then they hire me and I’m stuck with a confession I can’t get rid of.
So let’s celebrate our freedom from unconstitutional violations of our right to remain silent, and cheer the Attorney General’s decision to give this bomber his rights. We are better than the people who attack us. We mean what we say in the Constitution. And we are better Americans because of it.
Gerrymandering is an American tradition that has been around since Governor Gerry (look it up). Like the Electoral College, it’s a great way to make sure the will of the people is ignored.
In some states, they have passed laws to prevent it as much as possible by keeping politics out of it.
Anyway, a new study has been done which shows what the last election would be like if all states used that procedure. Surprise! The Democrats would have won the House. OK, it’s not really a surprise, because more people voted for Democrats in the House races than Republicans.
Check out this study. Yes, it’s on a liberal blog, but the math looks good.
ventrellaquest.com 