Posted on 02/22/2006 6:52:51 AM PST by Nextrush
The Dover Area school board voted Tuesday night to pay 1 million dollars in legal fees to the attorneys that successfully sued the school district over its intelligent-design policy.... After board members voted, Beth Eveland, one of the parents who sued the district, told the board she and other plaintiffs at the meeting considered it a fair offer. However, she said they were dismayed that the taxpayers and children were left with the bill and believed the old board members should be held accountable. The smallest amount of accountability is an apology, she said.... Heather Geesey, the only remaining member from the previous board, said after the meeting that she took offense to Eveland's remarks. "I don't think I have anything to apologize for," she said. Former board member Ronald Short also isn't planning to apologize. "I don't have anything to apologize for," Short said. "I believe in what the board did before." The $1 million dollar figure was the result of an agreement worked out between plantiffs' attorneys and the district's solicitor. In exchange, the board agrees it will not appeal.... Rothschild, the plantiffs lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plantiffs to more than $2 million in costs.... Plaintiffs attorney wanted to make sure that other public school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said, We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district."...... Approximately $250,000 will go directly to recovering out-of-pocket expenses, Rothschild said, and will be divided among American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Pepper-Hamilton. The rest will go toward the ACLU and Americans United.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
Except that they're the mirror image of what you want them to be.
Well, it was initially a challenge to drive on what I fervently believed to be the wrong side of the road. Indeed, I did consider demanding 'equal time' for my point of view, and in the name of 'fairness' be permitted to at least drive the controversary, as it were--but this would have potentially put other motorists (not to mention my own family) at substantial risk . Not all convictions, however sincerely held, can always withstand an encouter with reality--particularly at 82 mph. When in Rome (Georgia), do as the Romans...
Actually, perhaps someone can explain to me something that remains a puzzle. Throughout the rest of the world, at least to my knowledge, the colour red signifies the blood-thirsty left, while true blue is the banner of the loyal right. Except, it seemed, in the US, where I was assured South Carolina was a Red State. What gives?
What?
Cordially,
I'm sure there are published studies of this, but I'm not aware of them. To me, the "red state, blue state" dichotomy, using those specific colors, seems to have started during the 2000 Bush-Gore election, when the three main TV networks used those colors on their electoral maps. Perhaps those colors were used previously, but I don't recall.
I've never seen "red" used for Republican. It's always been the color used by the Soviet Union, and it was used to refer to communism (as in "Red China") -- but the USSR was defunct by 2000 . I suspect that using blue for the democrats was done deliberately, as to label them red would be to declare them to be commies -- which so many of them are.
I think red and blue were reversed in 2000 from previous practice.
Yeah, I misspelled article.
We will see if the networks apply the formula.
I've just checked Wikipedia, which confirms your view [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_states]:
With the adoption of color television in the 1960s (and continuing with increased use of color in newspapers in the 1980s and 1990s) media outlets took advantage of this in their electoral maps on election night. But until the 2000 election, there was no consensus on color schemes between the networks ... For example, from 1972 until at least 1992, NBC consistently showed Republican-won states in blue, and Democratic-won states in red. But other networks used other patterns. ABC, in at least two presidential elections during this time, used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. However, in 2000, for the first time ever, all the major broadcast networks and all the cable news outlets utilized the same color scheme: red for Republicans and blue for Democrats.
Forgive me if I still feel this is a Colonial eccentricity. Here, no Labour Party Conference would be complete without the ritual calls for the abolition of money, 20-year prison terms for industrialists (30 years for successful industrialists), and final surrender of any remaining shreds of sovereignty to Brussels, all washed down with a rousing chorus of "The Workers' Flag is Deepest Red."
Mind you, to be a 'Republican' in the UK almost invariably indicates someone on the left, seeking to abolish the monarchy. My own lack of zeal for the monarchy you may take for a personal eccentricity.
The terms "left" and "right" are of European origin. The left was (and is) socialist; while the right was monarchical, aristocratic, and usually stood with the established church. I think the terms started out describing how the factions were seated in the French Assembly (from the speaker's point of view).
In the US, our Constitution abolished all vestiges of what became the European right, so that term, applied to anything American, is inevitably misleading. However we sure do have a faction that smells like the European left. Were it up to me -- and nothing is ever up to me -- I'd label the presently-existing US factions as Constitutional (although often wobbly about it) and socialist.
Are you making a death threat against the judge?
"death threat against the judge"?
No, of course not. It's an expression from "Apocalypse Now," and in that context it does refer to assassination. But I just mean: Adopt a tough, aggressive attitude. Most of us really don't. We talk, but do nothing. And that needs to change.
Now, a question for you, if Creationism, whatever that is, was mandated to be taught in the state schools, which church would have been "established" (using that term exactly the way it's meant ~ meaning a church like the state church in Denmark, UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland and so forth).
Can you name the church for me. I've always been curious to know which one it is.
On the other hand, some of you guys seem to think "Creationism" is a core doctrine of some sort of church. So, why don't you tell us what they call that church? What is its name?
That's because I'm better at debate than you, and I know this topic inside and out having had to administer a federal law where the qualification of religious organizations to a federal benefit was at stake.
You learn a lot doing that.
So, if you don't want to tell us what this "Creationism" doctrine is and whose church came up with it, fine.
Well, anyway, there are more Hindus who believe that than there are Americans who support a strict "evolutionary" point of view.
Actually, there are more Hindus who believe that than there are Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.