I think there are some major differences between Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon disasters:

Katrina (arguably) was a natural disaster, whereas the Deepwater Horizon was completely man made.

Katrina drowned major portions of a city, killing thousands people instantaneously, whereas the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 instantaneously, but from their only the animal kingdom is directly affected.

During the Katrina aftermath, the President found it hard to be bothered about it, and preferred to eat cake, whereas in the Deepwater Horizon aftermath, the President has focused on the problem and has done what he can.

Katrina happened on a Republican President's watch, and the mainstream media gave him a pass, whereas the Deepwater Horizon happened on a Democratic President's watch, and the mainstream media is blaming him where they can.

End result, SUCKS TO BE YOU LOUISIANA AND THE OTHER GULF STATES.

N

Over the years, through the process of raising 3 kids, our family has accumulated a substantial number of triangles. Some are quite old, but all of them are in good shape, still with 3 solid sides. Thom, could you please let us know how to obtain a copy of the texas school textbooks? We would like to investigate their information on the Atlantic Triangular Trade. Maybe we could find someone out there in the Atlantic area who would be willing to trade our old triangles for newer ones.

Time to go Electronic!

I think it's time for the school teaching texts to go all electronic. That way there is NO reason any one state will be able to dominate what is and is not put into a text resource. States could easily have their electronic texts customized, but then individual states like Texas would be known for being the bone-head state for teaching or NOT teaching history, and other states can actually produce educated students.

The printing industry would be up in arms, but the printing industry is going the way of manual hand-mixer. It's inevitable that the texts go electronic anyway, and from the sound of it - better sooner than later.

Jeff Davis' 1st inaugural is in Texas schoolbooks? I don't know that speech, but it would be OK as the CSA view at the start of the Civil War as long as it is followed by Lincoln's 2d inaugural address from the end. Terse to the point of eloquence it clearly lays out the dilemma created by the horror of war and the horrible inevitability of violence when a society is built on injustice.

Saenz appears to be an aggressive framer intent on backing someone into their 'yes or no' corner. Of course he timed it for the end of the segment. Thom's editorial policy of not dissing a guest who has left the building is self-disempowering. A hit-and-run artist merits no such courtesy.

Once again, Thom allows a rightwinger to use him as a floor rag, and his show as a platform for getting his "argument" out. Saenz (Hartmann's guest from the "Liberty" Institute, on at the top of Hour 1) was more articulate, better prepared, knew his arguments better and anticipated his opponent's arguments better than Thom did. This does not mean that he was right of course -- he's not -- but Thom, through poor preparation (among other things), managed to make it appear as if Saenz had won the argument.

I'm not sure why Thom does this, at least not without better preparation and understanding of the other side's talking points, but it happens over and over when he has rightwinger guests on his show, which he appears to like doing, and seems to think he's good at. For the most part, he's not.

The elders among the living are our only first-person sources of historical knowledge.

The fundamentalist fail to realize that if not for the separation of church and state, they would not exist as we would all be members of the Church of England.

In Texas history, Ronald Reagan and his Ward, George W. Bush, banished the commies and Indians and conquered the Mexicans in order to provide modern conveniences to the hard working Christian settlers.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/

Montco pastor hits Glenn Beck book bonanza

Rewriting History....

I think that this debate should be about the rhetoric that Rand Paul is using and not whether Libertarians are better than Progressives. I consider myself a Progressive and yet I find Progressives I don't agree with on every point. I like some of what the Libertarian party is about. However, I do not look to every person that calls their self a Libertarian to see if I agree with Libertarianism. I disagree with almost everything Republican stand for, but if they have a valid point, I will listen to it.

I do not think that because Rand Paul says something stupid (well, this is the second stupid thing I know of that he said) that this discredits Libertarians or the Libertarian party. Rand Paul is merely discrediting himself and pointing out the obvious hole in his logic! I think he is merely letting us know what Rand-ism is.

Therefore to argue his point and not Libertarianism, I will state the following:

If we accept that Obama is actually putting his "...boot heel on the throat of BP..." then the other extreme, which Rand Paul seems to be advocating for, is that Obama put his "boot heel on the throat" of the People. BP's mistake will cost the People in lost wages, profits and lowered quality of life as their recreational areas are destroyed. Their food supply is being endangered. Rand seems to want to let the People pay for these damages brought on by BP and not the corporations that are at fault and negligent. Rand Paul doesn't want the President to protect the small businesses that are affected by BP's mistakes, only the large corporations that have no allegiance to the USA.

How far do we carry these ideas? Is Rand Paul implying that he doesn't think we should have civil suits either to help hold people and corporations to account when they make mistakes or are negligent? Should we just do away with the courts too?

Of course, the obvious flaw in his thought processes is the idea that Obama is holding his "...boot heel on the throat..." of any multi-national petroleum corporation. He has granted many new permits since April 22 for deep water drilling that is exempted from environmental concerns (like what would happen if the well ruptures) like the one that BP was granted for this well. I do not expect Obama to hold any one to account, beyond scolding them for good PR in press. BP will get off with only paying a little and the People of the Gulf Coast will be stuck with the bill in lost wages, profits and quality of life...like the people in Alaska who never were compensated for the damages of the Exxon Valdez disaster so many decades ago. Tax payers will pay for the rest of the bill and Rand Paul seems to want the taxpayers to continue to pay for these types of clean up, instead of making corporations do things in ways that are safe.

This story is alredy written.. Historically speaking most monitary currencies that have collapsed end up "Deep Sixed" Our poor lil' Dollar is no exception.. 2 things..... 1.) Invest in Gold .. 2.) Learn how to speak Chinese.. (They will be our new corporate masters as soon as the dollar collapses)