Like many here I used to watch Jack every Friday night on the local PBS Sci-Fi Fridays. Every Friday night it was Jack, Red Dwarf, and Dr. Who. (plus occasionally something else like Blake's 7). Jack was like the cool uncle who could boil something down and make it easy to understand and yet still fun to enjoy. Whether it was how to spot the Leonid meteor showers or how to find a constellation by "Arcing to Arcturus" Jack was the man. Here's a toast to the Star Hustler, we would be lucky to have more people on this planet as genuine as him. Hopefully he is now touring the stars he loved to teach about in life. RIP Jack.

You do realize it was FoxNews hosts like Glenn Beck that defended her and it was Vilsack and administration officials that didn't view the whole video and fired her before the video even aired on Fox's nightly pundit lineup, right? Of course not, that would require honesty and 2 minutes of research on your part. If you want lack of news then why don't you ask Bob Scheifer why he didn't cover the New Black Panther/Holder story or how many news outlets have ignored the JournoList scandal? Do your homework before you post.

Thank you for eloquently making this point. I too am for the first definition of Net Neutrality, too bad most politicians pushing it are for the second.

To understand the push for Net Neutrality one must only look at its main sponsors: FreePress and Google.

FreePress is a group headed by leftist radicals w/ many ties to the Obama administration. Google donated large sums of money to Obama in hopes that Obama would use Google resources to employ Net Neutrality.

Then of course there's Mark Lloyd. In case you don't know he is a former senior fellow at FreePress and Obama's current Diversity Czar. Lloyd favors reinstituting the fairness doctrine or, if not that, revoking licenses if programs are not balanced. Lloyd has been described as being against all private media ownership and an ardent admirer of both leftist radical Saul Alinsky, and Hugo Chavez who has this nasty habit of locking up reporters. So why is he relevant? Not only is he one of the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, but guess who would be in charge of overseeing the internet regulation that get put into place? That's right, Mark Lloyd.

Until Obama is out of office any attempt by him and his cabinet to pass this must be thwarted so that we can retain our freedom of speech. Obama and his czars cannot, and must not, be trusted. Thank goodness it looks like freedom will win out and this bill will go down in flames.

I see now, you have no interest in an actual discussion and simply wish to engage in ad-homonym attacks and spew ignorance. Forgive me for mistaking you for a thinking person. Enjoy your ignorance.

1. I don't watch Fox News (except for Bret Bair's show) so keep your bias and misinformation in check. I agree with you on O'Rielly, he's an intellectual lightweight but he's also irrelevant to this topic. Stop trying to change the subject.

2. I see no problem with highlighting the judeo-Christian influences of the Founding Fathers. The separation of church and state has been twisted and manipulated by the courts to mean almost the opposite of the original intention. It was originally meant to a) prevent a state run religion and b) keep the state out of the churches. Ya know like having politician proselytize to congregations like the Dems love doing. I think by moving the curriculum to the right they are bringing it back towards the center after the curriculum has been manipulated by progressives for decades who have purged anything from the history books that didn't support their ideological slant on things.

3. I'm well aware of bias in the media. What you don't seem to get is that all news is biased. The only difference is in which direction and by how much. And of course whether the source is actually telling the truth or are they just making stuff up like MediaMatters and Huffpo tend to do. Newsbusters is very reliable as they source everything they write about. Yes they are slanted to the right, that however does not make them inaccurate.

By the way you should follow your own advice:

The curriculum was linked to in the article I posted, which you would know if you had taken the time to read it.

Newsbusters is one of the best news sites on the web and Glenn is one of the most accurate opinion guys out there. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them wrong. How about you put your considerable bias and ignorance aside and read the article. Of course that would require you to be intellectually honest, something that is alien to the political left as the article notes and your post proves.

The "religious conservatives" you are sighting are actually the progressive right which brought us such "luminaries" as Nixon and G. W. Bush. As you accurately state progressivism is a bad thing. It led to the collapse in Greece, the pending collapse in Spain, and if we continue to follow it the collapse of the US.

We need to stop arguing progressive right vs progressive left, and start arguing conservatism vs progressivism. Conservatism has brought this country untold prosperity, we need to embrace it.

No he wasn't. He was going to be excluded from the philosopher's section of the curriculum. His place in the historical part of the curriculum wasn't going to be touched. The AP article is lying about the changes that were going to be made. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. Once I knew the truth, I applauded the changes to the curriculum.

After reading the linked article above I got curious as to what exactly the proposed changes were. I had a sneaking suspicion that someone wasn't telling the whole truth and after some searching it turns out that I was right. It seems that Jefferson was never going to be cut from the curriculum and most of the other changes the article mentions (which is based off an AP story) were either over exaggerated or flat out lied about. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. This is just another example of how the media is just swallowing the lies the progressive wing is just throwing out there without doing any damn fact checking. Just like how they keep promoting net neutrality as good even though members of the administration have said quite openly that they have every intention of using the legislation to censor content: http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/05/20/dont-let-them-tell-you-they-dont-want-to-censor-the-internet/ How does the old saying go? Trust half of what you read and none of what you hear? With this administration that quote has never rung truer.

Ask and you shall receive:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

The planet is warming due to natural changes. Some of this is due to greenhouse gasses, but much of it is also due to solar activity and geothermal activity. The problem is many of the environmental models don't even take other factors into account.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

This statement is flat out false. If it were true then man would have to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses. The number one greenhouse gas (95%) is water vapor which is 99.99% natural. CO2 comprises 3.62% of all greenhouse gasses of that 0.117 is man-made. The total percentage of man-made contributions to greenhouse gasses are a whopping 0.28%. Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

No they aren't, see above.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

This would only be true if warming occurred faster or larger than the Earth's climate can handle. Phil Jones, one of the authors of the IPCC report, admitted that non only was the Earth warmer during the Medieval Warming period but that Earth hasn't statistically warmed in 10 years. Sources: http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2010/02/climategate-expert-phil-jones-admits.html, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

This is fear-mongering with no facts to refute. Your turn, warmer.