I caught the tail end of what appeared to be a negative ad against Abrams on CNN late last night. I only heard the last five seconds or so, something about not letting him fool voters, maybe. Let me know more if you've seen/heard it.
I've heard that Greta, or other Democratic forces are going to go after Steve for the controversies on the board of ed, but I've yet to see anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I received a mail piece yesterday from the Kansas Democratic Party in which it pointed out a few things about Abrams tenure on the SBOE. I don't blame them for this tactic, it has merit as far as the type of person he is.
It hilighted:
*Attack on Science (which was true)
*Several votes against pay increases and funding for schools
*and a few others...
I ripped it up before reading all of it, which I thought was appropriate for anything with Abrams picture on it....
I think the Bluestem Fund (Democrat Leadership) went to far with their attack ad on Abrams, because I don't believe that people really believe that he wants to...
Cripple School Budgets
Ban the Teaching of Science
No Background Checks for Teachers
they should have toned it back a little to make sure people might believe the information... something like... Abrams hates all scientist and their dogs!!! The information they are feeding us is laughable.
I mean he did get a doctorate in Science and hated every single stinking minute of it, didn't want any other Kansas child to ever take another Science class, I am sure that he is very disappointed in his failure to ban science.
...obviously their is a lot more to the story. Simple propaganda. Check out the notes, the State Board of Education Minutes read that he opposed FBI background checks for graduates of instate colleges...he wanted KBI checks for instate graduates.
The type of person he is?
I suppose you mean the type of person who:
1.) Says what he believes
2.) Doesn't sugarcoat anything
3.) Spends over a decade in a volunteer position (State board of education)
4.) Continually watches his name and likeness drug through the mud
5.) Does what he says
6.) Owns and operates a small business in rural America
7.) Pays taxes
Is that the type of person you meant?
It sounds like the type of American this country needs.
"Attack on science" Abrams didn't attack science, he challenged science.
Here are a couple of simpleminded questions about evolution: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
If the first step (monkeys) and latest step (humans) are still alive on earth, why isn't just one of the many steps between them still around?
Reality...Abrams vote on teaching evolution in schools made Kansas the brunt of many jokes and comments...most not favorable.
I think he believes what he votes but sometimes think he is too narrowminded for most of us in the world trying to compete beyond the Cowley borders. This is not the prairie days
I like how you only post the comments that agree with you.
I think anytime you get information like that either pro or con it should be checked out. Things are always always inflated to put a person in the best (or worse) possible light. I hate hate hate politics. I guess I don't understand why it has to be so dirty. There's always fine print to everything, why take something and completely blow it out of proportion? I mean seriously....if you willing to stretch the truth to get elected what makes us think you'll be honest with us once you are in office? Of course I realize many of the attack ads are coming from outside forces but still....
I got one on Greta and how she voted to raise taxes. But since none of my other posts have seen the light of day, I don't expect this one to either. Wouldn't want to give both sides of anything after all.
To the anonymous that thinks Abrams is a stand-up guy focused on serving the people (all the people):
Wow!!! You have no idea what the theory of evolution teaches do you? Monkeys? Do some research...
Here are a few simpleminded questions about the Book of Genesis:
1-Which of the four creation stories in the Book of Genesis is the accurate account?
2-If Adam and Eve were really people (rather than symbolic) and Cain and Abel were their only two kids at the time, how did Cain find a wife when God sent him East?
3-How does the creation stories in Genesis differ from those in the non-Abramatic faiths such as Buddhism or Hinduism or Native American faiths?
You're right, I stereotyped Abrams as a religious nutjub bent on forcing public school kids to learn about stories in the book he considers to be the only one that contains truth. I can only base my perception of him on his past actions...
"You're right, I stereotyped Abrams as a religious nutjub bent on forcing public school kids to learn about stories in the book he considers to be the only one that contains truth. I can only base my perception of him on his past actions..."
I could not agree more. I think Abrams will try to force his religion on our children.
Please find some legislation, or rather proposal, where Abrams has referenced Genesis or furthermore mandated to be taught in the classroom.
Something else to be be brought into discussion, I was recently surprised to hear the admission, while in class, that the head of Chemistry at Cowley College is a creationist and doesn't believe in macro evolution in the slightest. She believes it should be taught as spontaneous generation is also still taught, but believes that it should be challenged as Pasteur challenged Spontaneous Generation. Evolution has too many holes to count in it, specifically that in 2005,2006, 2007 they have been finding soft cell tissue in dino bones.
And yes I do know what evolution teaches that everything came from the simplest element, hydrogen...a colorless, odorless, "simple" gas.
I am also interested in the four creation stories from Genesis.
It's too bad that none of you seem to have really dug in to who Steve Abrams is. Have you called him to ask your questions? Did you go to his info night? Have you talked to people who know him well?
I believe he is an admirable person and dedicated public servant. Don't believe everything the libs feed you!!
Timeline refresher:
— May 11, 1999: Kansas Board of Education reviews proposed science standards written by committee of educators. Board member Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican, offers own proposal, drafted with help from others, including the president of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America.
— Aug. 11, 1999: Board votes 6-4 to adopt science standards in which most references to evolution are eliminated.
— Feb. 9, 2000: Board member Scott Hill, an Abilene Republican who supported the new science standards, announces he won’t seek re-election. His seat is won by Bruce Wyatt, a Salina Republican critical of the board’s actions.
— Aug. 1, 2000: Republican primary voters oust state board members Linda Holloway, of Shawnee, and Mary Douglass Brown, of Wichita, who supported the new science standards. Their opponents opposed the standards.
— Jan. 9, 2001: Three new state board members, Wyatt; Sue Gamble, a Shawnee Republican, and Carol Rupe, a Wichita Republican, are sworn in, tipping power to a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.
— Feb. 14, 2001: Board votes 7-3 for new science standards restoring evolution’s previous place in the standards as well-founded science, crucial for students to learn.
— Aug. 6, 2002: Conservatives Connie Morris, of St. Francis, and Iris Van Meter, of Thayer, win GOP primary against incumbents who favored a return to evolution-friendly standards.
— Jan. 14, 2003: Morris and Van Meter are sworn in; board is split 5-5.
— Aug. 12, 2003: The state board votes 7-3 to have state science standards reviewed but says work won’t start for another year.
— Aug. 3, 2004: Conservative Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, unseats Wyatt in Republican primary.
— Jan. 11, 2005: Martin sworn in, giving conservative Republicans a 6-4 majority on the board.
— May 5, 2005: Three-member subcommittee opens four days of hearings on evolution, hearing testimony from intelligent design advocates. National and state science groups boycott, saying the hearings are rigged.
— June 9, 2005: Subcommittee approves proposed standards containing language sought by intelligent design advocates.
— July 12, 2005: Board’s conservative majority continues to revise the proposed science standards, before having an outside review.
— Oct. 13, 2005: Outside reviewer, the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning in Aurora, Colo., releases a report critical of the proposed standards.
— Oct. 26, 2005: National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association tells board it can’t use language from their publications in its science standards.
— Nov. 8, 2005: Board votes to approve proposed science standards.
Abrams and Genesis:
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/05/steve-abrams-christian-fundamentalist.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/steve-abrams-in.html
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/abrams.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol2No3/Kansas%20Compromise.htm
I read the references to evolution included within the State science standards adopted by the conservative majority. I did not notice a single reference to teaching of Genesis and I also noticed that the theory of evolution was included within these same standards. Apparently, it is the teaching of evolution as a "theory" that is the rub. I missed the scientific finding in the 20 years since I was in school that determined macroevolution is a fact. Can someone enlighten me as to when the theory was proven as fact?
Here is a little insight into the attack ad issues. This is taken from classkc.org under the FAQ section dealing with "Banned Books". Mr. Abrams never wanted to ban books, (he did refer to some of the books as porn)rather make "opt in" with a permission slip, think 'rated R' movie. Furthermore it didn't deal with Science, as the flier I received suggested...but Literature class. Classkc.org is the parent ran website that doesn't want the books on mandatory reading list.
* This debate is not about removing existing books from the Blue Valley school libraries.
* This debate is not about preventing children from checking out books from the Blue Valley school library.
* This debate is not about limiting a child’s “right to read.”
* Rather, this debate is about what constitutes excellent and age-appropriate literature for required reading assignments. It's about providing decent and non-sexually-charged literature for required reading assignments.
* The teachers select only a tiny sliver of available literature to assign as required reading assignments. Yes, we, as the parents of these minor kids, oppose foisting vulgar and sexually-charged books on our children as required reading assignments, but we also promote hundreds of other high quality books that are currently NOT being read in favor of some highly offensive titles. If the word "censor" could be used in this situation, which group would it better describe?
Also a couple of interesting articles on Kansas State Board of Education from the original 1999 standards. One pro article, one neutral, one negative.
http://www.arn.org/docs/hartwig/mh_montjour82599.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_kansasoped101499.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ksnytb81399.htm
Long post, but mostly copied and pasted with links. A few interesting things that I wanted to add to the conversation.
I agree with the folks who say that Steve Abrams is who he is and votes that way.
We simply can't afford his vote any longer.
The theory itself is not fact, it is a theory based on many facts. Can anyone tell me how the creation story is fact? Or how a religious belief should be taught in public school, like the money behind Abrams efforts to redefine science, want it to happen?
Obviously, there aren't many Christians posting here. Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and our "how to" handbook.
That said, I've seen nothing said that convinces me Abrams wants to force this on anyone. Why is it so inflamatory for Christians to ask that both sides be presented? There are credible scientists on both side of this argument, so why shouldn't students be encouraged to look at both theories?
AND, why shouldn't parents have the last word on what their minor children read?
EXACTLY! If you want your kids to learn about the creation stories in Genesis, teach them yourself (either an interpretation that is literal or one than lets symbol enter) or have them learn it in church. It's when it tries to get into public school (not private)when line are crossed.
I believe 110% in the creation stories in Genesis, I think God and Moses used parable and symbol to explain something that people 3,000 years ago had no faculty to understand straight forwardly. As science progressed, the need to look at the stories as symbolic grew even more important. Science without faith is materialism and faith without science is dogma and superstition.
Hey, Curious.... I think we can't afford to NOT have people of faith run for office! Faithless politicians have promoted the culture of "Your truth is your truth, mine is mine - there is no black & white". This has fostered a generation of self-centered people who lack moral guidelines. Look where it's gotten us!
Which flavor of "faith" should people be in politics? The one you subscribe to? What about Hindis or Muslims or Buddhists? Heaven forbid Jews, they killed Jesus....
Sorry for the rant... This country was not founded by Christians, it was established to escape the Christian Theocracy of Brittian. When religion is introduced into politics, not only does it corrupt the politician, but more importantlly, it corrupts the religion itself.
I prefer the Christian "flavor" and believe through Jesus is the only way to Heaven. BUT, I believe all faiths teach morality and we're not seein much of that by those in public life. Is their any faith that doesn't teach there really is right and wrong? Why are our children not being taught that there are rules and appropriate behaviour?
What is your definition of "way?" I suggest you do some research into what the word "way" means in that passage...
So are you saying that our Christian politicians should be responsible for teaching our children right and wrong? I like for that responsibility to fall into my hands...
I'm only saying that a succession of immoral politicians (both camps are guilty) have fostered a country full of many people with no values.
Post a Comment