Thanks for a great commentary and forcing me to reach for the dictionary. :)

Why do you claim this is an individual teacher's lesson? Did you read the article, or many of the comments? The teachers do NOT have freedom to change the lessons. I have seen this personally.

I do believe we should legalize stealing too. This will put all thieves out of business immediately. Why just think of the savings in Law Enforcement.... When we cannot control ourselves, we need laws backed by force to control us. The increase in drugs is a result of our turning away from the only source of real self-control and turning inward to a selfishness.

Nope, I don't blindly ignore them. I understand that Gender was given by God at creation so that Adam would have a helper fit for him. God creates our bodies and gives us our gender, and our ethnicity. These are holy and subject to him, designed for specific purposes. Yes, there are many ways that we violate each other. But denying that twisted sexuality is one of those does not help in any way. Why not say that Envy has special rights?

Again, I disagree with the influence that politics currently has on Science. But there is a clear measurement that CO2 levels are rising and that the type of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels. So, there is a strong correlation that has been clearly shown many times. The questions are, 1. will the CO2 cause a liner rise or a logrythmic rise in temps? 2. How quickly will this happen? 3. What will be the result of the rise? 4. what is the best way to approach rising CO2 levels? To the 4th question, Nuclear Power is the very best answer - it allows energy abundance with the smallest possible environmental impact.

Science is terrific and constantly changing. But there are some questions that Science CANNOT answer. You cannot measure the degree of love a person has. You cannot measure the moral quality of an action. You cannot experience wonder and beauty scientifically. While Science may reveal marvelous things - the fact they are marvelous is NOT scientific.

A real solution - that would allow us to have abundant power without using CO2 dug up from the ground would be to use Nuclear Power. Atomic power can replace all our energy uses currently and using chemical process - the heat can produce liquid fuels for transportation. All CO2 neutral. So, when Nuclear is ignored in this debate - or treated as being specially dangerous - I smell a total scam.

I guess you can't use a spread sheet to add and average numbers that come into a database. I have been doing that since 1990 or so on an old IBM PS/2. I also believe that much of the "science" is politically driven, but some of the comments are a bit out there. We have tools to help us calculate averages.

Young ones, selfish ones, and people who were never taught math in school.

Nuclear power has a million times the energy per pound of Coal, or any other fossil fuel. It can be used safely in ships and subs. Coal fired plants are dirty. Ever been to one? Nuclear power plants are very very clean - ever been to one? Nuclear waste is actually fuel that can be burned in a breeder reactor, or elements that have value up to tens of thousands of dollars an ounce. In fact, we could actually replace our energy needs with safe clean Nuclear power. It is the safest industry ever created by humans. The "waste" is easier to deal with than any other type of fuel.

It is interesting that you do not reply to the specific reasons given in the article as to why the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the confederate states. That it was the only way that Lincoln could legally free any slaves since the Southern newspapers stated that the slaves had military value.