Top U.S. High Schools

I just ran across this story in Newsweek, in which they rank the top 1000 U.S. public high schools. The method they used was to take the number of AP and IB tests taken by the students and divide it by the number of graduating seniors. Not the best ranking system in the world, but probably as good as using the S.A.T. So, here are 3 personal observations that I had from scrolling through the schools.

1) All the high schools I recognized from Texas are mostly in wealthy districts.
2) Austin, Texas and Irvine, CA (the two college towns I have lived in) had nearly every high school from their districts somewhere on the list.
3) Orange County in general had ALOT of high schools on the top 1000 list.

The battle for science continues

Mainstream science organizations are boycotting hearings being held by the Kansas State Board of Education on whether to include Intelligent Design in science classrooms. Essentially, they hope that by boycotting the hearings, the effectively will destroy the legitimacy of the proceedings and prevent them from becoming a large media event that will only elevate the status of I.D.

The article talks about how science groups are preparing for the real battle ahead, which is the fight over the content of textbooks. To be blunt, most biology teachers at the high school level pretty much just teach straight from the book. Therefore, the content of biology textbooks are extremely important. The science community won the last battle over textbooks, keeping out creationism, but I'm a little worried about this round with I.D. Damn social conservatives.

I have been trying to figure out what is the real motivation of creationists, because it is obviously not promoting good science. I think it is basically just a narcissistic arrogance. They'd rather believe that they were created directly from god, and not evolved from a monkey. Well, I'd have to say my response to that is nicely summed up by this fight club quote...

"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Coulter gets hooked by the longhorns

For those who do not know, I got my B.S. in physics from the University of Texas at Austin. While many might believe that the flagship public university for the state of Texas might be a highly conservative school, it is in fact the exact opposite. The city of Austin and the University of Texas at Austin are essentially an island of liberalism in the sea of conservative Texas. Something that everyone's favorite blonde conservative Ann Coulter seemed to be unaware of.

Apparently, when Ann Coulter gave a speech at UT, she had quite an angry protest launched at her. In fact, one student was arrested when in response to Ann Coulter's opposition to gay marriage he asked...
"You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage," said Ajai Raj, an English sophomore. "How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but fuck his wife up the ass?"

Apparently ole Ann Coulter forgot all about her own sex life.

To all this, I just have one thing to say. HOOK EM HORNS!!!

Update: Just saw that The Prejudicial Effect has posted about this in his snazzy new Sideblog

Update II: Firedoglake has commented with a link to the letter written by Ajai Raj describing his experience. You should definitely go check it out. Here's a quote from the end of the letter.
"And hey, Ann, don't come back to UT. We're better than your bullshit here. And I can think of at least one jackass here who can dish it out better than you." - Ajai Raj

Update III: Ann Coulter talked about the liberal protests she gets at college campuses last night on Hannity and Colmes. Check it out, if you can stomach it... (I just threw up in my mouth a little)

I am negative percent Republican, Comrade.

I am: -6% Republican.

"You're a damn Commie! Where's Tailgunner Joe when we need him?"

Are You A Republican?
Props to the Chemist

That son of a bitch

I just read this post in the N.Y. Times. I decided to copy it so that everyone can read it. This is just the typical bullshit we have come to expect from President Bush. He'll give lip service to anything, as long as it doesn't require any action. Read and become angry.

"Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur.

Is the muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress from taking action.

Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages.

The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete provisions about Darfur from the legislation.

Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there.

Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day.

This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a cease-fire there.

Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that there are three reasons.

First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess.

Second, Mr. Bush is very proud - justly - that he helped secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).

Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.

All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, raped or mutilated in Darfur - and if the situation worsens, the final toll could reach a million dead.

This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself as much to try to save the lives of the two million people driven from their homes in Darfur.

So I'm going to start tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch." - Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, N.Y. Times

Haloscan engaged!

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog. So, I like the Haloscan system, and I thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately, it appears that the old comments on my blog are not compatible with Haloscan. What a bummer, but still I think this will work out for the best in the end. If anyone out there knows how to put your old comments on Haloscan, let me know.

"You wanna why? Cause we got the bombs. Nuclear fucking weapons"

Kofi Annan appears to be using the 5 year review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pressure the U.S. and Russian to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Why is he even wasting his time? You think ole Georgie is going to reduce the number of nukes? Fat fucking chance Kofi. He's already pulled out of ABM Nuclear Treaty, so he could make expensive toys that don't work. Besides Kofi, Georgie doesn't even like the U.N. I mean come on, he's trying to send this asshole to you guys. Just wait for 2008 and hope for someone a little more receptive.