text:
| Request for deletion
This page (Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (website)) has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the deletion discussion by clicking here. Do not remove this template until the discussion is complete. Note to adminstrators: remember to check what links here and the page history before deleting.
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (ESB for short) is a SpongeBob SquarePants fansite and knowledge base.
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia is a wiki, which means anyone is allowed to edit it. When the website was first established, anyone could edit whether they had an account or not. An IP block occurred for a short time, but later ended in 2010. This was changed again when Fandom powered by Wikia modified their policies to disallow anonymous editing on wikis with young audiences. The website allows anyone to edit if they create an account on Fandom powered by Wikia.
The website contains a staff of administrators and bureaucrats who must go through an application process to be promoted. There have been 49 different administrators in the history of the wiki.
Before establishment (2006-2007)
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia has its roots in the WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants at Wikipedia, formed on June 6, 2006 by ForestH2, and developed by ForestH2 and AMK152. The WikiProject grew, and was able to keep track of and improve all SpongeBob-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject grew to over 100 members within a year. The project focused on reverting vandalism, formatting, and expanding articles.
In 2006, there were two failed attempts at creating a separate SpongeBob SquarePants wiki. AMK152 had requested that a SpongeBob wiki be created on Fandom powered by Wikia. However, his request was denied on August 26, 2006, because Fandom powered by Wikia didn't believe that a SpongeBob Wiki would be large enough. Instead, Fandom staff pointed toward the Nickelodeon Wiki as a means of accomplishing the goals. AMK152 made another request in December 2006, but this request was denied on December 10, 2006. Without a separate SpongeBob SquarePants wiki, focus remained on Wikipedia. WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants continued to grow. However, the project ran into several problems when users outside the scope of the SpongeBob-related articles did not consider some content to be relevant to Wikipedia. These guidelines would prove to hinder any progress to expand a SpongeBob SquarePants knowledge base.
Crisis on Wikipedia (2007)
In 2007, there were a series of events unfolding on Wikipedia that threatened many of the articles and content involved. The concern was over articles of works of fiction, and there were claims that individual episode articles were not relevant to Wikipedia, with the exception of certain series. On May 8, 2007, the issue was brought to the articles regarding SpongeBob SquarePants. The members of WikiProject SBSP fought to preserve those articles on Wikipedia. A heated debate engulfed the WikiProject and several contributors of SpongeBob articles, even after the May 14, 2007 redirecting of all articles to the episode list article. This, of course, put the now orphaned title cards and related images in jeopardy. AMK152 was able to save every image he could before it was deleted from Wikipedia. Eventually, those images were deleted.
On May 8, 2007, a crisis began that threatened the status of the episode articles on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia user made an argument that individual episode articles on Wikipedia are not notable enough for their own article.
Single episode articles do not need to exist for most series. Only certain shows of high regard (The Simpsons, Doctor Who), that can have actual information, need them. An episode needs to be capable of having more than just a plot summary; along with a nice, concise plot summary, they need to have at least well sourced development, and reception sections. Examples of this can be found here, here, and in any of the episode articles here. Obviously, they won't just pop up for every episode article, but it is easy to tell that this is very unlikely to happen for this series. I plan on doing this in five days if no concerns are brought up. If they are brought up, I will address them.
The Proposer (May 8, 2007)
AMK152 and one other Project members tried to counter the argument and negotiate with the proposer. AMK's opening arguments began like this:
SpongeBob is as high regard of a show as the Simpsons. It is a very notable and popular show, and many of the episodes are notable as well. What about all the work put into the episode articles, plot summeries [sic] and some production details? People have put in a lot of effort on trying to improve these articles. Yes, quotes belong on Wikiquote. Trivia is trying to downsize. Some trivia even includes production details. I have looked at some Simpson episode articles and saw that they look pretty much the same as SpongeBob, except the name of the show and that the Simpsons includes more production details. SpongeBob does have information on production details, and if you look at a few of the articles you'll see them.
- AMK152 (May 9, 2007)
AMK offered a compromise, by creating an article for each season. However, the proposer scrutinized what he called fan "cruft."
There really is no point for season pages. All of this can easily be stuck under the current episode list. You do not need to list cast for single episodes; it's pointless cruft. Each episode needs a three line plot summary at most. That and the basic information is all it needs. No images would be used either. Scene removals are trivia; they do not constitute the true information needed anyways. You need deep analysis of how the plot was devised, what went into it, and stuff like that.
The Proposer went on to say that only AMK and other user were concerned with the episode articles. The discussion continued into AMK's 16th birthday. AMK advocated for the need to preserve the information, while The Proposer scrutinized the mass amount of SpongeBob information as "pointless" and that "few people care."
On May 14, 2007, The Proposer redirect all SpongeBob episode articles to the main episode list. This, in turn, threatened all SpongeBob-images that became orphaned. Over the course of the following week, he managed to save all the orphaned images, mostly title cards, to his computer. Once the redirection occurred, other contributors SpongeBob article joined in on the discussion.
Among those who joined this discussion were SpongeSebastian, who made an incredibly great argument for the usefulness of the SpongeBob articles:
SpongeBob SquarePants is a very popular show, why it always comes in the top 15 Neilson ratings. Obviously, it deserves its own episode articles. People would want to find out more about SpongeBob episodes, so they'll turn to their favorite source of information: Wikipedia. However, they instead find themselves being redirected to an episode list. The episode list itself isn't helpful at all. It only provides the episode title, a brief summary, an airdate, and that's pretty much it. The examples of a proper Wikipedia episode article from House and The Simpsons are featured articles. What do you expect? It's not like the only goal of every Wikipedia article is to gain featured status. That's only for a few articles. All of the vandalism that goes on in the articles has nothing to do with anything and can be easily fixed. As for images, I am trying to encorage people to upload proper screenshots so that the articles look good, but I don't have a DVD-playing computer or a video capture card so I can't do that myself. Images just give a helpful illustration to support the article. Some people may say that you can easily go to TV.com and use their information, but believe me, most of the articles that Wikipedia had contained more information than what TV.com provided. TV.com is mostly helpful for reviews and such. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be helpful, not perfect. It's ridiculous to fight over whether something's perfect or not. I didn't see anything wrong with SpongeBob having episode articles and so didn't most of everyone else. This discussion not that shows of high regard should have articles. What makes you think SpongeBob isn't of high regard? Read what I said earlier please. Anyway, I said all I wanted to say. I'm just saying that SpongeBob episode list is pointless without episode articles.
- SpongeSebastian (May 18, 2007)
However, as time went on, hope for continuing to expand SpongeBob SquarePants-related articles on Wikipedia disappeared.
Origins at Wikia (2007)
While the Crisis was going on at Wikipedia, Dark Assassin, a user of Fandom powered by Wikia, made a request for a SpongeBob Wiki at Fandom. [1] However, there was another request (that made by Haldir) that had been made, so Dantman denied Dark Assassin's request on April 11. In April 2007, Haldir's request for a SpongeBob Wiki was granted, and the SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki was born.
On May 29, 2007, AMK152 returned to Fandom powered by Wikia to discover that a SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki had been created by Haldir. Haldir, however, was inactive. AMK152 made very few edits on the new wiki during the summer of 2007. After seeing that it was almost impossible to bring back the articles on Wikipedia, AMK152 proceeded to do a massive project involving the migration of all SpongeBob-related articles from Wikipedia to the new SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki. After the articles were successfully migrated over, their preservation was more likely to succeed. Although activity was slow at first, a few editors joined and soon there was a transition of the articles from a Wikipedia-looking article to our own SpongeBob version.
Without success on Wikipedia, AMK152 decided to embrace Fandom powered by Wikia and the new SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki. He began to seriously migrate articles on on the afternoon of August 27, 2007. The bulk of the migration took place in late August. He migrated several articles over the course from late August to early October 2007.
Haldir, the only administrator, was unable to spend a lot of time on the wiki, and so the wiki did not develop over the first month. On October 7, 2007, after a vandal began to wreck havoc, with no active administrator, AMK152 was unable to keep it under control without sysop powers. He made the request to Fandom Staff, and was appointed administrator. [2]
The Early Days (2007 — 2010)
On October 6, 2007, AMK152 was migrating more articles to the wiki. A day later, a user named Fad began to vandalize and upload inappropriate images on the wiki. With Haldir (the only administrator of the wiki) inactive, AMK152 had little control over the vandal. With the help of a member of Fandom's staff, AMK152 was granted sysop powers the same day. He continued to migrate articles off of Wikipedia, and soon contributors at the wiki began to help out with the articles.
On January 19, 2008, Andrewrox of SpongePedia sent a message to AMK152, requesting help at SpongePedia. The conversation further turned into a request that the SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki merge with SpongePedia, but AMK152 declined the offer.
In early 2008, Rgoodermote joined the wiki with several ideas on how to improve the articles. AMK152 became a bureaucrat on February 4, 2008 and promoted Rgoodermote to the administration.
In 2008, the wiki adopted the Monobook skin. Activity increased and more users joined the administration.
In February 2009, Rgoodermote joined the staff as a second active administrator. Rgoodermote brought several ideas to the wiki, which helped to bring more discussion within the community. Since there were multiple administrators, AMK152 and Rgoodermote were able to work together to bring the wiki forward. In March, Greennave, and Mallinois joined the administration. They were followed by TheEd in August 2009.
In March 2009, an incident arose with allegations that some users were taking title cards from SpongePedia. Rgoodermote investigated the situation, which was soon resolved.
Following 5 unsuccessful administration requests, Rgoodermote closed requests on March 22, 2009, being satisfied with the number of administrators. On May 18, 2009, administration requests were opened again, this time with a 1,000-edit requirement, so as to only discuss experienced users' requests. Greennave resigned from the administration on July 11, 2009. Because of the lack of administrators, Rgoodermote promoted TheEd on August 10, 2009, bring the administration back up to 4 members.
Growth (2010 — 2012)
2010 marked a larger increase in the wiki's growth. In mid-March 2010, the wiki's size had grown to a point where AMK152 decided it was time to have a bot. From March 22 to 24, a discussion occurred, and after which, AMK152Bot became the first bot for the wiki.
In April 2010, the ban on all IP editing was lifted, and this brought a sharp increase in editing activity, which in turn, brought a need for more administrators. Dave Lopo was given a temporary appointment. Rgoodermote left the wiki on April 10, 2010, leaving AMK152 the only active administrator.
From April to September 2010, there were a total of 45 administrator requests, of which only 4 were successful: Shroomish7 (June 9, 2010), IKnowAll (July 7, 2010), GojiBob (July 9, 2010), and General5 7 (July 31, 2010). On October 28, 2010, longtime contributor Airhogs777 became an administrator, bringing the administration to 6 members.
On May 6, 2010, after AMK152 made the request, Uberfuzzy redirected inactive SpongeBob wikis on Fandom to this one, which became the the wiki's first acquisitions:
- http://wikisponge.wikia.com
- http://squarepants.wikia.com
- http://spongepedia.wikia.com
- http://sponge.wikia.com
In October 2010, AW10 joined the wiki, quickly becoming an administrator in December. He brought several significant design changes to the wiki, from the skin, to templates, and functionality.
2011 and 2012 saw continued growth of the wiki's size, contributors, and administration.
Collaboration with SBC (2012)
In late June 2012, Dylan posted at the forum of the SpongeBob SquarePants Wiki about a collaboration with SpongeBob Community Forums (SBC). Dylan contacted AMK152, and they began corresponding over the summer and fall of 2012. Very early on in the discussions, on June 25, 2012, AMK152 gave the suggestion of "SpongeBob Universe" to be used as the name of the collaborative project.
On June 27, 2012, the wiki adopted the "tabs" system created by AW10. This helped navigation throughout the wiki, especially on episode articles.
Ultimately, the concept of SpongeBob Universe helped to boost community involvement.
SpongeBob Universe (November 2012 — August 2013)
SpongeBob Universe became official on November 1, 2012, when the founding document was accepted. The same day, a discussion into renaming the wiki for SpongeBob Universe was initiated.
In anticipation of SpongeBob Universe, on November 12, 2012, Project Cleanup was formed to address formatting and design changes to the wiki's article content.
Discussions and preparations were made for a January 1, 2013 launch of SpongeBob Universe, which was not ready by the time New Year's Day arrived.
With SBU on hiatus, the wiki began to focus on Project Cleanup at the wiki, in order to improve the articles and design. AMK152 and AW10 came up with several proposals and AW10 with several designs, which continued rapidly throughout the spring and summer of 2013.
SpongeBob Universe was going to have another attempt at launching in July 2013. A new wiki was created by MDPP, and AMK152 migrated several articles to the new wiki. However, as July and August went on, there was no progress in SpongeBob Universe. Another relaunch attempted was scheduled for September 2013, but, ultimately, the feelings in the wiki were not very well with SBU.
On August 20, 2013, it was proposed that the wiki abandon its part in SpongeBob Universe. The proposal was supported, ending the following day.
Post-SpongeBob Universe (August 2013 — April 2014)
After SpongeBob Universe was dissolved, the wiki turned its focus toward Project Cleanup.
In late 2013, community involvement in discussions began to increase, creating more input and more ideas for the future of the wiki.
In January 2014, ESB's first major crisis began with controversy from SpongeBuddy Mania complaining about copied transcripts. Policies were established to prevent copying, but misunderstandings and arguments led to the demotion of Seacactus and temporary suspension of 120d. By late January, the dust had settled, but intense discussions become more frequent with regards to the way 120d carried out his administrative duties.
In March and April 2014, the wiki underwent the final stages of a renaming process. Additionally, administrator Spongebob456 proposed the idea to have a Twitter account for the wiki. This was accepted, and Spongebob456 was named account manager in April.
Brotherly Times (April 2014 — August 2014)
A last collaboration attempt started when AMK152 reached out to the SpongeBob Fanon Wiki. ESB users set up an "embassy" through AMK152's SBFW talk page. However, the users saw SBFW to be quite displeasing with the wiki unknowingly hosting trolls such as Fanon. Within two weeks, collaboration with SBFW ended peacefully. On April 29, 2014, AMK152 made an adoption request for spongebobfanon.wikia.com at the same time OnioNS did. AMK152's request was successful, and AW10 came up with the name "Fanonia SpongeBobia." However, ESB learnt SBFW and adopted the URL spongebobfanon.wikia.com. The purpose of the wiki came as a branch of SpongeBobia in which users can post their SpongeBob fan fiction. AW10 worked on developing a set of templates and layouts throughout. When SBFW learned of this, some users targeted and harassed users who had made more edits at ESB. Although the majority of admins on both wiki's tried to stop the crisis, there was no use. A treaty meditated by the VSTF was signed by SBFW in four months.
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (April 2014 — present)
On April 5, 2014, after 16 months of discussion, Encyclopedia SpongeBobia became the wiki's new name. The name officially took effect on the wiki's 7th anniversary, April 25, 2014. That weekend, there was a celebration, which mostly occurred on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The chat room was full, and three rounds of trivia were played.
After months of intensive conversations, debates, and arguments, administrator 120d was suspended, and after a week, was officially removed from the administration. The crisis remained tense in the days that followed, but the community began to move on, especially with overwhelming support for a new administrator, JosephHawk.
Throughout the spring of 2014, the SpongeBobia community continued to grow, as the chat room became more active. The wiki proceeds to grow and improve to the present. The administration is constantly discussing new ideas for the wiki's future.
In June 2014, the User of the Month process was implemented and AMK152 won for July 2014, while JosephHawk won for August 2014.
On July 30, 2014, after many years of loyal service and contributions, 120d retired from ESB, and was blocked by request. Additionally, several administrators lost their administrative status in August 2014 due to inactivity and/or retirement: SpongeyTube, GojiBob, Puppets, and SpongeBob EditPants. In it's aftermath, the entire administration was reduced by 33%. Additionally, the crisis in the chat room was averted with the demotion of three chat moderators.
SpongeBob Galaxy, another SpongeBob SquarePants wiki on Fandom powered by Wikia, was started. Not understanding the reasons for its existence, administrators at ESB suggested that SBG merge with ESB. Through misinterpretations, both communities were plunged into a massive argument that came to a boiling point in mid-August and led to a failed peace treaty on the evening of August 19, 2014. In the aftermath of the failed peace treaty, it was decided to ignore the drama and let each community move on. This worked, and the drama subsided. A forum post called for the end of the drama. During this time, Administrator JosephHawk resigned and Bureaucrat CalzoneManiac removed himself as a bureaucrat.
In the aftermath of the drama, ESB entered a rather quiet period, in which the wiki continued peacefully, with little discussion, and a cancelled meeting. The period in late August marked the first time since early January 2014 in which little to no drama existed.
In the aftermath of the drama, the introduction of tasks greatly changed the tone of the wiki, turning its focus back to content-building.
During this time, JosephHawk returned to ESB, and his adminship was reinstated.
On October 3, 2014, 120d posted a thread on his message wall stating that he missed editing the wiki, and would like to return. AW10 granted his request, and he was unblocked. That was AW10's last activity before his retirement and his removal of his rights.
Well, few days later, longtime administrator and bureaucrat AW10 retired from the wiki due to the huge editing-block he experienced.
Soon after that, at the beginning of November 2014, JosephHawk went on a hiatus from Fandom powered by Wikia and thus stopped being an administrator.
In the meantime, requirements for admin rights were removed, resulting in a lot of users becoming an admin in period that occurred after that. That has brought a lot of light to the wiki.
More, after slowly recovering from the huge editing-block he experienced, AW10 returned for a full time on March 1, 2015, and month after his return, he requested and got his admin rights back on April 8, 2015.
Also, 120d has greatly improved since he has returned on October 3, 2014, resulting in him becoming an assistant and, on April 5, 2015, administrator again.
On April 25, 2015, the wiki celebrated its 8th birthday.
On July 14, 2015, Sherm Cohen, a SpongeBob SquarePants storyboard supervisor, created an account and joined the wiki.
On April 25, 2016, the wiki celebrated its 9th birthday.
On April 25, 2017, the wiki celebrated its 10th birthday. Wiki Adopter AMK152 wrote a thread to commemorate that day.
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia has a high Google rank for searches related to SpongeBob SquarePants.
- Gary the Snail was the first mainspace article ever created on this wiki.


text:
There has been an endless wait for the much-ballyhooed Apple television set.
Last year, one of the reasons Apple stock charged above $700 was the conviction of many analysts that Apple would soon launch a magical new TV set that would turbocharge sales and revolutionise the TV industry.
Well, the TV never arrived.
Instead, we got news stories about how Apple had been trying–and failing–to strike content deals with TV networks and cable companies.
But now there's cause for hope again! If not for a television set in particular, at least for further progress in Apple's TV efforts.
Bloomberg's Adam Satariano and Alex Sherman report that Apple is close to signing a deal with Time Warner Cable to allow Time Warner Cable subscribers to watch Time Warner Cable channels over Apple TV.
The companies are planning to announce the deal within a few months, Bloomberg reports.
The deal would allow the ~12 million owners of Apple TV boxes to stream Time Warner channels. It would not, yet, involve (or require) the launch of an Apple television set.
A deal like this would be a change in strategy from the one that some analysts expected Apple to pursue–namely, one in which Apple would sell TV programming directly to consumers, bypassing cable and other pay-TV providers in the process.
This deal would mean that Apple is now working within the current pay-TV structure, which is the route many "over-the-top" TV content providers are going.
A deal like this would also mean that Apple would not really be "revolutionizing" the TV industry so much as continuing to change it incrementally.
If Time Warner Cable subscribers can watch most (or all) Time Warner Cable channels via Apple TV, Apple's little television add-on, this would radically increase the value of Apple TV to these households.
And, more importantly, this would be the first step in unifying what, in many households, has now become an annoying hodge-podge of TV interfaces–Apple TV or another Internet-powered set-top box for Netflix, Hulu, and on-demand movies and programs, and normal cable TV for sports and live television.
If Apple can begin to make Apple TV (or an Apple television set) the primary interface for television, Apple will begin to amass a very powerful position in the TV industry. With a proliferation of thousands upon thousands of TV content choices available on-demand at any time, the power of the owner of the gateway to the content increases. The power of the particular "pipe" or "network" that packages it, meanwhile, decreases. '
Eventually, if Apple can place itself between enough consumers and enough television programming, Apple will likely be able to begin "go direct" to some television content producers, cutting out some of the current aggregators (networks and cable companies) in the process.
In other words, although a deal like this would be a small step relative to the "revolution" that some were expecting Apple to deliver in the TV arena, it would still be an important step. And it would be one that could eventually lead to Apple amassing a considerably stronger position in the TV industry.
Disclosure: A few months ago, when Apple stock fell to $390, I bought some. I think stock-picking is an idiotic strategy for individual investors, and I invest almost entirely in low-cost, tax efficient index funds. But, sometimes, I just have to put my money where my mouth is. If Apple really is becoming Nokia, as many on Wall Street now expect, the stock could drop to $250. If Apple merely does OK over the next several years, however, the stock should do OK. And in the meantime, it will pay a nice, fat dividend.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.
Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Obama Uses Aid, Executive Muscle to Drive Education Agenda
Back in 2008, it wasn't clear just where candidate Barack Obama's heart lay when it came to the big issues facing schools.
Although Mr. Obama had been a community organizer, a law professor, and a state legislator, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois didn't have a long record on K-12 issues, and he rarely spoke about them in his presidential campaign. His advisers included voices from all parts of a Democratic Party bitterly divided on such issues as teacher quality and the role of high-stakes tests.
Some moments hinted at what was to come—such as his expression of support for performance pay for teachers, which was met with boos from the National Education Association. But no one knew for sure just how ambitious Mr. Obama intended to be on K-12 policy if elected.
Now, as President Obama prepares to face the electorate again, there's little question of where he stands on some of the most hotly debated issues—and little doubt that, if re-elected, he plans to stick with his education redesign agenda.
Fueled by economic-stimulus money and his own executive authority, Mr. Obama's initiatives—including No Child Left Behind Act waivers and the launch of grant competitions such as Race to the Top—have pressed states and districts to:
• Hold individual teachers more accountable for the performance of their students on standardized tests;
• Remove restrictions on the growth of charter schools;
• Take aggressive action to turn around their lowest-performing schools; and
• Adopt common academic standards intended to prepare students for college and the workforce, bolstered by federal aid to help states develop common assessments.
It's a record of action that, while divisive, rivals that of President George W. Bush in securing passage of the No Child Left Behind law in 2001. Mr. Obama has forged his own path when it comes to the federal role in education, using funding and competitive pressure to prod states and school districts into embracing the administration's vision for education policy.
"I think the president has made it really clear that the status quo in education is unacceptable," said Roberto Rodriguez, a special assistant to the president for education policy. "He has embraced reform from day one."
Political Pushback
President Barack Obama has used a combination of federal stimulus funding, legislative influence, and his own executive authority to pursue an activist agenda of K-12 education since taking office in January 2009.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
During Mr. Obama's first few months in office, Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was designed to jump-start the sluggish economy. The $100 billion for education included $10 billion for Title I grants for districts to work with disadvantaged students, and more than $11 billion for special education state grants.
Race to the Top/Competitive Grants
The administration has proposed budget increases each year for the U.S. Department of Education, but targeted them to competitive-grant programs. The most prominent is the $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, which rewards states that embrace the administration's education redesign priorities. Other key competitive-grant programs include the Investing in Innovation Program, which helps states scale up promising practices, and Promise Neighborhoods, which help states pair education with wraparound services such as prekindergarten.
Common-Core Standards
The administration has encouraged states to adopt standards that prepare students for college or the workplace, giving significant momentum to the Common Core State Standards, which 46 states and the District of Columbia have adopted. States got extra points under the Race to the Top program for signing onto the standards, and states must adopt college- and career-ready standards to get a waiver from the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, $360 million in Race to the Top money is going to states to develop common core-related assessments.
Higher Education
The administration got Congress to scrap the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which offered students loans through subsidizing private lenders. Instead, all loans originate through the federal Direct Lending program, in which students borrow from the U.S. Treasury. It also issued new rules involving the quality and transparency of career programs, including so called "gainful employment" rules that drew sharp criticism from for-profit colleges and Republican lawmakers.
With reauthorization of the law stalled in Congress, the Obama administration is allowing states to get out from under many of the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act—including the student-performance yardstick at the heart of the law, adequate yearly progress—in exchange for embracing certain education redesign priorities.
Teacher Quality
Through Race to the Top and the waiver program, the administration has urged states to revamp teacher evaluation by tying it in part to student outcomes.
Charters and Choice
States are rewarded in Race to the Top for expanding charter schools. But the administration permitted Democrats in Congress to defund the $20 million D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which provides vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools.
The administration used stimulus money to supercharge the federal School Improvement Grant program, which deals with school turnarounds, but required grant recipients to choose one of four turnaround models, which include some dramatic steps such as closing a school or getting rid of the principal and half the staff.
Early-Childhood Education
The administration is requiring that low-performing providers of Head Start preschool services for low-income students recompete for their grants. It also created a $500 million Race to the Top competition to reward states that revamp their early childhood- education programs.
Civil Rights
The administration has opened dozens of probes into districts' implementation of civil rights laws, as well as issued guidance on areas such as sexual violence and bullying. It has called on states and districts to release considerably more data, including whether students have equal access to advanced classes.
Source: Education Week
But Mr. Obama's core initiatives also have plenty of detractors on both sides of the political aisle.
Some progressive Democrats wish he had scrapped federally mandated high-stakes tests, and they bristle over his support for public-school-choice strategies such as charter schools, which they view as straight out of the conservative playbook. And unions have been angered by his push to tie teacher evaluation in part to student outcomes.
Many Republicans, meanwhile, think Mr. Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have pushed states too hard to adopt common standards, which some view as a step toward national curriculum and tests.
Republican lawmakers also lambaste the education spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as wasteful and ineffective, and say the waivers granted to states of key parts of the NCLB law trample on congressional authority.
"They've overreached," said U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "There's been a lot of power in the hands of one person," he said, in a reference to Mr. Duncan.
Still, Mr. Kline said, no one can accuse Mr. Obama of not doing much on the K-12 front. "They've been very active, there's no question about it. … You have to [acknowledge] the exuberance."
Most of the president's marquee K-12 initiatives—including his signature Race to the Top education redesign competition—grew out of the $831 billion recovery act, the stimulus package that cleared Congress in a matter of weeks shortly after Mr. Obama's inauguration. The legislation, which was aimed at steadying the stumbling economy, included some $100 billion for education and a program for nearly every constituency.
School districts, state education officials, and educators got an unprecedented windfall for formula-grant programs, such as Title I money for districts and special education, on top of $53.6 billion in emergency fiscal aid for recession-strapped states, much of it to preserve teachers' jobs and benefits.
And education redesign supporters cheered $5 billion for creation of two K-12 competitions—the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, or i3—plus new money for state longitudinal-data systems, educational technology, and teacher pay-for-performance programs.
During the marathon 2009 negotiations over the stimulus package, which began before Mr. Obama took office, he made a personal appeal to lawmakers, urging them to create what became the Race to the Top competition, White House officials said. The program has charted a new course for Washington in influencing K-12 policy across the country, its champions say.
"These ideas have become a catalyst" for widespread change, said U.S. Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the House education committee and—as the chairman of the panel at the time—a major architect of the legislative language that became Race to the Top. "I think if you just keep adding funding without this kind of direction, you just get more of the same. … We're trying to encourage people to break the mold here."
Even before the federal Department of Education outlined the rules for winning the grants, the Race to the Top proved popular with cash-starved states. Forty states applied in the first round of the competition in 2010, which netted just two winners: Delaware and Tennessee. Another 35 states applied in the second round, which crowned 10 winners.
Even states that lost out took big steps. California dismantled a ban on creation of a statewide data system that could link student and teacher performance. Colorado passed far-reaching teacher-evaluation legislation.
Some Stumbles
But recently, there have been stumbles as states tackle the tricky task of implementation. Nearly every winning Race to the Top state is behind on fulfilling the promises it made in its application. And one state, Hawaii, is hanging on by a thread to its $75 million grant after failing to win union approval for a new teacher-evaluation system.
In campaign materials, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama's presumptive Republican opponent, cited those delays as proof that the program was "poorly designed."
Even a more sympathetic source, Randi Weingarten, the president of the 1.6 million-member American Federation of Teachers, said, "The combination of Race to the Top and the budget crisis pushed states to do things they were incapable of implementing right. ... Teacher evaluation is really important, but we're in the research and development phase.
States "got a relatively small chunk of change in exchange for having to spend a lot of money to do something well," she said.
Mr. Obama's critics, including Rep. Kline, have cited those struggles as one reason not to accede to the administration's desire to make the Race to the Top a permanent part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whose current edition is the No Child Left Behind law. Such opposition might mean that the K-12 program most closely associated with Mr. Obama won't survive his tenure in the White House, regardless of whether he is re-elected in November.
That wouldn't disappoint many school district leaders, education advocates, and others in the field who would rather see the money steered to the major formula grants that go out to every district.
But Mr. Rodriguez, the White House adviser, argues that the Race to the Top has spurred big and lasting change, including helping to advance the Common Core State Standards, which 46 states and the District of Columbia have adopted.
"This is a state-led effort, and the president has been really clear about that from the get-go," Mr. Rodriguez said. But he added: "We are going to take credit for helping to accelerate the adoption of these standards throughout the country. Race to the Top clearly did that."
In fact, some state lawmakers have sought to slow or thwart implementation of the standards, which they contend have gotten too much of a federal push.
'Out of the Bottle'
The move to overhaul teacher evaluation—accelerated in part by the grant competition—will continue even if the Race to the Top doesn't survive, argued Alice Johnson Cain, who served as a top aide to Rep. Miller during consideration of the stimulus legislation.
When it comes to teacher-effectiveness measures, "the genie is out of the bottle," said Ms. Cain, who is now the vice president of Teach Plus, a nonprofit organization in Boston that works to empower educators to have a voice in policy.
While new evaluation systems are still being refined, she said, "teachers see the need for something better, and there are enough data points that show success or at least real promise."
Others caution that it's too early to draw conclusions about the Race to the Top's long-term impact.
"I wouldn't put up 'Mission Accomplished' banners yet for this one," said Paul Manna, an associate professor of government and public policy at the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Va., who has written about the program. "Do we have better teachers? Do we have more-rigorous content? We don't know yet."
Unions' Measured Support
While teachers' unions—traditional Democratic allies whose muscle and money are likely to be important for Mr. Obama's re-election bid—haven't been thrilled by his insistence on pushing states to revamp teacher evaluation, they still have warm feelings for the administration's championship of substantial spending to avert layoffs.
The scale of the K-12 portion of the recovery act, the bulk of which went to save teachers' jobs, dwarfed even the heady spending promises Mr. Obama made during his 2008 campaign, when he called for a new, $18 billion investment in education.
January 2007
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., introduces legislation encouraging "Innovation Districts," which later served as a model for programs like Race to the Top.
July 2008
Then-presidential candidate Obama gives a speech at the National Education Association convention supporting merit pay and is booed.
February 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Congress passes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, providing some $100 billion for education, including $4.35 billion for Obama's Race to the Top initiative.
March 2010
ESEA Reauthorization Blueprint
The administration releases its playbook for overhauling the No Child Left Behind Act.
March 2010
Student Loans
In tandem with the national health-care- overhaul law, the administration significantly diminishes the role of the private sector in originating student loans.
August 2010
Education Jobs Act
Congress provides an additional $10 billion to avert teacher layoffs at the state level—but not before Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the appropriations chairman, tries to cut Obama priorities such as Race to the Top to pay for it.
November 2010
Midterm Election
Democrats lose seats in the U.S. Senate, and Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, making it much harder for the administration to enact its agenda.
September 2011
The administration outlines rules for states seeking wiggle room from parts of the NCLB law.
December 2011
Race to the Top Early Learning
The administration allocates $500 million to nine states to expand early learning.
February-May 2012
The first and second rounds of waiver recipients are announced. Draft rules released on nearly $400 million in grants to districts.
Source: Education Week
In 2010, in what was seen as a follow-on to the stimulus aid, Congress approved an additional, $10 billion Education Jobs Fund to help prevent teacher layoffs. Initially, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., then the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, sought to cut Race to the Top, as well as money for teacher performance pay and charter school aid, to help pay for the fund. Lawmakers changed course following a veto threat from the White House.
The Obama administration estimates that the stimulus and the Education Jobs Fund collectively saved or created 420,000 teacher jobs, said Elizabeth Utrup, a department spokeswoman.
Teachers' unions remain grateful to Mr. Obama for the jobs money and say it will help Mr. Obama's re-election bid.
"I think they will remember what he did, and they will support him for that," Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the 3.2 million-member NEA.
But many have argued that the stimulus spending didn't do much besides temporarily patch budget holes. Many of the jobs that were saved were lost two years later, when the tidal wave of funding receded, Rep. Kline argued.
"The stimulus was an abject failure," he said. "It didn't fix any structural problems [in education]. Just pouring money into any of these problems is not a good idea. [Mr. Obama] gets an F-minus for that."
Mr. Romney's campaign echoed that sentiment, saying in a white paper released last month that "the vast majority of the [stimulus] dollars have not been invested in implementing the types of reforms required to produce real results." Instead, it cited the stimulus money as evidence of Mr. Obama's "very special relationship" with unions.
Grant Fatigue?
Congress has also become increasingly wary of the administration's reliance on competitive grants. In budget request after budget request, the president has asked only for tiny increases for programs serving disadvantaged students and helping with special education.
Meanwhile, he's sought big money for Race to the Top; the i3 program, which aims to scale up promising practices at the state and district levels; Promise Neighborhoods, which helps communities pair education with health and other services; and the Teacher Incentive Fund, which gives grants to districts to create pay-for-performance programs.
The thirst for those dollars among education nonprofits, states, and districts has been virtually unquenchable: Nearly 1,700 districts, nonprofit groups, and other organizations applied for the first round of i3 awards in 2010.
But some in education—particularly rural superintendents—have felt left out of the mix.
A competitive-grant strategy "works zero for rural schools," said Jimmy Cunningham, the superintendent of the 550-student Hampton school district in Arkansas. "It appears most of these grants are going to urban settings."
Despite the pushback, the administration isn't backing off competitive grants anytime soon. In fact, the Education Department is seeking to make a quarter of the nearly $2.5 billion Improving Teacher Quality State Grant program competitive in its fiscal 2013 proposal. And it wants to inject more competition into career and technical education programs.
Competition has also been a theme of the administration's early-childhood-education proposals. Last year, it created a $500 million version of Race to the Top geared to helping states improve such programs, and nine states got grants in December. The administration also is demanding that Head Start grantees that don't meet certain program requirements recompete for their grants.
The Head Start move, in particular, was "historic. In 50 years, it's never been done," said W. Steven Barnett, the director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. When it comes to early-childhood education, the Obama administration, "get[s] an A for commitment, given the available resources," he said.
But Mr. Barnett is not sure whether the Education Department's criteria for awarding the Race to the Top early-learning grants were the right ones. For example, some states that received grants, such as California and Ohio, have cut aid for early-childhood learning, he said.
NCLB Waivers
The administration hasn't managed to win support for its top K-12 legislative goal: a full-fledged reauthorization of the ESEA, the nation's main K-12 education law. Instead, it's decided to work around Congress through the controversial process of temporary state waivers.
Secretary Duncan released a blueprint for renewing the law in March 2010; it collected legislative dust for more than a year. So, the next summer, the administration announced that it would grant waivers of parts of the law to states willing to move forward on many policies at the heart of Race to the Top competition, including adopting college- and career-readiness standards, crafting new teacher-evaluation systems, and taking an aggressive approach to turning around the lowest-performing schools.
The move was seen by Republicans on Capitol Hill as a power grab.
The waivers have effectively made Mr. Duncan "the chairman of a national school board," said Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a former secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Alexander supports Mr. Obama on a number of other K-12 fronts, including the continuation of the Race to the Top and federal support for performance pay.
So far, 19 states have been granted waivers, and an additional 17 states and the District of Columbia have applications pending.
The approach could inform reauthorization, Mr. Duncan said.
"If Congress is smart, they'll take the best of the best from these waiver applications," the education secretary said in an interview last month. "That would be an extraordinary reauthorization of the law."
Many of the waivers that have been approved so far put much less emphasis than does the NCLB law on the performance of particular subgroups of students, such as English-language learners and students in special education, which has upset some civil rights groups.
"States are getting the flexibility they clamored for, and now it's up to them to prove that the federal government was right in giving them this flexibility," said Raul Gonzalez, the director of legislative affairs for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group in Washington. "If they can't prove it, then it will be time for the feds to tighten up the reins again."
Some state schools chiefs are delighted to have the new running room, and say they remain committed to making sure all students succeed.
"No one is backing away from accountability, no one is backing away from transparency," said Lillian M. Lowery, a Democrat who was Delaware's secretary of education but takes over as Maryland's state superintendent next month. Both states have been approved for waivers, which, she said, "gave states the opportunity to pursue those goals in a realistic way."
Others, though, say the waiver plan amounts to trading one set of mandates for another.
"I don't call it a waiver package, because it's not; it's a replacement package," said Ronald J. Tomalis, the Republican-appointed secretary of education in Pennsylvania, which has not applied for the flexibility.
Testing, Higher Education
On the other end of the political spectrum, President Obama's staunch support for the use of standardized testing has earned him some ardent critics among progressive Democrats—a sore point on display at the Save Our Schools march in Washington last summer.
The crowd of educators, parents, advocates, and others at that event called for an end to high-stakes tests and dismissal of Mr. Duncan.
One organizer, Richard J. Meyer, a professor of literacy at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, is reluctant to back Mr. Obama's re-election bid.
"He hasn't delivered," Mr. Meyer, who served on the march's executive committee, said in an email. "I anticipated that Obama and the Department of Education would dismantle the legislated malpractice that has saturated schools for the past 10-plus years."
The administration also has made political enemies among lawmakers on the political right with its policies for higher education, including new legislation, passed along with the health-care-overhaul bill in 2010, to ensure that all federally backed student loans originate with the U.S. Treasury instead of with subsidized private lenders.
"I was disappointed with the federal takeover of student loans," said Sen. Alexander. "It turned Arne Duncan into the biggest banker of the year."
But others defended the move.
"I think it was a really good idea," said Kevin Carey, the director of the education policy program at the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington. "It saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, to do something that the federal government is perfectly capable of doing well."
Mr. Obama also has proposed encouraging higher education systems to rein in costs while improving student results. He wants to create a Race to the Top for higher education and calls for colleges to provide much more information about their costs and outcomes for graduates. And he has sought to tie some federal student aid to colleges' outcomes in such areas as graduation rates.
Those proposals haven't advanced very far in Congress.
Unfinished Business
So far on the 2012 campaign trail, President Obama has made a bigger deal of his administration's higher education proposals than its work on K-12.
For instance, Mr. Obama appeared on the "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" television program in April to highlight congressional opposition to a proposal to keep federal loans rates stable at 3.4 percent. He also visited at least three college campuses in swing states to showcase his higher education record and stump for his policies.
But Mr. Duncan touted Race to the Top early in a wide-ranging speech, titled "The Obama Administration's Education Record," earlier this spring at the National Press Club in Washington. He also highlighted the administration's work on waivers, standards, college financial aid, and teacher quality.
In the recent interview, the secretary made clear that the administration isn't backing away from its strategy of using competitive grants to improve education at every level.
"The amount of work you've seen in this country—that's been in part due to having some real incentives out there for folks," Mr. Duncan said. "This is about transformational change."
Vol. 31, Issue 35, Pages 1, 26-28Published in Print: June 13, 2012, as Obama Uses Funding, Executive Muscle to Make Often-Divisive Agenda a Reality
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.


text:
<< back to Teachings with title 'Fukanzazengi'
Location: Mar de Jade
In topic: Dogen
Fukanzazengi 3 - Mar de Jade Sesshin April 13, 2010By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | Apr 13, 2010
Location: Mar de Jade
In topic: Dogen
Norman gives his third and final talk on Dogen's Fukanzazengi at the Mar de Jade Sesshin April 2010.
Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.
DonateMake a tax-deductible donation of
$ to Everyday Zen
The Everyday Zen Foundation is pleased to offer these teachings for download. We rely on your generosity to make this possible. Consider making a donation of $5 per downloaded talk. All donations are tax-deductable. Thank you!


text:
Hello, I am new to Java.I have a small issue...I am displaying some text present in Database in a JSP.The text is of 3 to 4 lines.But I want to display only first few words.How can I achieve this. Am I supposed to use Javascript ?
Plz help me.
Thank you


text:
There is much debate as to whether Science and Religion are compatible and in particular can Evolution and the Biblical creation account co-exist as valid worldviews or does one negate the other. As far as I am concerned the debate is only a bone of contention for religionists. Science is the study of the natural world. It does not look for supernatural outcomes to its investigations. Religion has for the last 400 years has been continually discounted as a reliable tool to discover anything new. It's explanations of the working of the natural world are being proven incorrect and Science is filling the gaps it used to dwell in.
When I am referring to the Theory of Evolution I am talking about Modern Evolution Theory and not just "Darwinism". Creation as used will mean the Bible story and Creationism in general.
If I posted this 400 years ago it would read "The theory of Heliocentricity and the idea that the Earth is at the middle of our Universe – are they compatible?" The religious did their utmost to thwart the advancement of scientific discovery. They did not "believe" it was true that the sun was at the center. It was "only a theory" and the scientists behind it were deemed to be heretics. Only as people became educated did they understand it. Now this once special knowledge is deemed almost to be common sense. The churches now accept the Theory of Heliocentricity as being true. That is mighty of them but irrelevant to me because like the Theory of Evolution it was never a matter of faith. It is only a matter of education. Knowledge is power. They controlled the flow of it for too long in schools and even Universities. Information takes away more power from religion so it will do whatever it takes to keep as much of it as it can. So religions come up with alternative "theories" to counter the modern day heretics.
Even today I still get told by apologists that the Bible knew the world was round. Many have become "Hebrew scholars" and love informing me about the meaning of the word "chug" to insist Isaiah know the world was round. He did not. He "knew" it to be flat as did everyone else at that time.
The same people will then try to argue with me that Intelligent Design is a credible scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution and should be taught in schools. They "don't believe in Evolution". So they read more biblical science and come up with the idea that their god created every animal including man in his present "form". I will not discuss I.D. any further but if anyone else thinks it a good idea and has any merit please fire ahead. Maybe the dinosaurs died because they fell over the edge of the planet. These theists are the same as they were 400 years ago. They still maintain their book is the one and only truth necessary and deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution just as they denied the fact the sun is at the center of the galaxy.
I am not a scientist and do not claim any academic qualifications in this area. Due to my lack of believe in any god or the veracity of written accounts I turned elsewhere for answers. I find that the Theory of Evolution is a fact because I understand it to be proven. It therefore reinforces my reasons for remaining an Atheist but in itself it did not make me an Atheist. I will reference my replies later to any questions I try to answer.
I consider it fair to say that most Theists deny the fact of Evolution because they do not know it. Those that think they do usually have only learnt it from the science section of the bible or from their local preacher. I have never met a Theist (I mean never) who could explain it to me correctly. I also consider it fair to claim that one does not need be an Atheist to see that the Theory of Evolution is a Fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the scientific study of how life of earth has evolved over time. To start with we need to get some concept of the time scale. It started about 3.5 billion years ago. You need to stop a minute and think about that. It is almost impossible to conceive of such a scale. Millions of species have lived and died out before man appeared a relatively short time ago. We are about as a modern species for the last 200,000 years. 40,000,000 years before us Mt. Everest rose up and yet 25,000,000 years before that the dinosaurs became extinct. A few billion years further back and our early ancestors were getting ready to crawl out of the sea. Sound as fantastic as other stories? Well yes but all of this can be and has been fully proven. When all the various fields of Science, geology, chemistry, anatomy, fossil studies and especially DNA are taken together we see that all life on Earth is connected. No matter what species we look at once we go back far enough we see a common ancestor is shared amongst us all.
I am not going to further explain the Theory here other than say that the word "Theory" in this case means a body of facts and not an hypothesis that is still in need of evidence to make it acceptable. It is because Evolution is a proven fact that it is deemed to be a Theory.
I fully acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution does not explain how life on Earth began but that is not what it is about. I also accept that the Theory of Evolution does not disprove the existence of any particular deity.
However if anyone accepts that the Theory of Evolution is a fact (which it is) then we humans are descended from other species and if we keep going back we are evolved from simple life forms that lived in the sea. Therefore we could not have been created in human form in one day. Therefore the Christian story of creation is not true. It is a myth like those of all other religions.
Feel free to tell me where you think I am wrong and show me how the bible is right or at least compatible with Evolution. We can discuss the Theory of Evolution in greater detail and clear up any misconceptions held about it if this discussion EVOLVES.
Views: 1492
I come from a long line of hunter gatherers. We even have a big cat somewhere in our back yard, by the deer remains we find. We short a cave....
In a word...NO...next question.
It's very attractive from a fiction writer's perspective (because you can pack all this magic and science and wonder into the same little background), but then I guess that only serves to prove the point.
I really cant see how. That said I don't think religion is compatible with a healthy view of the world in any form.
While I think that the 'scientific method', as a habit of thought, started way before we had a language, it seems doubtful that it was as well organized as present. I might even venture that 'magic' and 'herbs', as methods of organizing information from nature insights, could have been its early precursor. We really should give humans some credit for never giving up, always looking for knowledge, and finding ways for that 'knowledge' to be preserved. Sadly a lot of 'junk' also made the trip along with us...
Couldn't agree more. If there is a flaw in the way our minds developed to search for answers, its in the reluctance to give up the old theories when a new, more logically favourable conclusion presents its self.
Reminds me of the title of a book I needed to read once 'Hangups From Way Back'.
Sadly, I need to read the sequel, 'Modern Day Hangups from the 1950's'.......;p(
'Purpose' and 'Design' apply neither to our kind nor to the universe
Everyone in western cultures inherits a dead explanatory scheme far older than the so-called great monotheisms: nature was designed and that humanity serves some purpose within it. Neither is true.
• Darwin profoundly de-deified (secularized) western culture
Long after On the origin of species (1859) became a treasured historic text, fundies claim 154 years later that Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET) must collapse. In support they quote a fictional divinity in a mythological text.
In criticizing Darwin and Darwin's works, they will no more refute MET than their attacking Newton or the Principia would refute classical mechanics. Darwinism and Newtonianism are among the most impressive of human artifacts based on their cultural impact alone, with far wider and more positive effects than any monotheism. But as acceptable guides to nature both theories have long been superseded.
Starting with a volume of essays, Ever Since Darwin, Steve Gould exposed the anti-intellectual xian frauds years ago. He will convince all but the obtuse.
Fundies can never forgive Darwin. He broke their iron rice bowl of intellectually respectable supernaturalism. Ever since Darwin, western religion has fallen to crackpots, brainwashed adolescents, seditious politicians, and televangelist frauds.
• 'design' and 'purpose' belong only to cultures
As long as scientists insist upon using 'machine' and 'mechanism' in explanations of nature -- they too will support a fiction of extra-cultural purpose and design. Of course physical entities express mechanical and geometrical principles abstracted by humankind's geniuses, but there are no divine schematics or instruction manuals.
•nature is silent
All scientific explanations are human artifacts. Darwin's master conceptual engine, natural selection, forever abolished from biological explanation the "teleological cause" of Aristotle and the "ideal forms" of Plato. Purpose and Design are dead.
As a youthful Darwin tartly remarked in recently published Notebook M (entry 128): "Plato says . . . that our 'necessary ideas' arise from the preexistence of the soul. That [they] are not derivable from experience — read monkeys for preexistence."
In print, Darwin deliberately forbade himself provocative language. He knew the sober text of 'Origins' to be provocation enough.
Yes, it's a grave error to speak of "purpose." Purpose implies a conscious intent, so the other side of a conversation might think you are implicitly conceding a conscious purpose behind things, therefore god.
The idiomatic usage of English, however, has purposiveness built into everything; it's no accident not because of a religious conspiracy but because we are wired to see agency in things preferentially (the better to spot predators). "The heart's purpose is to pump blood to the rest of the body." If one is really careful you can train yourself to phrase statements like that as "the heart's function..." etc.
During my last few installments of evolutionary theory, there was a long conversation about teleology. This relates to the question of 'ends', in this case 'a good end'. Does evolution have a 'good' end, or is it a blind or undirected process?
Given the basic components or drivers of evolution, their is no suggestion of a 'driver' separate from or above the nature that the organism is embeded in. 'Nature' is assumed or postulated as the only context that would need to be considered. Within this context, competion for resources(predation), survival to procreation and selection of decendents conditioned upon environment. Latter genetics became a mature science adding additional details.
If there is a 'telelogical' signal within evolution, it is consider as a best fit to the moving target of natural/environmental conditions.
If evolution is true then there never was a "first man and woman". So the story about Adam and Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden falls apart. And if they didn't eat the apple then there wasn't an "Original Sin". If there wasn't an original sin then we weren't all born as sinners and there wasn't any need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us.
Well, I've heard (alleged) justifications of Jesus needing to save us that don't rely on the original sin--in essence the claim is we violate god's law for whatever reason and the penalty is... well, I won't belabor it, same horseshit, different day.


text:
Cartier Calibre de Cartier W7100041
This Cartier has undergone a thorough inspection of accuracy, functionality and condition at our Cartier certified service centre to determine the level of reconditioning required to meet our strict standards. It has also been checked against our records to ensure authenticity.
Product Description
|Approx. 6 years
Manufacturer warranty
|1 year 3 Months remaining
|Case size
|Case material
|Bracelet material
|Rubber - Black
|Dial type
|Black Roman Numeral
|Water resistance
|100 metres
What our customers say
Quality watches and service
This is the third Rolex watch I have purchased from watchfinder and each one has been marvellous both service and quality ??I will recommend to anyone interested in buying a top quality used watch tha...nks Gary Tones read more
Always a brilliant service with this…
Always a brilliant service with this company
Problem following payment directions
My husband and I had difficulty following the payment instructions,I am a bit of a technical twit,but my husband isn't ?? it took 3 attempt's,and we had to phone your office twice. I would like to say... a very big thank you to Richard and Ed for their kindness and patients. I cannot recall the exact problem but there was a part of the procedure... read more
Incredible service!
Easy to use website, swift follow ups for the different departments and the watch arrived ahead of schedule in even better condition than i could have expected. Will definitely use in future as my co...llection expands! read more
Good quick service with a high quality…
Good quick service with a high quality watch delivered in excellent condition, just as described on the website.
Please fill in your details below and our team of experts will be in touch. If your enquiry is urgent, please contact us on 0844 247 8884.
Product Code: 123360
Cartier Calibre de Cartier W7100041
We have hand selected a network of authorised distributors who are as passionate about watches as we are. If you would like us to assist you in finding this watch please enter your details below.


text:
Admits to turning off "knowledgeable people" with aggressive agenda on warming
Steve Watson
Thursday, Sept 30th, 2010
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has conceded that it has "uncertainties" over the science behind global warming, and admits that the planet is currently no longer heating up – a development that constitutes another significant blow to the idea that there is a scientific consensus on the matter.
The Royal Society's guide, now titled 'Climate change: a summary of the science', has been altered following complaints from 43 of its own members that "knowledgeable people" were seeing through brazenly alarmist rhetoric.
The previous Royal Society guides, called "Climate Change Controversies" and "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change", produced in 2007 and 2005 respectively, were extremely heavy frightening, yet completely unfounded, future climate projections and calls for government to implement radical measures to prevent them from becoming reality.
The revised Royal Society guide (PDF here) refrains from pushing scare mongering scenarios of significantly rising sea levels and soaring temperatures, as it previously did.
Instead it now reads, "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made."
"Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected." the guide continues.
"The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document." Royal Society member Professor Anthony Kelly told the Daily Mail in an interview.
The guide also notes:
"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase."
"Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe." it concludes.
The guide also states that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped over a decade ago, an admission that has been forced following repeated exposure by warming skeptics, and that was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
"The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled'" Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group skeptical of anthropogenic global warming,
"The new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved." Peiser added.
However, The Royal Society clearly still wholeheartedly embraces the notion that human activity is altering the climate, even if it does couch it in less brazen rhetoric:
"There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change." the guide states.
The development is still a very significant one however, given that The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement "The debate on climate change is over."
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: "On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots."
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society's research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as "primates" or "animals", to what it sees as a "sustainable" level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world's oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain's population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society "Objective" Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society's working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT's main initiatives. Again, how is this man's influence going to result in an "objective" study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK's 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the "sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory." That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the "compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character." Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society's new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a "super-race" of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society's Copley Medal of honour for "outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences".
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
The fact that The Royal Society has been forced to backtrack and tone down it's rhetoric on global warming highlights that their agenda is being successfully exposed.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones' Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
This article was posted: Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 10:31 am


text:
TCM Archive Materials VIEW ALL ARCHIVES (0)
Recent DVDs
National Lampoon's European... Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo. The infamous Griswolds win a trip across the pond... more info $9.95was $9.98 Buy Now
Biography CLOSE THE FULL BIOGRAPHY
No biography information exists for this person. Be the FIRST to contribute by CLICKING HERE >
Filmographyclose complete filmography
CAST: (feature film)
Please support TCMDB by adding to this information.Click here to contribute


text:
Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting
Ricky Ponting has set the scene for a frosty reception in Bangladesh when the Australians tour there in April by saying the country should be stripped of its test status.
Two months before Australia's first test tour of Bangladesh, Ponting implied he would rather the two-match series was not happening by saying Bangladesh and fellow minnows Zimbabwe should not be playing test cricket.
Asked in an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper what changes he would like to see in cricket, the Australian captain said: "I think the international schedule is about right, with 30 one-dayers and 15 tests a year. What I would not have is the minnow nations in the World Cup and the Champions' Trophy, and I would not have Bangladesh and Zimbabwe playing tests at present."
Ponting's remarks are certain to cause a backlash among the Bangladeshi cricket community, particularly after the country celebrated its biggest success since being admitted to cricket's top table by beating Australia in a one-dayer in Cardiff last year.
Ponting's comments would appear to clash with Cricket Australia's policy on the so-called minnows but will not earn him any reprimand.
"Test cricket needs to be about the best playing the best," a CA spokesman said yesterday. "There are some countries that are developing, and the way to develop is to play on a regular basis against the best countries in the world. Cricket Australia has bought into that process by sending the Australian team [to play against them]."
CA went into damage control last night, releasing a more diplomatic statement from Ponting which appeared to be a full backflip from his original comments. "If it takes teams like Australia playing teams like Bangladesh for the developing test nations to improve their skills, then I'm all for it," he said. "I'm looking forward to the challenge of leading Australia in Bangladesh."
Oh dear. I guess he is just being honest. I mean Zimbabwe DEFINITELY. I would keep Bangladesh though. At least you can see that they are improving. Slowly...


text:
HBO's 'The Girl': the horrors of Hitchcock revealed
When Alfred Hitchcock cast unknown actress Tippi Hedren as the star of his horror film "The Birds," she couldn't believe her good fortune. As work on the film proceeded, however, she discovered a different kind of horror movie playing out off-camera as her powerful director became sexually obsessed with her and began making wildly inappropriate demands.
"The Girl," an HBO-BBC co-production premiering Oct. 20, recounts how Hedren (Sienna Miller) did everything she could think of to cope with Hitchcock's (Toby Jones) erratic behavior, often in full view of the director's wife, Alma (Imelda Staunton). Initially there were no red flags, recalls the real-life Hedren, sitting in a Beverly Hills hotel suite during this summer's press tour for TV critics.
"It started very slowly, by staring," she says. "On the set, I'd be talking to people, and I'd look over, and he might have a bunch of people he was talking to as well, but he'd be staring at me."
'A devious mind'
Hitchcock became more overt in his unwanted attentions when production approached the halfway point on "The Birds," but Hedren's options were limited because many contemporary union rules protecting performers were not in place back then.
"This was in the early '60s. There was nothing like that," she explains. "It was common in the movie industry. I was 31. This wasn't my first rodeo, dealing with people. It wasn't every day, otherwise I don't think the relationship would have lasted as long as it did. It just finally built up to the point where I just said, 'OK, that's it. I'm done.' "
Among the most harrowing ordeals Hedren was forced to endure on "The Birds" was a five-day shoot filming an attic scene in which her character, Melanie Daniels, is savagely attacked by large, angry birds. The actress had been told that mechanical birds would be used for this scene, but when she reported for work, she found herself trapped in a closed-off space with live birds. In one of the most unsettling scenes in "The Girl," Hedren is put through take after grueling take, the crew watching with mounting concern for her safety as the birds attack her over and over. Hitchcock, however, looks on impassively, his face chillingly inscrutable. Was the director punishing his leading lady for not being more personally accommodating?
At the time, Hedren says, that thought didn't really cross her mind, because she was focused on getting whatever shots her director needed for the film. And looking back today?
"Honestly, we are dealing with such a devious mind here, with Alfred Hitchcock, that there is no way I can answer that question realistically," she replies, her lips tightening.
Jones, who spent long hours studying footage of the iconic director to capture his walk and famous speech patterns, says viewers are free to reach their own decisions about what is going on in Hitchcock's mind as he watches Hedren's distress.
"There's lots of things going on, but in my opinion, it's mainly fascination with Tippi's resilience and wondering what the source of that resilience is and how far it will sustain her, and there's also guilt about that fascination," the actor says. "That's also the drama of the character, but Hitchcock is gripped also by whether the actress is going to be broken.
"I think it has something to do with the fact that this was at that moment in his life when he was at his most powerful," he adds. "He had just released 'Psycho,' which was so hugely successful. I know many people will look at this film and go, 'Oh, he's a monster,' but if I've done my job properly, they'll see that all of that is true, but he is also pathetic. There's just a pathetic smallness to his meanness, and a self-loathing going on as well."
And then came 'Marnie'
After "The Birds," as Hitchcock and Hedren began work on "Marnie," the director shifted strategies, pleading for Hedren's love in drunken phone calls during which he'd share his fantasy of leaving Alma so that he and Hedren could be together. Hedren says she never said or did anything to encourage those fantasies, and she was utterly baffled by Alma's tolerance of this behavior.
"The whole relationship between Alma and Hitch has been an enigma to everyone," Hedren says. "What was it? It became very clear to me when she came to me one day and said, 'Tippi, I am so sorry you have to go through this,' and I said, 'But you could stop it.' She just glazed over and kind of walked away. It was ... interesting. And a sad situation, really."
Finally, while working on "Marnie," Hitchcock crossed an irrevocable line with Hedren. "He made demands of me that I could not acquiesce to or even consider in my wildest imagination," she says. "It was insulting, and I said right then, 'I want to get out of the contract, and as soon as this film is over, I'm out.' "
Hitchcock made good on his threat to destroy her career, refusing to allow her to work with any other directors and discouraging a push to get her an Oscar nod for "Marnie." (She had won a Golden Globe Award as most promising newcomer in "The Birds.")
Today, however, Hedren, 82, says she is able to look back on both her films with Hitchcock without rancor.
"I enjoy watching them both very much," says Hedren, who's also known for being the mother of movie star Melanie Griffith and for her wildlife preservation work. "You know what he did? He ruined my career, but he didn't ruin my life. I would never let that happen. Nobody's going to do that to me."
We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.