Complaints about global warming, race stall cody school board education gas pump icon


"Because these total Tea Party activists are older and mostly white, they don’t quite understand what is going on in the world," she said, later clarifying that she was specifically regarding their understanding of applying to college, getting jobs and technology.

Stephens thinks students should help steer the issue. She’s bothered that a board, for whom most students can’t vote, is elected to make decisions for them." Mariah Stephens-the simple answer to the question of why they have the authority to decide a school related issue is that they were elected to do exactly that. If you do not agree with their decision it is your right to protest and discuss it. If you still are not happy, please feel free to vote accordingly for the next school board. This is how voting works in the US. It is not always perfect but it’s what we have. They should also take into account their constituents ideas when they make a decision as well, but in the end there will always be some constituents that may not be happy, but that’s how it works unless there is unanimous agreement.As far as the children having a say, they range from pre-k to HS Seniors. Do you really they are capable of making these types of decisions? After all, isn’t this a bit too much free range parenting? If the Seniors are 18 then they can vote for the school board.

The Tribune ought to get its facts straight. Struemke is not active in any tea party organization – he was invited to speak at one event last year, and did so. If he were invited to speak at the Rotary Club, would that make him an "active Rotarian"? I resigned from a brief stint as a director of the Big Horn Basin Tea Party in January over issues of policy and direction, and speak for myself only. That said, the insults of such as "dd ric" only display his own rudeness and intolerance. I am glad that we have high school students concerned about issues outside the classroom, but isn’t it ironic, in the circumstances, to have one offering racist and "age-ist" insults to community members? At least we don’t have fainting spells over such things, like the typical progressive. I remember when I was a high school junior; I too understood the world far better than any of my elders. But from the perspective of age, I have to admit that 62 years of living all over the United States, of extensive domestic and foreign travel, of a lifetime of reading, of earning both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, of military service, a government career, and work in the private sector alongside people of every imaginable race and faith and opinion, have left me with a bit more understanding of the world than I had in high school. If Ms. Stephens has a hard time understanding our criticisms of these materials, she could certainly seek us out, rather than depending on the exaggerated straw man caricatures provided her by some of her teachers and their allies. Climate change? We don’t have time, and the Tribune doesn’t have enough paper, to host that debate. But debate it is, and that is all we are asking to be acknowledged. "Global warming" or its new euphemism "climate change," under mounting assault over falsified data, collusion and conspiracy by scientific and non-scientific sources, unreliable computer modeling, and the repeated failures of its apocalyptic predictions, has taken on the trappings of a religion, with its true believers as intolerant of skeptics, both lay and scientific, as the Inquisition 500 years ago, or Islam today. This anti-intellectual fervor has no place in our schools. The critics of these proposed curriculum resources are asking only that they acknowledge this is a controversial topic, and not settled science, as if anything were ever "settled science." Discussion of the issue must occur, but it must be balanced. Some of these proposed resources are fine; all are, in the opinion of the educators who recommended them, useful in the teaching of "language arts" and we do not challenge that. We do object to factual inaccuracy and bias, and one-sided treatment of controversial issues, in the selection and content of the readings. Supporters speak out both sides of their mouths, claiming first that there are no problems in the materials, and then saying that teachers will handle any such problems on their own. However, on the evidence of their testimony and their Facebook rants, it is clear that some district teachers (a minority, I hope and believe) share the biases and have no regard for factual accuracy, and could not be depended upon to present the issues fairly. We are the ones who ask for a "level playing field" where the printed texts in our kids’ hands do not start with egregious errors and pervasive political bias. We recognize the expertise of educators in their field – in this case language arts – but on the evidence, we do not credit them with expertise in history, social studies, or natural science – or else they would have noted these problems themselves, or at least would be willing to acknowledge them now, and work with us to improve the materials through a local review that could provide corrections or supplementary materials to assist teachers. If that were done, we’d be happy to see this package purchased and used. The complaint process now underway is a distinctly inferior approach to the problem, but it is the only process the board and the school district have provided.