This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← That's it. Texas really is doomed.

That's it. Texas really is doomed. - Comments

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 1 by Diacanu

.....holy effen shitballs...

Luckily, I had the forsight to cushion my stomach with Tums and milk before I logged on today.

Mon, 26 May 2008 07:51:00 UTC | #175415

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 2 by hungarianelephant

Does anyone know who sits on these boards? Are they like non-execs in public companies - turn up for the lunch and vote the CEO another pay rise?

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:06:00 UTC | #175421

bugaboo's Avatar Comment 3 by bugaboo

This is an absolute outrage!! Surely, he cant get away with this fascism. Does anyone know what the people of Texas can do? I'm lost for words. where's irate?

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:10:00 UTC | #175424

PristinePanda's Avatar Comment 4 by PristinePanda

People like Don McLeroy are walking demonstrations at why the US fails in math and science education.

comment removed by OBC

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:11:00 UTC | #175425

obscured by clouds's Avatar Comment 5 by obscured by clouds

People like Don McLeroy are walking demonstrations at why the US fails in math and science education.

comment removed by OBC


We will not wish death on a person. I'm surprised that I would have to say such a thing.

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:15:00 UTC | #175427

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 6 by Diacanu

PristinePanda-


He deserves to die.


Whoa, whoa, now.
I know you're just venting, but let's be careful with that stuff.

People like this are horrible creatures that the world is better off without, granted, but wishing others dead is THEIR bag.

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:17:00 UTC | #175429

ridelo's Avatar Comment 7 by ridelo

If English is good enough for Jesus...

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:21:00 UTC | #175430

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 8 by FightingFalcon


People like Don McLeroy are walking demonstrations at why the US fails in math and science education.


This posted on the same day that NASA lands its third rover on Mars. I love this board....



And I remind you as well that Texas is a major force in determining curricula and textbook sales for the rest of this country. This can affect all of us. All of us.

I certainly hope it's not too late to reverse this damage being done to the educational system in Texas. If not, then we may all be doomed.


The absolute hysteria!!! I thought Eco-Nazis were bad but some Atheists certainly give them a run for their money!

One man in TX is going to destroy the entire American school system? Let's retain some god damned perspective here, people...

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:30:00 UTC | #175434

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 9 by mordacious1

Hey, wasn't GW educated in Texas? 'nuff said

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:35:00 UTC | #175437

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 10 by FightingFalcon


Hey, wasn't GW educated in Texas? 'nuff said


Actually, it was Yale in CT.

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:37:00 UTC | #175441

padster1976's Avatar Comment 11 by padster1976

Here's his 'stuff' on sex -

"Many feel abstinence the only safe message

By J. Donald McLeroy

Special to the Eagle

11 May 1992

Many of us on the Bryan school district's Teen Sexuality Committee firmly believe that a strong abstinence message is the only safe and realistic goal of a sex-education curriculum for our local schools.
Teen promiscuity results in three major risks: ill-timed or unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases-including AIDS, and emotional or psychological damage. In dealing with this problem, the committee is divided into two basic positions: those who favor a strong abstinence message, with contraception discussed in the context of marriage, and those who favor what is termed "comprehensive sex education" and believe we should give out all the appropriate information so that the sexually active teen will at least have the opportunity and knowledge to engage in what they call "protected' sex."
The comprehensive view agrees that abstinence is the best way to go but claim that "realistically" it is an unattainable goal. I will argue that the abstinence view is the realistic one and the only view that offers "protected sex." To begin, let us define what a healthy sexual teen is, according to the two positions, and then see if the behavior described is likely or not.
The goal of teaching abstinence is that our youth accept who they are and respect themselves and others. With a commitment to the fundamental values of self-discipline, restraint and, for some, religious morality, and with a mind that understands the three major risks of promiscuity, these youth value chastity until marriage.
The goal of the comprehensive view is that our youth accept who they are and respect themselves and others, yet indulge in the temporal pleasure of sex. With the comprehensive education they have been taught, they will be faithful to one partner for a period of time, and during sex always use contraceptives; if not prepared, they will abstain until "protected sex" is possible.
Are "the chaste" or "the protected" behaviors realistic? Are they an appropriate goal for a sexually active teen?
Today in our schools "the chaste" exist. Many of us reading this article are proof of the possibility of teen chastity. It has always been possible. It is just as natural to be chaste until marriage as it is to be promiscuous. The desired result of the abstinent view is totally realistic; it happens all the time.

Do "the protected" exist? To better understand this more complex behavior, let us look at a real example of it - the mature marriage. In the privacy of their bedroom, with careful planning, and where even with "spur of the moment" decisions all the necessary contraception is available, "protected sex" is practiced. Do teens have such a private place? Do they plan so carefully? Do they have the medicine cabinet located so conveniently? Are they so committed? What incredible teens these must be, what mature planners to always find a place with contraception always avail-able and easily usable every time.

In addition, they must be mature enough to overcome their egocentric thinking ("It can't happen to me"), their concrete short-term reasoning ("'Let's eat, drink and be merry."), and the stigma of being known as sexually active ("Psst - they're doing it."). Is such behavior realistic? I believe "the protected," the desired result of the comprehensive view, to be totally unrealistic. It rarely, if ever, happens.
We will now look at which view offers protected sex. "The chaste" are 100 percent protected against the three major risks of promiscuity, and with the specter of AIDS descending on our teens "the chaste" are becoming an extremely advantageous group. I urge all who are abstinent to remain so and those who are not to become so. "The protected" are not so fortunate. Even when they have always used contraception, always utilizing it correctly, they are still at risk for AIDS.
Joseph Sobran, a syndicated columnist, has observed about condoms that "if any other product was to fail so frequently, putting the user at so much risk, Ralph Nader would be calling press conferences to demand the federal government to clamp down on the whole industry."
The truth is "the protected" are only partially protected against pregnancy and STD's. Against the

third risk of promiscuity, the psychological and emotional risks, they are totally unprotected.
I consider the Teen Sexuality Committee to be doing an excellent job. It is accomplishing something no panel of experts could-it is giving our community a forum to discuss and debate its views on a volatile issue, thereby, keeping it under control. Through the involvement of parents, teachers and administrators, its recommendations and findings can help the school board as it seeks to address this subject.
After months of discussions and listening to visiting experts, some of us on the committee are convinced that "realistic" and "protected" are adjectives that should be reserved for the abstinent view.
The comprehensive view is neither realistic nor protective. To encourage sexually active teens to be chaste or to use contraception correctly is difficult, if not impossible. Considering the messages they are receiving from television, movies and music, and considering the unlikelihood of '4protected sex" happening, the abstinent message must be given chance, especially in our schools which should strive for the best.
J. Donald McLeroy is a dentist and a member of the Bryan Teen Sexuality Committee.

(This was originally published in the Bryan-College Station Eagle eleven years ago on 11 May 1992. Today, 12 February 2003, Don McLeroy serves in his second term on Texas' State Board of Education.)"

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:41:00 UTC | #175446

padster1976's Avatar Comment 12 by padster1976

Woo- real batshit crazy stuff now!

"The Gift of Medieval Christendom to the World

1 September 2002


The West is very remarkable and unique in the world. The West has relieved human suffering to a unprecedented degree; the West has developed freedom to a unparalleled level, both in freedom of coercion by other men and in freedom of opportunity to rise above one's original station in life. This is demonstrated by an incredible standard of living where even its "poor" are rich by global standards. It is also seen in the full political rights of all and the accepted idea of equality of all-including women and minorities. It is most obviously seen in the elimination of slavery-that universal plague of mankind that still persists in the world today. Can anyone dispute the fact that untold millions who could, would cherish the opportunity to move here; while those who live here and have the freedom to leave, stay here?

The key question is "Why?" What is it about the development of the West that made it so remarkable and unique? Why in the West are all people important? What is the ultimate source of these ideals of freedom, equality and limited government? What was the defining ideological force that uniquely shaped the West's political development, especially in its formative medieval period?

I believe the best and really only answer to all the above questions is the gradual assimilation of Judeo-Christianity in the West. By arguing that humankind is "made in the image of God", medieval thinkers developed the idea of the dignity of the individual, not something arbitrary-man-given, but a reality, inherent in every person-God-given. This gradual assimilation of this ideal, for example, gave rise to the Cortes' in Spain, the Reichstag in Germany, the Estates-General in France and the Parliament in England. It gave rise to bills of rights, to limits over the powers of kings (i.e. weak governments), to property rights, to taxation by consent, to the development of common law and to that great document of freedom, the Magna Carta. No man, including the king, was better than all others.

How can we know if this is true? We must look at the indisputable historical facts without the fear of being labeled ethnocentric. Where in the modern world do we find freedom? Freedom, as we know it, can be found in Europe-before and after the totalitarians, in England, Canada, the United States, parts of Latin America, and parts of the Pacific rim. It is never found in the ancient world, though Athens and the Roman Republic came closest. It is never found in the rest of the modern world. Freedom is unique to the areas of the world that have been touched by Christianity.

I argue that the development of medieval political structures with their limiting of the power of the governments and the resulting freedom for commerce, and the freeing or releasing of human energy coincides with the assimilation of the ideas of the dignity of the human being-"created in the image of God". This was a gift of the spread of Christianity in Europe or as many call it "Christendom".

Most world history books identify all the characteristics used in my argument but, in my opinion, fail to give them the significance they deserve. These books do not really give an explanation of the coincidence of Christianity and the freedom that follows it around.

(I know the Enlightenment gets all the credit for the what I have said about freedom. But, where on the globe did the Enlightenment arise? In a vacuum or in Christendom? And again, the key question is "Why? Why did the Enlightenment spring up in Christendom?")

Don McLeroy

Member, State Board of Education

dmcleroy@cox-internet.com"

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:45:00 UTC | #175448

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 13 by mordacious1

Fighting Falcon
I meant elementary, jr. high and high school.

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:52:00 UTC | #175452

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 14 by Agrajag

10. Comment #184845 by FightingFalcon on May 26, 2008 at 9:37 am

Hey, wasn't GW educated in Texas? 'nuff said

Actually, it was Yale in CT.

True, but he was *reared* in Texas!
:-)
Ste5e

Mon, 26 May 2008 08:59:00 UTC | #175460

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 15 by mordacious1

Steve
He was "reared" was he? I always thought that about him.

Mon, 26 May 2008 09:01:00 UTC | #175461

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 16 by phil rimmer

FightingFalcon

This posted on the same day that NASA lands its third rover on Mars


... said Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel and one of the supporters of the Science Debate initiative, "Without the best education system and aggressive investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power.


Its not just about drifting backwards slowly. Its about not understanding the need to move forward aggressively, given that your competitors in the world are at the point of out-inventing, out-competing and out-smarting you.

Boy, you don't need McLeroy right now.

As a Brit I give a damn because I look to the US for moral leadership in the World (despite some serious misgivings about recent performance). China as top nation, for instance, would be a moral disaster until they could actually afford some morals of their own.

Mon, 26 May 2008 09:23:00 UTC | #175474

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 17 by FightingFalcon



Its not just about drifting backwards slowly. Its about not understanding the need to move forward aggressively, given that your competitors in the world are at the point of out-inventing, out-competing and out-smarting you.


I agree completely about the need to move forward aggressively. However, this so-called religious awakening is nothing new in America. Just look at where the Scopes Monkey Trial took place. The term "Bible Belt" is certainly nothing new and we've been living with evangelicals for years. Yet, with all this religious hysteria we've still managed to land three rovers on a distant planet and put a man on the Moon. Trust me - we'll be just fine. There are areas of America where science has always been respected and will continue to do so. We need to stop acting like this religious "take over" of TX is anything new. It's Texas for FSM's sake!


As a Brit I give a damn because I look to the US for moral leadership in the World (despite some serious misgivings about recent performance). China as top nation, for instance, would be a moral disaster until they could actually afford some morals of their own.


I'm not sure what to tell you on that one. Considering how much I loathe our politicians, I think it's foolish to look at any government for inspiration for anything.

Mon, 26 May 2008 09:39:00 UTC | #175480

Wosret's Avatar Comment 18 by Wosret

I'm wishing cancer upon him as we speak. HEAD-CANCER! Do-do-do, do-do-do (*waves hands about*).

Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16:00 UTC | #175494

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 19 by phil rimmer

FightingFalcon

However, this so-called religious awakening is nothing new in America


But the move into politics by the religious right is. My point, unaddressed, is not about this mildly corrosive effect on the status quo, but the huge antipathy I would expect from the religious apologists, newly ensconsed in positions of power, to any proposal of a substantial increase in science education required to maintain your position. (Barrett quote.)

The success of tax-funded "science" projects is irrelevant to the fact that many courses of your commercial lunch are being eaten. Existing businesses (e.g. automotive) are being trashed through complacency.

The company I work for sells technology to the US. A decade ago this was mostly US technology, tweaked. Now at least 50% is pacific rim. (We go where its most advanced.) There is no sign of a let up.

I know better than to point to a government for moral leadership (after Bliar). No, it is the aggregate of the peoples of the US, that by the operation and fairness of their society, demonstrate the power of an enlightened morality.

Failure is unthinkable.

Mon, 26 May 2008 10:41:00 UTC | #175500

black wolf's Avatar Comment 20 by black wolf

padster,
what you call 'batshit crazy stuff' is mainstream theology (or should I say theo-policy) and an opinion shared by many politicians (for all I know a large majority) in Europe and America. The Christianity-freedom-enlightenment-democracy connection is being peddled everywhere, it's not something McLeroy just made up himself. I read this every time there's a religion discussion on any forum. It's one of the cornerstones of the Christian claim of social value, going from that to argue the downfall of civilization without (Christian) religion. It's at best a skewed interpretation of the historical evidence, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone in the political arena, even less so the further you move up the ladder.

Mon, 26 May 2008 11:28:00 UTC | #175517

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 21 by FightingFalcon


But the move into politics by the religious right is.


Not really. The Moral Majority was founded back in 1979 and I doubt any Europeans were prophesying the end of secular America as we know it back then.

I believe it was either Time Magazine or CNN that had a good article on the religious right not too long ago, which is surprising considering how tabloid-esque both sources are. They discussed how evangelical Christianity has always supported the Republican Party but only recently have they demanded a voice in the direction of the party. That voice, thankfully, is quickly coming to an end. John McCain is no evangelical and once President Bush leaves the White House, evangelicals will lose their patronage. I can't stress enough how important the pulpit of the White House can be in directing American policy. Republican membership is at an all-time low not just because of the war in Iraq but also because many former Republicans (myself included) have left the party after we watched evangelicals take over the party. CNN/Time noted how many Republicans reacted with horror when evangelicals didn't just vote for Republicans but now demanded an active voice in the party.

I have said on this board many times (and will continue to say) that I firmly believe we will see a tremendous turn around in America once President Bush leaves office. Especially if a Democrat wins the presidency, as they are already poised to pick up many seats in Congress as well. Once evangelicals lose their patronage in the Republican Party, we will return to normalcy. Once the Republicans get their asses handed to them in November, the socially moderate and fiscally conservative wing of the party *should* take over. At least, that is my hope.



The success of tax-funded "science" projects is irrelevant to the fact that many courses of your commercial lunch are being eaten. Existing businesses (e.g. automotive) are being trashed through complacency.


Well, there's many reasons why the automobile industry in America sucks. Mainly because if you put out a crappy product, no one will buy it. Not to mention dealing with the automotive union.

The company I work for sells technology to the US. A decade ago this was mostly US technology, tweaked. Now at least 50% is pacific rim. (We go where its most advanced.) There is no sign of a let up.


You can thank America's highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world for that one. We are losing the battle in technological research not because of our religious fanatics but because of our tax policies. Companies don't care about religious nut jobs if there is money to be made. They go where the most tax-friendly policies are and currently they are not in America.


I know better than to point to a government for moral leadership (after Bliar). No, it is the aggregate of the peoples of the US, that by the operation and fairness of their society, demonstrate the power of an enlightened morality.


I think you are focusing on issues that most Americans do not support. I find that many non-Americans continue to confuse the policies of our government with the feelings of our people. President Bush has a ~25% approval rating and Congress has a ~15% approval rating. Take them for what they're worth.

Mon, 26 May 2008 11:30:00 UTC | #175518

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 22 by Border Collie

Sorry to bring this up, but education has been on the back burner in Texas since the 1800's. (I'm a Texan.) It's why I quit teaching about 30 years ago. Someone might be able to get through to Rick Perry with a diamond-bit drill, but I doubt it. Remember ... He's the guy who wants to build something like twelve new coal-fired power plants in Texas and rammed through that enormous highway that will destroy something like a million acres of prime farm land in Texas. Think about it, guys, this is the state where "humans walked with dinos" down yonder in Glen Rose ... and people literally believe that here. Donate a few million dollars to his re-election campaign and he might listen to you, then he'd go ahead and do what he was going to do originally anyway. I think the outcome is self-defining ... an anti-intellectual on the state school board ... just about says it all to me. I mean, really, talk about climbing Mount Improbable ...

Mon, 26 May 2008 11:45:00 UTC | #175520

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 23 by phil rimmer

FF

That voice, thankfully, is quickly coming to an end.

I'm greatly encouraged by this. If you are right, I share your optimism about the general prognosis.
They go where the most tax-friendly policies are

AND where the brains are.
I find that many non-Americans continue to confuse the policies of our government with the feelings of our people.

Not me.

Mon, 26 May 2008 12:34:00 UTC | #175540

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 24 by PrimeNumbers

Surely this is natural selection in action. Those without brains destroy education. The more education is destroyed, those with brains will leave Texas, or else do something about it. Or not, and they're all doomed.

Mon, 26 May 2008 12:34:00 UTC | #175541

Michael P.'s Avatar Comment 25 by Michael P.

I believe this to be the writings of Mr. McLeroy, from a website proclaiming "A Conservative Look Inside the Texas Public School System":

Thoughts on Naturalism and Intelligent Design: The Sunday School Lecture
http://home.att.net/~dmcleroy/Textbooks/Naturalism_and_Intelligent_Design.htm

Better wait until a couple of hours after you've eaten before reading; it may induce nausea.

Mon, 26 May 2008 12:55:00 UTC | #175543

Zoron's Avatar Comment 26 by Zoron

Like I said, USA is systematically turning into a third world joke-country, very sad....

Mon, 26 May 2008 13:12:00 UTC | #175547

Szkeptik's Avatar Comment 27 by Szkeptik

FightingFalcon
"I have said on this board many times (and will continue to say) that I firmly believe we will see a tremendous turn around in America once President Bush leaves office. Especially if a Democrat wins the presidency, as they are already poised to pick up many seats in Congress as well."

I wish I could be as confident as you are, but with all the lip service to religion going on I doubt that even a democrat president would want to tackle these issues too much. I think whoever wins will rather stay away from this.

Mon, 26 May 2008 13:29:00 UTC | #175552

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 28 by LaurieB

Fighting Falcon,

According to Wikipedia, Texas is the 2nd largest State in both area and population. With 23.9 million people under an educational curriculum such as is described above, I don't consider this to be insignificant. Add on to that any other states with similar policies and, well, you get the picture.

As for the fundies and conservative Republicans that have had an 8 year hey-day in this country deciding to wither and retreat, I see no evidence of this. They are firmly entrenched and pushing back hard against the secularists every day. The articles posted on this website are evidence enough of that. If you're counting on the Democrats to crush them, don't hold your breath waiting. They've put on a poor show of it so far.

Sorry phil rimmer, I disagree on FF on this one. Sad to say.

Mon, 26 May 2008 14:08:00 UTC | #175563

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 29 by Teratornis

The relationship between (a) the compulsory component of science education for the masses and (b) the technological prowess of a nation is far from clear. As critical thinkers, our first priority must be to think as accurately about an issue as we can, rather than think emotionally about it.

The scientific prowess of a nation depends first and foremost (or perhaps almost entirely) on the so-called cognitive elite, that gifted 2% or so of a population from which almost all original thought and progress emerges.

Virtually every member of that 2% exhibits intellectual curiosity. If you are a smart person, then shortly after you first learned to read, you were enthusiastically reading more than just the material being force-fed to your largely disinterested peers. Your peers were content to passively absorb some knowledge from their local culture, but you were constantly looking farther away in space and time for interesting ideas.

Science education for the masses may be somewhat analogous to physical education for the masses. It would be nice if all students emerged as adults with the habit of regular exercise, but the vast majority of weekend warriors will be irrelevant to the outcome for elite professional sports. If the goal is to win a world championship in some major sport, all that really matters for a country's prospects is what the tiny minority of gifted athletes do.

In the realm of elite competition, the vast majority of youngsters are automatically excluded by insufficient talent. All that really matters is how efficiently the recruiting system is able to identify children with potential, and get them into specialized training early on.

Granted, the odds of that improve if an entire nation is mad for a particular sport, but a general cultural obsession is not especially necessary as long as the talented few can find their way. For example, in the United States, cycling is far from a major sport; it ranks in popularity somewhere below horse racing. Nonetheless, ever since Greg Lemond in the 1980s, the tiny U.S. cycling community has consistently fielded a small number of athletes who have done quite well in international competition, and this is all the more surprising considering competitive cycling's extremely low appeal in the African-American and Hispanic subcultures which churn out a disproportionate share of America's elite athletes.

While the "thinking" of Don McLeroy rightly offends anyone who actually does think, he mostly plays to the Marching Moron crowd who never had any hope of doing science anyway. How much does it really matter, economically speaking, whether a semi-literate truck driver or a janitor or a furnace technician or a landscaper or even an accountant believes the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.3 billion? It's hard to think of a decision with real economic consequences in the average non-scientist's life which hinges on a proper understanding of natural history.

As long as science has been around, it has been the domain of a particular subculture. The climate for that subculture is the climate for science.

Anti-science rhetoric can certainly intrude onto scientific inquiry here and there, for example relating to stem cell research. However, a very large proportion of scientific research in the United States is military work - and is there any chance Don McLeroy will oppose that?

There are vast areas of science that Don McLeroy knows nothing about, and the religious tradition which thinks for him hasn't gotten around to making a doctrinal squabble about them.

Science has gotten bashed from both the cultural left and right. The left indulged in anti-science during the 1960s backlash against 1950s postwar scientific hyperoptimism. Then the right started its own backlash in the 1980s against science which it somehow held responsible for the excesses of the 1960s left - who themselves rejected science.

But despite the culture wars, the climate for science just kept getting better and better, thanks to Moore's law. With the Internet, today it is easier for the minority of smart kids to connect their minds to the accumulated thinking of scientific adults.

I'm not saying Don McLeroy's grandstanding isn't a problem - it is - but I will only really start to worry if he tries to shut down the Internet.

I believe compulsory schooling will steadily become less relevant to the education of the scientifically-capable minority, and thus to the scientific prowess of a nation. What really matters is making sure all the smart kids can get on the Internet and find their way to collaborative projects like Wikipedia where they can soak up a quality of intellectual mentoring which far outstrips what most local school districts could hope to provide with their traditional regimented approach.

Schools are industrial-age artifacts. The future is the information age. Smart kids will figure it out for themselves, regardless of how stupid the people around them happen to be.

Mon, 26 May 2008 14:48:00 UTC | #175569

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 30 by Teratornis

Comment #184850 by padster1976:


"Many feel abstinence the only safe message

By J. Donald McLeroy

Special to the Eagle

11 May 1992

Many of us on the Bryan school district's Teen Sexuality Committee firmly believe that a strong abstinence message is the only safe and realistic goal of a sex-education curriculum for our local schools.


Well, duh, rationality will never win this argument until the product of rationality - science - gets its act together sufficiently to make sex actually safe enough for recreation.

Attempting to debate with conservatives about the recreational sex currently on offer is like going up against a Panzer division on horseback.

Recreational sex in its current sorry form obviously does not work satisfactorily under real-world conditions. It's a public health catastrophe almost comparable to the automobile.

Of course Don McLeroy probably doesn't see anything wrong with automobiles, because almost no U.S. citizen questions or even thinks to question the real state religion here.

It's a shame the Bible was written before the invention of the automobile, although of course it's a toss-up as to whether the Bible would happen to condemn the practice. The Bible was written after the invention of slavery and sees no problem with that equally destructive practice.

In any case, McLeroy's (probable) acceptance of automobiles despite the enormous human wreckage they produce indicates that his moralizing really has little to do with the justifications he presents. He probably doesn't really see killing tens of thousands of Americans and maiming many more each year as a problem, when the engine of destruction happens to be something he enjoys.

Mon, 26 May 2008 15:10:00 UTC | #175578