Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Algore
In the Seattle suburb of Federal Way, Algore's propaganda film has stirred up a frustrating controversy. A "science" "teacher" used the film in class, without any coverage of the truth. A parent objected, saying both sides needed to be given. Amazingly, the school board took the side of the parent and stopped the film.
This is a good result, but frustrating because the parent wasn't really objecting to the total falseness of the film; he was a self-described "creationist" who agreed with the lies but only objected to the secular context of the lies. He wanted the same lies to be presented in a religious context!!!!!!!!!!!
"It's not that we don't believe global warming is happening. It says so in Revelations," said Hardison. "We've been expecting it for what, 3,500 years now?"
AAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!!!!
The teacher defended herself: "I thought the use and interpretation of data was thought-provoking."
AAAAAAACCCCKKKKKK again!!!!!! In teaching science, you're not supposed to present "thought-provoking" data. You're supposed to present ACCURATE data. This illustrates the total Leninization of science. Truth is whatever the Party says it is, and Algore is unquestionably an authoritative member of the Politburo.
One Communist parent was quoted as saying: "Make no mistake, the moratorium is prior restraint of free speech."
No, no, no, no, and no. Schools can always choose which books or movies to include in their curriculum. Parents can object to the choice, and schools may accommodate the parents. If you must put this in 1st Amendment terms, it's an act of publishing: choosing which content to distribute. So the school was exercising freedom of the press. This point is often misunderstood by people on both sides. Most situations described as "censorship" are in fact choices made by publishers, and are thus implementations of the 1st Amendment, not violations of the 1st Amendment.
Story here.
= = = = =
Afterthought for clarity: Constitutionally speaking, there's nothing wrong with the school presenting the film, and nothing wrong with pulling the film. Both choices are strictly OK, though it's better for the 'spirit of the system' when a school responds to the parents who pay its taxes. My objection to presenting the film is tied to the proper role of science ... the sacramental status of accuracy, if you will. ¶ 9:36 AM
This is a good result, but frustrating because the parent wasn't really objecting to the total falseness of the film; he was a self-described "creationist" who agreed with the lies but only objected to the secular context of the lies. He wanted the same lies to be presented in a religious context!!!!!!!!!!!
"It's not that we don't believe global warming is happening. It says so in Revelations," said Hardison. "We've been expecting it for what, 3,500 years now?"
AAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!!!!
The teacher defended herself: "I thought the use and interpretation of data was thought-provoking."
AAAAAAACCCCKKKKKK again!!!!!! In teaching science, you're not supposed to present "thought-provoking" data. You're supposed to present ACCURATE data. This illustrates the total Leninization of science. Truth is whatever the Party says it is, and Algore is unquestionably an authoritative member of the Politburo.
One Communist parent was quoted as saying: "Make no mistake, the moratorium is prior restraint of free speech."
No, no, no, no, and no. Schools can always choose which books or movies to include in their curriculum. Parents can object to the choice, and schools may accommodate the parents. If you must put this in 1st Amendment terms, it's an act of publishing: choosing which content to distribute. So the school was exercising freedom of the press. This point is often misunderstood by people on both sides. Most situations described as "censorship" are in fact choices made by publishers, and are thus implementations of the 1st Amendment, not violations of the 1st Amendment.
Story here.
= = = = =
Afterthought for clarity: Constitutionally speaking, there's nothing wrong with the school presenting the film, and nothing wrong with pulling the film. Both choices are strictly OK, though it's better for the 'spirit of the system' when a school responds to the parents who pay its taxes. My objection to presenting the film is tied to the proper role of science ... the sacramental status of accuracy, if you will. ¶ 9:36 AM
