Before I get into anything else, you should all pay Shayna a visit. I'm saying this right now because it's going to be followed by things that are either far less kind in sentiment or immeasurably less important.
You may have noticed the changes in links. I'm waaaaaay behind where it comes to blog refurbishing. I mean shit, I may be the only one here still using the same template that he started with, with no personal touches to the layout or anything that would suggest individuality. In any case, if I haven't linked you and you think I've a good reason to please don't take it as a slight. I've only just now linked to my side project with the lovely Jemima--- And Then What Happened.
Cooper has a post up about global warming. As always she owns the issue and her words ought to be read and pondered, and, hell, whatever you happen to customarily do with words you hold in high regard. I gave some commentary there that may have been coherent or relevant; I don't know. But then I saw this, and I had to say something. A Seattle school has put a stoppage on showing "An Inconvenient Truth" in its classrooms, after a parent complained that it painted a different picture of the end of the world than the Bible.
Oh sweet merciful squealing fuck.
Ok, so at first glance, it's a typical case of some backward-ass fucks (not to be confused with backward ass-fucks) saying that shit shouldn't be taught because it contradicts the Bible and somehow getting their will done by an either cowardly or lobotomized (or both) school board. Then you look at the wording of the actual policy, which requires that whenever a "controversial issue" is discussed, a "credible, legitimate opposing view" is provided.
Let's mull that over a little bit where I give my obligatory "I see what you tried to do here and I respect your intent" before I explain exactly why that's fucking stupid.
Controversy does not limit itself to provable, or even demonstrable arguments. The fact of the matter is, and once again, I quote Douglas Adams, "Not all opinions are equal. Some are a great deal more robust, and supported by fact and argument than others." If controversy can be drummed up by shitheads who eschew the Scientific Method because it arrives at conclusions that bother them, then there won't always be a credible, legitimate opposing view for each controversial issue. And what then? Well, if those assholes over there get their way, the view that is supported by fact and logic and reason doesn't get taught in schools either.
I'm reminded of Pascal's Wager, an application of Game Theory which people of faith often use as a last resort to reach out to atheists. One wonders if those parents ever used that argument, and if it's utterly lost on them how it applies here.