Words of Wisdom

Exhibit A:
From Conservative Dialysis, I came across a post titled "Air Marshalls Prove Their Metal." Strangely, the title was greatly misleading. Now, I realize that misspelling is common enough on the internet (when I googled her, I got 878,000 hits and this is almost six years after the final episode of 90210) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows the stuff I write is probably riddled with typos, but I just thought that the verbiage in that title was so egregious that I just had to say stop. STOP! STOP! STOP! It's just one of my pet peeves when people do this to words because such a small alteration changes the meaning entirely and makes the writer appear so stupid I imagine they are wearing a brimless, conical hat. And this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen. So, allow me to present the title as it should appear: "Air Marshals Prove They're Metal." There. Doesn't that look more intelligent?

Oh! This is supposed to be about words of wisdom so here's the pearl prized from that meddlesome oyster: "Never, never let someone who is bi-polar and is off their medications to go out in public. It can only lead to trouble." That's right. Medical advice from a man who is conservative with his dialysis.

Exhibit B:
Doug, over at Stones Cry Out (what ever are they doing to those poor stones?) has a problem with these darn reasonable, scientific-minded types when it comes to whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Or, rather, not "whether" but "how." That stoner, Doug, quotes several proposals much like the one I have in my "My Amazon Rejection" post and countless others have made, namely, that ID or similar creation theory could be taught in schools in a class that would explore many different creation myths/stories/theories. So what's the ace up Doug's sleeve? Perhaps yet another yawner about how ID really is science-y and also a theory just like Evolution? Oh no. Doug cries out that no one will be interested enough in Intelligent Design to learn about it! That's right. An ID apologist is saying that we would have to force the students to take ID as a required class rather than an elective because otherwise they would be too busy flocking to real science that's applicable in the real world that will help them get into good colleges. He thinks this is a useful way to define the debate.

Where to Hold the ID Debate

So thus we have a whole host of people giving a reasonable-sounding suggestion yet which has an absolute zero chance of happening. Religion class? Forget it. Philosophy class? Perhaps as a low-attendance elective.

Any other suggestions? I mean, ones that have a snowball's chance in Havana of actually happening.

My main point here (and I'll admit, it's a little opaque) is that if you don't think ID has any place in school, just say so. That's a debate worth having. But if we're just going to get suggestions that could never happen in today's educational climate, that's not really a debate.

How ironic, then, that Doug apparently has no problem with the very site he writes for making such distinctions between science and Intelligent Design. Right there on their home page, they're in separate subject categories.

Exhibit C:
The final word of wisdom comes from our favorite bigot, the "pastor" D.L. Foster. It's not so much a word as it is a monosyllabic grunt. It seems that the "pastor" is very excited about a new print ad paid for by the Aryan Family Association or something, promoting the removal of sexual orientation from hate crimes laws because (they claim) such laws protect gays, but not ex-gays. After all, according to the ad, "the only true justice in America is EQUAL justice under law." So, presumably, the "pastor" would be willing to remove religion from such legislation, too, because it protects the religious but not the ex-religious. So does he?

"Nope."

Which shows yet again the mettle of the man and helps to confirm my suspicion that not-straight ex-gaiety is not a sexual orientation.