quote:
I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked...
I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. There is no way you can get anything remotely like that from anything that I wrote.
quote:
like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.
That would require an outright repeal of the First Amendment.
Religous theorists have every right to tell Congress what they think scientists think. Scientists also have the right to tell Congress what they think. It does not take a genius to figure out which is mroe credible.
quote:
The FCC has that kind of power and is not easily ignored. So does the FBI and CIA... not easily ignored.
Not really. The FBI and the CIA are not independent and have no power not granted by the President and the Congress.
quote:
Any printing cost addition to a publisher is a cost. Any forced disclaimer (especially a false one) reduces its credibility. Any loss of sales is a loss. Maybe it ends up not being much? I have no idea. But if it does, then why not?
Any printing cost is a cost. But that cost is very small compared to the profit being made for the sale of the book. The cost of the disclaimer is a complete non-issue. And how is the disclaimer supposed to cause a loss of sales? Every single biology textbook approved by the Textbook Committee will have to carry this disclaimer. No creationist books are approved. And students don't get a choice; the government is buying and choosing the books and
they are the ones that would require the disclaimer. Indeed the
Textbook Committee, the organization that approves textbooks in Oklahoma, officially wanted the disclaimer but was stopped by the Attorney General.
(Now what would cost the publishers money is the seperate provision allowing local districts to use state money to buy unapproved books. Clearly is to allow them buy quack books. If local politicians want to buy creationists books I don't see how whether or not a book has a disclaimer will affect it either way. Of course no one gets to sue for financial damgages over how the state chooses to spend its money for a competitor's product.)
quote:
quote:
And recall that with a few minor word changes that the disclaimer has existed as an accomplished reality in Alabama for far longer than five years.
And this means what? If you feel it has had no effect in AL, then what are you complaining about if it goes to OK?
Reread what I actually wrote and keep in mind the context.
You stated that five years ago that you would not though such a disclaimer likely. I am arguing that five years ago you should not have thought that. To point out that disclaimer was already under official use for several years at that time in another state would make the idea of thinking such a disclaimer unlikely rather silly.
When the Kansas flared up almost five years ago; the surpring part was that it was Kansas and not Oklahoma. The moment I heard about Kansas, I knew that Oklahoma would soon join the firestorm. And it did.
If you think that I in any way approve of the Alabama disclaimer whether it be in Alabama or Oklahoma than you better do some serious rereading.
To point out that something does not even remotely meet the criteria for the legal concept of "libel" does not in any way mean approval or validity. That disclaimer makes many claims which are outright false. It also uses scientific terminology incorrectly. Thus it is clear it has no legit educational function. The legislature failed to do any fact finding (the ammendment was added with stealth almost the very day the bill was voted on by the House) that one would expect for such a measure. That it is clearly motivated for purely religious reasons without any secular justification makes it clearly unconstitutional.
™ Version 4.2