How else will I force my agenda on the next generation.

As we noted last month, a number of states have been considering laws that, under the guise of “academic freedom,” single out evolution for special criticism. Most of them haven’t made it out of the state legislatures, and one that did was promptly vetoed. But the last of these bills under consideration, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), was enacted by the signature of Governor Bobby Jindal yesterday. The bill would allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories, allowing poorly-informed board members to stick their communities with Dover-sized legal fees.

I’m sure those that lean to left are ecstatic to see the people express their political will on this topic. Better this than privatizing education.

According to Glen Reynolds:

I’M WRITING A SHORT PIECE ON HELLER FOR NORTHWESTERN, and something became clear to me as soon as I started writing: What’s most striking about Heller is that absolutely everybody — majority and dissents — says the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

It’s true that the dissenters’ view of that right is somewhere between “minimalist” (to be charitable) and “incoherent” (to be accurate). But nonetheless, all nine Justices specifically said the right is individual, and thus rejected the “collective right” position on the Second Amendment, a position that’s been the mainstay of gun-control groups, newspaper editorialists, and lower federal courts for decades, and one that was presented by those adherents as so obviously correct that those arguing for an individual right were called “frauds” and shills for the NRA.

Yet the collective right theory could not command a single vote on the Court when actually tested. It was, it seems, a paper tiger all along.

And some say I can never admit to being wrong. If being wrong means showing how completely asinine the collective rights argument was for the second amendment then I will be wrong all day long.

In regards to the the more left leaning justices on the supreme court, Tom Maguire summarize their contradictory rulings perfectly:

BONUS CHEAP SHOT: The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can’t find a right to possession of a firearm.

You have got to some serious mental ninjitsu to create several rights out of thin air and then fail to find a right that is stated explicitly in the constitution.

This is a news story about how European Union parliamentarians come in on Fridays sign an attendance sheet and then leave for a three day weekend. Just watch how these bureaucrats respond to being filmed. Make sure you stick around for the halfway point to see how a German Bureaucrat responds. Its laugh out loud funny.

I realize that these are European bureaucrats, but these are the kind of people that are attracted to this kind of job. It’s worth noting that many of the polices that my readers on the left support would actually expand the power of these positions and in turn the power of theses kind of people.

Using the state to remedy perceived social ill comes at the cost of giving people with more malleable moral integrity greater power. One heck of a price to pay to assuage your guilt about having a good life.

Don Surber reminds us about gun control’s effectiveness:

Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?

Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991.

Question: What’s the highest the murder rate has been in gun happy West Virginia in that time?

Answer: 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people. us:

I eagerly await those of you that take stock in ‘facts’ to renounce any support of gun control as means to reduce gun violence. Maintaining that position simply means refusing to accept the ‘facts’.

This is particularly relevant as some of you have argued that at least one of my analogies in teaching sex education does not work because it’s fact that such programs does not increase rate of sexual activity among children. Live by the fact die by the fact.

Is it alarming that 4 out of the 9 supreme court justice can’t read English.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.’s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

You would think for such an important position in our government that there would be a minimum requirement for being able to read. Congress should pass a law requiring nominated justices to pass a 5th grade reading test before becoming a supreme court justice. That way we can be sure that the justices have read the constitution when they rule on the constitution.

While stumbling I came across this boring political cartoon mocking the rationale for not teaching safe sex in school. The cartoon features teachers in classrooms stating they will not teach basic principle of their courses because it might lead to the students using those principles in absurd ways. For example the social studies teachers states she won’t teach the students about Mexico because it might motivate the students to runoff there.

This cartoon is aimed squarely at mocking those that don’t think sex education should be taught in schools. More specifically the rationale that teaching sex education in school will lead to more promiscuous behavior by the students. I find it odd to mock this rationale. Do those that enjoy this mockery deny the capacity of knowledge to increase the rate of incident in matters relevant to that knowledge?

For example, would they laugh if one of the teachers said ‘I can’t teach you intelligent design because you might think god was responsible for the design of the animals on this planet’? How much laughter would the teacher that said ‘I can’t teach you about how black people are intrinsically dumber than white people because that might make you a bigot’. If you ask me, many of the people that poke fun at the rationale behind prohibiting sex education in school use that same rationale to force their values on the students.

Tell me what you think.

Make sure you stick around for diplomacy.

I honestly wish this was practically all the federal government did all day.

And as bonus actually gives evidence for evolution.

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.