[Kosh]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/24/thats-it-texas-really-is-doomed/


Seriously, why do you guys keep electing people like this to your school boards?

[Mongoose]

From the articles that one links to, that particular position is appointed by the governor.  (From a big of quick Googling, members of boards of election can be elected, appointed, or either, depending on where you're talking about.)  You could theoretically blame people for electing the governor who chose the idiot, but I somehow doubt he used that intention as part of his election platform.  It doesn't change the idiocity either way, but I'll defer to someone who knows more about how things down there work.

[Mefustae]

From the articles that one links to, that particular position is appointed by the governor.  (From a big of quick Googling, members of boards of election can be elected, appointed, or either, depending on where you're talking about.)  You could theoretically blame people for electing the governor who chose the idiot, but I somehow doubt he used that intention as part of his election platform.  It doesn't change the idiocity either way, but I'll defer to someone who knows more about how things down there work.

No, see, you can't do that. The chain of responsibility ends with the man in charge. The people who put him into power have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever, and to try and call them on their choice just makes you a racist.[/sarcasm]

[karajorma]

This more than anything shows what an idiotic control freak they've put in charge there. I can understand why a creationist might want to screw around with the science curriculum. It's short-sighted, idiotic and wrong but at least I can see what they hope to gain from it.

But why a man who says he has no educational background would decide to throw out a set of standards which people much more qualified than him took several years to put together in order to replace them with ones he came up with himself in a day is beyond me. There is no rational explanation for that other than meglomania.

[Mongoose]

No, see, you can't do that. The chain of responsibility ends with the man in charge. The people who put him into power have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever, and to try and call them on their choice just makes you a racist.

So I'm a racist...for making a comment that you misinterpreted in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with race.  Huh.  Learn something new about myself every day, I do.

What I was attempting to say, which either I didn't communicate clearly enough or you chose to blaze obliviously through, was that one should not blame the Texas electorate for this man holding this position, because they did not elect him; this is what Kosh's post was apparently doing.  I did say that the Texas electorate elected the governor of Texas that appointed this man for this job, and I implied that, unless he was somehow hiding his general world view, one might be able to discern what sort of appointments said governor would make, but I meant nothing beyond that.  I find this man's beliefs considering his position to be as abhorrently idiotic as anyone else, as I also noted.  So...yeah.  I have no idea where you were going with that.

And on the off-chance that I've utterly misinterpreted what you were trying to say and missed some inherent sarcasm, then lulz on me, I suppose.  I've been up for God knows how many hours straight working on assignments I have no hope of completing in time.  So sue me.

Edit:  Lulz it is, then.

[Mefustae]

And on the off-chance that I've utterly misinterpreted what you were trying to say and missed some inherent sarcasm, then lulz on me, I suppose.  I've been up for God knows how many hours straight working on assignments I have no hope of completing in time.  So sue me.

Heh, yeah, that was sarcasm. Could have been a little more clear on that, myself. Sarcasm-to-text problems and all that. Just taking the piss out of thesizzler and co who got into a huff last time it was implied that an electorate bear some of the blame for the actions of the bloke in charge, even *shock!* the people that didn't vote for him.

But, had I been totally serious in my last post, right on. You countered quite well.

[Kosh]

And on the off-chance that I've utterly misinterpreted what you were trying to say and missed some inherent sarcasm, then lulz on me, I suppose.

Chill out, he always posts obnoxious/sarcastic stuff like that. Adds flavor.


Yeah I did misstate who put him into power, but still...........

[Mongoose]

Heh, yeah, that was sarcasm. Could have been a little more clear on that, myself. Sarcasm-to-text problems and all that. Just taking the piss out of thesizzler and co who got into a huff last time it was implied that an electorate bear some of the blame for the actions of the bloke in charge, even *shock!* the people that didn't vote for him.

Heh...now that you mention it, I do remember reading a bit of that conversation, though it obviously wasn't enough to leave enough of an impression in my brain.  (I was coming at the issue from a perspective that probably would have managed to be opposed to both sides, which is why I didn't pursue it at all. ) And I'm usually the one making fun of someone else for missing sarcasm...so much for that, I guess.  Sorry if I came across as snappish.

Anywho, my obliviousness aside, I'd be astounded at this if I didn't subscribe to that Einstein quote about infinite stupidity.  Like kara said, it's not even that the guy's personal beliefs are diametrically opposed to the nature of his job; he's demonstrating management tendencies that would be considered asinine in any setting.  It's a rare breed of idiot that manages to do both.

[Skullar]

I strongly support McLeroy.

Why ?

Because I am european, and if this dumb nut is through with texas, we have a strong advantage over those cowboys... hehehe

[colecampbell666]

I agree, Let him cripple the US, have no science, and stop developing anything. Then we can destroy them.

[Mefustae]

Okay, okay, settle down. We seem to be straying into territory where it's getting insulting to HLP's US users. Let's keep the insults confined to the morons who deserve it: Creationists, Texan government officials, and Kosh (call me obnoxious, will you!).

[DeepSpace9er]

Im just.. wow. He must be one of those 'if its not in the Bible, it isnt science!' types. Religion, especially christianity, tries to explain for them what science cant. Once it can, they cant let go of their fairy tale dreamworld views. Science is blasphemy.

[karajorma]

Actually maybe that explains the whole English standards thing too. Has anyone checked to see if the old standards weren't thrown out for not teaching enough biblical words. Maybe he just got sick of kids asking him what begot means all the time.

[redsniper]

I strongly support McLeroy.

Why ?

Because I am european, and if this dumb nut is through with texas, we have a strong advantage over those cowboys... hehehe

I agree, Let him cripple the US, have no science, and stop developing anything. Then we can destroy them.

I wish destruction on you too...

[Goober5000]

That article (and this thread, too) is long on hysterics and short on information.  I understand as far as that some people were working on a new curriculum for three years, and this guy substituted a new one at the last minute.  But what are the substantive differences between the two versions?

[karajorma]

The new curriculum was a hasty rehash of two separate proposals. The problem is not the difference between them (which is largely unknown) so much as the unseemly haste with which this was pushed through.

If you were given a contract to sign, weren't given time to read it, were continually shouted at to sign it instead of reading and finally had the other party grab your hand and draw your signature on the page wouldn't you be upset about that even if the contract turned out to be a good one?

But in this case it's unlikely to be a good one. As the Dallas News article points out the other part of the curriculum comes from StandardsWork group. Which the teachers had already read and considered to be poorer than the other version. Yet instead of being properly discussed it was simply rammed down everyone's throats. Which doesn't bode well at all for when the same people have to decide on the science curriculum.


I fount this bit rather telling

Here is Don McLeroy’s own website, from the Favorite Quotations section:

    The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiser as mentors, or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old. I share that scepticism.

Think that one through for a moment, folks. The new head of the Texas State Board of Education is an anti-intellectual. Note: he didn’t say this himself, he is quoting someone else; but it’s clearly a quotation he agrees with.

The fact that the head of Texas' education system is anti-intellectual should worry you if nothing else in this whole sorry mess does.

[Goober5000]

The new curriculum was a hasty rehash of two separate proposals. The problem is not the difference between them (which is largely unknown) so much as the unseemly haste with which this was pushed through.

If you were given a contract to sign, weren't given time to read it, were continually shouted at to sign it instead of reading and finally had the other party grab your hand and draw your signature on the page wouldn't you be upset about that even if the contract turned out to be a good one?

Oh absolutely.  That's the way the USA PATRIOT Act was rushed through, and it's a terrible way to do contract work.  But I got the impression that people were more upset over the content of the curriculum than the speed at which it was signed.

The fact that the head of Texas' education system is anti-intellectual should worry you if nothing else in this whole sorry mess does.

He's skeptical, which is not inherently a bad thing.  Especially with all the groupthink going on nowadays.

I'm just wondering if this curriculum that was under development for three years was an actual curriculum, and not some happy-feely politically correct kumbaya.  If the guy muscled through a classic curriculum based strictly on reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, that would be a good thing.  And his detractors might try to spin it in such a way as to produce an article like this.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened.  But that's what it smelled like to me, so I want to make sure we have all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

[WMCoolmon]

Goob, check out the guy's site and the Textbook adoption section. He goes to a great deal of effort to cite the first 20 pages of a 725-page textbook to 'prove' that the whole thing is wrong (and offers no sources for his facts whatsoever).

He credits Christianity with the western world, conveniently leaving out the hodgepodge of religious interaction that actually existed.

His page on evolution is godawful, and he's using some kind of comparison to Heliocentrism to prove something about evolution. But frankly the other pages on that site are so worthless that I only skimmed that page and a few of the points he was trying to make before I quit reading. He seems to believe that people are jumping on the bandwagon for evolution, and continues the "no evidence of macro evolution" that was popular 2-3 years ago.

I love this little gem: "We don’t know if macroevolution is works"

Good thing this guy isn't teaching an English class! Oh wait...

[haloboy100]

Religion, especially christianity, tries to explain for them what science cant.

Nah, those are just the Catholics.

[karajorma]

The new curriculum was a hasty rehash of two separate proposals. The problem is not the difference between them (which is largely unknown) so much as the unseemly haste with which this was pushed through.

If you were given a contract to sign, weren't given time to read it, were continually shouted at to sign it instead of reading and finally had the other party grab your hand and draw your signature on the page wouldn't you be upset about that even if the contract turned out to be a good one?

Oh absolutely.  That's the way the USA PATRIOT Act was rushed through, and it's a terrible way to do contract work.  But I got the impression that people were more upset over the content of the curriculum than the speed at which it was signed.

The difference between my analogy and this case is that the teachers had already examined the StandardsWork's version and rejected it. Which makes rushing it through like this much harder to defend. We already know there was content that was considered poor. And the only reason to act in this way is to try to get it through as quickly as possible before someone has a chance to smell the **** you're shovelling