Tennessee forbad the teaching of evolution, which is a scientific theory. It didn't forbid the teaching of Social Darwinism. If it had been opposed to this rubric of the White Man's Burden philosophy, it could have addressed that issue, and incidentally, might have, in the process, racially integrated its schools and other portions of its society.

I also note that the Brooks editorial goes on at great length about the liberals' ridicule of the conservatives. The conservatives would like to think that they are the vicitims of an elite, because it fits in with their strategy of playing the underdog even when they cease to be one. I find it interesting that it's considered elitist to ridicule a stupid idea if it's held by conservatives.

In the meantime, here at home, a girl in the 13-year-old's homeroom was reading a book about gay rights before class started. The homeroom teacher told her to put it away because it was "not appropriate for school". She was preparing for a debate in her Civics class, so basically, our homework is inappropriate for school if it disturbs another teacher. She, of course, put it away. One more little bit of silence. I was outraged that she should have to do so, but I'm not the child's parent, so I could only express my outrage to my own child, who told me because she was disturbed by the whole thing too.

Are we allowed to challenge the veracity, the intelligence, and the good sense of the ideas of the opposition? Or must we only politely disagree because they might think we are calling them names? Has the habit of applying identities to people become so ingrained in political discourse that a person must not express an idea for fear of being called corrupt, idiotic, or traitorous, and a person must not express opposition to an idea for fear of being called rude, cruel, or elitist?

We do tend to notice these things more when they are done to us than when we do them. We all do them.