I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

More thoughts about the Cincinnati Zoo

The politically correct mainstream media almost always sides with the Darwinist extremists, but in a refreshing change, the Cincinnati Enquirer posted an editorial condemning the Cincinnati Zoo's cancellation of a combo ticket deal with the Creation Museum.

Here are some more of my thoughts -- along with some repetition -- about the cancellation of the combo ticket deal:
What if the zoo later adds an exhibit about evolution and there is a big protest over it? Because the combo ticket deal has been canceled, the zoo could not defend itself against the protest by pointing to the combo ticket deal as proof of tolerance of opposing views.

Unlike the Darwinists who protested the combo ticket deal, the zoo staff cannot live in an ivory tower where only simon-pure "science" is allowed -- the zoo staff has to be concerned about making money during difficult economic times. The zoo staff has already angered the fundies by canceling the combo ticket deal -- what are the chances that the zoo staff is going to anger the fundies even more by adding or even maintaining mention of evolution in the zoo exhibits? It's just a zoo -- it is not under any obligation to promote or teach evolution theory. This protest is going to backfire because now the zoo is going to try to avoid the evolution controversy altogether by avoiding mention of evolution. Other zoos are likely to get the message too.

I am fed up with Darwinists who are constantly sticking evolution in people's faces. Teaching evolution is not one of the primary functions of zoos. The primary functions of zoos are to display, study, and preserve wildlife.

This controversy has done the zoo much more harm than good. If the hypocritical Darwinists really cared about the zoo, they would have kept their mouths shut about the combo ticket deal with the Creation Museum.

If the combo ticket deal with the Creation Museum was so contrary to the zoo's mission, then how come the zoo staff didn't see a problem with it? The protesters had to come up with an insane "theory" that the combo ticket deal was an inside job by some creationist on the zoo staff.


Anonymous Vavilov said...

The Cincinnati Enquirer published a column by a columnist, not an editorial by the newspaper's editorial staff. That's quite a difference.

Monday, December 08, 2008 10:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>The Cincinnati Enquirer published a column by a columnist, not an editorial by the newspaper's editorial staff. That's quite a difference. <<<<<<

The difference is not "quite" or clear. Defining an "editorial" as the collective opinion of a publication's editorial staff is too narrow, IMO. Not all members of a publication's editorial staff would necessarily agree with a published opinion. Some definitions of "editorial" call it "the" opinion of the publisher or "the" opinion of "the" editor or whatever, but many definitions are much broader, even broad enough to include what are normally called "op-eds." None of the definitions I saw say that editorials are approved by an editorial "staff" or group.

Here are some definitions of "editorial" that I saw in different dictionaries that I found by googling "definition of editorial":

a statement of opinion in a newspaper or magazine, or on radio or television, as by an editor, publisher, or owner

1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
2. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.

adj. Of or pertaining to an editor; written or sanctioned by an editor; as, editorial labors; editorial remarks.
n. A leading article in a newspaper or magazine; an editorial article; an article published as an expression of the views of the editor.

adj 1: of or relating to an article stating opinions or giving perspectives; "editorial column"
2: relating to or characteristic of an editor; "editorial duties"
n : an article giving opinions or perspectives (too broad, IMO)

: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers ; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article [a television editorial]

Usually a brief article written by an editor that expresses a newspaper's or publishing house's own views and policies on a current issue. If written by an outsider it normally carries a disclaimer saying the article does not necessarily reflects the publisher's official views.(emphasis added -- definition from BusinessDictionary.com)

Also, the term "op-ed," short for "opposite-editorial," refers to material written by outside authors, so the term "op-ed" implies that any article written by the publication's staff should be considered to be an "editorial."

If I were to use just a single word to describe the article, I would use "editorial," because "editorial," unlike "column," implies that the article was written by a staff member of the newspaper rather than possibly by an outsider. Another thing I don't like about "column" is that the word implies that the author regularly writes opinion pieces for the publication or a syndicate, and there is no evidence of that here. If I wanted to be very specific, I would call it "an opinion piece by a staff member of the newspaper."

IMO people should not add meanings, interpretations, or unnecessary connotations to standard dictionaries' definitions. Darwinists have been trying to do this with the term "scientific theory" and it only creates confusion.

Anyway, my point was that mainstream journalists tend to be politically correct and so I found this article to be refreshingly different.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:19:00 AM  
Blogger Novlangue said...

The fact that it even got published is a minor victory.

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to tell you from the inside. When you say, "staff" you're implying that the entire staff of the organization had no problems with this deal. When in reality, less than 10 of the 200+ employees of the Zoo didn't even know about this combo ticket until the day it was presented as a finished product.

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:43:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I implied nothing of the sort. And you say that you are from the "inside" -- exactly who the hell are you? Are you on the zoo staff? What is your source for your statement that less than 10 out of 200+ zoo employees knew about the combo-ticket deal in advance? And how many disapproved of the deal after they found about it? IMO most people would not be offended by it.

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home