Since when did being well-read and intellectually sophisticated become an anathema?

I watched the debate last night and was more or less pleased with all parties. Gwen was her usually sharp and focused self. Biden kept himself reigned in and exuded the deep knowledge and competence he is known for (and avoided any significant gaffes, that he is also known for). Palin spoke in more or less diagram-able sentences and certainly nailed her talking points, to her credit (and ignoring the much lower bar that was apparently set for her...). It was interesting and I do not feel like I *completely* wasted 2 hours of my life. That said, it further irritated an increasingly sensitive issue for me...

I am *really* tired of "faux-folksy" and the snide condescension being directed at the well-read and...you know..."smart folk". I know the practice(s) has waxed and waned for a long time, but in recent years, it has been rolled out as a major mantra for a small segment of society...to the profound detriment of the whole. The most recent wave was triggered by the "ya'll just don't understand" anti-intellectualism of our Yale College and Harvard Business School educated president. He has spoken with pride of his "C" average at Yale (a genuine feat, as mediocrity must be strived for at the Ivies), of his self-professed dis-inclination to read and has spoken, repeatedly, with contempt for those "ivory tower intellectuals" (cf. Yale, HBS above). He seems to take pleasure in his inability to pronounce certain words and/or speak in complete sentences.

Last night's debate demonstrated that the next generation of national figures are embracing this trend...at least those who don't bring much, you know, education, sophistication, depth and/or knowledge to the table. I really do not think it unreasonable to have national political figures speak in complete sentences and avoid bogus terms of art. I do not want a national figure saying "Doggone it," "You guys," and/or "Darn right". I do not want "you" to be "ya,"... dropping the "g" from any "...ing" word is just sloppy and is it REALLY too much to ask to expect such folk to be able to correctly pronounce "nuclear"? [N.B. I also have an issue with Eye-ran and Eye-raq...but this might be more that it *really* annoys me when my name is pronounced Eye-an. Iraq, Iran, Ian. It is really not that tricky).

If I hear one more person say, "I like her, she sounds just like the girls down at the lunch counter" [this and a close second version heard on various programs this morning], I'm going to start twitching uncontrollably. I also heard more than one iteration of "she's common folk". I do not want "common folk" as the VP (or, god forbid, President). I do not want someone who "talks like the girls at the lunch counter". These are NOT selling points. I find it profoundly disturbing that some people seem to think it is a good thing.

I *want* a Pres/VP to be *smarter* than I am. I want them to have a *more* sophisticated world view than I do. I want them to be able to control their tendencies toward snarky condescension, because they are "better" than that (and me ). I know they are human and I am comfortable with slips...to err is human and all. I am not expecting "perfect" humans, but I do not think it is unreasonable to expect articulate, intelligent and intellectually questing humans. I simply do not understand why people would want national leaders who are anything less.

Thomas Jefferson [and H.L. Mencken] is credited with saying “The government you elect is government you deserve.” It is seldom mentioned by all these "strict constructionist" that voting in this country was restricted (by the oft mentioned Founding Fathers) to young country's equivalent of landed gentry...only educated, land-owning men need apply (though exceptions were routinely made for land-owning widows...). It made a good deal of sense then...and perhaps now. The idea was to vest the vote in those who could make calculated, ration decisions and had a vested interest in "success". I am being facetious, of course...more or less.

And I will not even start on the issue/idea of a national figure who actively investigated removing books from a public library because s/he did not agree with their content. It does not matter as to the success or failure of such an effort...that anyone would consider such a thing should *preclude* office-holding (and library use) for life.

We are suffering, I think, from the "dilemma of the lowest-common-denominator". We seem to have moved away from national figures trying to educate "the masses", of trying to "raise up" their knowledge base. Rather, they "speak the language of the people"...and increasingly such speech is directed toward the *slowest* person in the proverbial room. I know I am an elitist. I know I think reading more, listening more, thinking more and striving to comprehend more is *better* than apathy, ignorance and/or the conscious embracing of mediocrity. It is undoubtedly a flaw. Again, I would just much prefer to have politicians *smarter* than I (and most others) am... [N.B. though, clearly, not smart enough to realize what a thankless, masochistic job national politics is...]. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, there are people from all sides pandering to the lowest-common-denominator...to their, and the country's, great diservice.

Then again, doggone it...ya know, I'm probably wrong. The world is changin' and I should just stop worryin' my pretty little head 'bout it. I think I'll just disconnect myself. [N.B. Slightly updated to clean up some ugly grammar/typo issues...I should probably proofread as I spew...]

Happy National Banned Book Week

As I am certain you all know, September 27 through October 4 is National Banned Book Week [as sponsored by the American Library Association].

There are many activities and interesting bits of this and that at the ALA's site...and great things to purchase (like this nice book bag).

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas," The One Un-American Act." Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1 (Jan. 1953): p. 20.

American Library Association on Intellectual Freedom and Censorship...

First, two quotations from the site (and a bonus):

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” ( John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ” (Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin, circa February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly)

The ALA has a very good, concise Q&A on Intellectual Freedom and Censorship. Given one of the canditate's overt actions in this area, I strongly recommend it for all...

Then and Now...sarcasm and facetiousness for fun...

As we all know, the spin docs are very dizzy at moment...no one has more fun that catching what comes out of both sides of their mouths more the J. Stewart:

On a slightly related note, I never thought I was a single issue voter. However, I have just discovered that if you try to ban books from public libraries I will not vote for you. Ever. No matter what...

Offered without comment:

Per the NYTimes:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”

All right...I guess I lied. I wanted to post this without comment, but I can not. The idea that any politician would go into a public library and seek to have removed any books...for any reason...is beyond contempt. There are many reasons I think she is/was a poor choice as running-mate...this issue states to me that she is not fit to hold any office (including that of the PTA).

On other fronts, I am back in Portland, unpacking and will post a wrap-up of Baltimore shortly...

Fourth Amendment is alive and being protected by librarians...

There has been much news and ranting (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here) about a nice young librarian and her staff. In brief, on June 26th five state troopers showed up at the Kimball Public Library in Randolph, VT and demanded that the children's librarian, Judith Flint, turn over the libraries 5 public terminals to them. She said that would be fine, as soon as they showed her a search warrant. And thus the fun began.

The library's director, Amy Grasmick (pictured) arrived to find "a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman," (Flint is 4-foot-10...I'd give a great deal to find a picture of *that*). She backed up her librarian and demanded they return with a warrant. They did secure the machines to prevent tampering and the police did return with a warrant.

Interestingly, a new Vermont law requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect on July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one. This would seem to fly in the face of the beloved "Patriot" Act, that basically states that that 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is quaint and dated and should be ignored given the constant threat confronting this country and its ever-so-fearful inhabitants.

The great danger with all these folk who complain about criminals getting off on "technicalities" and the governments demands that they have effectively unfettered access to any data they want, any time and without limit is that these "technicalities" are Constitutionally protected rights and they simply can not be tossed to the wayside because we don't like the suspect or because the government says it can't wait (N.B. there are clear exceptions relating to the issue of exigent circumstances). I am not going to rant about the affront to the Constitution ironically call the "Patriot" Act as it would take to long, annoy me too much and it has been done cogently elsewhere (see here and more broadly here).

Suffice it to say that I am a great fan of feisty librarians [hi mom] everywhere. It is strangely fitting that these stewards of knowledge are on the front-lines of this battle that cuts to the core of what this country *should* embody. So a tip-of-the-hat to our librarians...thank you for defending the constitution from those who should know better....

Speaking of feisty librarian and the like, I want to give a strong plug for one of my favorite blogs, Librarian.net ("putting the rarin back in librarian since 1999"). J. West came into her own around the Patriot Act...posting a set of signs to notify patrons of federal monitoring to great acclaim. It is a great site and should be on your RSS list.

Yet another reason to loath politicians...

So, as many of you know, Congress recently changed its tune and passed a bill granting immunity to telecoms that turn over customer data to the federal agents without warrants. In March of this year, Congress (in a far too rare show of spine/respect for the Constitution) 220 Dems voted against telecom amnesty as embodied in the Whitehouse's spy bill. This week, 94 of them voted to approve the functionally identical bill.

Maplight.org done a bit of digging and discovered that between March of this year and June, those who switched their votes received on average 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those who did not switch their positions. See also, here, here and ranting geeks here. Personally, I think the Fourth Amendment is a fair bit more important than the Second (which did quite well this past week)...but what do I know...

Time joins Newsweek in keeping America stupid...

Well, Newsweek treated its US readers as morons twice last year (here and here), now Time joins its competition in "protecting" us from...well...you know, real news. I don't know about you, but I am not certain if I am insulted these NEWS journals view the US "market" as preferring a protracted advertisement for Leibowitz's retrospective to "real news" or if I just feel sorry for our society that "news" has, to all extent and purposes, become lost to our "lowest common denominator" cultural morass.

Sadly, I have been getting most of my day-to-day "news" from foreign sources for the last several years (one of the better side effects of the emergence of the web). CNN, et al have effectively been relegated to the equivalent of an alternative to a poorly scripted "reality" show...which seems to be the niche they are seeking to fill. I have this vague memory of R. Murdoch under oath before Congress stating that Fox "News" had "no obligation" to tell the truth in their reporting...that they were an entertainment corp (I have not citation for this and lack the time to find it...but the memory is reasonably clear (it...er...annoyed me *a lot*)).

I'm going back to preparing for the Boston book fair this weekend. More shortly on this front.

451 degrees isn't so nice for human flesh, either

Thanks to TiL for reminding me that today in 1556, Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake for being "a bit too Protestant" (arguably a balancing by Bloody Mary for Henry VIII's execution of Thomas More for being a bit too Catholic). One of the "Oxford Martyrs" (the other's being Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley), Cranmer was "saved for last", as his recantation was more sought after by Mary. He was, you may recall, the author of The Book of Common Prayer.

The Oxford Martyrs are, at this point, perhaps most widely remembered because Ray Bradbury quoted the last words of Latimer in Fahrenheit 451:

Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.

I would like to think that while I stood on a pyre with a bag of gunpowder hung around my neck, I would have the wherewithal to say something that exceptional. Sadly, I doubt I'd be able to get it out over the whimpering and keening.

The Second Amendment meets the First Amendment...

...and the expected bloodbath ensues. The Washington Post has just published an interesting article on the colossal implosion of big-game hunter Jim Zumbo's career. In brief, Zumbo, a 40+ year NRA member, hunting writer, host of a popular TV program on the Outdoor Channel, etc. wrote a couple of posts calling into question "long range shooting" and the use of assault weapons in hunting (i.e. prairie dogs). Since this began two weeks ago or so, he has "resigned" his position as hunting editor for Outdoor Life (for whom he had written for 42 years), been released from his long-time relationship with Remington, had his highly rated hunting program on the Outdoor Channel put "in hiatus", etc. Personally, I am less interested in this chain of events as a "second amendment" issue as I am from the First Amendment side, the "chilling effect" this will have on rational debate and the matter of the power of unintended consequences.

While many people seem to be writing (or ranting) about this without, apparently, reading what he wrote, I thought I would post it here (N.B. the original posts, on his blog at Outdoor Life, have been removed...an interesting ancillary issue (that is, the "loss" of significant writings when they inflame unusual passions)). The following are the two posts that appear to have some folks worked into a lather:

While at the SHOT Show recently, I ran into a guy who complained that too many hunters were taking excessively long shots. He’s an outfitter, and witnessed plenty of people shooting at elk at distances greater than 350 yards. He suggested that that was too far, primary because the majority of those hunters had no clue of ballistics. Most were “Hail Mary” shots. I agree. We read about people making 500 yard shots and more, and that, to me, is ridiculous.

Then at the SCI convention last week, I talked to a guy who bragged that his custom gun kills deer out at 800 yards and better. To each his own, I suppose, but that isn’t hunting. It’s shooting. And I don’t care how great a marksman you are. The risk of wounding an animal at extremely long ranges is high, and where’s the sportsmanship, the ethics, the satisfaction of taking outrageously long shots? I understand there’s a group in PA that shoots deer at 1,000 yards and more. More power to them. Just don’t ask me to support that kind of “hunting.”

(J. Zumbo, 2/6)

As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.

(J. Zumbo, 2/16)

So it appears that, as a professional hunter, he questions the increasing use of "long range" shots ("shooting" vs "hunting") and the use of "AR and AK" rifles (auto and semi-auto "assault weapons") in hunting (specifically referencing prairie dogs). He *might* have gotten away with this as mere opinion *except* that in his post, he distinguished between "sporting firearms" and "'terrorist' rifles". This alone appears to have worked *many* people into a frothing lather (I'm not posting links to the apparently endless blog posts ranting about Zumbo's "betrayal"...google his name and pretty much the first 45,000 returns are in the "Zumbo=Dumbo" vein).

I will preface by saying that I grew up in rural Maine, have hunted, support the right to hunt (by bow, gun or slingshot) and, in general, support 2nd amendment (which, for those who forget, reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") [N.B. While I do support the 2nd Amend., am I the only one who reads "well regulated" with as much weight as "shall not be infringed"?] I am not interested in discussing what Zumbo said, per se, but rather the reaction and broader implications. Frankly, nearly every "serious" hunter I know would agree with most of what he said...long range shots are flaky and arguably more dangerous and "hunting" with AR/AK rifles, while fun, lacks a certain amount of "sportsmanship." He did not say that such rifles should be banned, per se, simply that they should be banned "from the prairies and woods." By all means, go to a machine gun shoot (Maine had a great event up in Dover-Foxcroft, named for the inventor of the first portable fully automatic machine gun, Hiram Maxim (who also invented the mousetrap), though I do not know if it is still being held)...but blowing away prairie dogs with an AK-47 does seem to lack a bit of...er...challenge.

The WP appears to have hit on the substantive issue. What is important is not the pros and cons of using a .50-caliber sniper rifle to hunt deer (or, as it were, collect deer parts) or AKs on prairie dogs, it *is* an issue of not allowing any division or distinction between hunting rifles and shotguns and assault weapons. The NRA and similar gun-rights groups are adamant in pushing the slipper-slope argument that any regulation of assault weapons, sniper rifles, armor piercing ammunition, etc., etc. will inexorably lead to regulation of hunting weapons (ignoring that whole "well regulated" aspect of the amendment). The point they make is that most of the *money* comes from hunters while most of the "feet on the street" passionate advocacy comes from assault weapon owners and that the NRA effectively endorsed this as the salient point by showing that, "the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed."

Zumbo apologized profusely, but the lifelong hunter and hunting rights advocate was promptly burned in effigy. Granted, the "terrorist" reference was semantically poorly chosen...but his overarching points are at least colorable, if not correct. However, in the editor's note regarding his "resignation," Todd Smith of Outdoor Life states, "We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error." This is immediately followed with,

However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.

The "admission of error", one hopes, was that of speaking a thought out loud and offending the "all or nothing" approach of the NRA, et al (and, for that matter, they clearly do *not* respect his right of free speech, or they would defend his speech on those grounds). The implications, of course, are clear. There can not be a rational discussion of the pros and cons of any of these issues. You either support the completely unfettered "right to bear arms" or you are an enemy to be attacked and pilloried in any and all ways possible. I find this really troubling.

It appears there can be no rational voices in this matter at all. On the "right", you get thrown out of the club if you support any regulation of anything that goes "bang", on the "left" you get ousted if you acknowledge that hunting...and shooting...is fun, constitutionally protected and generally not such a bad thing. As Yeats said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." I think the opinion of a renowned and articulate hunter would be of value in this debate. I bet we don't hear any in the near-term (or at least none not towing the party line of "no regulation is acceptable").

Personally, I am fond of that term "well regulated" and just can't seem to get myself worked up on one side or the other (lacking all conviction). There are firearms that are appropriate for hunting...and there are firearms that are appropriate for target shooting. I am not certain it is unreasonable to have "time and place" restrictions on semi/automatic weapons, sniper rifles, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and such things. There is a rationality issue at play here...in Maine, I am not able to own a Black Cat firecracker, but there is no problem with my owning a .50 caliber weapon with an effective range of 7,500 yards (yes, 4 miles) and the ability to punch through an inch of vehicle armor or 3/4 of an inch of bullet-resistant glass (there are purportedly over 20,000 of these firearms in private hands in the US). Now there is not doubt that big guns are fun...but does one really "need" one. The same argument applies to ARs and AKs. Unfortunately, no one seems able/willing to discuss these issues in anything but extremes...and well all end up suffering for it.

The worst aspect of the Zumbo affair is that it absolutely confirms the worst fears of "rational voices" and reduces the "debate" over gun control to a battle of zealots. Unfortunately, this appears to be an increasingly common problem in this country, from the President's, "If you don't support me, you support Terrorism" stance to the arguments around Intelligent Design (or the lack thereof) and Evolution. Personally, I'm tired of dogmatic arguments unsupportable by reason or logic. I'm tired of the increasingly anti-intellectual sentiment so pervasive in this country. I'm tired of vapid talking heads on "news" programs telling me that if I'm not embracing the current Anna Nichole Smith pseudo-news event then I am "snob". I'm tired of a political environment where deep and/or long-term thinking is *actively* condemned and ridiculed. I am just tired.

It is a good thing Carl Hiaasen has a new book out...I bet the twits in Nature Girl will get their's in the end..............

Changing text while on-press...the creation of variants/states

Thomas', Great Books and Book Collectors offers up another gem. Most are aware that "points" that distinguish a first state from a second (or third) often revolve around a caught misspelling or other typographical error. Seldom, however, is it the result of the author's change of heart regarding a substantiative bit of text.

There was an early and interesting example of the later, however, in James Boswell's renowned, "Life of Johnson." Apparently a handful of the first editions contain the following passage, "swiftly suppressed":

Sunday, 10 October 1779. I mentioned to him a dispute between a friend of mine and his lady, concerning conjugal infidelity, which my friend had maintained was by no means so bad in her husband, as in the wife. JOHNSON. 'Your friend was in the right, Sir. . . . Wise married women don't trouble themselves about infidelity in their husbands, they detest a mistress, but don't mind a whore. My wife told me I might lye with as many women as I pleased, provided I loved her alone'

Boswell had second thoughts about the prudence of the passaged while it was on on-press and called for it to be struck. Perhaps his wife read the manuscript and offered a more compelling authority...

I don't even know where to start...

President Bush claimed new powers today to search US mail without a warrant. In a "signing statement" he executed while signing the postal overhaul bill on December 20, he basically undermined a substantial aspect of the bill itself. His signing statement directly contradicts the part of the bill that explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. My grandmother *often* told me that if I didn't have anything productive to say, perhaps I shouldn't say anything at all...while I often ignore these sage words, what could I really say about this that would not result in a long rant.

That said, please see what the ABA's, "Blue-Ribbon Task Force" said about these statements (in brief: that they are an affront to and undermine separations of powers).

Books, science, myth, Cobb County and the ACLU...

Fair warning, minor rant to follow: Yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a heart-warming piece titled: Cobb gives up on evolution book stickers. In brief, the Cobb County school board, in an attempt to add their own surreal touch to Cobb's colorful (or is it colorless) history ordered stickers be tipped into all the science books (35,000) basically stating that evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Needless to say, some number of rational residents of CC brought suit, supported by the ACLU and many lawyers were made extremely pleased. A judge ordered the stickers removed. Many people sat around scrapping stickers out of books. CC appealed. CC settled the action, agreeing to pay about $167,000 to cover the Plaintiff's legal fees. Add to this sum their own legal fees and I wager that CC has managed to blow about $250,000 or so that could have been spent on...er...new science books.

The issues in CC can best be summed up with the closing comments of the article. Larry Taylor, a father of three students in the system and an advocate for the stickers used the currently trendy "if I find it threatening to my myopic view of the world, blame 'terrorists'":

"They were trying to do the right thing. It's terrorist organizations like the ACLU that are hijacking our country's educational system by imposing their own secular agenda on the rest of us."

On the rational side of reality, Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., stated:

"Students should be taught sound science, and the curriculum should not be altered at the behest of aggressive religious groups. Cobb County school officials have taken the right step to ensure that their students receive a quality education."

This is, of course, the latest skirmish in the ongoing "Intelligent Design" debate and I am not going to dwell on the generalities (admittedly, I have ranted about this before). I have, however, had a thought.

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

I have had a change of heart. I rather like this statement. It is clear and states things that make sense. The textbook contains material on evolution - *excellent*, I'd be worried if it did not and it lets me know what to look forward to in the book. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things - again, *excellent*, evolution is in fact a theory (a reasonably well tested and understood theory, but a theory just the same)...with luck, this statement might trigger useful discussions about theories, hypotheses and facts, a very useful conversation in this age of reality distortion. And finally, noting that "this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" should be a "restating the obvious" issue...but if schools find it necessary to remind students (and/or teachers) of this *fact*, so be it.

No, to be fair, I think there should be a sticker added to the front of all bibles (and possibly other religious texts, but for the moment, just bibles. I propose something like the following:

This bible contains material on spirituality, the nature of the human condition and a hypothesis on the origin of all things. The text contained herein is the product of many centuries of an oral history, the stories being told by one person to another, with all the inherent issues origin presents. It is also the product of many iterations and revisions, again over many, many years...some official, some less so, with large portions edited, excised and/or added at various points of time and for various reasons; it should be viewed as a theory, not a fact regarding the original of all things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Or words to that effect, this is clearly very preliminary. It's just a thought...but it might might be a useful approach. I am very open to all constructive thoughts.