A blogger's argument

In the blog entitled Off the Kuff, the most recent post involves the author of the blog detailing how it's a good thing that the Texas House did not pass a bill that would allow for the "strengths and weaknesses" theory to be taught in science classes. He writes, "that's very good news, as it avoids Texas becoming the laughingstock for the time being." The bill would have required that science teachers teach the "weaknesses" of the evolution theory as part of their curriculum. Them article gives a little bit of recent information on the issue including that it was proposed by Ken Mercer from San Antonio and that the vote on the amendment failed by one today. The author of the blog later goes on to write his enthusiasm that the bill did not pass. Through sarcastic words and comparisons he is able to put an image in the minds of the reader of what a bad idea this would have been. His argument revolves around the fact that this will never really go away, therefore we must constantly keep an eye on things. I liked the way he argued only for the fact that he kept the argument entertaining yet obviously he was against the amendment through the entire post. The argument would have been better if he had given any of the reasons why he was against this in the first place. For example, if he let the readers know what his beliefs were, or why he disagreed with the amendment i would have been better aware of his argument.