bush too liberal for christian right????

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif word around the capital....d.c.


bush has openly courted gay votes by extending dialogues with the human rights campaign..(largest gay group)...and has given some support for gay marriages, gay parent adoption, and same sex living partners/opposite sex living partners(in d.c.)

word is 4 milllion far right christian conservatives did not vote in last election, which was real reason election was close....

look for bush to get ugly if he has to...jmho..gl /forums/images/icons/cool.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[Chris Alger]

Might be Rove's doing: just when Bush is taking a (little) heat on Iraq and economy, shore up support from moderates by creating the appearance of a schism between Bush and the nazis. Two items: in an NPR interview last fall with Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, about the surprising GOP strength at the polls, all Reed spoke about was his gushing endorsement of Bush's spectacular leadership. Covering a right-wing convention a few months ago, The Nation's correspondent noticed participants were virtually unanimous in their devotion to Bush.

My impression is that most "Christian" right organizers are more interested in conquering Iraq, crushing Palestine and building space-based missile systems than any religious agenda, which makes Bush their logical hero regardless of what he does domestically. It's not as if they're going to bolt for Robertson because of "extending dialogue."

[Jimbo]

"My impression is that most "Christian" right organizers are more interested in conquering Iraq, crushing Palestine and building space-based missile systems than any religious agenda, which makes Bush their logical hero regardless of what he does domestically. It's not as if they're going to bolt for Robertson because of "extending dialogue." "

Gee! I'm for all of those things and I'm not even a Christian. Cool!!

[andyfox]

They're not Christian either; they're "Christian" as Chris pointed out.

[MMMMMM]

It's rather interesting how the Left often tries to portray simple self-interest--including self-preservation--as somehow unenlightened or primitive.

If Hezbollah says that their slogan has been, is, and will be: "Death To America!"--I guess we can take them at their word, because they have already murdered hundreds of Americans. Would it be "unenlightened" or "nazi-like" to wipe out Hezbollah--or might it just be common sense?

North Korea threatens to set fire to our cities, but a missile defense is a right-wing reactionary idea?

Islamists wish to destroy the West, but that's not the fault of Islam? Yet taking the Koran literally is a clear prescription for the terrorism of all non-Muslims (and as such it is being practiced in many parts of the world --especially and most horrifically now in Sudan).

Saudi imams routinely call for the destruction of America and Israel--but we should take pains to not offend them??? How about we just tell them like it is: that they're preaching nonsense, and if they really want a war, just keep it up?

Appeasement never, never works. It always encourages them to push further.

Iran too must be dealt with.

I submit this general theory: that that Left likes to see us weakened because it somehow appeases a subconscious guilt, in much the same way that a compulsive gambler really wants to lose in order to assuage some hidden guilt or feelings of low self-esteem.

So it makes perfect sense that those who feel most guilty about the role America has played in the world would like to see us weakened, and our enemies strengthened: Chomsky, Alger, etc., and others to a lesser degree display this trait.

Well the good news is: we're getting stronger despite all the BS and problems and the massive foreign giveaways. Just more proof that the American system works, and works best. And America has also done far more good in the world than any other country--although of course the Blame America First crowd never looks at that side of the equation.

[adios]

Bush is a lot more intelligent than many give him credit for.

[Cyrus]

"America has also done far more good in the world than any other country--although of course the Blame America First crowd never looks at that side of the equation."

I'm sorry but it's not an equation, as any informed mathematician around here would confirm. It's an inequality.

(I would like to characterize America's position versus the world as a gross inequality --- but you would never find that term in a math book, so I won't.)

[John Cole]

Yes, he's much more intelligent--and much more pernicious--than I gave him credit for.

[ACPlayer]

It is the start of the 2004 election cycle. Not having to move right to win the Republican nomination he can move to the center early as opposed to waiting for the nominating convention.

[MMMMMM]

"Equation" in this sense is also a figure of speech.

America has done less harm than the two other behemoths of recent times (USSR and China), and more good than any other country--so it is indeed an inequality. Yet the focus of Chomsky et al is so unweighted as to be perverse.

[John Cole]

M,

Saw Chomsky yesterday on C-Span as he answered questions for three hours; he seemed neither perverse or unweighted. ;-} Instead, much like Chris Alger and a few others here, he railed against an utter lack of critical scrutiny of "the official story."

Interestingly, I was amazed at the number of callers who suggested various top level conspiracy theories, and equally impressed with Chomsky's rather avuncular dismissal of such ridiculous notions. For example, his explanation of the "Northwood" plan was very lucid and seemed to show that he has certainly done his homework. I would have liked to seen him on Meet the Press that day to meet the party line statements made by Bob Noak and William Safire. Now that would have made for good TV.

John

[andyfox]

Clinton was in favor of a missile defense system, so it cannot be that it is, or is looked upon as, a right-wing, reactionary idea. It may or may not be a good idea, but it has been supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

What you call the Blame America First crowd does indeed look at both sides of the equation. I caught Chomsky on the show that John Cole posted about. He spoke about, among others things, the wisdom of the founding fathers, the legacy of freedom we have in our country, and the wonderful open press and the great job of reporting that is done in Israel (another country whose foregin policy he criticzies). Being critical of particular foreign policies of a country does not make one a Blame Firster.

If anything, those who deny that our country ever does anything wrong, and this would include the vast majority of the current prominent right of center talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.), as well as our current administration, could be characterized as the Blame America Never crowd. This is a far more dangerous mindset, because to always assume we are in the right, without any critical focus whatsoever, leads to hubris and, usually, disaster, both for our country and others around the world. The essence of good foreign policy, or good government generally for that matter, is constant reevaluation, and that process is stifled by a mindset that assume what we do is always good and righteous by definition.

[Chris Alger]

I don't see how one could possibly discern Bush's intelligence forem that of his advisors and handlers. When's the last time Bush spontaneously had any unique or even interesting insight into any public issue? Bush might not be as delusional as Reagan, but he's just as ignorant. Like Reagan, his inability to discuss things in details forces him to constantly oversimplify and pander those already inclinded to believe him.

[Chris Alger]

[Jimbo]

Let me see if i have this correct; President Bush was intelligent enough to become President of The United States of America but a troll poster on a message board is smarter. Hmmm, seems to be flawed logic.

[andyfox]

It is not necessary to be intelligent or knowledgable to become president of the United States. There is ample evidence, from Republicans who knew him, that Ronald Reagan was both stupid and ignorant. There is a tape recording of Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller giggling over the possiblity of that "idiot" Gerald Ford possibly becoming president (Lyndon Johnson frequently commented that Ford must have played too many football games without his helmet on).

I have certainly seen much more intelligent and informed analysis of current events from Mr. Alger than from Mr. Bush.

[Jimbo]

"I have certainly seen much more intelligent and informed analysis of current events from Mr. Alger than from Mr. Bush."

I must have missed that particular post Andy, would you mind providing a link?

Andy wrote "It is not necessary to be intelligent or knowledgable to become president of the United States."

Now Andy, your liberal stripes are showing here. Please give me a break, you can't really believe what you wrote above!

[Zeno]

Andy wrote, "It is not necessary to be intelligent or knowledgeable to become president of the United States."


And "Good Old Boy" Andy is correct. All it takes to be president is a bag full of lies, pockets full of cash, and a head for chicaneries. You can hire all the people you need to tell you what to say, and how to say it in Dayton, Ohio as opposed to San Francisco, California, and in addition what tie to don and what gestures will most please the masses. Democracy is almost as much a fraud as any other form of Government. The only reason it exists at all is because it is so entertaining and also that other forms of government are usually worse.


“Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity? “

-Ronald Reagan, Campaign Speech, 1980


“Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus, a conscious and persistent falsifier of fact, a deceiver of the electorate, and, one suspects, of himself”

-John Osborne, New Republic, June 12, 1980.


The contradictory nature of the Presidency is the strange fact that the President really does not have to be that intelligent. Just smart enough to recognize talent and that he must have intelligent people in his cabinet and for advisers. Which leads to even more contradictories…..and so on.


-Zeno

[andyfox]

You can refer to just about any of Mr. Alger's posts, especially those where he cites his sources, for evidence that he can make a more intelligent argument than can Mr. Bush and that he reads more and more carefullly than Mr. Bush.

Let's use Mr. Reagan as an example of a president that was both stupid and ignorant. He did not know who Grover Cleveland was; he thought he was the baseball pitcher that Mr. Reagan once portrayed in the movies. Other Republicans, such as Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, have said that Mr. Reagan had no knowledge of, nor interest in, public policy. The memoirs that were written by former members of his administration all point out how clueless he was; to most of them he was an enigma. In meetings he would most often keep silent while his advisers debated policy; he would then change the subject by telling an anecdote when a decision was due. Cabinet officers would then strain to interpret what he was saying. Donald Regan said "he listenened, acquiesced, played his role and waited for the next act to be written." One White House aid put it this way: "You have to treat him as if you were the director and he was the actor, and you tell him what to say and what not to say."

When he first ran for governor of California in 1966, he took an inordinate amount of time in the polling booth on election day. When he emerged, the reporters asked him what took so long. He replied that he had to read the ballot propositions. Apparently it had not occurred to him to do so up until election day.

Reread any of Reagan's comments about Nicaragua or Vietnam or any other important issue from his own time in the presidency or from the recent past. He hadn't a clue.

[MMMMMM]

Well I guess you could say I was saturated with liberalism growing up. I grew up in Newton, Mass., which was quite possibly the most liberal city in the most liberal state in the Union (with perhaps California excepted). I liked the liberal ideals and it wasn't until later years that I began to think that most of the ideals just don't work that way in practice in the real world. I read the New York Times a lot back then. Almost all the teachers discussed issues with us, and the liberal outlook was very prevalent and seemed to me to be normal, and to be the compassionate and intelligent way of looking at most things.

In more recent years it has seemed to me that the face of liberalism has changed somewhat: from an emphasis on personal freedom, to what is now an attempt to control individuals in many ways--in the names of things like equality and political correctness. Liberals now frequently come out trying to silence those whose opinions they don't agree with (example Daschle). School texts are vetted to remove anything that might remotely "offend" any group. To my way of thinking that's just plain wrong. Instead of trying to force people to bend over backwards to not risk offending others, the pragmatic and morally superior approach is to instead teach people how not to get offended. Yes, certain things can be offensive, but hey that's part of the world too. We all need to learn to deal with it. We don't want our relatives or friends doing or saying those things, but somebody always will, and it's supposed to be a free country and that's even more important IMO. Censorship--even liberal censorship for a "good" purpose--is contrary to more important ideals.

As far as actual liberal commentary or books, other than the occasional piece I glean in a newspaper or on the internet, I really haven't read much written by liberals specifically on politics in recent years. And when I do I usually disagree with much of it. And it often seems hopelessly impractical.

Individual rights--that's where it's at in my opinion--not group rights. Conservatives fall down here too, of course, so I guess you could classify me more as Libertarian than as either Conservative or Liberal.

[MMMMMM]

Could be, andy, could be..but Reagan had a gift for cutting to the most important things (Henry Ford is another--and more extreme example--of limitations coupled with this gift).

Reagan knew that the most important issue of that time was defeating the true Evil Empire, the Soviet Union--and the Soviet Union was defeated without a shot being fired. While it wasn't all Reagan's doing, he certainly brought clarity to the importance of the task and worked diligently to help bring about the final result. History and humanity should thank him.

By the way, I read that Bush scored over 600 each on his Verbal and Math SAT's. Not too shabby especially if he spent as much time partying as some say.

[John Cole]

M,

Textbooks, at least those used in public schools, usually present little in the way of controversial ideas and most certainly do not support any sort of "liberal" agenda. One of the best books that looks at the basic inadequacies of history texts is James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me. Many history texts, according to Loewen, often bear the imprimatur of a famous historian/author, and are then written by committee. History texts, indeed most high school texts, must pass muster in Texas first before they can be sold nationally. Therefore, the school boards in Texas effectively control much of the information that appears in textbooks.

Given that textbooks so approved must present rather uncritical ways of looking at the world of history and ideas, it's no wonder that few students learn or develop critical skills or even regard the information they process with any sort of critical stance. Textbooks replicate aand maintain a failing educational system that produces students who cannot think clearly or judge because they are denied the tools to do so. Do not be fooled because Esperanza, Carlos, Huang, John, and Igwebe appear in these texts; they all desire the same thing.

John

[John Cole]

Jimbo,

Chris is hardly a troll poster, and I suspect he's much more well read than our current president. Hell, I'd vote for him over Bush any day, and I'd vote for you and MMMMMM over Bush any day, too.

John

[adios]

Actually Reagan was also very pro-business and IMO helped diminish the strength of labor unions in the USA. It wasn't an accident that interest rates started their long slide, that one of the all time greatest bull markets in stocks began on his watch, and the overall decline in the unemployment rate. Also, he was a proponent of deregulation. All of this created the underpinnings to the longest business expansion in American history. He was just what the country needed after the 'Peanut' administration fiasco. People forget that during 'Peanut's' administration inflation reached record levels which led to high interest rates, that the DJIA was just over 1000, and the normal rate of unemployment was higher. Along with ending the cold war, Reagan stopped the "pendulum" from swinging in the direction of socialism and started it swinging in the direction of a sounder economy with more jobs and lower interest rates. Don't expect anyone with leftist leanings on this forum to acknowledge anything done well by anyone that they don't agree with. I suppose the Democrats could point to Clinton and state that his policies were successful but I submit that Clinton supported big business as well. That's not likely to happen with any Democratic candidate running for president now except Senator Leiberman IMO.

[adios]

Jimbo, don't fuss over what these guys say. The truth is that Bush is a brilliant politician (the new tax law is abosutely a stroke of brilliance), a man of principle, and the most economically savvy and knowledgable president I can remember. Flame away gusy.

[adios]

"Textbooks replicate aand maintain a failing educational system that produces students who cannot think clearly or judge because they are denied the tools to do so."

John without offering some ideas on what should change this is nothing more than an empty platitude. Remember the Democrats want to balance the budget.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Jimbo,

Wow, I was listening to "Glad" from the album JBMD when I read your post. Coincidence, or not?

~ Rick

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for the truly interesting and informative response.

I did read something recently that said California textbooks are now thoroughly vetted to remove anything that might be deemed in any way offensive to any group. Absurd examples were listed. I'll try to find the link sometime this week.

[MMMMMM]

I can't resist asking this question and there's no need to name names. But are there more than two on this board you wouldn't vote for over Bush?

[MMMMMM]

Let's not forget a man of vision as well;-)

I agree with you about the tax cut. Won't it be surprising to many if lower taxes actually end up raising overall tax revenues.

Here's my basic and limited understanding of this. Please feel free to add or correct as you see fit (you are more studied than I in such areas).

For those who might be baffled at how a lower tax might increase revenue, just consider that a smaller percentage of a larger pie can actually be more than a larger percentage of a smaller pie--and that greater economic growth produces a larger pie. My impression is that this is also generally true historically: lower taxes tend to result in higher tax revenues due to greater growth and investment, increased incomes, and increased consumer spending. And it's not the absolute size of the deficit that matters: it's the size of the deficit in relation to the GNP. Curing deficit "A" which represents a smaller percentage of GNP is easier than curing deficit "B" which represents a larger percentage of GNP, even if in absolute terms deficit "A" is larger. So growing the GNP is a big help in reducing the impact of the deficit, and it is also a big help in generating extra revenue which can be used to reduce the deficit.

At least, that's my limited understanding of such things. Right? Wrong? Mostly right? ;-)

[nicky g]

I think you guys are somewhat ignoring the point of what Andy was saying. All your arguments are in favour of what Reagan's administration achieved etc. But Andy cites evidence that Reagan didn't make any of the important decisions that his administration took. So it is perfectly plausible that both what you and Andy are saying is true - that Reagan was an imbecile but his govenemnt achieved great things (not that I think they did, but that's another argument).

[adios]

Basically right. The best evidence of this is recent economic history in the US. During the last economic expansion, the budget deficit shrank and actually had a surplus for a few years due in part to welfare reform and a big drop in the unemployment rate. Now that the USA's unemployment rate has grown 50% (it's been basically around 6% the last 2 years) due to the most recent recession, tax revenues have decreased a lot. The increased costs of homeland security have contributed as to the budget deficit as well (it's also interesting that the Democratic presidential candidates are criticizing Bush for his ineffective homeland security while railing for a balanced budget as well). During the 90's the GNP in the USA increased a lot IMO. The components of GNP are consummer spending, government spending, business investment spending, and net exports. Business investment spending is the main driving force in creating new jobs in the economy and the lack of business investment spending has led to a more or less sluggish economic recovery. The most recent tax bill was designed to give the consummer more discretionary income and encourage business investment spending. Now if you want to balance the budget at this time you'd have to a combination of raising taxes and cutting government expenditures. This combination would be a damper on economic activity at a time when the recovery is very sluggish. It would certainly increase the economic risks of wide spread deflation (something the Fed scared to death about IMO) and risk putting the US economy into at least another recession. Both of these events if they occurred would decrease tax revenues even further.

[Jimbo]

Hi Rick,

I am pleased someone not only recognized the albumn name but also still listens to the past great artists. The coincidence is uncanny to say the least. Just wondering what other rock classics you enjoy.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Jimbo,

I was in college in the early to mid seventies but normally don't dwell on the music of that era (i.e., "classic rock"). The better of my albums were rebought as CDs and JBMD was one of them. A year or two ago I converted all my CDs to MP3s because in front of my desktop computer is where I do most of my listening.

From that era (1967 to 1977 - which includes my high school years) the stuff that still sounds good to me would be the Stones, Joni Mitchell, Diana Ross and the Supremes, the Doors (sans Jim Morrison as poet), The Eagles, early Elton John, Eric Burden and the Animals, the Bruce Springsteen of that era (although his stuff since is great too), Jackson Browne, Joan Baez, The Kinks, some Led Zeppelin, Linda Ronstadt, Lou Reed, Neil Young, Richard and Linda Thompson (that may have come a bit later), Rod Stewart, Santana, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac (like every college kid, I had "Rumours" issued to me with my textbooks), The Band, The Who (especially "Who's Next"), and Van Morrison.

The Beatles (except pre Sargent Pepper stuff), Jimi Hendrix, and the Jefferson Airplane don't seem to wear as well as the years go by. I hadn't played Traffic much so me playing JBMD was a real coincidence.

But then again, I was the guy who posted a year or two ago how much I got into my parents Jackie Gleason albums when I went home to visit so what do I know.

~ Rick

[Jimbo]

Rick, our musical tastes are quite similar except that I enjoy all The Beatles music. Certainly Hendricks has less attraction than in the past as does Jefferson Airplane. I haven't joined the MP generation but do have all my old favorites on CD. The JBMD coincidence is even greater since I just changed my signature line last Sunday evening while listening to the CD.

This reinforces my need to look you up at the Bike if I ever make it that far west. Something seems to happen to me when I reach Nevada and I rarely get any closer to California. Someday though..............

Best Regards,

[John Cole]

M,

I can see why you can't resist. Certainly I can think of a few that I would never vote for--more than two. But not many more. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

John

[John Cole]

Tom,

All platitudes are empty, by the way. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Well, I'm glad I roused you on a weekday and you broke your Sunday vow.

Loewen's book contains a very good analysis of how texts can be changed to engage students on more than a rote level, and I think that if you recall some of the history texts you used throughout school, and if you recall the way you were taught history, you might see some obvious failures in both texts and teaching.

Also, that scool boards in Texas do indeed influence the content of all sorts of texts is established, and this is what I wanted M to know.

John

[John Cole]

M,

I'd like to see the examples, but can the removal of offensive material be a bad thing?

John

[John Cole]

Tom,

"[E]conomically savvy" is rich. You might do a bit of research into Bush's business ventures.

John

PS. I'd vote for you, too, before I'd vote for Bush.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Jimbo,

The Beatles peaked with Abbey Road IMO. Their later stuff made a social statement of sorts but apart from that is 80% unlistenable (of course most albums are). One other band of that era I liked that isn't so well known is Fairport Convention with Sandy Denny. That still sounds real good.

For convenience and decent quality while surfing 2+2 nothing beats MP3s using MusicMatch Jukebox, especially with the $10 sound enhancement. Eventually I'd like to build a system with a better sound card and get even nicer speakers (although my Cambridge Soundworks speakers were about their best a few years ago).

My MP3s have grown so vast that eventually I plan to always keep a system with three hard disks (or two intenal hard disks and one external backup). The first hard disk will have the operation system and programs along with My Documents, the second most of my MP3s, picutres (if I ever get into digital photos) and backup of C: drive data, and the third will simply back up the second (right now I have two disks). I'd put in the third drive now but my power supply probably won't handle it.

You should check out Jackie Gleason. It's really good music for badda bing badda bang.

~ Rick

[MMMMMM]

This also would explain why I found History the most boring subject in Junior High and High School.

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)
Activist groups acting as "language police" are exerting increasing control over American schools, resulting in bored, cynical and "dumbed down" children, according to a three-year study of education policy.

Diane Ravitch, author of "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn," notes the classic children's story "The Little Engine That Could" has been banned in some U.S. jurisdictions because the train is male, the National Post reported.


The book "The Friendly Dolphin" was rejected, she says, because it discriminates against students not living near the sea.

"Educational materials are now governed by an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive," writes Ravitch, a professor at New York University. "Some of this censorship is trivial, some is ludicrous, and some is breathtaking in its power to dumb down what children learn in school."

References to bacon and eggs and ice cream also are growing in disfavor because of concerns over healthy eating habits. Mention of birthday parties has been barred for fear of upsetting children who do not get invited to them.

In her study, Ravtich uncovered through court action many policies of state and local authorities and educators that were deemed secret. She documents "an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, states, and the federal government."

Fearful of their titles being blacklisted, publishers are censoring themselves by removing anything that could conceivably cause offense, making classrooms an "empire of boredom" for young readers forced to read nothing but "pap," said Ravitch, who also is senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former education adviser for both Republican and Democrat presidents.

Some of the changes to books and test questions she found include:


Women are not portrayed as caregivers or as doing housework and men cannot be professionals such as lawyers, doctors or plumbers;

Elderly people must be active and not feeble;

Regional bias is to be stricken – for instance, a story of a mountain climber would discriminate against students who live in flat areas;

Girls cannot be depicted as watching sports – they must be playing them;

Children cannot be portrayed as questioning authority or being in conflict with adults;

Characters must not be orphans, ghosts or animals with negative or dirty associations, such as mice, bugs or scorpions;

Ethnic stereotypes must not be propagated, so people with Irish roots cannot be police officers and a black person cannot be an accomplished athlete.
Ravitch told the National Post the result is harmful to children.

"It bores the tears out of them and makes them cynical," she said. "The things around them are far more interesting than what they are finding in the classroom. The books can't portray what the children see before them with their own eyes so they dislike reading."

A Fox News report on the study noted how the changes have subjected educators to charges history is being distorted. New guidelines, for example, dictate American Indians should not be depicted with long braids, in rural settings or on reservations, but offer no suggestions as to what would be deemed correct.

The pressure on officials, which comes from both the political left and right, began as a way of rooting out truly offensive material, Ravitch says. But increasing politicization has resulted in "stripping away everything that is potentially thought-provoking and colorful from the texts that children encounter." (end excerpt)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32437

[John Cole]

M,

I'm somewhat familiar with Ravitch's work in education, and I checked out your link. I think you might be surprised to find out that the review at this site presents a very one-sided look at her book, which makes it appear that Ravitch's ideas follow along with the more neoconservative views espoused by the other authors promoted by this site. Ravitch supports multiculturalism (but she doesn't support pluralism). Other reviewers of her book address Ravitch's attack on history texts that whitewash American history as well as her views on misguided liberal leveling of distinctions among people.

I have problems with much of what Ravitch says in some of her work--in fact, I wrote a critique of one of her books in graduate school, but she is fair-minded, rigorous, and scrupulous. In addition, over the years, Ravitch has engaged in many debates with more ardent critics of American education who find her views very conservative. I got a first hand glimpse at one of these debates when I had the fortune to speak to Donaldo Macedo, the translator of radical educator Paulo Friere's later work. It's an interesting sort of subculture, these squabbling academics.

John

[andyfox]

Ronald Reagan had virtually nothing to do with "defeating" the Soviet Union. In fact, Reagan disparaged most of the efforts of the administrations previous to his to contain the Soviet Union.

Reagan's "gift," as you put it, was to take complicated situations and know nothing about them, yet give the appearance of firmness. He would then speak in simple platitudes. This is not cutting to the core of an issue. It is a display of ignorance. The Berlin Wall was not torn down because Ronald Reagan demanded it should be.

Reagan saw everything that he deemed bad in the world as a product of the Evil Empire. Nicaragua, for example, was a Soviet-run totalitarian dungeon in his eyes. You are mistaking simplemindedness for simplicity.

Now it may well be that intelligence is not necessary in order to be an effective president. But there is no doubt that Mr. Reagan was an ignoramus.

[andyfox]

The presidency of Jimmy Carter is a perfect illustration of the point that intelligence is not all that is required to be an effective president. And it may not be necessary to be intelligent or even knowledgeable to be an effective president.

I have leftist leanings. President Reagan did many things well. So did Richard Nixon. (And I more than just "don't agree with" Richard Nixon--he did more harm to American than any other American in the 20th century.)

But anyone who has read the comments about Reagan by people who served in his administration (both in Washington and in Sacramento) and by Republican (i.e. non-leftist leaning) comrades cannot come to any other conclusion but that the man was both stupid and ignorant. [Not to mention a liar of Clintonian proportions (which is saying a lot).]

[Zeno]

"...but can the removal of offensive material be a bad thing?”


Yes.

But first let me say that I have read and followed this thread to the end with some interest as it is about something that I have thought about and have some experience with. What set this in motion was my experience of teaching young college kids when I was in Graduate School. I taught a laboratory science class. Most students had no critical thinking skills or even the ability to construct a systematic approach to solving rudimentary problems. This meant that I had to first teach the students how to think and how to approach a problem – before I could even try to get them to master the material that they were suppose to learn. It was very frustrating.

Two books that I was reading at the time greatly helped in my understanding of perhaps why this was so and why textbooks were probably part of the problem in most High Schools and Colleges. One book was “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman”. In a chapter called Judging Books by Their Covers, Richard (Mr. Feynman) goes into some detail about his experiences of being on the Californian State Curriculum Commission, which had to choose new school books for the state and dealt with the school board. Details would be too much to put down but it is a very insightful look at the politics, and the influence of money and publishers on textbooks. In addition, he was very critical of all science textbooks that were put out saying they were “UINVERSALLY LOUSY”.

The second book was called ‘Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, The Use of Reason in Everyday Life “ (Fifth edition) by Howard Kahane. It is an excellent book. I do not know if it is still in print. In one chapter called, Textbooks: Managing World Views, he goes into critical detail about the blandness, censorship, and distortions of most textbooks; especially high school texts and also points out the fact that most are geared toward indoctrination- not education or critical thinking.

Now back to the first point. Education, a real education is a painful challenge for it usually means that you have to cast aside your own cherished beliefs, worldviews, and self-importance, among other things. It is painful and offensive. This does not mean that teaching or textboods must be made deliberately offensive or use deliberately degrading material, but education is offensive by its very nature, especially if done correctly.

If you think this too harsh, I suggest that you pull out an American Classic that has a tainted past called Huckleberry Finn, required reading in most High Schools and Colleges at one time. Read chapters 5 and 6. Or better yet, reread the whole damn book. Adults don’t fair too well in this text do they. Very offensive indeed.

I’ve made this post a bit too long so I’ll end it here. All the above, of course, is my opinion.

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

Therefore, the school boards in Texas effectively control much of the information that appears in textbooks.

It's been years since I became too depressed to follow this, but the school boards in Texas have no, or little, choice in what books their students use. In order for a schoolboard to be reimbursed by the state for the books they buy, the books must be from an "approved' list. Getting a textbook approved is a political process conducted at open hearings in Austin. The hearings have been packed with citizens with somewhat interesting views on whatever their hobbyhorse is. Textbook publishers have learned that in order to get their products approved, it is wise not to mention things like evolution, sex (sorry, I meant to say gender), justice, injustice, anything that might be construed as politically correct or incorrect.

I believe California has a similar system. Together, California and Texas have the economic clout to ensure that American textbooks are kept untroubled by anything that might promote thinking.

Luckily, the Bushes had the economic wherewithall to send George to private schools, making him the intellectual giant he is today.

[MMMMMM]

I loved reading Surely You Are Joking, Mr. Feynman and, of course, Huckleberry Finn.

By the way, if these Politically Correct types have banned Huckleberry Finn from school curriculums, that is a sin; it should be required reading.

[John Cole]

Phat Mack,

Thanks for the correction. Yes, Texas and California, because of their size and clout, effectively control much textbook material, and those publishers do need to make a profit, don't they.

John

[John Cole]

Zeno,

I can't see the harm in changing "fireman" and "firefighter." And some of the "censorship" involves these sorts of changes that might have some positive effective but no negative effect.

On the bright side, Zeno, M, and John Cole have all read both Twain and Feynman. I suspect many others on this forum have read both, too.

John

[Zeno]

John,

Your points are justified and well put. I think I became a bit shrill towards the end of my post. This subject plagued me for a number of years and still gets under my skin at times. I also realize that most, if not all, of the forum regulars are well read; I did not intentionally mean to be "degrading".

I do, however, despise blandness. And I think blandness is a good descriptor for many textbooks in use today –which is very troubling.

Zeno