Panel suggests Texas students study conservatives

[Monica37]

Beau, I’m not sure you want to bring up military service as our current “Commander in Chief” has zero. I can’t believe you even mentioned Jeramiah Wright at all

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

What does Newt’s lack of military service have to do with his historical significance? No one else has brought up armed service records in this thread.

Its always appropriate to make a snide remark.

Beau, I’m not sure you want to bring up military service as our current “Commander in Chief” has zero. I can’t believe you even mentioned Jeramiah Wright at all.

The good reverend’s name is a buzzword – it supplies more heat than light. Did you know he served two tours in the Navy?

Other than old John McCain, which GOP presidential aspirant in 2007-08 had served in the military? Not Mitt, Huck or Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is an odd example since he was a Vietnam apologist.

 

[Monica37]

So it would be appropriate to bring up Rev. Wright to students but not Gingrich? Also, did you know my husband has served 3 combat tours and is getting ready to go on a fourth? **And he has never insulted this country **(which by the way is his adopted country, unlike Rev Wright). Hitler also served in the military. My issue was that you brought up military service (why,I don’t know) but you used that as a reason why Newt is somehow insignificant to American history, then brought up as a rebuttal someone like Rev Wright. Meanwhile neither Clinton nor Obama have served so by your standards they don’t merit the same respect that apparently you give to Wright and Rangel who I believe called our troops all kinds of horrible names that he has yet to apologize for. Beau, you should maybe spend some time talking to those who have and are serving before you bring up military service. It is my whole life as a veteran myself and spouse of a soldier for the past 18 years. The difference between the other candidates (and your smug attitude about Sen McCain’s service tells me very clearly your attitude toward the military in general) and the ones you mentions are that they still respected service and didn’t demean it or turn on their fellow veterans like Rangel, Clinton(Hillary), Wright and Obama.

As you can see military service is a sensitive area for me as I am very proud of my husband and all of our troops. They deserve better than the attitude that they have received from you and most of the people you mentioned. Please don’t use service as a way to make your “snide remarks” it’s in very bad taste.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Please don’t use service as a way to make your “snide remarks” it’s in very bad taste.

1. The topic of this thread mentioned Newt.
2. Someone else mentioned the glory of our military successes, not me.
3. Let’s not personalize this discussion. You don’t know a thing about me.

 

[Monica37]

1. The topic of this thread mentioned Newt.
2. Someone else mentioned the glory of our military successes, not me.
3. Let’s not personalize this discussion. You don’t know a thing about me.

But it was you who brought up service records. the other poster mentioned WWI and WWII only.

You are right that I don’t know you, but you were the one who admitted bringing up anyone’s service record was an attempt to be snide. That actually does say a lot about you.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You are right that I don’t know you, but you were the one who admitted bringing up anyone’s service record was an attempt to be snide. That actually does say a lot about you.

Yes, I can debate with the best of them! :thumbsup:Watch out.

 

[Monica37]

I believe you are a lawyer, so you will probably date for the sake of debating.
I worked in mental health for 8 years and have a degree in wellness promotion so I know when to quit banging my head against a brick wall.

 

[cthulhubryan]

It should have mentioned Newt’s armed services heroics.

Oh, my bad! Unlike Dave Dinkins, Doug Wilder, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Bobby Rush and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Newt never served.

You are trying to distract from the point that liberals have made history books full of non-history.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Its always appropriate to make a snide remark.

The good reverend’s name is a buzzword – it supplies more heat than light.

In what sick and twisted world is Jeremiah Wright a “good” reverend? I think you need to keep looking for a home.

 

[cthulhubryan]

But it was you who brought up service records. the other poster mentioned WWI and WWII only.

You are right that I don’t know you, but you were the one who admitted bringing up anyone’s service record was an attempt to be snide. That actually does say a lot about you.

That was because I was trying to be clear, Beau only tries to confuse the issue.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

That was because I was trying to be clear, Beau only tries to confuse the issue.

Well, I can count one success.

I believe you are a lawyer, so you will probably date for the sake of debating.

My wife won’t let me.

You are trying to distract from the point that liberals have made history books full of non-history.

I thought the point of this thread was an affirmative attempt to politicize history instruction. That’s what I thought it was.

In what sick and twisted world is Jeremiah Wright a “good” reverend? I think you need to keep looking for a home.

He’s a good preacher. You may have seen dribs and drabs of his sermons on ‘youtube’ but that has been shown to be able to mislead. I’ve been to Trinity when he was there and Rev. Wright is OK.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think a little diplomacy (which they were in the middle of) would have been better than a bombing raid. The Japanese had been at war in Manchuria since 1937 and the US had been shipping scrap steel and other needed materials to them. Denying them oil was not throwing down the gauntlet – Japan had a warlike administration.

Both things are true. Japan had one month’s supply of petroleum on hand when the U.S. declared an oil embargo against Japan, as well as an embargo on scrap steel. All other oil sources were controlled by Japan’s diplomatic enemies. It is difficult for me to imagine FDR being unaware that he was pushing Japan into war.

At the same time, one cannot help but think FDR’s actions justified. Japan was certainly an aggressive nation at the time, and continued its expansion into China notwithstanding all diplomatic efforts to make it stop.

One cannot be sure (surely there are intelligence archives dealing with this) that FDR knew the “Strike South” faction had the emperor’s favor over the “Strike North” faction in Japan’s military/political structure, and was likely to prevail. That denoument came late in the game, and it’s possible FDR was content to maintain a “neutral” trading posture until learning that.

There is probably no war in modern times that cannot be critiqued in some manner, and none in which there were not many, many preliminaries and chessboard moves.

 

[RobbyS]

it’s about time. Sorry but I have been in education for far too long (specifically colleges) and know all too well that there is a definite liberal bias. I have heard too often about those horrible conservatives. School and educators are supposed to present all sides of an issue and allow the students to …get ready now…use their heads to come to their own conclusions!!!

What are you concerned about? If they hear all perspectives they will simply be well informed instead of underinformed as they are now.

The textbook companies write their books to suit two big markets. California and Texas. Been retired for more than ten years but I can tell you that the U.S. history books I had to use during the last ten years definitely reflected a liberal bias. Many of the famous names ofUS history was left out, the civil war was reduced to the issue of slavery, and the war itself was dealt with in little detail. And you talk about pseudohistory. However, the Macgruder government text made such an effort to be neutral that its content was very unhelpful, that is beyond the bare outline that the putative author provided for the hacks who actually wrote it.

 

[RobbyS]

Both things are true. Japan had one month’s supply of petroleum on hand when the U.S. declared an oil embargo against Japan, as well as an embargo on scrap steel. All other oil sources were controlled by Japan’s diplomatic enemies. It is difficult for me to imagine FDR being unaware that he was pushing Japan into war.

At the same time, one cannot help but think FDR’s actions justified. Japan was certainly an aggressive nation at the time, and continued its expansion into China notwithstanding all diplomatic efforts to make it stop.

One cannot be sure (surely there are intelligence archives dealing with this) that FDR knew the “Strike South” faction had the emperor’s favor over the “Strike North” faction in Japan’s military/political structure, and was likely to prevail. That denoument came late in the game, and it’s possible FDR was content to maintain a “neutral” trading posture until learning that.

There is probably no war in modern times that cannot be critiqued in some manner, and none in which there were not many, many preliminaries and chessboard moves.

Wars are always a long time in coming. During the 1890s, the United States stopped treating Great Britain as our most likely enemy in an Atlantic War and beginning preparing for a war with Germany, in part because The Germans were one possible contestant for control of the Phillipines. The signal event here was the behavior of the British and German fleet at Manilla after Dewey took the city. The British behaved like gentlemen, the Germans like boors. the Japanese were another threat to our control of the Phillipines, especially after the Russo-Japanese War, which showed the high quality of the Japanese navy. Roosevelt negotiated the peace treaty between the Russians and the Japanese, but he decided that the Japanese were the greatest danger. But the bigger concern was the evident danger for the Chinese market. When Japan took Korea from China in 1896, that was a stepping stone to the mainland. One reason why we deprived the Japanese of relative naval equality in the Washington Treaty.That would have left the Japanese as the strongest power in the western pacific. The Republican administration had decide to abandon its naval building program, so this left Manila safely in American hands. the Japanese assault on China, with the aim of being it entirely under Japanese control, lead almost inevitably to war, especially after the Japanese allied themselves with the Germans.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, I remember Bob Dole coming up with that inaccurate factoid in 1976. To that statement I always ask: “Democrats bombed Pearl Harbor?”

Everytime I here someone make the argument that America was responsible to the attack on Pearl Harbor I am reminded of the kid that never studies and blames his teacher for failing him.

The Japanese are to blame for Pearl Harbor. No one forced them to an unprovoked and cowardly attack.

This is one area I agree with Beau on. It is flat wrong to slant text books right or left. teachers do enough of that on their own. It is the main reason why I firmly believe parents should have economic choice in education apart from the public system. Public schools will always be political.

 

[RobbyS]

Everytime I here someone make the argument that America was responsible to the attack on Pearl Harbor I am reminded of the kid that never studies and blames his teacher for failing him.

The Japanese are to blame for Pearl Harbor. No one forced them to an unprovoked and cowardly attack.

This is one area I agree with Beau on. It is flat wrong to slant text books right or left. teachers do enough of that on their own. It is the main reason why I firmly believe parents should have economic choice in education apart from the public system. Public schools will always be political.

The Japanese were indeed provoked. But they sure did look bad when they appeared still to be negotiating when they lowered the boom. They tricked us the way that Hitler was to trick Stalin. But we knew that war was coming. They just caught us with our guard down both at Pearly and at Manila.

 

[dixieagle]

To return to the actual topic here…

The textbook review panels and state Board of Education members in Texas wield enormous influence that extends farther than the borders of their state. As Texas is such a large textbook market, books that meet the requirements of Texas will end up being used in other states, as well.

My son-in-law (Biology Ph.D.) testified when new science textbooks were being considered recently and found it a most frustrating experience.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Conservatives are fun folks when it comes to public school instruction. First creationism as pseudo-science and now pseudo-history.

The Creation story is not pseudo-science. There is a Creator. A Divine Creator. That is not only faith but science.

The individuals in the article are not figments of the imagination, but factual players in the modern history of our politics.

 

[Corki]

To return to the actual topic here…

The textbook review panels and state Board of Education members in Texas wield enormous influence that extends farther than the borders of their state. As Texas is such a large textbook market, books that meet the requirements of Texas will end up being used in other states, as well.

My son-in-law (Biology Ph.D.) testified when new science textbooks were being considered recently and found it a most frustrating experience.

The other state with a large influence is California. Having reviewed textbooks for adoption myself, you have never seen such a weird animal as a textbook that is trying to meet the requirements of both Texas AND California.

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

This thread seems to be a vehicle to post uncharitably about your fellow member’s political beliefs. If it continues, it will be closed and infractions or suspensions issues.