When does revisionist history descend to the level of mere hypocrisy? I weep for my country.
Joel Send a noteboard - 15/03/2010 04:16:25 AM
Education is too political so they're going to solve the problem by banishing educators from curriculum standards, in favor of--POLITICIANS! That's a fine argument in itself for the damage politics can do to education.
As a native Texan and veteran of Texas History class I just want to say the story is far from complete without the inclusion of figures like Lorenzo de Zavala and Juan Seguin (who lend their names to a county and city, respectively. ) Their removal is even injurious to the overtly political aims of the Board of Reeducation, because their presence gives the lie to the claim the Texas Revolution was just about US imperialism or the expansion of slavery rather than a real dispute over whether a military dictator would be allowed to ignore the Constitution of 1824 that paved his path to power. I wish I could say this is the worst thing they're doing, but the very existence of a large Republican majority in a state where Democrats ruled the One Party South from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives the lie to THAT.
The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment makes separation of church and state fundamental; thank you, Mr. Bradley, for this fine example of why POLITICIANS shouldn't be allowed to decide if EDUCATORS have politically biased education. If he can show me how the federal government can embrace religion without playing favorites I'll match his now obligatory donation (to the ACLU, please, where the Constitution is something read rather than simply mentioned.
)
This is absurd on two levels. First because we shouldn't be teaching things that happened within the last decade in "history" class, and it defies comprehension how one "depoliticizes" history by requiring history books to endorse incumbent politicians (TX Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison came to DC as part of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, and it hasn't been five years since critical Contract on America author Tom DeLay was indicted for corruption. ) But the worst is yet to come; the "Reagan Resurgence" was about nothing more nor less than the despicable Southern Strategy ultimately disavowed by even the man who used it most effectively for Reagan.
Oh, Republicans need credit for the very Democratic legislation (spearheaded by a TEXAS Democratic President, the only native Texan ever to occupy the office) responsible for this kind of close minded provincialism bolting the Democratic Party for the Republican Party? LBJ said when he signed the Civil Rights Act "I just lost the South for a generation" and the estimate appears to be, well, "conservative. " Should we cover THAT in history books, Mr. Southern Republican? After half a century you remain so opposed to Civil Rights that you want to elevate Huey Newton to the level of MLK, but you still WANT CREDIT FOR THE VERY THING OF WHICH YOU DISAPPROVE! Insanity Base, Houston; The hypocrite has landed.
This sentence belongs with the above paragraph, where Bradley demands "credit" for some of the very things he demands be condemned here. We're going to depoliticize history by letting a politician demand history texts give his party "credit. " Fantastic.
That's possibly fair; the case upheld by the WWII SCOTUS and used by Bush as precedent for denying US citizens Bill of Rights protections involved a US citizens presence with a group of saboteurs landed by Nazi U-boat on the TX coast. That said, I'm not aware (though that doesn't mean it didn't happen) of German or Italian Americans having their property confiscated by the federal government, property never returned even after their exoneration and the end of the war.
So fifty years after that fight ended, after Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME and possibly the last Republican Congresperson I can respect, though Olympia Snowe has had her moments while occupying the same seat) helped lead the charge within her own party to censure McCarthy, now a Republican politician wants to rewrite history so his side (not even his party, just his faction of it) won. Yes, there were Soviet spies in Cold War America, just as there were Nazi spies in WWII America, but McCarthys wild and self serving allegations that they reached to the top of the Army and inside the Presidents cabinet were ridiculous. Of course, since a young Senator named Richard Nixon made his career and a Vice Presidential bid off of that perfidy I can understand why todays Republicans want their record expunged (while still taking credit for what a Southern Democratic President split his party accomplishing. )
Frank Luntz would be proud; remember, it's not "genocide" it's "ethnic cleansing. " Yes, I know "capitalist pig" all too well, but if it has a negative connotation, maybe the solution is to reform the practices that produced that connotation rather than banning the word "capitalism. "
Calvins foray into secular politics is not exactly a great argument for ignoring the First Amendment (as an American, I'm generally opposed to burning people at the stake for heresy; call me old fashioned, even "conservative. " )
No, Miss, it pretty much was. Even religious giants of the era like Rosseau and Descartes were firmly in the Enlightenment camp. The problem is once again a political one: Someone has decided that liberty and Christianity are mutually exclusive and insisted history texts endorse the latter. To paraphrase an old line, in America, she's entitled to believe whatever blame fool thing she wants. She is not, however, entitled to have it taught as fact to a generation of schoolchildren.
Despite the fact that's EXACTLY the goal of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers were quite diverse, running the gamut from the most outspoken atheists to mere deists to devoutly Christian (and even--GASP!--JEWISH) members. That's why the First Amendnment is written as it is, why the Constitution allows office holders to "swear (or affirm) " their oaths.
The point that history, any social science, most of the time, is never objective remains valid. This, however, is a shamelessly political maneuver by career politicians who claim they're serving us by banishing "biased" educators from curriculum standards, to be replaced by politicians who define themselves as experts. We're going to replace educators with politicians to depoliticize education. That's a special kind of brazenness rarely found outside the Southern Republican leadership. And that's the theme that continually recurs in this rewriting of history, so it seems only fair that those who want Republican contribution to the Civil Rights movement of the '60s remembered, along with the Reagan Resurgence, should have it remembered somewhere:
"As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
And thus, fifty years after the GOP replaced the Democrats as the party with a stranglehold on the Southern racist vote, we come to the great truth of how Reagans Republicans overcame the epic failure that placed them on the political sidelines from 1929 until 1980. Even when Republicans held the White House, this was hardly the philosophy espoused by Ike when he forced integration at the University of Alabama, but thanks to Atwater and others of his ilk it finally found a home in the Republican Party when the Democrats could no longer stomach it. Modern Republicans would do well to recall how Atwater ended as well as lived his life:
Those supporting the use of education as a political vehicle under the guise of eliminating that practice are welcome to reply "Too long, didn't read" since it seems they do the same thing with US and world history.
From the New York Times:
AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday voted to approve a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Father’s commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The vote was 11 to 4, with 10 Republicans and one Democrat voting for the curriculum, and four Democrats voting against.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has been diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 160 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a board of teachers.
Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”
“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”
AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday voted to approve a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Father’s commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The vote was 11 to 4, with 10 Republicans and one Democrat voting for the curriculum, and four Democrats voting against.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has been diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 160 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a board of teachers.
Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”
“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”
As a native Texan and veteran of Texas History class I just want to say the story is far from complete without the inclusion of figures like Lorenzo de Zavala and Juan Seguin (who lend their names to a county and city, respectively. ) Their removal is even injurious to the overtly political aims of the Board of Reeducation, because their presence gives the lie to the claim the Texas Revolution was just about US imperialism or the expansion of slavery rather than a real dispute over whether a military dictator would be allowed to ignore the Constitution of 1824 that paved his path to power. I wish I could say this is the worst thing they're doing, but the very existence of a large Republican majority in a state where Democrats ruled the One Party South from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives the lie to THAT.
The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely many changes will be made.
The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for publishers of textbooks, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board’s makeup will have changed by then because the leader of the conservative faction, Dr. Don McLeroy, lost in a primary to a more moderate Republican, and two others — one Democrat and one conservative Republican — have announced they are not seeking re-election.
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for publishers of textbooks, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board’s makeup will have changed by then because the leader of the conservative faction, Dr. Don McLeroy, lost in a primary to a more moderate Republican, and two others — one Democrat and one conservative Republican — have announced they are not seeking re-election.
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment makes separation of church and state fundamental; thank you, Mr. Bradley, for this fine example of why POLITICIANS shouldn't be allowed to decide if EDUCATORS have politically biased education. If he can show me how the federal government can embrace religion without playing favorites I'll match his now obligatory donation (to the ACLU, please, where the Constitution is something read rather than simply mentioned.
)They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schalfly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
This is absurd on two levels. First because we shouldn't be teaching things that happened within the last decade in "history" class, and it defies comprehension how one "depoliticizes" history by requiring history books to endorse incumbent politicians (TX Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison came to DC as part of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, and it hasn't been five years since critical Contract on America author Tom DeLay was indicted for corruption. ) But the worst is yet to come; the "Reagan Resurgence" was about nothing more nor less than the despicable Southern Strategy ultimately disavowed by even the man who used it most effectively for Reagan.
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”
“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”
Oh, Republicans need credit for the very Democratic legislation (spearheaded by a TEXAS Democratic President, the only native Texan ever to occupy the office) responsible for this kind of close minded provincialism bolting the Democratic Party for the Republican Party? LBJ said when he signed the Civil Rights Act "I just lost the South for a generation" and the estimate appears to be, well, "conservative. " Should we cover THAT in history books, Mr. Southern Republican? After half a century you remain so opposed to Civil Rights that you want to elevate Huey Newton to the level of MLK, but you still WANT CREDIT FOR THE VERY THING OF WHICH YOU DISAPPROVE! Insanity Base, Houston; The hypocrite has landed.
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.
This sentence belongs with the above paragraph, where Bradley demands "credit" for some of the very things he demands be condemned here. We're going to depoliticize history by letting a politician demand history texts give his party "credit. " Fantastic.
He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the United States as well as the Japanese during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
That's possibly fair; the case upheld by the WWII SCOTUS and used by Bush as precedent for denying US citizens Bill of Rights protections involved a US citizens presence with a group of saboteurs landed by Nazi U-boat on the TX coast. That said, I'm not aware (though that doesn't mean it didn't happen) of German or Italian Americans having their property confiscated by the federal government, property never returned even after their exoneration and the end of the war.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
So fifty years after that fight ended, after Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME and possibly the last Republican Congresperson I can respect, though Olympia Snowe has had her moments while occupying the same seat) helped lead the charge within her own party to censure McCarthy, now a Republican politician wants to rewrite history so his side (not even his party, just his faction of it) won. Yes, there were Soviet spies in Cold War America, just as there were Nazi spies in WWII America, but McCarthys wild and self serving allegations that they reached to the top of the Army and inside the Presidents cabinet were ridiculous. Of course, since a young Senator named Richard Nixon made his career and a Vice Presidential bid off of that perfidy I can understand why todays Republicans want their record expunged (while still taking credit for what a Southern Democratic President split his party accomplishing. )
In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”
“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”
Frank Luntz would be proud; remember, it's not "genocide" it's "ethnic cleansing. " Yes, I know "capitalist pig" all too well, but if it has a negative connotation, maybe the solution is to reform the practices that produced that connotation rather than banning the word "capitalism. "
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
Even the course on World History did not escape the board’s scalpel.
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
Even the course on World History did not escape the board’s scalpel.
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
Calvins foray into secular politics is not exactly a great argument for ignoring the First Amendment (as an American, I'm generally opposed to burning people at the stake for heresy; call me old fashioned, even "conservative. " )
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
No, Miss, it pretty much was. Even religious giants of the era like Rosseau and Descartes were firmly in the Enlightenment camp. The problem is once again a political one: Someone has decided that liberty and Christianity are mutually exclusive and insisted history texts endorse the latter. To paraphrase an old line, in America, she's entitled to believe whatever blame fool thing she wants. She is not, however, entitled to have it taught as fact to a generation of schoolchildren.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote.
It was defeated on a party-line vote.
Despite the fact that's EXACTLY the goal of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers were quite diverse, running the gamut from the most outspoken atheists to mere deists to devoutly Christian (and even--GASP!--JEWISH) members. That's why the First Amendnment is written as it is, why the Constitution allows office holders to "swear (or affirm) " their oaths.
Hey, I had a great idea: what if we tried teaching the goddamn truth in school? What if we tried being impartial and fair and presenting history as it occurred and our best understanding thereof rather than politicizing education to serve our own stupid, small minded ends? What if we tried that?
Fucking disgusting.
Fucking disgusting.
The point that history, any social science, most of the time, is never objective remains valid. This, however, is a shamelessly political maneuver by career politicians who claim they're serving us by banishing "biased" educators from curriculum standards, to be replaced by politicians who define themselves as experts. We're going to replace educators with politicians to depoliticize education. That's a special kind of brazenness rarely found outside the Southern Republican leadership. And that's the theme that continually recurs in this rewriting of history, so it seems only fair that those who want Republican contribution to the Civil Rights movement of the '60s remembered, along with the Reagan Resurgence, should have it remembered somewhere:
"As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N----r, n----r, n----r." By 1968 you can't say "n----r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N----r, n----r."
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N----r, n----r, n----r." By 1968 you can't say "n----r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N----r, n----r."
And thus, fifty years after the GOP replaced the Democrats as the party with a stranglehold on the Southern racist vote, we come to the great truth of how Reagans Republicans overcame the epic failure that placed them on the political sidelines from 1929 until 1980. Even when Republicans held the White House, this was hardly the philosophy espoused by Ike when he forced integration at the University of Alabama, but thanks to Atwater and others of his ilk it finally found a home in the Republican Party when the Democrats could no longer stomach it. Modern Republicans would do well to recall how Atwater ended as well as lived his life:
On March 5, 1990, Lee Atwater collapsed during a fundraising breakfast on behalf of [Texas Senator and former Democrat] Phil Gramm.[12] Doctors searching for an explanation to what was initially thought to be a mere fainting episode discovered a grade 3 astrocytoma, an unusually aggressive form of brain cancer, in his right parietal lobe.[13] Atwater underwent interstitial implant radiation, a then-new form of treatment, at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City, and received conventional radiation therapy at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. The treatment for the brain tumor left him paralyzed on his left side, robbed him of his tone discrimination, and swelled his face and body (from steroids). He spent the remainder of his life in a wheelchair.
In the months after the severity of his illness became apparent, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, through the help of Fr. John Hardon[14] and, in an act of repentance, Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so-called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."[15]
In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
This article was notable for an apology to Michael Dukakis for the 'naked cruelty' of the 1988 Presidential Election Campaign.
In the months after the severity of his illness became apparent, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, through the help of Fr. John Hardon[14] and, in an act of repentance, Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so-called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."[15]
In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
This article was notable for an apology to Michael Dukakis for the 'naked cruelty' of the 1988 Presidential Election Campaign.
Those supporting the use of education as a political vehicle under the guise of eliminating that practice are welcome to reply "Too long, didn't read" since it seems they do the same thing with US and world history.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
- 13/03/2010 12:02:15 AM
1113 Views
"Impartial Historical Account" is an oxymoron
- 13/03/2010 12:21:20 AM
418 Views
So is "a sinless life," but that doesn't justify murder. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:22:16 AM
139 Views
Strange choice of analogies...
- 14/03/2010 12:17:03 PM
327 Views
I could be wrong, but I think his point was simply...
- 14/03/2010 03:53:23 PM
404 Views
I think it was that it just seems too out of place
- 14/03/2010 04:14:55 PM
445 Views
I dunno, you didn't elaborate much on your oxymoron statement.
- 14/03/2010 04:29:04 PM
428 Views
It didn't really seem something that needed elaborating 
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
480 Views
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
480 Views
It's about time.
- 13/03/2010 01:17:25 AM
456 Views
Don't forget interned German-Americans in BOTH world wars. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
263 Views
*NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
263 Views
Oh I haven't, but being Italian myself it's an issue close to my heart. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 04:41:19 AM
214 Views
Yes, because this article is all about presenting the truth in an unbiased manner *NM*
- 13/03/2010 11:02:20 AM
138 Views
I'm assuming Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 is banned from Texan history lessons, then?
- 13/03/2010 12:26:41 PM
367 Views
And, along similar lines, both Article VII of the US Constitution and Missouri v. Holland. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:26:10 AM
145 Views
*NM*
I would assume the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 would outside of the scope of a Texas history lesson
- 16/03/2010 07:54:53 PM
388 Views
Do the states just teach their own history, as opposed to that of what-was-then-the-USA? *NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:57:06 PM
213 Views
They teach both...at least at the college level. U.S. history and Texas History were requirements.. *NM*
- 17/03/2010 05:38:46 AM
216 Views
Texas history or Texas government?
- 18/03/2010 06:53:15 PM
292 Views
Good question....I don't remember if it was history or govt to be honest. *NM*
- 18/03/2010 07:59:10 PM
225 Views
When does revisionist history descend to the level of mere hypocrisy? I weep for my country.
- 15/03/2010 04:16:25 AM
533 Views
calling Zavala a city is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
- 15/03/2010 05:39:03 PM
398 Views
Seguin's a city, or at least town; Zavala is a county.
- 15/03/2010 09:00:54 PM
348 Views
Zavalla is a town as well and city is a bit of stretch for Seguin
- 15/03/2010 10:23:41 PM
300 Views
Fair enough, just trying to make clear I was speaking about municipality and county, respectively.
- 29/03/2010 03:49:30 PM
330 Views
See the problem is the argument is total BS
- 29/03/2010 05:27:53 PM
368 Views
Don't you guys essentially list all of the handful guys who fought at the Alamo already, anyway? *NM*
- 29/03/2010 08:55:34 PM
138 Views
There was 190 or so people there so no they are not all in the textbook
- 31/03/2010 05:31:41 PM
379 Views
Do you have any examples of where they are not teaching the truth?
- 15/03/2010 05:42:27 PM
346 Views
I think it is what they are leaving out that is worrisome.
- 15/03/2010 06:58:38 PM
359 Views
I don't see anything sayting they are leaving that out
- 15/03/2010 08:26:50 PM
351 Views
We were talking about this last night
- 15/03/2010 11:38:02 PM
504 Views
Still not sure I see a problem
- 16/03/2010 04:58:50 PM
287 Views
This thread is indeed making me wonder how textbooks are used in the US...
- 16/03/2010 05:05:13 PM
283 Views