O'Reilly: "[S]tudies indicate ... most teachers ... bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America"
During the October 24 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly asserted: "[I]t seems to me, and the studies indicate, that most teachers -- high school and college in the United States -- are left-wingers. That they bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America, they teach about the deficits. Now, I think you have to teach both." O'Reilly made his comments during the "Culture War" segment of his show, which he introduced by saying, "[W]ith many public schools teaching diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem rather than history, civics, and geography, lots of American kids know little or nothing about their country, including what they owe their country." O'Reilly then aired a video clip showing students answering questions such as, "What do you think it means to be an American?" After airing the clip, O'Reilly stated: "We went out random. You know, just, we didn't do any study -- just pulled the kids between 13 and 17 with target audience of my book."
O'Reilly did not indicate which studies show that most high school teachers "are left-wingers" and "bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America." He later said, "[Y]ou don't have to -- you can't whitewash, OK? But when the balance goes to, it's a bad country -- and there's no question that's going on in the university system. I don't know about high school, but I suspect it is as well."
From the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: In the "Culture War" segment tonight: Kids are Americans, too. That's the title of my new book, and it's also the truth.
However, with many public schools teaching diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem rather than history, civics, and geography, lots of American kids know little or nothing about their country, including what they owe their country.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: I don't think I owe my country anything. I think they owe us.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 1: I don't owe America anything.
REPORTER: What do you think it means to be an American?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 1: An American?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Good, I guess.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 3: What was the question?
REPORTER: What's your favorite thing about America?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: That you get to do a lot of stuff, and you have, like, opportunities in other countries you do not have.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 4: And the hot girls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: And that, too.
REPORTER: What do you think you owe your country? Would you ever serve in the military?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 5: Hell, no!
REPORTER: Why not?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 5: What they done for me?
REPORTER: Would you live in another country if you had the choice?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 4: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: I'd go and I'd move to Europe.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 4: Move to Japan.
REPORTER: What does it mean to you to be an American?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 4: Well, I guess it means a lot 'cause, like -- I don't know.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Los Angeles, Brian Crosby, who teaches English and is the author of the book, The $100,000 Teacher: A [Teacher's] Solution to America's Declining Public School System.
I don't know what to tell you here, Brian. We went out random. You know, just, we didn't do any study -- just pulled the kids between 13 and 17 with target audience of my book, and -- you know, the kids have no clue. And a lot of them think that they don't owe the country anything. They're here, and they're entitled to everything.
Now, I assume this is what is being fed to them in the public school system. Am I wrong?
CROSBY: Well, I think the problem is we are enabling students to feel like they don't owe anybody anything. One of the most common things that a teenager would retort to a grown-up asking them a question about respect, the first thing that comes to the student's mind is, "Well, why should I respect you? Why should I respect you? You show me a reason why." They don't understand some basic things about civility, such as, you respect your elders, number one. And I think there's no interest from their end of getting involved in their country as some of those comments prove.
[...]
O'REILLY: But -- and I could be wrong. I've been out of the classroom now for more than 30 years, so I could be wrong.
But it seems to me, and the studies indicate, that most teachers -- high school and college in the United States -- are left-wingers. That they bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America, they teach about the deficits.
Now, I think you have to teach both. OK, you don't have to -- you can't whitewash, OK? But when the balance goes to, it's a bad country -- and there's no question that's going on in the university system. I don't know about high school, but I suspect it is as well. Then the kid gets an attitude like, you're -- he says something to you, "What have you done for me? You know, look at this. Look at Bush."
And the kids who are loyal and try to be patriotic are geeks -- are considered geeks because of it. I'm going to deal with that tomorrow on this program.
But the pressure is --
CROSBY: But Bill --
O'REILLY: -- the cool kids are the ones that don't like their country.
CROSBY: Well, you know, part of what you're talking about, about being an American, is being civil to one another. And there are -- there really aren't a lot of people teaching that in schools today -- kids how to behave, to respect the flag.
I mean, go into any school, especially an assembly in an auditorium, when you ask students to, "Could you please stand and say the pledge of allegiance?" You don't hear a lot of enthusiasm there.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
What 'studies', Billy?
You better watch out with your smearing of teachers or I'll be showing up at YOUR doorstep with MY 'security posse'! :D
Me thinks that Billo, all fake patriots at Fox Noise, and all those that believe in American exceptionalism need to read the books "U.S. History Uncensored" by Carolyn Baker and "Lies my teacher told me" by James Loewen
While I do love what our Founding Fathers created in the Constitution, I have often wondered why the children are never taught the real truth to how this country even became at all...... It isn't pretty
Billo's argument doesn't even attack the issue, it attacks the prospect of kids learning the real truth of our nations history and as usual attacks the messengers and ignores the facts.....
This is why many people around the world don't like America..... they know more about our history's truth than those of us that live here. They see us as blissfully ignorant to the horrors done in our names.
Pinheads like Billo only further the fake fantasy of American exceptionalism.
Young people, and all Americans, should be taught and fully aware of our history - it should be the good, the bad and the ugly in full context, for only then can we appreciate, and be thankful, that we live in the greatest and most noble country on the planet.
Perhaps residents of other countries feel the same about their country, and that is perfectly noble and appropriate.
I can understand thinking your country is the greatest place to live but I really don't understand the claims of nobility. To me nobility implies a moral authority that I don't think anyone can lay claim to. I always felt it had more to do with the culture of a place that made it preferable over another place not the nobility...because when you take the bad with the good can you really claim nobility. Just my 2 cents.
I understand what you are saying. However, I view nobility in the overall context of goodness and promoting positive values, as well as morality of course. I don't believe because we are not a perfect country, obviously, and have made many mistakes, that we are not a moral and noble nation.
Whose code or what power creates the nobility?
Code or power? You either believe your country is noble, or you do not. There is no power or code to tell you anything. You are more than free to decide for yourself.
Tommy--how about believing your COUNTRY is noble, but your current REGIME is corrupt? Does that fit into your definition?
And I used the word "regime" on purpose.
NOTE the defining narrative O'Reilly uses.
Whether his "stats" are correct, he has identified two characteristics which go together:
1. Left-wingers
2. bring in a anti-American viewpoint
I.E. ONLY Rightwingers can be Pro-American.
It's this kind of insidious defining that is constant to the rightwing bloviators that reveals their hyper-partisan nature, and is especially important to note as the baseline "premises" of these guys like Bill O'Reilly who claim to be "independent".
That ONLY Rightwingers can be patriots is perhaps the biggest LIE these guys tell on a continual basis. Variations of this theme take up fully half of their airtime. And, make no mistake, it is vile propaganda, and it is RIGHTWING biased.
"It's this kind of insidious defining that is constant to the rightwing bloviators that reveals their hyper-partisan nature"
All you have to do is look at the various postings of your left wing friends on this thread to see what O'Reilly is talking about. They've been bashing America all through this thread, so they're basically just proving O'Reilly's point and disproving yours. And O'Reilly did say "left wingers" and not liberals. He was probably talking about those on the extreme left, not mainstream liberals.
No Rhino. That is your ignorance talking. There is no bashing of America on this thread. Just because you arent bright enough to tell the difference between who we are and what this or that administration sometimes DOES, isnt indicative that there ISNT a difference. That problem is YOURS. Not ours. ITs DUMB. You are doing just what Tex was talking about. Taking a liberal position and sticking YOUR deranged interpretation about us on it. You are demented we are NOT un-American nor are we bashing America when we aknowlege how some administrations have strayed from the values we associate WITH our country. It is by doing EXACTLY that, which allows us to KEEP our values precious
What does this have to do with a particular administration?
"While I do love what our Founding Fathers created in the Constitution, I have often wondered why the children are never taught the real truth to how this country even became at all...... It isn't pretty"
Nice quote-mine. Apparently you have a bit of a problem with nuance (and the fact that one poster in this thread would hardly amount to "left-wingers bashing America").
MAN you really need to learn to read. It wouldnt have to do with any particular administration which is why I said THIS OR THAT administration.
Adult education look into it.
Did you think that quote constituted America bashing? You are kidding right? It is true that the way we treated the Native Americans and Mexico to establish this country isnt pretty. That doesnt mean much about our national identity. This is the way countries acted at the time. What Spain did in Central America was worse. What Britian did in India, Belguim in the Congo, France in Haiti, Portugal in Brazil, none of this is pretty. It was a fairly brutal time. None of this says anything about the countries involved. We have grown more civilized, that is a good thing. Teaching the truth about that time wouldnt be a bad thing nor would it be America bashing nor Spain bashing
When you say that this country was founded illegitimately and immoraly, you're basically saying that the entire foundation that our country was founded on is corrupt and we're a bad country because of that. Our founders were noble and good people who had good intentions for this country. You and others who say that we were a corrupt country from the beginning are obviously bashing the United States of America.
No we arent. You need to stop with your simplemindedness. THIS is 2007. THAT was the late 1700s. Only you Manichean simpleminded, comitted to be offended morons think the standards are the same. As I said it WAS the way things were done then. All the civilized countries were doing exactly the same thing. See WE arent judging ourselves, and what was done then by todays standards. We are simply stating obvious truths in the hopes that we can see why we shouldnt do those things again. And we HAVE done things LIKE that, though not as bad since. Like when we overthrew Democratic governments in Guatemala, Brazil, Iran, Chile, and the Dominican Republic and replaced them with dictatorships. It isnt as bad but its the same sort of thing. That doesnt mean we are an evil people or a bad country. It is a POWER DYNAMIC we NEED to be watchful for and stop from happening in the future. I am sure if France or Britian or even India was the most powerful country in the world they would be doing the same thing. Bottom line is it isnt a LIE. Its the truth. Remember the truth will set you free? See your mistakes of the past so you dont repeat them? So no, that isnt so just because you appologists dont want to hear the TRUTH and demand a fantasy version of reality. It isnt bashing our country its trying to make sure we CONTINUE to be a moral country by addressing what we did in the past we dont want to do in the future. I cant understand you simpleminded people. You arent denying these things happened. I mean you cant they are factual historical reality. They make you MAD and yet for some reason of dementia I cant understand you dont get mad at those who DID these things you get mad at us for SAYING them. Did you think it was our dirty little secret what happened to the Native Americans? Take a reality pill you desperatly need one.
No, we're not saying "we're a bad country because of that."
Your outrage simply comes from your total inability to understand nuanced thinking.
Most people over the age of, say, 12 understand that people, places, and things aren't ever all-good or all-bad. Even the best or the worst is a complicated mixture of both.
The good things about this country are great. The bad things are disgusting. Let's confront the bad things so that we don't do them again and REALLY make the country better.
They've been bashing America all through this thread, so they're basically just proving O'Reilly's point and disproving yours. Rino
Rino we live in a democracy. Did you forget the meaning?
Democracy describes small number of related forms of government. The fundamental feature is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech (especially in political affairs), freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law.
By exercising our 'freedom of speech' we are participating in democracy. Our soliders are dying (according to this administration) to bring Iraq the very thing, democracy, both you and Bill want to stop. Freedom of Speech is primary to any democracy even if it's in disagreement with you or the administration. How can you look at that as 'bashing America' or 'hating America'?
People have the right to say whatever they want to say. I said nothing about free speech. But if someone bashes this country, I have the right to criticize them for that as well. Wouldn't you agree?
It is only bashing the country to people so weak minded that they cannot understand the difference between who we are and what we sometimes do. So weak minded they are AFRAID of the truth. Simpleminded people who want to conflate doing what is necessary to assure we uphold our values with attacking who we are. I have to assume its because you WANT us making those mistakes because you LIKE THEM.
You have every right to criticize them, but that's no guarantee whatsoever that you would be correct. And, if you're not, we'll call you on it, and your intellectual reputation will suffer accordingly.
Absolutely. Remember free speech is only for those with Progressive views.
There is no censureship of your speech, here or elsewhere, nor is anyone calling for it.
Apparantly knowing what it actually IS seems to be limited to progressives while LYING about it is limited to hivemind morons from the rightwing
RINO,
Do you actually read the postings you criticize?
RINO,
Do you equate "unpatriotic" with "criticism of the current administration?"
No. I equate "unpatriotic" with criticism of this country and it's history.
Its simpleminded stupidity to confuse what is sometimes done with who we are. Our history has its warts. The way to assure we dont repeat them is to face them. I can only assume you WANT us to repeat the distasteful things some administrations HAVE done so you want to pretend they are our dirty little secret.
Solon. Can you list three great things about our country and it's history? You know things like
Freeing Europe X 2Charitable givingMost powerful nationNot keeping land won in war
Please add to the list.
Sure I can, the Marshall plan, the Peace Corp, almost unique political freedoms. You guys are so pathetic. So simpleminded that you think loving your country is all about cheerleading, snivelling loudly when anyone mentions the TRUE things certain administrations have done wrong and mindless servility to power. While those of us that actually have a functioning brainpan know that if you want to keep freedom that means eternal vigilance and keeping an eye on those who want power no matter how good the system is. It means if you really want to BE a good people and country you address the legitimate criticisms of past mistakes and not DEMAND that because you have done good things no one ever mention the bad things. Simply put this is a good nation because of those who do the WORK to KEEP it a good nation not because of brainwashed conformity junkies who prefer fantasy to reality
Such anger. Why are you liberals always so angry, quick to name-call?
My kids don't learn about true American History in High School. They learn about how bad our nation is. This has been taught to them since grade school.
Liberal teachers are more interested in teaching immorality to our kids than the great things about this country.
I really believe this stems from your deep seeded anger toward this nation. What makes you so-called Progressives so angry.
So, is it "unpatriotic" for Germans to criticize the Holocaust?
Because it's in their country's history do they have to honor it and make believe it was a good thing?
Or, do you believe that Germany is inherently a bad country, and always will be, and that all people in it to this day are inherently evil?
Don't you think it would be better for Germans to do some difficult soul-seraching (as indeed they do), identify what they did wrong, take responsibility for it, and understand that there are other good things about their country that they should emphasize and emulate in their current policies?
Shouldn't America do the same for its past sins?
That is the most ignorant analogy I have ever heard. When did our great nation ever do anything that comes close to the Holocaust?
America rescued the Jews during WWII. Of course citizens should stand up when their government is immoral. After all this country was founded on Judeao-Christian principles. Honoring God is our first responsibility. This country, with all it's faults is GOOD.
Is that you Alberto Gonzales? I guess you protest extraordinary rendition, coercive interrogation, torture etc? Or are you like one of those good Germans that turned a blind eye to the third degree?
You're the only one (well not the only one, there are more, far too many more, like you) convinced that we are saying America is bad because we are not saying America is absolutely righteous. What can we expect though from an adherent to a political party that insists if one is not 100% percent conservative then one must be 100% liberal.
Have fun with your eliminationist fantasies of lining up the lefties for the firing squad, you punka** thug.
Do you want us to stay in Iraq?
If we leave there will be Genocide Or, is Genocide o.k. as long as it fits within your political views.
We can take our army into Dar Fur as long as it doesn't benefit the U.S. but saving the lives of Iraqis who were truly tortured by Sadam is not a noble thing because it benefits us.
Realize that you liberals will be the first killed if our enemies win.
So, is there some imaginary line of genocide or violation of human rights, that only after you cross it you must atone for your sins? Smaller genocides are ok and we don't have to admit any wrongdoing? WHAT?!
As for when did America even come close to doing what Germany did in the Holocaust, let's just look at slavery and forced Indian relocation:
"Historians do not agree on the exact number of Africans who were forcibly transported across the Atlantic, although it is generally accepted that the number exceeds ten million.
Slave traders actively encouraged wars in Africa, resulting in the death or enslavement of millions more Africans on that continent than ended up in the Americas. Scholars of African history believe the total number of Africans killed or abducted in Africa and the Americas could be between 50 and 100 million. Whatever the figure, the slave trade brought death and dislocation on an unimaginable scale. Its full impact will never be fully known."
[Granted, these numbers include slave trading carried on by other nations. But even if we put America's involvement at an unrealistically conservative 20%, that's still 10-20 million, when the deaths in the Holocaust numbered 9-11 million, [link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to www.mariner.org]
And even if we ignore the millions and millions of Native Americans killed by smallpox (because, strictly speaking, this can't be considered intentional), there were still hundreds of thousands who were forcibly relocated in a number of different relocations, with very high death tolls.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
You say a country should stand up when it does something immoral. And yet you refuse to admit when ours does! How do you expect our country to STAY good?
And, our country was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles AT ALL:
[link to www.nytimes.com]
[link to www.humanismbyjoe.com]
You sight Wiki links come on. You might as well write your own quotes.
I'm sure that you are a Republican since it was Lincoln's party that freed the slaves.
So dissent is unpatriotic?
History,
Despite the massive failings of the Bush administration in many areas, the war, the border, runaway spending - yes, we are still a noble country.
I agree but we will ONLY remain that way by addressing those things. Not by pretending they didnt happen or allowing them to continue to happen. In other words by the PEOPLE standing up to power and saying THIS will not stand. The very thing people like Rino and Billy accuse us of being anti American for doing.
Indeed many of our people have noble ideals and ambitions. For our nation to be noble, our government must be so. Too many critics here and abroad strongly believe are government isn't noble. It lies, it cheats, it breaks it's own rules, and claims it is above the law. Not noble.
This "country" or nation would be noble if the government we choose and tolerate wasn't so dirty.
Tommy,
I believe we have the greatest Constitution in the world, and I am horrified by what is being done to it by the Current Occupant of the White House and his "loyal Bushies."
historygeek001. I'm glad to see that you are pro-life. ...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
We just don't believe life ends at birth, though...
I guess I find morals, values and goodness to be rather subjective qualities. And what criteria are you using to quantify them...the people, the government, the laws, the constitution. This is just an example I am using for illuatrative purposes and not to get into a debate about the death penalty but I personally think it is not nobel and I would find on that issue a country that didn't have the death penalty to be on higher ground on that issue. I find women are treated better here then in some other coutries so I guess on that issue we wuld come out ahead. See it is just such an impossibility to claim nobility above others. I am not sure why loving your country would mean that it would claim genuine superiority over another rather then just a preference. Granted there are some countries that I would never want to live in and don't understand the people who like that way of life but I imagine they probably have similar thoughts about us.
Our Constitution. Our respect for the rights of individuals. Our freedoms and our liberties.
Obviously if I think we are the greatest country on earth, that is subjective, and up to each individual.....which goes directly to our strengths and goodness as a nation.
For the record, I am opposed to the death penalty as well.
Tommy, hope you don't think I am nitpicking...I don't mean to come off that way...I just find this topic interesting. Do you think the things you just pointed to are superior to say Canada's , France's, or England's for example. I don't really see how they are all that different. I think if we examined too closely we would find none of us meeting the ideal but I think as far as freedom's liberties, ect. the totality would probably end up a draw. If someone asked me why I would rather live in the US then the other coutries I mention most if not all of my answers would have to do with cultural issues and nothing to do with nobility/morals. For example I like american food and football and I not a big fan of soccer (-:
My personal feeling is I live in the greatest country in the world. It is not, for me, a negative reflection on any other country, it is merely my national pride - which I imagine residents of the countries you mention have as well.
As for culture vs. morals, Iran is a country rich in culture, yet the way they treat women and others makes me grateful I was born an American.
Yeah, I agree with you I think I live in a great country and I agree it is not a negative reflection on other countries. I think often people do use it as a negative reflection and that is why we often take a hit for hubris. Although these days I do notice an increase in hubris and sactimony coming from those in other countries where they seem to forget their own issues and believe it is open season on bashing the US. I think I have mentioned before that not everyone in my family is a US citizen and they are from different coutries and they do seem to feel free to bash us and turn a blind eye to their home countries and its issues.
It could always be jealousy.
I think that is probably a universal impulse. To be a bit blinder of your own than to others foibles. I also think its something honest people ought to avoid.
Good point Solon.
You know, let me criticize my family, but you better not :)
Women are treated better in the US than Iran. Right. Women are treated well in the US? Maybe, not quite so right.
"In 2005, Video Business, the bible of the US video business, quoted AVN, the bible of the US porn video business, on a figure of $12.6 billion in revenue for the entire 'adult' sector in the States, $4.3 billion of which came from adult video sales and rentals. VB claimed that this last figure had been 'relatively flat' since 1997. These figures, or others close to them, are quoted across the board by news services."
I found women treated with little respect, on the whole, during my time in the US. That is why an English gentleman, like myself, was able to take my pick.
Tommy,
Let me guess. You live in the best state in the Union, the best city in the state, the best neighborhood in your city and so on. It doesn't mean it's true.
If you don't think the U.S. is the best country in the world then go move to the country that you feel is the best in the world. No one is stopping you from moving to your favorite country.
If you dont like people excersicing their right to free expression why dont YOU get out of our good country and go live in a place like Guatemala where your black fascist heart will fit right in?
Oh, cut and run!
That's a brilliant idea!
I may feel that America has lots of problems (but hey, doesn't everybody?!), but I still LOVE it, and I still want to see it be the great country that I know its ideals can lead it to be.
Shouldn't I stand up for my country and do what I can to try to make it the best country in the world? I want it to be. To REALLY be, not just to delude myself that it always is and always has been.
Right on! ...in order to form a more perfect union...
We've certainly gone downhill lately. I dont know what kind of claims to nobility we deserve when saying we have the right to torture, extraordinary renditions, not comply with the Geneva Convention or Habeus Corpus. I think we started out that way. Power and nobility are not compatable. To the extent you protect privelge and extend power you eschew nobility. I dont think it is anything intrinsic to America. I dont think any country as powerful as we are would be noble anymore. There is some nobility left because the people believe we should be. Its why our government lies to us to bring us along on their ignoble endeavors. We certainly have done very noble things and I remember learning about them. Like the Peace Corp. to the extent we didnt let the CIA use it too much, the Marshall Plan, a very noble endeavor, WW2. And I DID learn about those things. Billy is a cretin. He just LIKES to call people anti American. Either they do what HE wants or they are anti American. He is a joke and I cant think of anything more UN-American than telling people they are anti American because they believe differently and stand up to government.
I'm sure every country takes that stance which is why I think it is a crock in the first place.
One of the issues I have with the Right IN GENERAL is its 'need' to tuck under the carpet the more sordid details of our history - including the many sordid things that are occurring on Bush's watch. It's almost as if it is some unwritten rule that's at play when it comes to taking responsibility for the ugly parts of our history - either minimise it or suppress it outright.
I love the ideals of this country, I wish we actually lived up to them.
Unfortunately,over the past four years we have become the evil that we have set out to fight against. We are now the biggest threat to world security (as evident by the new threats of war with Iran).
I think as Americans we should ask ourselves if we like the direction our country is taking. Because, I wiil tell you, I do not. And I think the direction we should take is impeachment. And if we can't get the congress to seek impeachment, then we should impeach them! It is in the best interest of this country and the world that we take these steps in the name of American and world security.
Absolutely. The problem is that the right-wing noise machine of Fox, O'Reilly, etc. do not want that. They want anything that is evenly remotely negative or neutral to be ignored or excused, and only the most positive things discussed. That is the whole point of their constant cries of people being "anti-America" any time someone says anythine remotely critical...regardless of how factual.
I have two issues with this type of attitude. The first is that people never learn without the negative events. You don't understand what heat is until you accidentally burn yourself as a kid. Then you know; you learn from your mistakes and from the consequences of your actions. The right-wing noise machine wants everyone to be ignorant of those consequences and call anybody who mentions them "anti-America". How can people learn and continue to ensure America is great if they don't learn from their mistakes, or just ignore them completely?
My second issue is this idea that citizens of ANY country should be indoctrinated this way. I'm sorry, but I find this highly suspcisious and akin to brainwashing. Why should kids be raised as if America is this great icon totally seperate from the citizens that MAKE America? I think this is also part of the rights agenda...keep people apathetic and isolated from the country they MAKE so that they don't vote and give in to those with power. America is great because the PEOPLE make it great. It works because the PEOPLE make it work. By acting as if America is some deity, entity or ideal, completely seperate from the people who MAKE it, you ensure that the people are less likely to take part.
The same goes with treating the flag as a sacred image. Hell, if you read the laws, the flag has more right and priveledges and protection than any of us. There is something wrong with that I think. America is great no doubt, but I think it is of primary importance that we stop teaching this idea that America is great "just because" and start teaching that it is great because people ACT to make it great. Perhaps this will encourage future generations to get more involved in their government, societies,etc. Perhaps it will encourage more people to take part in elections. Most importantly, it will remind future generations that the government works for THEM, and that if they hold their elected officials accountable, then that is the only way to safegaurd the very freedom and democracy that makes America great.
As it is now, the very people who are claiming to be the biggest patriots, are cowards hiding behind the "inconic imagery' that they think is patriotism while the Bush admin grabs more and more power at the expense of our own freedoms and rights. Perhaps if people like O'Reilly were indoctrinated less, and taught more about civics and the importance of people in democracy, we wouldn't be in the situation we now find outselves.
Excellent points, that dovetail nicely with the thesis of Naomi Wolfes recent book "The End Of America". She warns of a complacency of the citizenry which enables those who desire a "facist shift". It is excellent, concise and to the point. We have to wake up and take action to STOP this nearly out of control administration from turning this great nation into another facist state. It is NOT alarmist to say that our very futures depend on it.
Excellent post!
Very eloquent, and very TRULY patriotic!!
"VermillionIV" is bang-on right in noting where
Which could be right up there with apartheid South Africa's syllabus of National Christian Education--and the potential for its emulation by the Christian Homeschooling Movement.
Phosdex -- nice point.
Hey Buddy, no one has ever said that America is a PERFECT country...its just the BEST country that has its faults (like every other country)
Question: Throughout its history, considering the millions that have been liberated from tyranny and opperssion, in your view has America been a net gain, or a net loss to humanity?
Jim Bingham
Minneapolis, MN
WHat ius America "best" at? Yeah, America used to be great, but face it, it's fallen behind in virtually all measurable areas except GNP.
America is the "Best" at:
-freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble...
-liberating the oppressed around the world
-fighting evil
-rights of women, gays, blacks, (illegal) aliens
- opportunity to succeed
-giving its citizens the right to spit in the face of the government that provides them such an incredible blanket of freedom
Shall I continue?
We all love our country. We want it to be a shining city on a hill; and when it isn't, it is unpatriotic to ignore it, or to be in denial about it.
jrbrre125: America currently: -Has “Free Speech Zones” so Bush and his administration doesn’t need to see those who disagree with him; -Is engaged in a war that we entered into based upon lies told by Bush and his administration; -has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens; -has backslid on providing equality to women and minorities; -Our “opportunity to succeed” is directly proportional to our pre-existing wealth; -Removed habeas corpus laws and the government has been illegally spying on its citizens (that means US).
America is not living up to its own Constitution. I am proud to be an American and horrified to be represented by Bush and Co.
Wow, I don't even know where to start here with this B.S. But I guess I'll try.
"Is engaged in a war that we entered into based upon lies told by Bush and his administration"
If Bush lied, then Bill Clinton lied as well when he said that Saddam had WMD's. If Bush lied, then Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, etc. lied when they said that Saddam had WMD's. If Bush lied, then our own intelligence agency and every other intelligence agency around the world lied about Saddam having WMD's. Your point is the same old far left progaganda that has been debunked time and time again.
"has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens"
No, the terrorists have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. We have attempted to free thousands of Iraqi citizens from a brutal dictator who murdered them by the thousands. But thanks for providing yet another example of the left bashing America.
"has backslid on providing equality to women and minorities"
Women and minorities have the same rights now as they did in the 90's. The fact that Bush doesn't want to discriminate against white men like the Dems do doesn't mean that he's anti-women or anti-minority.
"-Our “opportunity to succeed” is directly proportional to our pre-existing wealth"
Uh, no, I believe you're thinking about England in France. In this country you have unlimited opportunity to achieve your goals and become successful. If you fail in this country it's your own fault. You shouldn't blame the government and our capitalistic economic system. Socialism fails every time it's tried.
"Removed habeas corpus laws and the government has been illegally spying on its citizens (that means US"
The government has been legally listening to U.S. citizens who talk to terrorists overseas. I don't know about you, but if someone in this country is talking to a terrorist overseas, I want the government to know about. And until the program is proven to be illegal in a court of law, your claim is simply baseless. And FOREIGN TERRORISTS have never been given habeaus corpus rights, nor should they ever. U.S CITIZENS receive habeaus corpus rights as they always have. The Bush administrations' policy is the same one we have always had. The far left simply wants to change the policy and give foreign terrorists rights to the U.S. LEGAL system. It's an unbelievably sick and ridiculous idea. It's hard to understand why the left sympathizes with terrorists so much.
RINO,
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!! <wiping away tears of laughter> I used to think you might actually BELIEVE what you were saying. Thank you for straightening me out. <still laughing as I type this>
Nice rebuttal. And another leftist goes down in defeat.
Another unreal delusion. You have NEVER defeated anyone in a debate all the time you have been here. Do you still not get how EASY you are? WE mop the floor with you day in and day out. You are barely batting practice. The lefties here can take you apart like a cheap watch with one lobe of our brains tied behind our backs. Ya got nothin. Your propaganda is weak, cliched and batted away easier than a fruitfly
Not really. But your weak attempt at a rebuttal always gives me a laugh. It's hilarious how upset you get about a little criticism of the left.
More of your delusions my rebuttal took you apart as most of the lefty rebuttals here do time after time. THIS was not a rebuttal it was returning serve. AND pointing out how astonishing your capacity for self delusion is. Do you really not GET how much you embarass yourself and how regularly we mop the floor with you?
Rebuttal? A rebuttal needs to be meritted.
It's better yet to realize that nobody gets to set the terms of the debate. Answers are given on their own terms and if that means rejecting the conservative point of view, then so be it
Keep thinking that. (still snickering)
You are so unbeiveably brainwashed its sad. You NEVER know what you are talking about and have lost all touch with reality
Your first point is stupid and has been addressed many times at this point you are just lying when you repeat it. It was basically if Bush lied then Clinton et al lied. That is false. Bush told SPECIFIC outright lies which I have demonstrated over and over not broad statements of belief. The IAEA report he pulled directly out of his ass the aluminum tubes lies he told America and Congress and on and on. Not hey Iraq has WMDS. If that were all he had said no one would be calling him a liar.
What was that shock and awe again? Was that terrorists because I thought that was our military. When WE count the dead in a war zone of OTHERS we count all those who died that wouldnt have had there not been a war. That is the same criteria we must hold ourselves too regardless of what YOU want to say for propaganda purposes and the need to maintain your self delusions.
Your delusions about the US social/economic mobility are pretty much in line with the rest of your fantasies, that is delusional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
Official or legally recognized class designations do not exist in modern western democracies and it is considered possible for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. Despite this formal opportunity for social mobility, recent research suggests that Britain and particularly the United States have less social mobility than the Nordic countries and Canada.[1] [2]
Not only does social mobility vary across types of countries, it can also change over time. Comparing the United States to the United Kingdom, there was social mobility of different degrees existing between the two countries during different historical periods. In the United States in the mid-19th century inequality was low and social mobility was high. In the late 19th century, the U.S. had much higher social mobility than in the UK, due to the common school movement and open public school system, a larger farmer sector, as well as higher geographic mobility in the United States. However, during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, the difference between the social mobilities of the two countries has declined, as social inequality has grown in both countries, but particularly in the United States. In other words, the individual's family background is more predictive of social position today than it was in 1850.
Again we have corrected you on this propaganda you want to spew many times. At this point you are just lying. You dont KNOW who is being wiretapped or if it is legal since there is NO OVERSIGHT. Just calling them terrorists helps you feel good and spread propaganda but you have no way of even KNOWING much less showing only terrorists are being wiretapped it is you spreading hivemind stupidity. And NO Habeus Corpus does NOT only apply to US CITEZENS. Anyone subject to our justice system has those right. The Bill of rights doesnt TALK about citizens it talks about PERSONS. This is simple it has been pointed out to you many times at this point you are just LYING when you spew this BS. Also who SAYS they are terrorists. They do not become terrorists just because YOU or Bush say they are until that is shown all we see is you being willing to say the stupidest things in order to appologize for actions you couldnt POSSIBLY justify with REAL arguments. I do have to say Stalin or Hitler would have been proud to have an aparatchik of your blindness and comittment working for them.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this!!
I know it takes a lot of time to research and articulate these arguments (even if they should be obvious to a child, and based upon facts that should be common knowledge), and we appreciate it.
I think the time it takes is well worth the satisfaction of so thoroughly debunking Rino Hunter.
Thank you I appreciate that.
I wouldn't say debunked, more like a weak attempt at a refutation. It's the same exact thing he always says, and I've refuted him over and over again. He just sticks with the same talking points. I'm not going to take the time to refute his weak talking points once again. I have things to do and don't feel like typing that much right now. So I'll talk to you all later and have a great night!!
YOU are out of your MIND. It was a thorough rebuttal. You have NEVER refuted a word of what I said. It is the same thing I say because it asnwers the same delusions you keep spewing. Just SAYING you have refuted something doesnt make it so. THIS idea that you only have to SAY something to make it true is a symptom of your hivemind delusionary state. Some day you may TRY to answer some of these points as of yet you havent come within MILES of doing so. To take a point virtually at random when are you going to actually READ the constitution and see the words used for our rights is PERSONS and not CITIZENS?
Rino, you were debunked. Thoroughly, comprehensively, and straightforwardly. DEBUNKED. With SOURCES.
Just calling Solon's argument "a weak attempt at refutation" doesn't make your statement true.
Provide the same level of scholarship that Solon did and then maybe you can play with the big kids.
If you are too tired/busy to answer these points, then PLEASE provide a link to where you actually have given credible rebuttals. I haven't seen any of it yet.
While you're at it, you have a number of unanswered debunkings on this thread, [link to mediamatters.org] , and if you're so good at debunking our refutations, PLEASE, continue trying to tackle these arguments we've presented. Thus far, you've failed at every single one.
Those first two and the last one are in imminent danger of being nonexistent, if this administration is not STOPPED SOON.
The first one is only in danger because of the militant anti-free speech crowd on the left. If they have their way only the far left will have a say in the media.
You are a liar. I have shown you many times. PROVEN OUTRIGHT there is no free speech issue involved in these media issues. I even showed the Supreme Court decision (Red Lion) that said this directly. You have been proven wrong on this and wont let the propaganda go because you like it and because you are a liar.
Jrbrre125,
I (and I believe on this point I can speak for all of us in this discussion) LOVE these things you mention. We consider them of the utmost importance in what makes us American.
We want to defend these ideals and these rights, so when we see them being compromised we SAY SOMETHING.
Criticizing those who are currently running (and ruining) America is the best way to keep them accountable and to ensure that America is not just a geographically-defined state, but one that actively lives up to those ideals you espouse.
In answer to your question...a wise man once said, 'We glorify the past when our future dries up."
Like anything in life, America's greatness only extends as far as it's most recent actions. Iraq, Bush, neo-cons, Fox and the right-wing noise machine trump past greatness in the minds of everyone one earth. Except for bush, Fox, etx. of course. They think past greatness gives them the right to be total assholes in the future and nobody can ever complain.
Your neighbour might be the nicest guy on the street. But if one day his garbage is dumped on your lawn, and he refuses to clean it up, do you ignore it because he has a history of acting noble? No...you get pissed and hold it against him until he does something good again in the future.
If the Right wingers constantly have to bask in the reflected glory of past great deeds - like WW2 - what does that say about the present or the future? Are we just supposed to rest on our collective laurels? Or do we live by the asshole theory that we were cool in the past and that should be good enough, regardless of our behaviour now?
Let's make a list of advertisers that support this garbage
If you can't find him...
He's probably hiding behind his mother's skirt.
Any studies yet ... ? Even by some spurious scaifian group ... anything? even one? A li'l web poll by fox? ... bill truly just lies remorselessly. he would have been such a great stalinist magistrate.
These people should learn from true masters how to do a study:
[link to www.theonion.com]
So basically he is saying that teachers should "blackmail" and "lie" to students.
I was reading something else and "blackmail" was in my mind. I meant to say "indoctrinate".
Doris,
Of course these "studies" are some arbitrary generalization O'Reilly introduces to prop up his story, which fits nicely into promoting his latest book - which is the real impetus here, obviously.
But the larger point is that teachers should be teaching the basics, irrespective of some ideological point of view......not indoctrinating, or lying, or anything but what they are trained as teachers to do.
But the larger point is that teachers should be teaching the basics, irrespective of some ideological point of view......not indoctrinating, or lying, or anything but what they are trained as teachers to do.
I agree.
The point here is who is really proposing indoctrination. O’Reilly seems to suggest that we should de-emphasize attention on America’s past failings and spend more time lauding the state and I would imagine the military based on O’Reilly’s typical rhetoric. What sounds more like indoctrination? What O’Reilly proposes or what our kids are currently learning? (I hate to bring up similarities between past totalitarian regimes and their youth indoctrination movements, but I bet you could find more than a few similarities in O’Reilly’s book.) By the way, what could be more disappointing to a teenager to waking up on Christmas morning and finding that your parents bought you O’Reilly’s latest book.
Another point is O’Reilly’s questions of “What does it mean to be an American?” I don’t watch O’Reilly every night, but one common theme is that we are all entitled to Tax Cuts, because we are tired of paying for programs and services for all of the freeloaders in other words mine is mine and the rest of the country cannot have any of it. “What do your owe your county and would you ever serve in the military.” “Apparently the tough love and patriotism that was dished out in the halcyon good old days when O’Reilly was a boy and kids respected their elders and loved their country was not enough to convince O’Reilly to join the military when there was a perfectly good war going on.
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with the bulk of that statement, Tommy.
You wisely stopped short of implying that most teachers are guilty of imparting "some ideological point of view......indoctrinating, or lying" to their students (at least, I think you stopped short).
I think such an implication is paranoid, wrong-headed and completely out-of-touch with what goes on in our schools today.
I "stopped short" because I have no expertise or evidence to suggest if that is true or not.
And you should be applauded for your restraint.
I agree. A tip of the cap to Tommy on this thread.
Yes they should. The good bad and ugly like you said. Who says they arent? I mean besides Billy who has the credibility of the Moonie Times? I have no reason to believe they arent.
I understand your point, but O'Reilly's exchange seems to go off in a wierd direction. O'Reilly seems to be upset that kids don't respect their elders and that most of the ones on the street he interviewed were pretty unimpressive.
It isn't the job of teachers to teach children ideas like respect for elders. That is on the parents. It isn't like this is anything new. Remember the hippies mistrust of anyone over 30?
I believe kids are not taught much at all about our history and what they are taught, they aren't really comprehending, but O'Reilly is apparently talking about something else. I can't quite figure out his point.
I think O'Reilly always has two overriding points in his "culture" lookout for America.
1) Bash the "left" and everything "left" that he can get his hands on.
2) Promote his latest book.
The point he's trying to make about the kids on the street is totally baseless. As I understand it, he's trying to say these kids are failing to be taught to love America, etc., etc., and he's using their ignorance to insinuate they're being indoctrinated.
But, has he ever seen JAYWALKING on the Tonight Show? An alarming number of people on the street have amazingly little comprehension of the world around them, and this is just pure unadulterated ignorance.
This isn't evidence of a liberal bias or lack of love for America, or whatever else O'Reilly has cooked up today, it's evidence of a need for BETTER SCHOOLS and INCREASED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION so that these children will have access to good teachers who teach them comprehensively (age appropriate, of course) and get them to feel passionate about history along with all areas of inquiry.
Yep, from some interviews I have seen of people on the street, common people, citizens all, I wonder if they finished the 5th grade with some of their responses to questions.
I grew up in Northern California--about as liberally liberalized as liberal could possibly liberalize itself.
Even then, through my formative years, we only learned what was great about America. Everything in history was presented as picture-perfect and manifestly destined.
It was only in late middle school and high school that they really got into the details of some of the horrible things that our country has done (along with plenty of the good things too!). This didn't make me "hate America" or whatever else, it just made me very committed to seeing America grow ethically and culturally to fully embody the core values expressed in its Constitution.
I think teaching young children (like K-4) about the great things about America's history, in a Disney-version sugarcoated way is important:
1) Don't traumatize little kids with things like Harper's Ferry or Japanese Internment,
2) Kids are too young to understand those issues anyway, and
3) MOST IMPORTANTLY: teaching young, impressionable children about the best things in our country makes them feel emotionally committed to it, and our children will WANT our country to live up to the kind of ideals they were taught in gradeschool.
HOWEVER, by the time kids get to middle school and high school like O'Reilly is discussing, kids NEED to understand that their country isn't perfect, and they need to hold our country accountable for its misdeeds as well as loving its accomplishments. If our young people can't see their country for what it is, while wanting it to be as good as they know in their hearts that it could be, they will have no motivation to continue to make our country great. If we turn a blind eye to our faults we will never improve.
I agree with what you're saying here. I would also like to point out that while I am hopelessly disconnected from the teenage community at the ripe old age of 25, I seem to remember something about being a teenager that calls O'Reilly's whole premise into question. How many of you thought that your teachers were "cool"? I remember most of my teachers being very pro-America (and pro-Utah, where I grew up). I figured they were hopelessly out of touch and so I went out of my way to question the official history. So if it's cool to be anti-American, I think it's more likely that teachers are pushing America even harder than they're pushing condoms on 12 year olds.
And he's distraught that some young people don't see it as their duty to the country to serve the military? Did he knock down a recruiter's door when he was 18?
Actually, I was very blesssed with my teachers (in a public school, too!), especially in history. They made the subject WONDERFUL because they didn't just tell us the official version, they didn't soften anything, and they told us all the behind-the-scenes stuff as to how these leaders really lived and thought. It was FASCINATING because it was REAL. Because I was taught history (American, European, AND World) by people who loved it and who cared about ALL of it (not just the official sanitized stuff) I gained a lifelong appreciation for it, and an appreciation of the values that are (or at least should be) the goals of the American identity.
p.s. I'm not quite at the ripe old age of 25 (I've only been able to drink legally for a few months now!)
O'Reilly is whining, and it is deeply PERSONAL.
When O'Reilly says "Respect your Elders", he means ONLY specific elders he has chosen SUBJECTIVELY.
Does O'Reilly respect HIS elders? Only if they agree with him entirely. "Old Hippies" out in San Francisco get ZERO respect from O'Reilly.
The elder men of law who populate the ACLU? O'Reilly has ZERO respect for them.
Judges who follow THE LAW and THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT rather than O'Reilly's "gut" feeling about how a case should have been decided? ZERO respect O'Reilly has for THEM.
The Elders O'Reilly want respected are HIMSELF, and the Bush Administration "elders".
This admonition is personal and partisan.
It is the same with every "tradition" O'Reilly laments has been lost. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, his generalities have a singular goal: To promote the current leadership of the Republicans, and to promote HIMSELF (and his book sales/audience numbers).
O'Reilly would not teach virtue, pride, the ability to reason, critical thinking, or even morality. He would teach SUBSERVIENCE and obedience without question. He wishes a population informed by PROPAGANDA rather than TRUTH.
O'Reilly wants very much to be a tyrant; in truth, he believes he already has been granted that omnipotent power, and seeks only to consolidate it in tandem with Rightwing governance. Those who stand in his way must be demonized, and destroyed.
It has always been thus with would-be tyrants.
I'm sure those "studies" were all done by advocates of school vouchers and/or homeschooling - two concepts designed to shield the children of conservatives from thoughts, concepts, or ideas that will make them realize that their parents are morons.
Left wingers? Anti-American? Because they don't preach about the nobility of America?
You can demonize anyone if you define the terms to suit your wacky agenda, Billo.
What billo has unwittingly admitted is that the most highly educated professionals in America, whose daily business it is to actually USE THEIR BRAINS for a living, tend to be progressives. Who'd a thunk it?
One of the greatest satirists of our time, Stephen Colbert, summed up our current MEDIA dilemma nicely with one quotation:
"REALITY has a well-known LIBERAL bias."
This is why MMFA has so much work to do. Things like reality, truth, evidence, and SCIENCE are ideological roadblocks to Rightwing power.
So, our current Rightwing-biased MEDIA spends almost all its time trying to create an ALTERNATIVE REALITY, one where Republican actions and policies are always "good" for America. One where the actions of Democrats and Liberals are not only "BAD", but Anti-American, EVIL, and treasonous.
That is why Limbaugh claims HE represents "equal time". That is why FOX claims to be "balanced". Because TRUTH and REALITY must be countered by rightwing propaganda, spin, misinformation, and of course smears and character assassinations.
REALITY threatens the Rightwing, and so they battle back with all their considerable forces.
And yet, the TRUTH will out. Thank GOD.
I love how Billy O and others argue that America is a right of center country but somehow there are all these left-wing teachers, social workers, union members, entertainers, phony soldiers, 9/11 widows, government employees, scientists, politicians and billionaires like seros, gates and buffet. Only in their delusional little world.
Well, that is why they want to "take back thier country" . Which I guess means, roll back any social progress made since reconstruction.
PIT:
Bingo!
Nice statistical study there, Bill-O. Take some "random" sampling of 13-17 year olds that all happen to be at the same place at the same time and are willing to talk on camera. Maybe it's YOU that needs some 'learnin' about math, primarily statistics, before you broadcast your Oh-so-valid study on student attitudes.
<<O'REILLY: But -- and I could be wrong. I've been out of the classroom now for more than 30 years, so I could be wrong. >>
And why, Bill, do YOU get to preface something by saying you could be wrong, but when you're actually CALLED OUT and proven wrong with those things called FACTS, you go on a rampage about how the "mainstream, Soros-backed, MovOn.org media" are coming after you or taking you out of context??
More yellow journalism from Bill-O and the FauxNews empire.
Based on recent clips, it appears there are large numbers of republican college bound kids who would never serve. Musta got those values from their parents.
Studies show that Bill O'Reilly has sex with goats.
Not true...Billo has been unable to have sex for years. Now he does talk dirty to sheep... ;>)
Some people say they hear bill say "who's your d-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-d-y!" when he takes a leak.
Now he does talk dirty to sheep...
After which he washes them with a falafel.
:-)
then threatens them with a visit from Roger Ailes and FOX security if they tell.
All the time waving a jar of mint jelly.
:-)
The beauty of talking dirty to sheep is that they can't tell anyone about it - excpet maybe other sheep, of course. Billo learned his lesson. Talking dirty to sheep is a hell of a lot safer than talking dirty on the telephone to a female human being - especially when she doesn't want to hear it and think you're a perv. So, you see, talking dirty ot sheep is Billo's version of safe sex.
Of course, it would be the sheeps fault that they were abused by O'Reilly. There seems to be an element about their abuser which the sheep like. Sound familiar?
You mean like "The sheep was asking for it"????
Yeah, the same way O'Reilly said the kid who was abducted for several years liked it.
You know, the goats have no clue. And a lot of them think that they don't owe ranchers anything. They're here, and they're entitled to everything.
Now, I assume this is what is being fed to them by PETA. Am I wrong?
Well, I think the problem is we are enabling goats to feel like they don't owe Bill a shot at their wooly hindquarters...
That's a good point, Neon. because studies show that goats tend to be anti-American left wingers.
Other than that one goat in Annapolis, I'm not aware of ANY that have served their country. And they're vegetarians, too. Buncha commie draft dodging peaceniks, goats are.
Ah yes, the nobility of America, represented by what? Coulter, Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly wielding his luffa? It's not that kids don't respect the flag Bill. It's that they can't, won't, and shouldn't respect your version of reality (another word for propaganda Bill). When Crosby asked the hypothetical kid about respecting elders the answer given was: "Well, why should I respect you? Why should I respect you? You show me a reason why." And this baffles you? Hello...think about it for a minute--Andrea Mackris, a luffa, and you don't get it? I guess we could add stupid to all your other virtues.
Lesson # 1
Respect must be earned.
I think there are two different kinds of respect. The kind of respect we are getting into here is also commonly called civility. Good parents teach their children that strangers and especially elders deserve a basic level of respect until they prove unworthy of it.
There is a higher level of respect that involves people of authority and/or leaders. There is a basic level of respect there, but real respect has to be earned for those people.
Exactly, basic respect for all, until proven undeserving of respect.
More respect is given to people that have earned more respect.
Teachers teach. Preachers preach. 'Nuff said.
And Bill O'Reilly says stupid things.
O'Reilly makes a few good points, & overreaches on a few.
Civility and respect are lacking in a great many young people today. But I would blame their parents before I put it all on the teachers or professors.
History, Civics & Geography should be taught in school. Diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem should begin being taught at home & practiced in school.
Blaming all the problems of society on either Liberals or Conservatives is a cop out.
A lack of civility among young people is nothing new. Ask the baby boomers about the Vietnam era.
Pete I grew up in that era. I was in Jr. High then High School. We showed a great deal more respect for our elders--including our parents & teachers.
Just a small example: The kids in school today think nothing of swearing or talking back to their teachers...and they rarely get in trouble for it. Back when I was in school that meant a trip to the office, staying after school or being suspended & then getting grounded by your parents.
Today few even get sent to see the principle & if the parents get involved, it's because they think little Dick or Jane is being picked on by the teachers.
I think today kids are alot more intelligent and aware then I was as a kid...I think computers and internet access have alot to do with that as well as the accelerated schooling programs. I also think what was lost was the period where they learned about social interaction and kindness and respect for one another. I agree with you jeter that kids today don't seem to show the respect . They rarely face consequences for their actions and they seem to be beyond spoiled and more entitled. Of course whenever I say these things everyone just claims I am getting old )-: But I would like to see school get back to socialization in the early years and save the advanced work till at least 1st grade.
You touched this in your post, but doesn't every generation believe the younger generations lack respect for their elders? It is possible that children show less and less respect over time, but it may be more plausible that it ebbs and flows over time.
The one constant is probably the sense of entitlement that grows in each of us as we get older.
Hi open, I addressed this in a later post to Solon but I honestly think it is more in your face now. Yeah, we did alot of the same things (well, at least I did) but we at least attempted to hide it from adults and showed respect to their face even if we were secretly misbehaving. I think these days people think children have alot more rights and freedoms then in the past. Some may think this is a good thing but I actually don't. I think children are children and where they are concerned it is not a democracy it is a dictatorship. I don't think children have a right to the privacy that some claim they do...I certainly never did. My parents didn't allow me a zone of privacy as some now claim children should have they were all up in my business all the time. I had zero privacy as a kid. Now you hear how parents should allow children privacy...umm why...I guess I think we have as a society become to permissive with how we deal with children and I think it is having a detrimental effect. I don't know if my rambling has clarified anything....I actually have a lot to say on this subject and pretty strong opinions and I am trying to condense them for this forum. I agree with you that every generation says this and I also think every generation is probably right we have steadily become more progressive with our dealings with children and in my opinion not always a positive progression.
On the other hand, restrictive parents can make kids rebel like nobody's business.
Meanwhile, parents that set clear values but RESPECT their children and don't try to DOMINATE can have much happier families and children who have the sense and self-respect to CHOOSE to do the right thing, rather than being forced. In my experience, the vast majority of well-adjusted responsible kids I knew growing up had down-to-earth and liberal parents.
I don't know how comprehensively these patterns have been studied, all I can offer is my own experience...
Good points. Strict parent vs. nurturant parent.
Kids! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today! Kids! Who can understand anything they say? Kids! They are so ridiculous and immature! I don't see why anybody wants 'em! Just you wait and see Kids! Kids! They are just impossible to control! (Soon you'll be old enough to be) Kids! With their awful clothes and their rock an' roll! (Another teenage delinquent) Why can't they be like you were, Perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids to-- Kids! What the devil's wrong with these kids today? Kids! Who could guess the they would turn out that way! Why can't they be like we were, Perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids? What's the matter with kids? What's the matter with kids today?
Oh, yeah, and that was written in 1960, when according to my math, some of the above posters were claiming kids were so much better behaved!
Not to mention: Children today are tyrants. The contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrranize their teachers.
Socrates, c. 470-399 BC
I also think what was lost was the period where they learned about social interaction and kindness and respect for one another. I agree with you jeter that kids today don't seem to show the respect . They rarely face consequences for their actions and they seem to be beyond spoiled and more entitled.
Hi Lost Logic,
I think a huge part of the problem is the lack of consequences. Consequences is something we older folks remember having as kids, & it's probably what kept most of us in check.
J,
Well said. It's all part of the blame someone else turn we have taken in this country. It's not my fault, it's McDonalds for serving me hot coffee. It's not my kid's fault, he or she needs Ritalin. It's not my fault I have health problems, it's the cigaratte manufacturers. It's not my fault, on and on and on.
Alleviating responsibility means there are no consequences, and people use that all the time as an excuse for their own failings.
"Kids today don't have any respect, and they don't take responsibility for ANY of their own actions."
So far, so good. Then ...
"... and it's all the LIBERAL's fault!"
Hee hee. So much for having respect and taking responsibility. And these brilliant rightwing pundit minds wonder why they are not taken seriously.
Tommy, McDonalds was serving coffee forty degrees over what was legally allowed. It was their fault.
Hey, who are you calling old folk...you and solon can just go toddle off to the senior citizens bingo game together...I am but a babe in the woods compared to you old folgies. (-:
Hey, who are you calling old folk...you and solon can just go toddle off to the senior citizens bingo game together...
Hey, we don't allow toddlers at bingo and they probably can't keep up anyway. :-)
Hey take a pill. I was talking about the propensity of those who reach middle age to think this way. Like me. LOL
Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a "leftist teacher" problem to me.
That can mean only one thing: you need to abandon your personal experience data for random OhReally? man-on-the-street videos, if you intend to get to the truth.
You sound like you've also got an inside line to these "studies" that O'Reilly was talking about.
I'm skeptical, in the same way that I'm skeptical that one city hall without Christmas decorations indicates an evil, coordinated, national plot by secularists to destroy Christmas.
Is this really an epidemic on the national level?
I'm willing to be convinced if you have a source other than the word "studies".
Pete,
Our eldest son is a Middle School teacher, my wife's best friend is an Elementary School teacher, I have four close friends that teach High School, & my family has several present & retired teachers. They all taught/teach at suburban schools.
While that may not equal a wide spread study, if they are all saying pretty much the same thing, then it's doubtful that my example is some isolated case.
You don't have to even walk into a classroom...check out the Malls. We weren't angels, but too many of the kids today are a disrespectful, spoiled bunch.
Then we'll agree to disagree about indicates a national epidemic and what indicates a local or regional problem.
My skepticism will remain until I see unbiased, nonpartisan, non-ministerial data on a national level.
Pete,
You need a study to tell you that by and large people treat their elders and those in positions of authority with less respect than they did 25-50 years ago? Obviously this is anecdotal, but the coarsening of our society and culture would certainly support Jeter's experience.
I don't know. I think the Vietnam Era - trust no one over 30 generation might give this one a run for its money. It also may be human nature to be more sensitive to the disrespect over time.
That said, I don't think it is something that can be blamed on the supposedly leftist teachers.
I think that most of the problem is that parents are doing a pretty lousy job at home.
I agree. I don't blame it on teachers or any one scapegoat for that matter. It is a cultural deterioration, in my opinion. Civility and manners and respect has been "backseated" in favor of shouting and rudeness and disrespect, by far more people than before, it seems to me.
What used to be marginalized and condemned behavior is now mainstream and left unjudged and essentially encouraged.
Tommy,
The obvious often goes over some folk's head. Unless one has been in a coma for the past 30 or so years, the changes in our society and how it has impacted our kids & their behavior is something we've all seen evolving.
Civility & respect has diminished, especially among our youth. I'm not going to play the blame game. I'll leave that for the experts. BTW I don't include Billy as one of them, even though he did make a few good points.
Absolutely agree. Obviously each person has their perception, but one just has to look at popular music now - there is so much disrespect and vileness in the lyrics and many of the artists today - I know that when Elvis and the Beatles were popular the "older" folks said the same thing......but to say the concerns are the same now is denying reality.
Disrespect used to be fringe and basically for the kooky - now it's main street and mainstream. That is the big difference for me.
No, I need such a study to tell me that kids no longer get disciplined for disrespectful behavior.
I wasn't specific enough.
I'm not, as someone else put it, letting the changes in our society "fly over my head".
I'm wondering where the hard data is to suggest that schools are allowing behavior to go unpunished and that it's a nationwide problem.
I think that the acceptance of "torture" as a questioning technique is a telling level of the current generation and the up coming generations lack of civility.
I wonder where it will lead us.
Then we'll agree to disagree about indicates a national epidemic and what indicates a local or regional problem.
You could be right Dave, maybe this is only a LOCAL & REGIONAL problem.
I live in Massachusetts. The folks I told you about in my above post all TEACH in MASSACHUSETTS.
Massachusetts is Democratic Liberal Moonbat Central.
Guess that explains a lot. Dave I'm much obliged to you for narrowing the problem down to the real culprits.
Who's Dave?
Anyway,
I engaged you without resorting to hyper partisan political cheap shots.
We're done here.
Sorry Pete don't know where "Dave" came from.
My sarcastic reply [though it could hold some truth] was in fun. But of course I know some of you only find things funny if it spears a Conservative.
So done we are.
One more thing Pete that I forgot to add [and then we're really done]
For you to suggest this might be only a local or regional "epidemic" was either such a disingenuous or delusional statement that I felt you deserved a wise ass partisan reply. And I still feel that way.
As I stated in my reply to Tommy above, I wasn't suffering from delusion, but a lack of specifics. I'm talking about the lack of disciplinary measures at schools being a national epidemic and the role its playing. This is what I want to see data on.
I am not oblivious to changes in our society, but before we are willing to condemn an entire public school system and give the theocrats more ammunition for their private vouchers crusade, let's seriously assess the problem instead of citing one school, one district or one state.
I thought we were done Pete? ;-)
That's ok, we can continue.
I'm talking about the lack of disciplinary measures at schools being a national epidemic and the role its playing.
Well ok, you were never specific about that. We were talking about kids being disrespectful, which I believe is not specific to any one locale, but is a nation-wide "epidemic".
As far as the lack of discipline, I think LostLogic covered that by saying there seems to be a lack of consequences for kids today. I believe that's pretty rampant, which of course only leads to more disrespect. Vicious circle.
As far as disciplinary measures I can only tell you what's been related to me by the teachers I know. This in no way covers every district in the US. Teachers biggest complaint is that the Administration would rather not be bothered with kids being sent to the office. The reason is that they don't want to deal with the parents, some of whom blame the teachers, administration & just about everybody & everything else but their kids. So teachers end up having to *handle* all the problems themselves. They are there to teach, and should not have to play policemen.
I'd love it if someone did a definitive study on this.
I think somebody did do a study on this. The conclusion was, "Spare the rod and spoil the child."
I have a personal hatred for all emoticons, but please be assured that if I were inclined to use them, this post would have included a semi-colon and an end parenthesis.
You referred to me as delusional and disingenuous. I'd rather set the record straight and clarify my position, since I admittedly did not convey it. You refrained from further turning this into a tired, partisan quibble, so I'm happy to engage further.
When I was in school, if a teacher was rude to me I was rude back and I considered a trip to the deans office entertainment. That was the early 70's. I think this whole idealization of the past is something middle aged people have been doing since Adam turned 40.
"When I was your age...."
How many times have we all heard that or its many variants?
Hey, who you calling middle-aged. I am a young-un. (-: I think what I notice different from the not so distant path of my formative years is the kids today are much more in your face with their bad behaviour and disrespect. it seems the discipline is greatly stinted and the "rights" of children seem too often to trump all else. When I got in trouble in school which sad to say was often my parents instinct was always to side with the Principle/Teacher and I don't really recall a time when they were upset that I was being punished for my behaviour. These days it seems many have the opposite instinct and teachers have to walk a very fine line so as not to "upset" the parents of little "angelic" Susie or Jonny.
If I was right I ALWAYS knew my mother would take my side. For instance I got into trouble a couple of times because something bad would happen and I wouldnt run, so I would get caught and when they demanded I tell WHO did it I would refuse. I wouldnt admit ANYTHING. I wouldnt have told them my real name if they didnt already know. Twice I was suspended a day for this. My mother told them they were being silly, why did they think that was punishment to me? NEVER did she demand I tell on other kids. Everyone knows what kids think about kids who snitch. I was supported for thinking for myself and sticking up for myself. I wasnt in the majority maybe more kids now are the way I was then, I dont know.
My parents wouldn't have called that me being right. They certainly wouldn't beat the information out of me but they wouldn't have a problem with my getting punished for doing something wrong and covering up for others who did wrong. Basically, they would say I brought it on myself and I could take my lumps for it. I must admit I agree with them now even if I didn't get it back then.
Well we disagree. I dont think my kid has any obligation to snitch on other kids. Its not her job to suppliment the teachers finding out who did what. Were it something serious like a stabbing it would be different but the kind of mischief I am talking about I wouldnt expect my kid to tell on other kids. My wife also disagrees with me on this.
Sir/Madam, I was at a HS football game recently, some youngsters started mocking the marching band, an ex-marine middle school teacher told them to "shut up, you sound like morons", the kids then made a threating gesture. Wow, big mistake, the ex marine basically scared the s word out of them. One ran away so fast he left his backpack with walkman etc in the stands. I'd say they got punished for their lack of respect.
The young people of today are no different than the young people of any other day...
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longerrise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."
Socrates
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of allrestraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they areforward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."
Peter the Hermit, A.D. 1083
Sorry Rishy, I wouldn't have put part of this same quote (Socrates) in if I'd read through and found yours.
Kids crossing their legs? What is this world coming to?
No worries on the double posting PLRR...I am still being moderated so I get to quote no line before it's time ;)
Civility and respect are lacking in a great many young people today. But I would blame their parents before I put it all on the teachers or professors.
Jeter I agree with you 100% on that statement, it is the parents and basically when these kids are under 10 . Plus kids today are spoiled with ipods and computers and TVs
a lot of that civility should be practiced by the bobbleheads and politicians too. You can't expect the schools to be successful if you have everyday examples of adults in positions of influence being totally disrespectful.
"...examples of adults in positions of influence being totally disrespectful."
Uhhh...like Bill O'Reilly?
Makes you want to rush out and buy one of O'Reilly's books targeted at your kids, don't it?
I agree Jeter. School isn't the only place a where a kid learns what he/she needs in life.
Hi jeter, I agree 100%. I like your comment that you teach it at home and practice it at school...that woud be ideal. Unfortunatley, we run into problems when they aren't teaching those things in the home...when that happens we have no choice but to look to school and society to lend a helping hand. I had the occassion this past weekend to see first hand what happens when home isn't teaching those things...and it wasn't pretty.
What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the laws. They riot in streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?
If a generation of kids have a perceived lack of respect for teachers, authority figures, etc. then maybe the question you should ask yourself is what did the baby-boomer generation do wrong in raising those children?
Speaking as a person that was raised by baby boomers I've noticed that the BB generation (and this is my own personal opinion and observation) is more interested in being friends with their kids so they can be perceived as "cool" parents. I would also point out that the BB generation accelerated the notion that the all-might dollar and material wealth is on par with or even above traditional values like family. community, respect, etc.
You've been set up. My post was a quote from Plato from about 400 BC.
You've been set up. My post was a quote from Plato from about 400 BC.- BillJ-MN / Thursday October 25, 2007 02:09:15 PM EST
Bill: You beat me to it. I was going to post that quote. It seems that every generation since antiquity has looked back to halcyon days when the young were well-behaved. If each generation was correct in its assessment of the deterioration of morals, we'd have long ago ceased to survive as a species, but the world keeps grinding along. This is not to say that this current generation of children isn't the worst ever (Bill's study proves it), but at least we can have the satisfaction of knowing that they'll have to deal with children who are worse still, and then they'll be sorry.
BillJ...who needs Plato when I quoted Bye Bye Birdie?!
;-)
I agree with you regarding parents trying to be friends instead of parents. The formative years is not the time to be your childs friend it is when they need you to be a parent. My parents were not my friends when I was growing up they were parents, teachers, disciplinarians, ect. I may have resented it as a child but as an adult who didn't turn out too bad if I do say so myself (-: I really appreciate what they did for me and gave to me during that time and how it has shaped me as an adult.
Being parents and friends are not actually mutally exclusive. I think the trick is being consistent and having the energy, courage, and strength to stand up to your kids.
My parents are totally "friends" parents, but when something wasn't ok, they told me so and absolutely didn't give in, no matter how much I may have screamed. They also basically never got angry at me, so it really wasn't worth it for me to act up as a kid, because I wouldn't get ANY satisfaction out of it. Because they were so calm and consistent I never got any punishment more severe than having to stand in the corner (< 2) or not doing something fun (> 2), because this was all it took for me to learn how to get ahead in life. I learned basically before I was fully aware that being polite, responsible, and kind was going to be much more effective at getting me what I wanted & would make me happier.
With that good foundation, they could be extremely chill, and let me come to them for parenting issues, since I knew they would be fair and supportive of me, and were my friends, both in the sense that they wanted what was best for me, and in the sense that I genuinely enjoy spending time with them and we have always (even through my teen years!) seen eye to eye on the vast majority of things.
Wow, even O'Reilly is not above using those elusive Fixed Noise sources, the most common one being people who say things (i.e. "people are saying...").
I agree Amercians need to learn geography a little better but I don't indicate how that is more pro-American except they'll know how to find their own freakin' states!
I don't think it is a teachers job to preach about the nobility of the US...frankly I am not even sure what that would sound like. I also don't think that whether you would serve in the military is the only way to be patriotic (or we would have to say there are not many patriotic people around) and is it any wonder with how we treat our vets that people would question whether they should. I am not sure what the question about would you live in another country has to do with anything. I like living in the US but there are other places I think would be interesting to live...there are many great cultures out there and many beautiful places and educating yourself and experiencing them is a plus in my book.
I'm more dismayed that we have talking heads discussing the decline of American education using atrocious grammar and sentence structure.
"We went out random."
"just pulled the kids between 13 and 17 with target audience of my book"
"That they bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America,"
We ignore the grammar; O'Reilly don't bother and we doesn't trouble ourselves. I seen that all the time.
Another straw man brought to you by BillO.
Kids were saying the same thing when I was in school and some went on to actually serve in the military.
There is nothing here. Kids are just being kids. He's just making crap up as he goes.
When someone says "...studies indicate...", they have nothing.
So, are teachers not supposed to teach about reservations, the indian wars, and the politics behind them when they teach history?
That's where so many go wrong loving your country and patrotism does not mean blind ignorance. You take the good and the bad and most try to learn from the bad and make positive change...to me that is loving your country...striving to make it a better place.
agreed, I'm quite surprised bill would suggest otherwise. BTW, I'm giving 10 to 1 odds that billybob posts within the next 30 minutes some baseless diatribe deflecting the conversation in a Hillary smear.
Snoopy,
Why do you insist on encouraging BillyBob?
Unless of course you are sad about something and looking for a cheap reason to laugh out loud?
Agree. I think most Americans want to learn from the past and we try not to repeat our bad things the miss-steps, in BO's brand of traditionalism he seems to want to maintain tradition just for tradition’s own sake, and people like that generally romanticize the past. Everything that was a traditional wasn’t great and we should amend practices when we realize they are detrimental in the long run. BO doesn't seem to get that part. These guys seem to prefer to look back and pretend that everything was always perfect and if you acknowledge that it true they find it unsettling. BTW, I am 49 years old and I find the young people of today to be extraordinarily spoiled and no respectful. In my early teen-age years I was a terrible curser; but I didn't do it in front of any adult. If I let one slipped and realized that an adult heard what I said I immediately apologized. As a matter a fact adults felt comfortable correcting the behavior of children they didn’t know. The things I hear coming out of the mouths of babes and I would never say anything to them, you take a big risk chastising other people’s kids these days.
"I have in my hand DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that there are Communists working in the Department of Defense...."
Speaking of teachers, if O'Reilly said "a anti-American" isn't that supposed to be "AN anti-American". Bill needs a gramma lesson
I gotta know. Are you Yakov Smirnoff?
I am not but thank you.
Since when are diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem anti American? I would have thought they were part of the nobility of America.
Since diversity included religions other than Jesus. Since tolerance included putting up with men holding hands in public. Since self-esteem included feeling deserving of a trial before being locked up.
That's when.
"Since self-esteem included feeling deserving of a trial before being locked up."
Does this habeus corpus make me look fat?
If the Fox Noise view of America were based on Billo's argument in this here thread, America might as well change it's name to East Germany, circa 1938
If this is the direction these clowns want America to head toward, then we have no rights what so ever to be spreading freedom and liberty anywhere in the world!
We hardly have it here anymore and todays kids (i.e; our future leaders) already are screwed with the NCLB! Education and health are in the tank with these neo-clowns in charge!
I agree about civility bing lacking--but painting a Golden Age is a mistake. I grew up in the Sixties--and the only reason kids around me didn't swear publicly was that they'd be punished. Any time they were not in danger of being punished they'd swear a blue streak. Kids cheated, lied, brutalized kids smaller than themselves. It was true in my father's generation. and I think that some of the worst examples for behavior are news personalities. They cut people off, they badger them, they are rde and angry and make personal attacks. I learned what adult political discourse was from David Susskind, Harry Reasoner and, yes, William f. Buckley. An adult used to Susskind and Cavett, transported today, watching Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly would think he'd gone to Hell.
But Doris: the kids of my day were spoiled rotten by Color TV snd Transistor Radios and their own Princess Phone (not their own line--extension phones were prohibitive until the Princess Phone came along) and of course Portable Record Players playing Rock and Roll 45's! Ah, the decadence!
Civility and responsibility are vitally important--but was there ever a time we did it right? I don't really think so.
They asked kids on the street an abstract question and shoved a microphone in front of them expecting an immediate answer---of course the kids didn't know what to say. I don't know what to say! However, if it had been in the course of a conversation, with some context behind it, I'm sure the kids would have some insight.
That aside, I would never teach my kid to feel like they owe anyone anything. What a crappy guilt-trip to lay on someone. Either they feel thankful for being in this country or they don't. You can't force someone to feel an obligation toward anything--especially an entire country.
REPORTER: What do you think you owe your country? Would you ever serve in the military?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 5: Hell, no!
Was the Military hiring when O'Rielly was in his teens and twenties?
Apparently Bildo misses the jingoistic propaganda he was taught as a child. I wonder if he still believes the George Washington cherry tree story, or that all Indians were godless savages whom we rescued from eternal damnation by forcing our religion on them and killing them by the thousands?
Despite what the Jingofascists tell us, it IS possible to love your country, even if you acknowledge its flaws. What Bildo seems to be advocating is a sanitized version of history, banning such books as "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." Can Conservatives only love their country if they think it's perfect? How shallow is that?
Nerzog,
"it IS possible to love your country, even if you acknowledge its flaws."
Amen brother!
Thinking aloud here........
I wonder if 'if' should have been 'as'?
I agree..."as" works better.
The wrong way...
REPORTER: What do you think you owe your country? Would you ever serve in the military?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 5: Hell, no!
The right way...
REPORTER: What do you think you owe your country? Would you ever serve in the military?
UNDISCLOSED LOCATION MALE: I have other priorities.
Nerzog,
Your extreme example about Native Americans exemplifies an extremist view. Why do you use such rhetorical excesses? Do you honestly believe half of the defamatory and hateful stuff you write?
I defy you to show me anyone anywhere who taught that "that all Indians were godless savages whom we rescued from eternal damnation by forcing our religion on them and killing them by the thousands?"
you needn't make outlandish and obviously false statements to get your point across. Doing so only diminishes your arguments.
AA, you can climb down off your high horse, now. Which part of my "inflamatory statement" is untrue?
According to Carry McCleary, writing in the "Tribal College Journal" about treatment of Native Americans:
"The federal policy at that time focused on converting American Indians to Christianity and capitalism: dividing up communally held tribal lands into individual allotments and selling the "surplus" to non-Indians, prohibiting Native spiritual ceremonies, and punishing children at boarding schools who dared to speak their Native languages."
Are you denying that we killed them by the thousands, or that we converted them to Christianity?
Nerzog,
What I objected to in your statement was your assertion that "jingoistic propaganda he was taught as a child. I wonder if he still believes the George Washington cherry tree story, or that all Indians were godless savages whom we rescued from eternal damnation by forcing our religion on them and killing them by the thousands?".
While I don't believe the Washington story is in anyway jingoistic, your claim that children were taught that all Indians were godless savages, etc. is extreme and untrue.
Unless of course you are saying Carry McCleary, writing in the "Tribal College Journal" was the text for children regarding Native Americans for the past 40+ years.
I'm not disputing your reference, nor the plight of the Native Americans and the injustice's perpetrated by the government in the 1800's and early 1900's.
I'm curious. If we didn't call them "Godless savages" or something similar, how did we justify our actions? Dehumanization is key to anything of the sort.
It seems odd that we can acknowledge our national policy viewed Indians as Godless savages, but it's somehow hard to believe that we taught that to our children at the time.
Brab,
I guess I am not explaining myself well. I apologize. My reference is to Nerzog's claim that Bill was taught that Native Americans were "Godless Savages.... etc.". I am not disputing that may have been the general sentiment going back to colonial times up to a 100 years ago.
My argument is that there is no proof anywhere that Bill was taught that, and no proof anyone was taught that in the past 40 or 50 years as Nerzog claimed. I view that as rhetorical excess and by making up examples such as this only shows an extremist viewpoint.
Feel free to disagree.
Looking back at it, it seems like the point was that O'Reilly is claiming that America has "nobility". If he was taught about what really happened to Native Americans, then how does he claim "nobility" in America's nature?
In order to believe that we have some exceptional moral status, our treatment of Native Americans and African-Americans both require some serious revisionism, don't they?
ps. A second point is that you were creating a straw man argument. Nowhere did Bill postulate your statement regarding Native Americans.
So this whole discussion is a bit irrelevant to the thread, but interesting nonetheless.
ps. I wasn't trying to be on a 'high horse' but only pointing out what I feel needlessly detracts from some of the points you make. Accept it for what it's worth.
Well, you were correct that my statement was rhetoric, but so is everything Bill is saying. The larger point is that he apparently doesn't approve of teaching our kids the truth about history. How would Bill want these "Anti-American" teachers to handle the subject of how we treated the Indians? There was nothing noble about it, so, would he just not teach it, or would he lie about it?
Nerzog,
I am only guessing, but from the quotes above, I think Bill was saying to teach history. I see nowhere that he said teach a glossed over version of history.
Anyway, thanks for seeing my small point.
Maybe someone else can pick up on this thread. Gotta go pick up my kids. :-)
O'Reilly is implying that because teachers tell students about America's faults, they are anti-America, and totally fails to realize that teachers DO teach both the good and the bad (and, probably give too favorable a view of our nation, in the long run).
It is totally dishonest of him to say that one should "teach both" because as soon as anyone utters the slightest criticism of America within his hearing, he assumes they "hate America" and will not listen to anything they have to say about what they love about our country (and want to preserve!!).
Washington story: the Cherry Tree story is a classic example of a LIE. Parson Mason Weems made it up to instill in children a faith in the father of their country (and, by extension, their country) that was simply made-up. Children are brought up to believe it as an article of faith, and as such are less likely to question the nobility of their country ("Our country is so great that even as a six-year-old our first president had perfect morals!"). Why not teach children about some of the great things George Washington ACTUALLY DID, instead of some sugary version!?
Here is a very interesting site that actually discusses the role of the Cherry Tree story in light of other "cherry-picked" intelligence (Actually came upon this by chance! Just googling to see if Weems' first name was Mason or Marshall.):
[link to www.teachablemoment.org]
As for teaching negative stereptypes about Indians, which definitely DID persist well into the 20th Century, here is some food for thought: How about titles like Disney's "Davy Crockett, Indian Fighter" ([link to www.imdb.com] of 1954. Or the play "Little Mary Sunshine" which was written in the 1950s ([link to www.bluecorncomics.com]
Finding online sources was a bit difficult, but I actually found (get this) A BOOK--a children's historical-narrative book from 1953 (we got lots of old books when my grandmother died):
The book describes American's Indian ALLIES in Valley Forge, so this is going to be about as sympathetic a portrayaly as possible, and even then there is casual and systemic racism in how they are portrayed:
"This, in spite of the fact that a hostile savage had not raided these parts in nearly a hundred years." (p. 62)
"The Indians, their scalping knives glinting blue and white, started fanning out purposefully." (p. 122)
"The Oneidas obeyed only reluctantly, disappointed at losing the scalps" (p. 124)
Mason, F. Van Wyck. The Winter At Valley Forge. New York: Landmark Books, Random House, 1953
Thanks for doing so much research.
I don't doubt there were some books that contained references to Indians as savages. Heck there were lots of movies that did the same.
Having been a child of the 50's-60's I remember a great deal of time spent at school explaining the first Thanksgiving and how the "Indians" taught the pilgrims how to plant corn. I also remember picking sides for "cowboys and indians" and many kids opting for the Indian side as there was a fascination with them. As kids were were very excited to get an Indian headdress as a cowboy hat. Again that is anecdotal. My general recollection is that our concept of "Indians" were basically neutral. We had noble ones, like Hiawatha, and Pocohontas, Chingakook, and Tonto, and notorious ones, like Geronimo. Since there were no "Indians" that we knew of where I grew up, I remember no racism in our schools or text.
It is based on my memory of the time that I took issue with Nerzog.
Well, these "some books" were what Nerzog was talking about. They are an important part of the cultural heritage of that generation, unfortunately.
Even the fact that a game existed called "Cowboys and Indians" is pretty offensive if you really think about it. How about a game called "Nazis and Jews"? The prevailing wisdom is that it's fine to joke about lots of violence and stealing land & culture from these people, and our national glib attitude disrespects the tragedy that these people endured.
As per my other posts, the caricatures of the pretty little first Thanksgiving and other stories is all very well and good for little kids, but when they get older they really need to learn and understand the less noble things we did.
Ignoring things like the fact that prior to the first Thanksgiving, pilgrims robbed graves and food stores of Native Americans, and only focusing on the good stuff is evidence of casual racism towards Native Americans because it artificially allows our conscience to be clear (and to play games like Cowboys and Indians!) and to ignore our responsibility for what we as a nation have done.
AA, I'm the same age as O'Reilly. I'm a month older. I grew up in a large city on the East Coast just like he did.
Nerzog is pretty accurate in his description of what was taught in the fifties.
The plight of the Native Americans was glossed over. We were taught to revere Custer, one of America's worst military leaders. We were taught that we fought the indian wars to protect our settlers who were taming the west. You would not believe the BS we we told was the truth.
In high school, we were assigned books like "None Dare Call It Treason", by John A Stormer.
Here is a little info about the book from a website which I've listed below.
"Let's start with the mad Americans. None Dare Call It Treason by John A Stormer (crazy name, crazy guy) came out of the South in 1964 and was a raging success - this is the twentieth edition from that year, bringing the total number in print, if its figures are to be believed, up to 6.8 million. Its message is summed up on the back in words that could serve as a plot summary of Invasion of the Body Snatchers:
They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, television and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; national minority groups and civil and political units..."
Pretty scary stuff.
Thank God things are different today. But I think you owe Nerzog an apology.
Worrier,
Sorry, I don't see how this book, (from what I could tell is about the cold-war,) has anything to do with the subject of Native Americans as taught in schools the past 50 years.
I doubt it was a textbook but correct me if I am wrong.
Worrier,
Looking back at your post I see you say you were assigned the book to read. I realize that is not a textbook but was used as part of the curriculum.
Sorry for the confusion.
It is absolutly possible. I would argue you arent really loving your country unless you aknowlege those faults and love it anyway. Great post Nerzog
Last Fourth of July, (after watching the local parade,) my two niece's, (one a seventh grader, the other a ninth grader,) were asked what happened on that day that is the cause of the celebration.) Neither of them had a clue. When the older one was asked what country started the 4th of July celebration, she replied "France".
Both of these girls attend what is called a "Blue Ribbon School District" and get A's and B's. 90%+ go on to college.
Their older brother, (an 11th grader,) carries almost a 4.0 gpa has no reservation about telling anyone in the family that he hates to read.
I think that speaks to Bill's complaint.
ps. I know a teacher who had as a question in his Environmental Studies final the following question: President Bush is considered by most environmentalists to be the worst President. True or False.
When I pressed him that the question was a political one and outside his field of study, and in fact he was indoctrinating his political views, (he is very much a liberal,) he could not see it and defended his use of the question as a legitimate question.
This is a teacher in a solidly Republican district.
Not to be disrespectful or insulting, but if your nieces and nephews are so ignorant, then maybe your brother/sister is not participating enough in their children's education.
I don't dispute the lack of educational oversight by my in-laws.
However, one is a college graduate and the other attended but did not finish college. Both parents are deeply involved with their children's education, as evidenced by the children's grades.
My observation also speaks to the process of teaching history and how it has declined in what is regarded as a very good school system. Maybe it is an anomaly that these two girls do not know basic American History, (yes this is only anecdotal,) but I think it points to a much larger issue of the poor state of teaching American History basics in schools.
There is a lot more to this story than whether a subject is taught or not. A lot of lecturing and textbook reading does not sink in. Unless people are receptive to the material, and have some connection to it, it will not register...or it will register on a superficial level and be promptly forgotten.
Yes and in High School I was constantly barraged by right wing politics and psuedo morality by my MATH teacher. In a Democratic area. Sure this happens. Both ways. Also could those kids find Mongolia on a map? No that wasny Billy's point his point was children are not being indoctrinated enough in the way he wants. This whole anti American thing is such a joke. If you were in Germany and someone was saying he didnt like some German policy and you called him an anti German he would laugh in your face. Such talk would bring ridicule in France or Italy or virtually any civilized country in the world except the US. HERE the right has pushed this idea that either you conform to THEIR political ideals or you are against your country for so long its being taken seriously even though the very concept is GARBAGE. Dissent was built IN to our country's heritage. The right of free expression, the right to redress your government speak to this precisely. I cant understand people who in one second extol our freedoms then in the next denigrate those who use them for the EXACT purpose they were created.
Solon,
You speak of people being denigrated for “redressing their grievances” (ala’ the U.S. constitution, I take it)? That is so far from what is actually happening from your side of the political divide that it’s ludicrous.
What is really happening is that prominent spokesmen from your side are lying through their teeth regarding just about everything in public discourse these days - from what conservative spokesmen are saying, what is actually happening in the U.S. economy, about our history, to the success of our efforts in achieving victory in Iraq. When they’re called down on it, they whine about being “denigrated” for exercising their first amendment rights. When someone tells the truth about Democrat party spokesmen and what they’ve said in the past, your people scream “personal attack”.
You like Europe? I think it has a lot going for it in many ways (better toilets etc.). I think it has even more going for it now that common sense appears to be coming back regarding acknowledgment of the failures of socialism. As for Europe, I say “Go, Sarkozy!” and “Go, Merkle!” - and don’t forget those East European countries who would laugh you off your feet if you tried to tell them what a horrible country the USA is. They owe their freedom to this country and especially to those who fought and died and bled for them - as does the rest of Europe.No that is not what is happening. You are delusional. You have shown this over and over. Your baseless assetions strait from your hivemind ReNAMBLAcan propaganda just arent within the reality based universe. A good example is the stupidity of you saying something about my claim that America is evil. That comes from you being stupid. Far TOO stupid to understand the difference between who we are and what we sometimes do. A distinction I never forget about. A distinction you are too stupid to understand. We are doing bad things and have DONE bad things. That cannot be disputed by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. That doesnt make America bad. Power lies to Americans to get their way. People like YOU repeat those lies like demented parrots. This administration is NOT America nor was the last. Anymore than the mechanic who fixes my car IS my car. They work for us. Holding their feet to the fire is what citizens are supposed to do. They are supposed to uphold the values we associate with our good country and we OUGHT to be vigilant enough to make sure they do. Then again psychophantic, brainwashed, braindead, conformity junkies throw fits when we try. They, like you, are so dumb they think patriotism is all about cheering our name, not demanding our values be upheld.
Solon,
My assertions are firmly based. All one has to do is tune into ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or read from the NYT, LAT, Time, Newsweek, Media Matters or any other liberal-run outlet to experience exactly what I claimed: lies and distortions. Twenty years ago, we might not have noticed but now that the left no longer holds a monopoly on these “news” outlets, we do.
Of course, you don’t buy this but then maybe it’s you that’s delusional. Just check the reader- and viewership of these outlets and see what’s happening. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are doing great and these outfits are either barely holding their own or going south. Witness their scrambling to try to get back some eye balls and ear lobes by occasionally treating what’s left of their audience with something not uncomplimentary to the conservative side. Of course, that’s when good old MM steps in and takes ‘em to task.
As for your usual insults, you know where you can shove them.
No you are completely delusional. First ABC, NBC and CBS all still DWARF Fox news ratings. The idea the tell liberal lies isnt just wrong its stupid. YOU lie, either you are ignorant or you are a liar. I am a liberal they arent giving my point of view. It wasnt MY point of view they way the were cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion or ignored the Downing Street memo. The oxymoron has devoted fans but they are still a small minority of Americans. You are deluded. Your baseless assertions, that is your OPINIONS you state as fact are ludicrous. Just because some hivemind bloviator TOLD you to believe them you do. Feel free to be brainwashed I dont care. Your delusions do not represent reality. God did NOT nominate you OR Billy O to sit on a pedestal and tell us mere mortals what is or isnt an American thing to say or think. I AM an American as much as you. My opinion whatever it is by definition is as American as yours. Just because you have been brainwashed into believing that only Rightwingnuts are American doesnt mean it makes sense. YOU dont make sense. Rent a clue.
Marine,
Your posts might be more illuminating if you can point out some of those lies that us liberals supposedly approve of on the major networks. Up until now, you are only really providing generalizations that seem to us to be mere repeated baseless mantras we have heard so much of, but not seen much in the way of definitive specific evidence and/or backup.
So, because more people watch Fox News than other outlets, then by definition Fox News is of higher quality? How about they're just more accessible, sensational, and pandering.
Let's look at it this way:
Luciano Pavarotti sold over 100 million records in his life.
Madonna has sold over 250 million and counting.
Are you really going to claim that Madonna is a better singer than Pavarotti?!
What is really happening is that prominent spokesmen from your side are lying through their teeth regarding just about everything in public discourse these days - from what conservative spokesmen are saying, what is actually happening in the U.S. economy, about our history, to the success of our efforts in achieving victory in Iraq. When they’re called down on it, they whine about being “denigrated” for exercising their first amendment rights. When someone tells the truth about Democrat party spokesmen and what they’ve said in the past, your people scream “personal attack”. Old Marine
What is wrong with your statement is ‘my side’ ‘your side’. I cannot remember America having a ‘my side’ ‘your side’ until around the Regan years. People disagreed on a variety of issues but there was no ‘my side ‘your side’. We were Americans with different views but Americans. During the 60’s civil rights movement and even the Vietnam war period we disagreed but there was nothing like what exists today. Old Marine wants to place blame on someone else when the blame belongs solely with him and his thinking. We can disagree but you and your beliefs are no more right or moral than my own beliefs. You and the way you think does not give you a lock on patriotism. You thinking that your way is the only way IS what is wrong with America. We have prospered for years with people having different ideas and have only started to falter when people like yourself started to question a persons morality and patriotism IF they dare to disagree with you. During this nation's worst periods of civil unrest, children had respect. The question you should ask yourself is why now? What has changed, cause liberals are still liberals. Are conservatives the same? Could it be 'you' trying to demand 'your way' of thinking on an entire nation, leaving no room for 'individual thoughts or opinions'?.
Pearlene,
There are two sides. There have been two sides of the political spectrum for most of the last century. I never said my side was more moral than yours, I simply stated what to me is a glaring fact: Liberal spokesmen and liberal media outlets have been lying to us for a long time in many ways: political indoctrination in the schools (witness the intolerance of liberals on the average college campus, for example, when conservative speakers appear), and lies by omission and obfuscation in what is supposed to pass for news.
No, we have not faltered as a people because someone on the right questioned morality or patriotism. Ideas are what shape who we are politically. If I think liberals ideas are bad for humanity, then I’ll speak out. If that gets interpreted as me questioning someone’s morality or patriotism, then someone is not listening to what I really said. We’re faltering now because of exactly what I have been writing about: liberal domination of the education system and, up until recently, domination of the entertainment and news media. No, it’s not conservatives demanding that liberals shut up. It’s the other way around. It’s liberals who cannot tolerate conservative speech.
If you want to dialogue, let’s have a go at it. I won’t extrapolate what you’ve said into a mischaracterization of you and your morality and I expect the same respect from your end. I’ll kick it off with what I see as the difference between the core beliefs on the two sides. Maybe this is something we can get our teeth into.
There’s a distinction between liberals and conservatives. IMHO this is it in a nutshell (please interpret “He” and “he or she”):
I term a (modern) liberal one whose core belief is that there is a segment of society who are well meaning, caring, thoughtful, educated, and very intelligent who know what is best for society at large, who believe that the inequities in life can be solved to a very significant degree by a paternalistic government. He believes that the right people (those of his own ilk, of course) in positions of authority could make life better for all citizens by “leveling the playing field”. A “conservative”, on the other hand is one whose core belief is that people are unfailingly human and that the great majority of society appreciates, or should appreciate, this fact when voting on who should be entrusted with the authority of government. This conservative, by the way, is thankful that the founding fathers of the United States saw things that way and attempted to construct a constitutional government by which real human beings might successfully conduct their lives in a cooperative (lawful) way and especially with as much freedom as possible. That government was certainly a conservative government (or liberal if we use the term as it was introduced in the early 20th century). I say it was a conservative government as it was structured in accordance with this core belief into the incredibly intelligent form of legislative, executive, and judicial branches as we know them (or as we would except for the failings of the public education system).Saying liberal spokes people have been lying to Americans, without pointing out a single lie. Makes you either a liar or a deluded fool. Nothing else you write is worth reading. Just because YOU only believe what you are TOLD means it is YOU that has been lied to not us. You NEVER know what you are talking about and are in serious need of medication.
OldMarine,
Your history is abysmal. Two sides "for most of the last century"?! There have ALWAYS been at least two sides--from strict constructionists & loose constructionists, Federalists & Democratic Republicans, Whigs & Republicans, all the way to the Democrats & Republicans we know today.
GIVE AN EXAMPLE of liberal lies in the news. Until you provide us with something constructive, we can't debate. (That's what MMFA does--gives constructive examples).
Yes, we HAVE "faltered as a people because someone on the right questioned morality or patriotism." We have gone into a horribly misguided war that has killed thousands of our own and untold numbers of innocent civilians. We have made terrorists more powerful and more able to recruit. We TORTURE people. We have secret prisons. We violated the fourth, sixth, and eighth ammendments. I call that faltering.
HOW has "liberal domination" made us falter? I gave you examples above. Now you need to give me examples.
Yes, it IS conservatives demanding liberals shut up--look at Bill O'Reilly & Sean Hannity shouting people down, Dick Cheney & George Bush's smear campaigns, etc., etc.
Liberals can tolerate conservative speech, but we do not tolerate LIES, so when a conservative lies (e.g. Tucker Carlson's recent "Democrats win rich people," or "CNN and NBC didn't report Michael Murphy," or "Global warming happened before 1940") we speak out. That's what MMFA does. You're free to make your point, but if it contains inaccurate or misleading information, we will call you on it and hopefully hold you accountable. Just as you have your free speech, we have ours, and we will use it if you lie.
Your construction of the two sides is THOROUGHLY inaccurate.
There is nothing in the liberal mindset that "people of their own ilk" know better at how to run government. We believe in people being capable if they're going to be in government (none of this "Heckuva Job" Michael Brown!), but isn't that a good requirement for anyone who is spending YOUR money?! That they know what they're doing?! If your civil servants aren't educated & experienced, what good are they? We also want government policies to be EVIDENCE-BASED (so that they work in the real world, not like supply-side economics!), and to do that, you need capable people to objectively evaluate the evidence. That takes training, but we want that training to be available to everyone.
Education teaches critical thinking and how to think logically and demand evidence and accountability--traits we as a nation need to cultivate, and DEFINITELY ones that should be required of those representing us.
But, there is NOTHING in the liberal philosophy that people must be "of our own ilk." Education and training are available to everyone--you don't need any special connection to be a scientist for instance: just use the scientific method and you will be able to get results just as valid as anyone else. If you do good work, then, no matter who you are, you can make something of yourself.
Further proof of how we don't believe in keeping government to those "of our own ilk," is that we want to make the tools of advancement, esp. education, as widely available as possible, so that EVERYONE has a chance to be what they want to be.
Liberals do NOT say that the inequalities of life can be "solved," and most liberals are quite happy to have significant differences in income levels. BUT, we want to have a basic level of human rights (no one starves, freezes to death, or dies from preventable diseases). Also, certain things are essential to give people a shot at making something of themselves--good public education, so that even if your parents flip burgers at McDonald's, you can get the training to be a Nobel Laureate if you want to. Liberals have a voting record of funding education much more. We believe in giving people the TOOLS to make something of themselves, not to just "level the playing field" because we feel like it. Our role for the government in social programs is, "to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, you need boots."
Liberals, I believe, accept more than conservatives that people are unfailingly human (Let's teach comprehensive sex education, rather than assuming everyone will magically make perfect decisions, which we know doesn't work, and hasn't worked for millenia).
We also believe that electing people based on their personal lives is absurd, because their personal lives are PERSONAL. I need someone who will provide MATERIAL and MEASURABLE improvements to the country, not to be just a moral figurehead. Their personal failings don't affect me. If they fail to fund my school, check for the safety of my consumer products, or rescue me from a hurricane, that DOES affect me. Also, we realize that many of these moral figureheads lie (Larry Craig, David Vitter, etc.).
LIBERALS rather than conservatives believe in allowing you to live your life with as much freedom as possible. We won't interfere with who you want to marry. We won't interfere with your decisions of family planning. We won't search your house or your phone calls without PROBABLE CAUSE. We will let you speak dissenting ideas safely (we may vehemently disagree, but we won't threaten you). We will not bother you when you practice your religion, and we protect others from being bothered when they try to practice their religion. Basically, liberals believe you can do anything you want PROVIDED it doesn't hurt anyone else. A "social compact," as it were.
I completely fail to see your point about the Founding Fathers being conservative. They were RADICAL (for their time, anyway). They were breaking with traditional government in a VERY BIG way. This, by definition, is liberal, not conservative.
Furthermore, how does the separation of powers support your argument when conservatives in government are trying to consolidate the power of the executive branch? Liberals are trying to maintain the independence of the branches and checks and balances (e.g. congressional oversight).
There have always been two sides, but one side was never morality superior than the other. We were Americans who disagreed. Who started calling Americans who disagreed unpatriotic or Anti Americans? Who started to question someones morality because they CHOOSE to believe something different. Who called American citizens 'traitors' for daring to question American foreign policies? Liberals DID NOT do that!
We have young men and women dying to provide (according to this administration) democracy to the citizens of Iraq. One of the basic meaning of democracy is the freedom of speech especially in political matters but we have many who think that using their freedom of speech to disagree or question is grounds to call them unpatriotic, UN American or a traitor. Liberal DID NOT do that.
Since old marine wants to sling mud from a military perspective, let me provide a few quotes from a great military genius that I have always loved and respected.
A piece of spaghetti or a military unit can only be led from the front end. George S. Patton Always do everything you ask of those you command. George S. Patton If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. George S. Patton If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened. George S. Patton If you tell people where to go, but not how to get there, you'll be amazed at the results. George S. Patton It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. George S. Patton Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. George S. Patton Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable. George S. Patton The test of success is not what you do when you are on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. George S. Patton Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. George S. Patton Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. George S. Patton We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way. George S. Patton
Yo, Snoopy,
What "mud"?
And what's your point with the Patton quotes?
Mud is your repeated reference that liberals are the real liars. Those stations you keep mentioning? Haven't been owned by liberals, EVER!
As for the quotes, I think they apply perfectly. I like these in particular:
Always do everything you ask of those you command. George S. Patton
Republicans sure like loving the military, but they aren't signing up in droves to be part of this "volunteer army", are they?
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. George S. Patton
Sounds like the Bush administration to a "T".
Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. George S. Patton
You're pretty cynical about liberals, guess you lack the ability to debate and compromise.
Snoopy,
What a fascinating declaration that those media outlets have never been owned by liberals. I guess I’d be interested in your definition of a liberal.
There are plenty of conservatives who disagree with Bush on various issues. How about Wolfowitz’s recent criticism, as well as that of our ambassador to Japan, regarding the deal with North Korea? (I agree with Wolfowitz on that one). I also disagree with Bush’s (up until recently, thank God) efforts over his last two terms bending over backwards to get along with Democrats.
So, if I understand your last comment, you equate being “cynical” with a lack of ability in debate.
As for compromise, it depends on what we’re compromising about: liberty? Human rights? Resisting a paternalistic government? Try some different issues.Again you are completely deluded. It is YOU with no ability to debate whatsoever. Here is a clue making broad unsupported baseless assertions is NOT debating its just saying you THINK things you cannot substantiate. Did you think saying something about liberals owninig media outlets was making a point? It wasnt it was making a basless assertion. Lets see Fox is owned by Murdoch, GE owns NBC, I could go on but virtually ALL media outlets outside a few magazines are owned by MEGACORPORATIONS only on the deluded world of Planet WINGNUT would that constitute being owned by liberals. You just STATE your opinions as fact. They arent facts they are your products of your brainwashing.
We may have the same definition, but seems your premise is that liberals are all wrong on everything. I don't know how old you are, Marine, but THIS Marine remembers a time when we could disagree and not say "it's your fault, not mine". Even if we were entrenched in our upbringing, or training...
You are not only saying liberals are liars because you are deluded but also the jibe about telling Europeans how horrible America is the same old tactic of accusing us of hating our country because YOU are an idiot
OldMarine,
You appearantly were taught a false version of history when you were a kid and have done nothing to verify that as you have gotten older......
While no one can dispute that most of Europe owes America a debt of gratitute for America to finally help them out. We didn't help Europe at all until after Pearl Harbor and we were seen by most of Europe as flamboyant and cowboy like in our attitudes.
Where you fail in your vision of history was that, if not for France, there would not have been an America to help Europe 160 years later....
And France didn't have nor need an ulterior motive to stick their necks out for us at the time, other than they wanted England to lose something they felt didn't deserve to keep!
CAPFoster,
"We didn't help Europe at all until after Pearl Harbor and we were seen by most of Europe as flamboyant and cowboy like in our attitudes."
Ever hear of WWI?
True about the French on the Revolutionary war. I pray for Sarkozy every night.
Oh, yes, please!! Let's assert our grand nobility in WWI...
Let's see...WWI started in 1914...we got involved in 1917...after the Zimmerman telegram came to light indicating that Germany was trying to ally with Mexico and would give them Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona back, and after German submarines sank seven of our merchant ships (not including the famous Lusitania, which was sunk in 1915).
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Basically, we were neutral for as long as we could until WE were attacked. We didn't really go in cannons blazing to save Europe--we were isolationist for as long as possible.
The closest power to being altruistic in the pointless bloodbath that was WWI, was England, which got involved to defend Belgium's neutrality when Germany invaded it.
USA also didn't come CLOSE to the casualty counts of the other countries. American casualties made up just 2% of the military deaths of the Entente powers. This drops to 1.13% when you consider all military and casualty deaths of the Entente powers.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
LeftSide,
Nicely said.
AnotherAmerican,
I am enjoying the last two posts of yours (at home on lunch break). Please keep up the good work.
My understanding regarding the expression of political views by teachers in public schools is that it is illegal BY FEDERAL LAW. Of course, we rarely if ever hear of that being enforced. What IS encouraging is that there appear to be more parents reacting to the liberal propaganda fed to our kids by far too many teachers and taking appropriate action.
As one with a large appetite for current events, history, and politics, I greatly appreciate your time and trouble in taking on the majority of people who post to this blog. It can be fun if one can laugh off the insults.
On a related subject, I think this blog has suffered quite a setback recently for its key part in the attempted smear of Rush Limbaugh by no less than the U.S. Senate majority leader. I doubt if any Democrat party congressional will ever again take anything that Media Matters says about any conservative spokesman and run with it in front of the TV cameras.
Thanks again.Old Marine, this is right up your ally, since you seem to prefer the John Wayne version of history.
Nerzog,
And your preferred version would be...?
REALITY. You should try it sometime
attempted smear - too funny! Take yer geritol and take a nap, Rush wasn't smeared, he was exposed!
There was no smear. Just because you brainwashed hiveminders ONLY believe what Rush TELLS you to believe that doesnt change reality. If we offended some brainwashed dittobots TOUGH
OldMarine,
I appreciate your kind words but it is I who owe you my thanks. Because of your service to our Country. I have the the privilege and the freedom to express my views. General MacArthur said it well:
Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country.
Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded, and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.
Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government: Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by Federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be.
These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, honor, country.
You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.
The long, gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, honor, country.
...
Me - God bless all our military and their families.
AnotherAmerican,
Thank you for the compliments. I did serve in Korea in ’52 but, unlike most of my combat training buddies from Pendleton, no lead or shrapnel ever whistled around my head. I guess I can be thankful for that, else I might not be around to read and write on this fascinating blog called Media Matters.
I do hope you keep up the good work. I still work full time as a contractor but have found the time to run off about a dozen faxes and many more emails to congressionals and other politicos. I do believe one can have an influence in this way if one gets the attention of the recipient with a good title and/or good first paragraph.
I sense that conservatives are beginning to fight back. The recent events at the national political level give me that feeling: (1) a deluge of emails, faxes, and phone calls put a (temporary, at least) end to the amnesty bill, (2) the Move-On ad on General Patreaus backfired on the congressional Democrats, (3) Reid lost big time in his attempt to smear Rush Limbaugh, (4) Bush’s candidate for the circuit court was approved thanks to a switch by Feinstein (she must be up for election this year), (5) the SCHIP fiasco appears to have stalled as the Democrats can’t seem to “get their message (i.e. their lies) out”, and (6) Durbin’s DREAM initiative is suffering the same pushback from Republicans in congress who appear to be a lot less cowed by the liberal media than they were a mere six months ago.
Yes. God bless our war fighters and their families - and thank you again for your good work.
Hi AnotherAmerican,
Snoopy mentioned he's a Marine too. I was just curious why you weren't eulogizing him?
Hi Left,
I argue constantly with AA. We never seem to agree.
But in his defense, he has always treated the veterans from the left and the right with respect.
He has thanked me many times for my service and through all of our disagreements, he's never questioned my patriotism.
I'm sure he feels the same way about Snoopy
I am very glad to hear this, and thank you for speaking up for him.
I have not read enough of AA's posts to see him speak to other members of the military, but I am very glad to hear that he is fair, and he has earned my respect for that.
Left,
For some reason I have missed it. thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I apologize to Snoopy for any slight. My gratitude and thanks go out to him as well. (I do enjoy reading his posts even if we "sometimes" do disagree.)
Our servicemen/women have my utmost respect for their service to me, my family, and my country. God bless them all including Snoopy!
Thank you for being gracious and I appreciate your respect for all members of the military.
Hey OLDMORON, that was funny. Smearing Limpd**k by providing exact transcripts and audio of his bulls**t lies? Ha, ha, ha.
BTW, you expose the level of your own right-wing indoctrination by using the slur "Democrat Party". As most intelligent people know and acknowledge, the correct term is Democratic Party". By arrogantly choosing to follow the lead of some focus group guru when addressing our party, you reveal the true nature of your own intellect.
Get over yourself.
Yo, JScott,
You’re pretty good at the slurs yourself. “Republicans” in the Republican party, “Communists” in the Communist party, “Democrats” … well, you get the drift.
I’m not indoctrinated. I’m an indoctrinator. Haven’t I gotten through to you yet about the failures of socialism?
How about an example of your intellect - let’s say on why liberalism is better than conservatism? Just to kick it off, let’s note a little history on the term:First off, as you probably know, the term has done a complete one-eighty from its original meaning. Quoting from the introduction by David Boaz in my Libertarian Reader:
“… In the first years of the nineteenth century the term liberalism came into widespread use in France and Spain, and it soon spread. But by the end of that century the meaning of the term “liberalism” had undergone a remarkable change. From a leave-us-alone (Laissez faire, laissez passer) philosophy, it had come to stand for advocacy of substantial government intervention in the marketplace. The economist Joseph Schumpeter noted, “As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.” Eventually people began to call the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, and limited government - the philosophy of Locke, Smith, and Jefferson [and I add to bring it up to date, the philosophy of Ronald Reagan] - classical liberalism. Some liberals, such as Hayek and Friedman, continued to call themselves liberals. But to younger generations, “liberal” had come to mean advocacy of big government: high taxes, the extension of the state into the realm of civil society and massive intrusion into the personal choices of individuals. Thus in the 1950s Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, began calling himself a libertarian …”And in his preface to the 1956 printing of his classic The Road to Serfdom, F.A Hayek notes
“…I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of approbrium. [ e.g. Rush Limbaugh, myself, and almost every other “classic liberal” in the country ] This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives. [ et all of us again :-) ]Neither YOU nor your Libertarian writer get to define for US what liberal means. Wait I guess if YOU guys can define for US what liberal means then I can define for you what conservative means. I think I will define conservative as an ignorant brainwashed moron who cannot think for himself and therefore attempts over and over to enter a debate by DEFINING THE TERMS and frame of the debate. Someone who loves to see Americans killed in wars for corporate profit and basically a man with no decency or concience? See how easy that is? That is why its worthless. YOUR definition of what liberals are is as worthless as mine is of what conservatives are. You seem to think things become true because you SAY they are true. You also seem to THINK, and I use that term loosely, that you get to define all terms and frame all debates. Its dumb, what it isnt is debating.
We can also bemoan at what conservatism used to mean and where it is now. The ones we have embraced the "Southern Strategy" to use race to gain votes in the South, mislead their country into war on false premises, defend the use of torture, spy on American citizens and argue that American citizens do not have the right to due process just off the top of my head.
I consider myself a Classic Liberal or a liberal libertarian. I think Reagan was not socially liberal enough to claim such a thing. Most conservatives today are economic liberals, but that doesn't satisfy all of the conditions of being a "Classic Liberal". Social issues comprise the other half that your post seems to generally neglect to discuss.
If we're defining terms, let's define them according to (gasp) THE DICTIONARY:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl| adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
conservative |kənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv| adjective
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
You may notice that these definitions are time-sensitive and depend on their relationship to prevailing thought (it all depends on what "traditional" means at a given time in place). What was radical in 1790 was reactionary in 1990.
So, AT THE TIME, Smith, Locke, and Jefferson were very liberal. That was 230+ years ago. Now, those economic ideas are commonplace, and some are downright old-fashioned. (Interestingly, among many, some of the social ideas of Locke and Jefferson are still perceived as far-left!).
Also, it's worth noting not only the calendar time, but the CONTEXT in which these ideas are written. It makes perfect sense to argue for laissez-faire in an entrenched, hierarchical, guild-based system in which tariffs were so high WITHIN a country that no trade could go on (pre- and mid-Enlightenment Europe). Smith, Locke, and Jefferson had no idea what the Industrial Revolution would do to production, demographics, market balances, and income distribution. Such changes necessitate changes in policy to accommodate them.
And, before you go on championing the virtue of the unrestrained Free Market, read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Remember that in the Spanish-American War, more soldiers died from contaminated canned meat sent by US suppliers than from fighting with the Spanish. Look at those pictures of little children working in coal mines and textile mills in the 1840s. Read up on Victorian Poorhouses. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. Enron. Vioxx. Now don't you think some regulation MIGHT be a good idea???
Where are you getting the assertion that the expression of political views by teachers in public schools is a violation of Federal law?
I have googled and found nothing to that effect.
I have, however, found interesting information on Supreme Court decisions to PROTECT political opinions of teachers and professors:
"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. 'The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.' Shelton v. Tucker, supra, 364 U.S., at 487. 385 U.S. at 603."
[link to www.rbs2.com]
I can't find anything to justify your assertion of a federal law prohibiting expression of political opinions in the classroom.
Please cite your sources.
Its ridiculous it would violate the first amendment
I don't know what the curriculum was for the class, but if there was some material on environmental regulations, Bush's policies regarding environmental standards, and especially the controversy surrounding them, then the opinion of environmentalists regarding President Bush is a perfectly legitimate question.
If the question was just out-of-the-blue, than it wouldn't be appropriate.
It all hinges on whether the controversy, and the opinion of these environmentalists, was touched on in class (quite possible considering it was Environmental Studies).
Imagine the difference here:
"Robert E. Lee was the greatest general and gentleman of any leading the military. True or False."
versus
"Southern soldiers in his command considered Robert E. Lee to be the greatest general and gentleman of any leading the military. True or False."
The former is a political and value-based question. The latter requires knowledge about the opinions of a group that is germane to the question (but with which the tester does not necessarily agree).
Maybe this "Anti-American" viewpoint Bildo is babbling about is, in reality, an Anti-Bullsh*t" viewpoint? In terms of History, schoolkids were taught a lot of propagandist crap years ago. Should we continue teaching them such nonsense, or teach them how to read and interpret real history?
My take on high school is certainly different than Bill O'Reilly's knee jerk right-left opining.
We home-schooled our kids through high school. Not because the schools weren't "Christian" enough, or had any kind of ideology at all. But it boils down to the authoritarian model of schools that some people here think we need more of...as if kids come into a factory and learning gets poured into them.
The disrespect comes from a feeling of having no purpose, and no real power. From having poor role models at home who are too busy with their careers or their personal "issues" to take their kids fishing, or hiking, or just goofing around with them. schools devoid of any real connection; random bells ringing meaning you stop what you're doing and go do another random thing that someone else has dictated that you do.
Teachers are trapped in this same system, and it's a miracle if they actually get to impart their own love of a subject to the kids that for the most part would rather be somewhere else.
It doesn't have to be this way. I support public education but sure we the people would invent a better way to do it.
And by the way, the best way for kids to learn "the nobility of America" is for the adults around them to act in a noble manner. (This includes how television pundit behave themselves, but I doubt very much that teenagers watch or listen to O'Reilly)
The history text can give examples of people acting heroically in the past, but it won't register unless they can connect it with some tangible nobility in the present. "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."
My God!
Let's hope teenagers are not watching O'Reilly. Hopefully, parents have enough sense to program their TV to not allow any viewing of Fox News.
There's two things teenagers should never watch: 1. Bill O'Reilly 2. hard-core pornography.
Mary,
I applaud you and your commitment to your children for homeschooling them.
I don't understand one of your reasons why kids today are disrespectful.
What do you mean by:The disrespect comes from a feeling of having no purpose, and no real power.
What do you mean by:The disrespect comes from a feeling of having no purpose, and no real power.
Kids learn disrespect. They see adults disrespecting each other all the time. More importantly, however, they themselves are disrespected by adults. They are not given any credit for being in love with life and learning from the time they are born; instead, they are treated at a very young age as if they were miniature adults who need so many factoids poured into their little empty heads.
In fact, little kids are full of the wonder of life. It takes many years to drum this out of them, but by high school, you find a lot of kids who are alienated. No grounding in who they are, what they want to contribute (in fact, many have never been given the opportunity) They feel powerless to change their lives for the better. They have no ability to choose what they want to learn or when to learn it...this is the basis for freedom of choice.
By the way, John Holt wrote extensively on this subject; I'd recommend any of his books.
And my apologies for generalizing so broadly. There are many exceptions to this bleak picture.
Notice how he puts up "Diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem" against "history, civics, and geography". He's saying that you can't teach both history and diversity. He's saying that you can't teach both civics and tolerance. I'd like to know why he's attacking the teach of "Diversity, tolerance and self-esteem" in our public schools?
In a diverse society, is he saying that kids shouldn't learn Diversity and tolerance? Is he saying that teachers shouldn't instill self-esteem into their students?
Duns,
I think you misread Bill's quotes:
However, with many public schools teaching diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem rather than history, civics, and geography, lots of American kids know little or nothing about their country, including what they owe their country.
----
He is not saying you can't teach diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem. He is saying that they are being taught while history, civics, and geography are not.
Do you disagree that many kids know little or nothing about their country?
Even if Bill's theory of the causes for the lack of this education, is his conclusion incorrect?
How can we tell whether or not we agree with Billdo's "conclusions"?
His "study" is not a study al all. It's just the biased ravings of a two-bit hack Fox News "journalist."
It's impossible to agree or disagree with pure "sewage."
O'Reilly says, "most high school teachers are left-wingers." What the hell does he base this on? The O'Reilly crystal ball?
"O'Reilly says, "most high school teachers are left-wingers." What the hell does he base this on? The O'Reilly crystal ball? "
I think he certainly is not basing his conclusions on the standardized tests, complete with corporate sanctioned questions and answers, that teachers are forced to teach to.
He extracted it from the Bureau of Billy's Butt
I forgot about the BoBB.
The only problem is he said not only that public schools were not teaching them history (which I admentantly disagree with), but that instead of teaching them the basics of history, geography, and civics, they're teaching them diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem. He's directly pitting them against each other by saying that.
Would you agree that children don't need to be taught diversity, tolerance, and self esteem?
Dun,
I hope I am following your double negative question correctly. :-) (I sometimes do not remember not to use them myself.)
I think we all agree that at a minimum tolerance should be taught regarding diversity. I think that can be taught through history and civics and by every teacher, (and parent,) at all times.
I am of the opinion that self-esteem isn't taught as a subject, but rather gleaned from activities and mastering of subjects/obstacles that result in making one feel good about one self. I also believe (through my religion,) everyone has the same intrinsic value as a human being as everyone else. When a child is secure in knowing that, they are better able to meet and overcome challenges.
So I agree that children need to learn about tolerance and diversity, but it should be incorporated by teaching traditional subjects. We should promote true self esteem through allowing children to overcome obstacles and stretching themselves.
RATHER THAN implies two options are either-or:
"You're serving pork rather than beef."
"She asked to watch the movie rather than read the book."
BUT NOT shows only one option is being followed, though both could be:
"You're serving pork but not beef."
"She asked to watch the movie but not read the book."
He doesn't know what he's saying...
And his head is so far up his ass, he doesn't know what anyone else is saying either. It's just the "Billy show!"
Also, since when is teaching "Diversity, Tolerance, and Self Esteem" a bad thing? Is Bill O'Reilly saying that we shouldn't teach the kids diversity? Is he saying that instilling self-esteem in our children is a bad thing?
Here's what Bildo wants to hear in schools:
"I pledge allegianceto the falaffel of the United States of America,
and to the loofah, for which it stands,
one nation, under Fox,
with liberty and justice for neocons."
[link to www.inthesetimes.com]
Just because this piece will piss-off conservatives, it is posted.
And because organized labor has a noble history in America.
There are no studies that back up O'Reilly's opinion, any more than there are REAL studies to back up the "liberal media" BS.
The fact is that if there WAS such a study, and the study was legitimate, then O'Reilly wouldn't need to say "It seems to me". That opening phrase specifically exposes O'Reilly as a liar. That phrase means that there is no such study...O'Reilly is offering his opinion. He then tries to cover it up by tossing in the whole, "Oh, and its not just me, it's the studies too!" If there were such studies, then O'Reilly wouldn't have to use phrases like the one that he did.
"It seems to me" implies and interpretation or opinion. It would be like me saying, "It seems to me that there is this thing called gravity that holds us to the earth...and studies indicate that too!" The difference is that, in my example, there actually are real studies on gravity.
A new low, Bill. Figure out that people who don't agree with you are not anti-American, that your opinions are not mainstream, and the difference between fact and opinion. I don't understand how even you can believe what you say.
Where in this study do the kids attribute the source of their opinions to teachers in the schools? Maybe these kids are expressing feelings they have that were formed after watching their parents experience loss of jobs, suffer pay cuts, lose their goverment mandated overtime, lose their employer provided health insurance, lose their pensions, lose a 401(k) plan, lose their bankruptcy protection, lose their homes, get scammed by credit card and insurance companies, or have health care claims denied. Maybe they are expressing opinions that were formed by watching an Administration that lied about a war before starting it and a Congress that is afraid to do anything about it. Maybe they are frustrated by a Congress that suffers from corruption in one Party and spinelessness in the other. Maybe they became jaded by watching their countrymen standing on bridges to escape rising waters while their President was commending his administration for doing a great job. Maybe they see that their future is clouded by economic and environmental peril. Maybe the kids didn't want to speak on camera because they were afraid that they could "disappear". We just might be watching a generation of predators who might grow up with no sense of community or affiliation because they see a country that idolizes people who have lied, cheated, and stolen, their way to a state of prosperity that exceeds those who have worked hard and played by the rules. Come to think of it, Bill, it must be the teachers.
It's wonderful to read what intelligent thoughtful people write in these comments. Having taught fifth grade for what seems like eons, in poverty stricken areas of our community in San Antonio, I give those kids a lot more credit for their own thoughtfulness and consideration for our country than any of the likes of that BlowHard on Fake News.
Did any of the posters here defending BillO, or the WITH crowd ever think that maybe, just maybe, these kids that are being ambushed see the Fox logo on the mikes being shoved in their faces and think to themselves, "Let's shock the old folks."
I really believe these bogus surveys about kids not knowing history (though I'd like to see the hysterical education-is-in-a-shambles crowd try their hand at one o' these) show answers that are bogus themselves -- pranks played upon the establishment.
O'reilly is without doubt the most anti-American creep around. This man hates American values, American education, American history & the Constitution. Attacking teachers for teaching tolerance? What a total, bigoted jerk. Toss him.
Bill is right on again. The dumb ass left keep trying to take our freedoms away.
OK troll you have shown how ignorant you are. You can show yourself out in disgrace now and go back to your bridge
Bill needs to know how to behave and respect women. This wife-cheater has lost his credibility 5 years ago.
Maybe what we should be saying is "I want the U.S. to be the greatest country in the world and to do what it takes to realize that".
I quite agree. And that includes looking our mistakes square in the face and trying to fix them. Something about personal responsibility.
Teachers are supposed to be objective and not brind their political views into the classroom. I had several teachers throughout high school that attempted to indoctrinate the students.
If objective transmission of information were the goal of education then there would be no need for teachers. Robots could do that job.
Teachers are there to give context to information, to make it real, to relate it to life. It's nobody's fault but your own that life appears to have a liberal bias.
As an educator, I'm personally and professionally offended by Mr. O'Reilly's comments. I like to think of my classroom (excuse the geek-reference) in that Star-Trek "Prime Directive" way- I'm there to provoke curiosity, not to implant ideas either way. I need to be big enough to encourage viewpoints, even if they are different from mine, as long as they're grounded in such a way that the student can look to research and say, "Here's proof. That's what I'm basing my thinking on."
This is the greatest country on earth to be a citizen of. We are a noble country, but we used to be more noble. Our good name has been besmirched by this current administration in a way that will haunt us the way the Third Reich and the Berlin Wall still haunts Germany. But that's my opinion. My students need never know.
I get more upset than most of my colleagues that, in the morning, after the Pledge of Allegiance, kids talk during the Moment of Silence. I preach that our countrymen are overseas dying for our freedoms.
I mention this to illustrate a point. Though I disagree with the war in Iraq as a fallacy and international injustice, I do believe that we need to teach kids to respect those who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, even if the reasons for their death might be dubious. Kids need to learn to respect their country, question their government (Republican or Democrat) and love their neighbors. If that's somehow unpatriotic, then I'm guilty as charged. But I don't think so. And that's why I'm offended.
-Marc
66,
You sound like an outstanding teacher! I salute your professionalism and your patriotism.
Of course BillO is generalizing. I wouldn't take it personally but rather as an observation about your profession as a whole in the same way someone might criticize lawyers or car-salesmen.
Even though we disagree on the war, I'd feel very good about having my kids in your class.
Thats great. I love the prime directive analogy. Personally I want teachers to teach my kid HOW to think not WHAT to think.
It would seem that the far right really is afraid of Fox News. Don't want to get too much of the truth out there!
I am so glad we have Billy to help the children! Billy teaches them that insults, lies, and name calling are the proper methods of debate. Billy wants to play his magic flute and lead the youth of America safely back to the 50's. I can't help but wonder if Bill has ever really read a study, any study. Billy seems to think that having a cute blonde assistant give him the Cliffs Notes version is all he really needs to be an expert in any area.
Does anyone have any examples of where teachers are PRO-AMERICA?
Yep. Just read 66MPH's comments before yours. He IS a teacher. There have been other posts before that one from teachers as well. My own experience with high school teachers is that they are a bunch of U.S. lovers of country...etc.
You find a lot of patriotism in high schools. Hopefully not the jingoistic Bill O'Reilly kind, though...
"But it seems to me, and the studies indicate, that most teachers -- high school and college in the United States -- are left-wingers. That they bring in a anti-American viewpoint to the sense that they don't preach about the nobility of America, they teach about the deficits."
Any time O'Reilly starts to quote "studies" you can bet he's just making it up as he goes. I read that in the Paris Business Review.