Books – Talk about a civics lesson: A high-school senior has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and top scientists say the teen's criticism is well-founded.
Bully for Matt. Wish I had his gumption when I was a kid and read passages in our text books that bothered me. One example that bothered me most was about the way history textbooks described Hawaii becoming a part of the United States. Textbooks then stated that the people of Hawaii asked the US Congress to annex Hawaii as a territory of the United States. The truth is a whole lot more complicated than that involving American residents of Hawaii overthrowing the Queen of Hawaii with the aid of the US Navy, forming their own government and that government petitioning the US to annex Hawaii. It's always bothered me that 'history' texts used by our nation's schools skewed the truth. Guess they still do.
Dumb kid. Dumb book. It's hard to figure out which side to root for. BTW, ever raid the library for old history and social science books and compare pre-1970 stuff to post-1970 stuff? I have. The baby boomers were the worst thing ever to hit academia, as evidenced by the superficial trash that got published after the 60s were over. At least the textbook in this story had enough information for the dumb kid to ask a question in the first place. As for the tape recorder, however, there's not much to say other than that the dumb kid is also a PIA for cheap thrills.
To chime in with you to an extent: there was a brief movement for 'Feminist Algebra' that stated that because the word problems given were phrased in masculine terms, somehow the math behind them was wrong. I think it is all too convenient to cast a course of 'Women's Studies' as ridiculous, based on postmodernism and all its ridiculousness.
I agree. Bully for Matt.
I'm almost amazed that it took a young adult to bring this error to light.
Unfortunately this is nothing new, or particular to the U.S. I do wish however that the adults charged with verifying the content of text books given out to students would have the integrity to make sure the text in the various subject books is acurate, and not politicaly slanted. We can and should do better than what we are.
Keep in mind that the majority of textbooks in this country are published in Texas. Lies and revisionist history have always been a part of public education. One has only to look at the majority of textbooks treatments of Native Americans to see that.
The Texas Board of Education selects the recommended texts for Texas schools. Since Texas is the largest text book market in the country, the publishers write their textbooks to please the Texas BOE. If anyone is not aware of it, the Texas BOE is full of right wing religious extremists that want evolution taught as an "unproven theory," and equal time given to teaching "intelligent design."
Bottom line? If the BOEs in other states aren't watching carefully, textbooks that have been vetted and tweaked by the right wing religiosos in Texas will be issued to students in their schools.
The Texas BOE would love this book. It may be that it is a standard Texas high school text.
Great. That is better than the left wing revisionists that turn the books into almost junk.
"full of right wing religious extremists that want evolution taught as an "unproven theory," "
Evolution has never been proven. They NEVER found what Darwin said they had to find to prove his theory. Fossil record showing a slow transition from one species to another. They now give out excuses. They use tautologies for dating fossils. A fossil is of a certain age because it is in that strata. That strata is that age because those fossils are in it. The more we learn about microbiology the more impossible the concept of gradual change becomes. Also life beginning in a primordial goo also becomes more impossible.
No science is EVER 'proven', there is merely weight of evidence. Some may use the term 'proof', but they're being epistemologically sloppy. I prefer 'factual' when referring to evolution, in that the vast majority of valid evidence is consistent with Darwinian evolution.
There is no tautology regarding fossils in strata. Strata is dated using radiometric data (I'm talking deep-time isochrons, not carbon dating, mind you), NOT the fossils found within it. On occasion, deposits MAY be dated based on the fossils it contains, but only if confirmed by corroborating neighboring strata and known confirmed radiometric dating based on strata sequence.
Regarding 'primordial goo', if you want to discuss abiogenesis, I'm happy to engage you, as there are indications that deep frozen ice may have played a huge part, but it is a wholly separate subject from Darwinian evolution.
Endoscopy-
I wouldn't be mentioning revisionism...
Remember how many ultra-cons are self-admitted liars?
FoxNews winning the right to "legally" lie, Rush Limbaugh admitted he lied saying "I didn't believe half the stuff that I said."
The Fundamentalist Christian at NASA that blocked vital global warming by scientists from the public.
Exxon spending billions on crackpots fake "scientists" to say there is no global temperature change.
Please refrain from blaming the Democrats for the lies of the Republicans.
It's starting to p*ss me off.
I mean digging through the hundreds of pages of lies and posting them, from 1980 to the present, by the "New Right" and the "Moral Majority" the "Pure Americans" the Neocons and the racist or gay hating Christian fanatics again would be tiring and make you look stupid.
So don't make me do it again please.
Thanks.
"...they're being epistemologically sloppy."
Guilty as charged.
The problem that cons seem to have is that they use the term "theory" as evidence that there is no factual basis, only speculation. In science, a theory is an organized body of knowledge supported by evidence that seeks to explain a particular phenomena or behavior. A theory doesn't rise to the level of a natural law, like "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," for instance, but it won't survive if there is not a lot of vetted evidence to support it.
Of course explaining this to an obviously uneducated, but highly indoctrinated, right wing zealot is generally a waste of time.
Lets face it, america is under attack and until the Rah Rah Boys of the right are shown to be the fascists that they are, this will continue.
LOL
Fascism and Nazism are left wing concepts. Listen to yourselves. You sound like H and M.
Fascism is a concept that can be applied regardless of 'wingedness'. Communist fascism is Left, Nazism is Right, since the former is theoretically based in Populism and the latter in Nationalism.
In communism, to believe in God is "counter-revolutionary" against the supremacy of the leader of the state and is illegal and punishable.
In fascism, NOT believing in God (or the leader's direct connection to God) is "treason" or "heresy" against the supremacy of the leader of the state and is illegal and punishable.
It is still consistent with the definitions of "Left" and "Right."
Dilulio served as Director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives and became notorious propagating the inner city boy "super-predator" theory which led to his legislating racist criminalization and long sentences specifically for ghetto-ized black offenders. NOW he says he doesn't want to put boys in prison but in churches...
Wilson served on Bush's "Council of Bioethics" (don't laugh) and has argued repeatedly AGAINST hate-crime laws, and written, concerning abused, horribly disadvantaged children that become involved in criminal acts that "abuse is not an excuse."
They are both Neocon assh*les of the highest caliber that need to be outed.
Go Matt!
How did this get by all the left slantented academia?
"How did this get by all the left slantented academia?"
--Maybe because "the left slanted academia" (not unlike the ubiquitous "liberal media") is just another figment of right wing conjobs' wild imaginations.
Actually, academia is demonstrably Left-leaning, both in the politics of the professors and in curriculum, particularly in higher education. This is not due to any sort of conspiracy or censorship, however. Right-leaning graduates are simply less likely to find careers in either research or teaching attractive.
Academia does lean to the Right in Business and Economics departments.
Actually, academia is demonstrably Left-leaning,>>>>>
Open minded, critical thinkers. Hell, I sure hope you're right!
I agree. Recent studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between scientific thinkers and liberal political views. The relationship is still unclear, but there seems to be a genetic aspect--in that certain brains are particularly 'wired' for curiosity while others favor a more dogmatic paradigm. Interestingly, the former tend towards the political left, while the latter favor the right.
I feel it important to point out there is no value judgment here, merely different modes of thought.
In other words, I'm a scientist that's surrounded by idiots who can be swindled into any garbage theory that float down life's river like a dead fish. Unless, of course, research engineers are excluded from the 'curiosity' end of the statistical 'correlation' that academia has managed to swindle you into believing. Note that engineers get paid to apply theory to reality, and have to make things work in reality no matter what the professors in college thought was true. Curiosity is one thing, openmindedness is another, but leave it to an engineer to scream loudly that the so-called 'experts' are wrong because reality disagrees! You all did notice that there's no such thing as the USSR anymore, because communism is a bust as a result of socialism being a fundamentally stupid idea concocted by a late 1800s crackpot, right?? LOL!
(the next question is how long it's going to take for everyone to figure out that multiculturalism is another stupid idea because neighbors aren't family)
Not a member? Sign-up today!
TGrass3001
suzanemichel
manaforever77
dokkyou08
alamala
BJTJ
bruhaha
9korn
juvel
maneetion
aceofspades1
ETproductions
expursuit
Raiderwall
msaleem
david_nwpa
Eagle Eye
deathray
aframerindio
nightschase
rbtburgess
JasonCalacanis
IceMage
disraeli
loverman
chazzzer
NoWayMan
Gulliver
Ratskii
obfuscator
Coatl
141)
Good post neophile. Matt certainly has a gift for BS detection. Many might feel because he points out bias and errors in the text, that he is not a spiritual being. I would disagree. For a lie is a murderer. It murders the truth.
Those with neo (sorry) con agendas are sneaky weasels, who's ends, they think, justify the means. The means by which they reach their ends point up the fact that the ends can't stand on their own merits!
Neo(sorry)lib agendas are just as bad, and do exactly the same thing. They distort (or ignore) the truth to suit their agenda. Extremism is unacceptable in either direction.
Well I'll be skinned! Right you are!
But you people seem to be confused as to what constitutes "extremism." If you don't agree with it it's usually not only "left-leaning" it's more likely "socialist" or "communist" or "far" left.
Redefining what reality is doesn't change reality. When conservatives disagree with liberals on the definition of 'extremism' on the liberal side, it's usually because the liberal side is trying to pretend that they aren't quite endorsing 'socialism', 'communism', or (if you prefer the cynical and power-hungry version of taxation to bribe support out of the poor while leaving them starve with a warm, fuzzy, and slightly confused feeling) 'fascism'/'Nazism'. Let's not sugar-coat things. The ultimate objective of liberals is some form of doomed-to-fail socialism, and the ultimate objective of conservatives is either to be an affluent, stickinthemud hermit or a feudal lord with a bunch of serfs slaving away for their benefit under a lame pretense that they are operating in a capitalist society (depending on which half of the self-identified 'conservatives' you're talking about). Note that there's other (mostly crazy, like the ELF) groups out there, but not well-known ones. ;-)
I'm a liberal, so there are aspects of socialism that make perfect sense to me, yet I would never espouse adopting full-blown communism. I similarly understand the Wilsonian brand of conservatism that drives most people on the right.
You seem entrenched in the sort of black-or-white stereotyping that serves no purpose except increasing and accentuating divisiveness.
Wrong on all counts. I'm entrenched in ideas that actually work, and you're living in a fantasy world based on flawed analysis. It just so happens that some ideas are simply wrong no matter how plausible they seem to the inexperienced. One is marrying a close relative - and the Romans had to find that one out the hard way. Another is invading Russia in late summer - and Napolean (hardly a dumb guy) managed to screw that one up, and be followed by Hitler after the name changed to the USSR. The reasons why they don't work are obvious in hindsight, but it took hard experience to get it through to the general public that those ideas were just bad no matter how people felt or thought. You can join their ranks, or get it through your head that socialism = starvation for the enemies of those in power, and no amount of 'niceness' can make food appear on the tables of the 'poor' without them working to earn it or stealing it from the non-poor and starving everyone. Get a grip on reality!
The 'rich' already pay for the 'poor'. Or havenn't you noticed that health care coverage continues to rise both because hospitals have to bake in the costs of covering the uninsured to the prices charged to the insured AND because health insurance companies are expected to show 'growth', usually by the denial of coverage to their paid customers.
I'm of the camp that socialism where it comes to medicine makes perfect sense. We used to employ socialism by saying a corporation shouldn't make profit from war, but no more (now we give them no-bid contracts). You may disagree, but I find war profiteering disgusting. I also find medical profiteering disgusting. Again, you may disagree. Elective procedures are an entirely different matter, and I don't mind doctors making a decent living off of their years and years of training. But an artificially inserted middle-man like an insurance company? The ONLY way they make money is by denying coverage.
LOL
In England they have a problem that health care costs too much. They have Socialized medicine. Part of cutting down on the costs is having people with heart problems and arthritis self medicate and not take up a doctors time. Sounds like a good thing, right?
Think about the fact that the government is only efficient in the armed forces. Everywhere else bureaucracy is very inefficient with lots of people enforcing a bunch of rules the way they see fit.
In regards to your first point: Since you didn't provide any links to source material I can't really comment on the validity of your claim. I would say that a 'heart condition' is pretty vague and may indeed be best managed by medication. Certainly better than having no access to any medical advice whatsoever, yes?
Related point: Are you actually suggesting that the Grand, Great America can't do better than the country we fought to gain our freedom from? Come on! Where's your patriotism?
FYI, a single-payer system doesn't put the government in charge of medical care, it just makes them pay for it.
Jackof - while I can agree with you that extremism either to the left or right is a self-destructive force ( I assume that is what you are saying) taking the middle road gets you run over in two directions
JackofallChems wrote: "Wrong on all counts. I'm entrenched in ideas that actually work, and you're living in a fantasy world"
Your agenda has moved us from the most admired nation on earth to the most hated.
We are fast approaching $10 trillion in debt trying to maintain a worldwide empire of control even thought every empire since the dawn of time has collapsed under the cost of maintaining it.
Our precious freedoms are being wholesale flushed down the toilet of fear and smear used to control your top-heavy new fascism.
Your neoCon efforts to secure cheap oil have pushed the price per barrel from $24 5 years ago to nearing $120 today.
The uninsured have been mushrooming. Soon, only the truly wealthy will be able to afford medical care.
The richest 1% of Americans have doubled their hold on the nation's assets in just 50 years of Republican rule. We are on track to become a banana republic.
How much more of this success can we take?
Ultimately, America will not 'go down the toilet'. She will be maintained at a bare minimum of subsistence by the multi-national corporations that once suckled at her teat.
Actually, when conservatives disagree with liberals it's usually because you're in deep denial of your breathtaking hypocrisy. You hurl labels like "socialist" and then fein cluelessness over all the welfare, cronyism, and "affirmative action" hiring that occurs at the other end of the economic spectrum. Cons don't say a DAMNED thing when 150 white kids from one of the lowest ranked law schools in the US get handed plum Bush administration jobs and you're just as deadly silent on defense contractors getting jobs *they* don't have to compete for and when oil companies get "subsidies" they don't earn, don't need and didn't ask for, either. You're hypocrites. Period. No one is intimidated when you wingjobs squeeze out your conveniently narrow definitions of terms like "socialism" and "fascism" and then scurry off like rats into your corners. Neocon hypocrisy knows no bound and we see right through you.
"you people"
Racist! lol
I wonder if this kid realizes many of the "global warming" advocates said 2007 would be the hottest on record. Instead, it's been one of the coldest on record. So much for the "consensus."
"global warming" advocates..."
There is the problem for the flat earthers in a single statement - "Advocates." Advocacy means to support a cause, idea or policy, a completely POLITICAL concept as opposed to a scientific, fact based one.
The vast majority of Scientists that study these things say they are 100% confident that global warming is taking place, and 90% confident that man is responsible for much of it. I don't know of any of them that "advocate" global warming. Most rational people seem to think it is a bad idea for our planet and our species.
There are of course the flat earthers who, having drank the koolaid, made by Exxon and served with psuedo-intellectual certitude by right wing talking heads, believe that Global Warming is a conspiracy that Al Gore concocted to deprive rich folks of their SUVs as revenge for supporting Bush in 2000. LOL!!
ROFLMAO
"The vast majority of Scientists that study these things say they are 100% confident that global warming is taking place, and 90% confident that man is responsible for much of it."
A few facts.
Russian scientists are saying we are going into another ice age.
Top scientists over the world disagree with Al Gores movie.
They say that while there may be some global warming that the concept of greenhouse gases has not been proven.
A polish scientist says he has proven greenhouse gases are not.
The last warming period in the middle ages was a boon to agriculture.
How are the carbon credits done? They buy farmland in third world countries and plant eucalyptus trees on them. They are high in carbon. This takes farmland out of use so who will feed these people?
Al Gore and the dinosaur media beats the drumbeat if global warming with much contrary evidence ignored and a lot of people believe it. Wonder why?
You are referring to a few scientists. Perhaps they are correct. Let them make their case. Perhaps you can provide the named of these scientists and, more importantly, where they derive their funding. I think you'll find most of the GW deniers get their funding from big oil. No agenda there.
That Al Gore has influence over thousands of climatologists is laughable. Gore derived his stance from the scientists, not the other way 'round. Indeed, if he did have that sort of clout, isn't that a really, really good reason to elect him president?
Let me make sure I'm understanding your argument here: Al Gore, on his own personal volition, personally invented the whole Global Warming Crisis for the sole purpose of enriching himself? In the process, he managed to completely convince thousands of the most prominent ecologists meteorologists, and climatologists in the world to either skew their data or make up data in whole cloth in order for him to make profit from carbon credits?
That's your scenario, yes?
--start sarcasm
And as profit-minded, exploitive conservatives, you are condemning him for that??!!
--end sarcasm
Here is my standard challenge to all flat earthers. Provide a link or a source to a SINGLE peer reviewed study that disputes the basic conclusions of the IPCC report. Just one study. Never mind that there are literally hundreds that support the IPCC report, all you have to do is provide ONE, single, solitary, peer reviewed and approved study to support your argument of "much contrary evidence." Just one.
Put up or shut up.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
""you people"
Racist! lol"
I see... Conservatism is now classified as a "race." Well, I knew it was just a matter of time before *you people* found the path to martyrdom. ;-P
muleskinner,
But I wonder if there are any text books out there with that sort of bias?
This is the type of "reporting" that was the basis for the "angry white male" of the 80's. And that was used as an excuse to bring us the "fair and balanced" euphemisms that defines the "conservative" ideology of today.
So much for describing historical facts; embellishments by ideological and political opinions.