In the words of Lou Grant "I hate snow. I don't like its color. I don't like its shape. .. . " I am just tired of this winter already.
CCSU is a great Univer. But it has made a huge mistake in changing graduate course times
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Sometimes just getting up in the morning and checking your latest tweets can cause one to just stare at the computer and do a Daffy Duck eye socket pop out. For those that have been following the Texas State Board of Education's venture into historical fiction, the champion standard bearer for "balance" in the historical and science curriculum, Don McLeroy had retired. Cause for all to celebrate. However, this is short lived, for a newly elected "Charlie" Garza R-El Paso has taken up the battle for "balance". This is noted by the Texas Freedom Network's blog described here.
The latest quote from board member Garza states that "Last year my son came to me and started talking about global warming… and I showed him research that said that there is no clear consensus – either scholarly or otherwise – that suggested that even existed. But yet it was being taught as a basis of fact in the school. And when we have such a paradigm being introduced to children, then we have a problem on our hands." Makes one think of the scene in Cool Hand Luke "What we have here is a failure to communicate.", or more to the point, failure to understand.
Garza was not put off by this comment he later stated that he was all for assessing balance in the curriculum stating "The real question this board should be dealing with is not so much what is clear or isn’t clear because you can’t define it, but rather, if there is opposing points of view, that both sides be presented in order to add a more balanced point of view about what’s happening in the classroom." Apparently we should also have "balance" for the grammatically impaired. Nevertheless, I think Garza has a point and we should all start making lists to start addressing balance in the field of history. Here are some guidelines to start with.
1. We need to focus more on the family values of important leaders. Hence, I would suggest that in Modern European history we start focusing in on "Mussolini the Family Man". Yes, never mind that the man cheated on his wife and slept around, or that many of his children would not speak to him, these are irrelevant. Mussolini was the family man of Italy; just ask his mistress who was strung up next to him by her ankles. And let's not forget his alliance with the Catholic Church. Despite the fact the man did not attend church. But we need to emphasize the family importance of this period. And the values that he instilled in his Fasci troops. One, be the first to blame your opponent of what you are doing. That will confuse and confound the public. Two, eliminate your opponents through legal and extra-legal methods to show that you have at least a 30% consensus. Finally, spend loads of money on rebuilding "culture" so that the people don't have time to realize they are poor, illiterate, and exploited.
2. Refocus our attention on the virtuous personal lives of other important leaders. Hitler for example, we need to offer a balance between the evil that he has been shown to possess and the warm fuzzy personal side of megalomania. Just because you kill over 11 million people for political reasons, one should show the moral and upright side of these "justified" policies. After all, Hitler's intentions were fully spelled out in Mein Kampf and clearly illustrated his intentions of making the German people the superior people that they already were. Let's talk about his home life, his compassion for his dogs and his strong work ethic. He slept until noon did very little work and then stayed up till midnight partying at the expense of the nation, but all in the direct attempt to destroy . . . everyone else. A worthy goal for "balance"
3. What about colonial policies of the Portuguese and Spanish. They not only intended to bring "civilization" to the new world, but also sought through conquest to instill "Christian" values. A force conversion of the heathen races of Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas was all in an effort to bring Christ to a lost people. Never mind the fact that these same groups were killed by foreign viruses that wiped out their populations, forced on to plantations to work until they died; and were forced to destroy at the hands of their captors their cultural and historical past.
4. Let's not forget the forced importation of Africans to the Americas. Should we, once again, justify slavery as Aristotle did to promote one race over another?? Heavens no!!!, But we must emphasize the natural order of life and the necessity of domestic harmony. After all, the slaves were in a better position after they were forced to leave their land in Africa. Who would want to live in such primitive conditions? They were able to make better lives here on the Brazilian sugar plantations where they died of exhaustion.
5. Then, of course, the public policies of Joseph Stalin must be considered. His fantastic planning to bring his country into the modern industrial age is illustrated through the importation of "surplus" German industrial machinery. His population control objectives were stunning. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s he single handedly manage to bring focus and direction to public policy defining new levels of state welfare. From the happy work farms of the gulags to the industrial work towns behind the Ural Mountains, Stalin had vision.
Colleagues, we all understand that as historians, the overwhelming existence of "facts" show that there are certain areas of history that one cannot be neutral about whether these facts are about the Holocaust, Hitler, or the Founding Fathers. We know from overwhelming evidence of eyewitness testimony, pictures, and intimate friends, that Hitler's goal for the peoples of Eastern Europe was inhalation. Just the same, we know from the evidence of their own diaries, letters, and documents, that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were influenced by the Enlightenment ideas of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu. Facts are funny things and no matter how often that one may argue to the contrary, they do not change. Hence, we should not ignore the attempt of others to argue against established fact.
Teat the amplify -- ================================================================== This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T
The recent shooting by a Tea Party enthusiast of a legitimately elected Congresswoman in Tuscon, AZ has brought to mind the rise of other similar groups in early 20th century Europe. The so called "Tea Party" leaders, whoever they might be, will deny the similarities and characteristics but they must be reviewed in the sobering light of recent events. In America, we don't shoot our opponents. Instead, we are suppose to civilly air our differences in public for all to hear. This act of assassination has brought to mind the work of the fascists and some of the characteristics are startling.
1. The belief that one's group is a victim, a setiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.
The Tea Party folk have extensively hyped their position that "they are the true" Americans: White, Protestant-mostly evangelical, anti-immigrant, anti-government (except if it helps business), and anti-civil rights (one must give up their rights in the name of "security")
2. Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.
it is no surprise that the US is a nation that will not longer have a majority white population. That means many of the white folks feel that hey will lose their influence in public policy. That means America is become a nation that will not have a majority groups. This is worrisome to the extreme political right who feels that their "way of life" is in danger. No surprise the Republican party itself has had to face the split in its own ranks as the tea party has spun off and recruited other extremists. They are also worried about their future and underlying that is the anti immigrant racism of the groups. The use of terms such as "baby mules" and "anchor babies". Forgetting that America is a "NATION OF IMMIGRANTS". It was the Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries who invaded this continent throwing off the natives already living here. Hence, there are no US citizens who are not of some immigrant background.
3. The need for authority by natural leaders, culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the groups's destiny.
4. The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason
Since the beginning of this movement, Sarah Palin has become the poster child for this movement. Why is still a mystery. Nevertheless, the influence that she brought to Tea Party candidates this last campaign cycle is not to be pushed side. She was able to help candidates obtain money to run and lend her voice to the cause. The faithful loved to see Ms Palin spout her drivel. Some candidates owe their success to her endorsement, many who would not have gotten as far as they had in politics without her stardom. As far as the superiority of the leader's instincts, that is what one must call it, for there is no other way to explain the continued success of such leaders as Palin, Michele Bachman, and Jan Brewer. Logic is not something that is part of their repertoire. How else can one explain the insane reading of legislation and extreme reliance on "constitutional originalism" which defies logic itself. Who can forget the "death panels" that Palin claimed were in the health care bill. Fact, they were not. Second, what about the insane reliance of Rep. Bachman and her strange reading of the Constitution. She once asked the Secretary of the Treasury where he got his authority to act as Secretary. As if he did not know. Apparently she did not.
5. The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success.
Throughout the latest the founder of the Tea Party showed his true feelings in his memo quoted in Forbes
In his memo, Phillips urged his Tea Party supporters to blame liberals for the attack.
“The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh” and “The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term.” Phillips continued, “The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”
Josef Goebbels would have been proud. Take the offensive and blame your opponents before they can bring to the public's attention the real problem. Their tactics. Newsflash, it is not the left that is showing the true colors of the Tea Party its the legitimate media. Even Fox news cannot justify this action.
6. the right of the "chosen" group to dominate other without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Clearly this is the evangelical part of the Tea party. This is the same group who wants to use their beliefs to turn public policy into another Inquisition. The problem is that at least the Inquisition had standards. Evangelicals keep changing the goal posts from hiding behind their "freedom of belief" so that they don't have to dispense doctors prescriptions, to attempting to include "intelligent design" within the public school system. While this group has not actively worked within the tea party, they have a ready welcome.
I bring these aspects to the attention of the public because they need to be assessed. The assassination of a Member of Congress is to be condemned and it must be by the very political foes who have fostered it. They have not. Some have but it is clear the right will try to turn this to their advantage and the public and legitimate leaders of this nation must call them to account when they try. The source for the numbered list is from Robert O. Paxton and his work The Anatomy of Fascism.
The recent shooting by a Tea Party enthusiast of a legitimately elected Congresswoman in Tuscon, AZ has brought to mind the rise of other similar groups in early 20th century Europe. The so called "Tea Party" leaders, whoever they might be, will deny the similarities and characteristics but they must be reviewed in the sobering light of recent events. In America, we don't shoot our opponents. Instead, we are suppose to civilly air our differences in public for all to hear. This act of assassination has brought to mind the work of the fascists and some of the characteristics are startling.
1. The belief that one's group is a victim, a setiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.
The Tea Party folk have extensively hyped their position that "they are the true" Americans: White, Protestant-mostly evangelical, anti-immigrant, anti-government (except if it helps business), and anti-civil rights (one must give up their rights in the name of "security")
2. Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.
it is no surprise that the US is a nation that will not longer have a majority white population. That means many of the white folks feel that hey will lose their influence in public policy. That means America is become a nation that will not have a majority groups. This is worrisome to the extreme political right who feels that their "way of life" is in danger. No surprise the Republican party itself has had to face the split in its own ranks as the tea party has spun off and recruited other extremists. They are also worried about their future and underlying that is the anti immigrant racism of the groups. The use of terms such as "baby mules" and "anchor babies". Forgetting that America is a "NATION OF IMMIGRANTS". It was the Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries who invaded this continent throwing off the natives already living here. Hence, there are no US citizens who are not of some immigrant background.
3. The need for authority by natural leaders, culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the groups's destiny.
4. The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason
Since the beginning of this movement, Sarah Palin has become the poster child for this movement. Why is still a mystery. Nevertheless, the influence that she brought to Tea Party candidates this last campaign cycle is not to be pushed side. She was able to help candidates obtain money to run and lend her voice to the cause. The faithful loved to see Ms Palin spout her drivel. Some candidates owe their success to her endorsement, many who would not have gotten as far as they had in politics without her stardom. As far as the superiority of the leader's instincts, that is what one must call it, for there is no other way to explain the continued success of such leaders as Palin, Michele Bachman, and Jan Brewer. Logic is not something that is part of their repertoire. How else can one explain the insane reading of legislation and extreme reliance on "constitutional originalism" which defies logic itself. Who can forget the "death panels" that Palin claimed were in the health care bill. Fact, they were not. Second, what about the insane reliance of Rep. Bachman and her strange reading of the Constitution. She once asked the Secretary of the Treasury where he got his authority to act as Secretary. As if he did not know. Apparently she did not.
5. The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success.
Throughout the latest the founder of the Tea Party showed his true feelings in his memo quoted in Forbes
In his memo, Phillips urged his Tea Party supporters to blame liberals for the attack.
“The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh” and “The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term.” Phillips continued, “The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”
Josef Goebbels would have been proud. Take the offensive and blame your opponents before they can bring to the public's attention the real problem. Their tactics. Newsflash, it is not the left that is showing the true colors of the Tea Party its the legitimate media. Even Fox news cannot justify this action.
6. the right of the "chosen" group to dominate other without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Clearly this is the evangelical part of the Tea party. This is the same group who wants to use their beliefs to turn public policy into another Inquisition. The problem is that at least the Inquisition had standards. Evangelicals keep changing the goal posts from hiding behind their "freedom of belief" so that they don't have to dispense doctors prescriptions, to attempting to include "intelligent design" within the public school system. While this group has not actively worked within the tea party, they have a ready welcome.
I bring these aspects to the attention of the public because they need to be assessed. The assassination of a Member of Congress is to be condemned and it must be by the very political foes who have fostered it. They have not. Some have but it is clear the right will try to turn this to their advantage and the public and legitimate leaders of this nation must call them to account when they try. The source for the numbered list is from Robert O. Paxton and his work The Anatomy of Fascism.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion. This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members. Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen". The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments. Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those. Some things that have changed over the years :
Article I:
1. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.
2. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof, (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment) I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state.
When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.
Article II
it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes. I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago. I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment
When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process. I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed. I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.
These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied. It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland.
I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments. It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days. Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons. This would be funny if it were not so tragic.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion. This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members. Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen". The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments. Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those. Some things that have changed over the years :
Article I:
1. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.
2. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof, (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment) I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state.
When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.
Article II
it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes. I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago. I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment
When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process. I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed. I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.
These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied. It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland.
I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments. It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days. Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons. This would be funny if it were not so tragic.
