Welcome to the New Reich (Spellcheck courtesy of PSU)

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:47 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Good times.

So true. Good point.

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:55 am

Rack Mike.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:09 am

I didn't realize that THIS is the teacher.

Forgive me.

I take back my takes in this thread and hereby declare that this silly string-haired freak should be off'd.

Holy CRAP.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:30 am

poptart wrote:I didn't realize that THIS is the teacher.

Forgive me.

I take back my takes in this thread and hereby declare that this silly string-haired freak should be off'd.

Holy CRAP.

Yeah.....someone who looks like that couldn't possibly be intelligent.
Right Smackie?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:19 am

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I haven't had the time to wade through the 300 posts in this thread, but the teacher's rant was a hot topic of discussion in the faculty room at my school..

My .02:

The teacher was out of line insofar as he was using his privileged position to make characterizations that were obviously politically biased (the guy obviously has a certain opinion regarding the U.S.'s "proper" role in the world...). It's 100% appropriate for him to *have* these views and express these views....but not in a frigging classroom where he is 'holding court." he should save his blasts for the op-ed page of a paper.

His job is to teach his discipline according to the curriculm approved by the school board and the state standards. Period. This nonsense of "teaching to transgress" or, in the words of some of my U of R education profs "to undermine the white, patriarchal, Western, heterosexist hegemony" has NO place in a public secondary school. None. Claiming to "just be showing the other side" of a topic but doing so in a tone that portrays an obvious bias on the teacher's part is patently unfair and intellectually dishonest. It's also piss-poor teaching.

In the subject area I teach, biology, there are certainly controversial topics on which I hold opinions - stem cell research, global warming, euthanasia, genetically modified crops and animals, abortion, the political nature of science funding, etc., but I make damned sure that, if the nature of the controversy is brought up at an appropriate juncture, that BOTH sides of the issue are discussed so that the kids know WHY there is a controversy. I want my students to grasp a very difficult concept (one that a lot of folks here don't get) - that it is possible for genuinely good, educated, well-intentioned folks to hold diametrically opposing viewpoints from yourself and that their beliefs are, in their minds, as well-supported as yours.

I'm no fan of the current administration (especially given my libertarian leanings and how the Bush administration has needlessly politicized scientific issues), but even I can hear the blatant bias in the teacher's screeching. It's pretty telling that the leftists on the board can't seem to hear it...

IMO, the teacher's point was that we, as a nation, are completely ignoring the perspective of the nations we interact with with grave consequences. I do not see any partisan bias in his presentation. In fact, he very pointedly compared Clinton to Bush in their conduct of the "war on terror". If this teacher is displaying bias, to whom do you think the bias is intended to favor?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:31 am

I listened to his rant this evening, and his bias is very clearly against the country he lives in, dickweed.

The guy is a major league douche.

Just my opinion.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:44 am

poptart wrote:I listened to his rant this evening, and his bias is very clearly against the country he lives in, dickweed.

The guy is a major league douche.

Just my opinion.

If he has a bias against the United States, whom does he favor?

You guys see this "bias", yet you are unable to tell me who he is biased for.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:54 am

A bias can either be toward something or against something, 'tard.

His entire high-pitched rant was AGAINST the United States of America.

I liked the part where the kid asked him if he is saying that it was the US's intention to kill innocents when they sent a bomb in to a Pakastani location a few months ago to go after AlQ terrorists.

The douche said, "I can't answer that".

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:05 am

poptart wrote:A bias can either be toward something or against something.

His entire high-pitched rant was AGAINST the United States of America.

No it wasn't. His "rant" was that we don't pay attention to the perspectives of others. If that is "anti-American, then we are in serious trouble.

BTW: WTF does the pitch of his voice have to do with the validity of his presentation? Abe Lincoln's contemporaries have consistiently pointed out that the man who delivered the Gettysburg Address spoke in a high pitched nasal tone. Should we mock Lincoln's voice and ignore his words?

I liked the part where the kid asked him if he is saying that it was the US's intention to kill innocents when they sent a bomb in to a Pakastani location a few months ago to go after AlQ terrorists.

The douche said, "I can't answer that".

Of course he couldn't answer that. He would have to know the state of mind of the decision makers to answer that question truthfuly. What is known is that if you lob enough cruise missles at a populated area, civilans WILL die.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:24 am

String-haired teacher douche, early in his rant, said..........

Capitalism is at odds with humanity. It is at odds with caring and compassion. It is at odds with human rights.

He's a sick man with sick hair and a sick voice.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:40 am

Dinsdale wrote:No, what's stupid is your reactionary dismissal of the comparisons.

What is stupid is the way you keep making comparisons of mountains to molehills and considering them comparable simply because they're both undulations of sorts.

"There should be limits to freedom."

What part of that are you having trouble with?

No parts. I agree with it. I clearly stated as much.

What part of ultra-liberal foreign relations are you having trouble understanding?

??

Hitler convinced people with less-than-honorable "intelligence" that a group of people were a threat to the general populace of that country, and advocated a pre-emptive strike in the name of "your safety."

So at this point, you must ask yourself if either A) you see this similarity, or B) you're retarded.

We'll assume you answered "A" and continue.

Let's go with C) What Hitler did is in no way similar to what Bush has done. None.

Hitler wholly composed a strategy whereby he targeted an innocent segment of his own citizenry as a means of making them a flashpoint behind which he could advance his own personal ambitions. He then set out to destroy them as a whole, within his own borders.

There was no "intelligence", correct or otherwise, behind his strategy. It was his own creation.

He went after his own people; people who never attacked him, people who'd lived there forever, people who lived in peace in his country. Those people he targeted with hate and then vengeance had never stated any opposition to his country whatsoever.

Bush? Bush attacked a well known and overtly aggressive despotic enemy of the United States and its allies. Along the way, Bush has attempted to keep safe that despot's people, choosing instead to go out of his way to target only military objectives.

Was Bush's intelligence incorrect? Possibly, at least in terms of Saddam's WMD.

Was Bush's main reason for attacking Saddam in any way based on faulty intelligence? (That being the once and for all removal of a terrorism sympathetic tyrant who remained bent on destabilizing a very strategic region of the globe...) Hell no. Saddam needed to go and his regime needed to be destroyed.

Again, your comparison falls completely fact based not just on the facts but on their basic goals, goals which completely separate and define the two.

You're just making a stupid, stupid point in comparing the two.

OK, now when Hitler needed to cement his power, he completely ignored any rights that the German people may or may not have had to be secure in their person, houses, paers, and effects. They were also subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, warrants were isssued without probable cause, unsupported by oathg or affirmation. And today, the Patriot Act, supported strongly by Bush and Co., amongst many other "laws," also breech these rights.

There's no way you believe this shit. You are not this much of an alarmist buffoon.

Hitler cemented his power at the end of a boot, at gunpoint. He used large scale and very public blackmail, robbery and murder to attain his power. Once he solidified his position he then went absolutely apeshit on his own people.

Bush implemented a set of internal safeguards in response to 9/11, safeguards that in no possible way could ever be compared to the methods employed by Hitler during his rise to power; much less the atrocities Hitler commited once he'd consolidated his power.

The Patriot Act???? Who fives a wet fart...

There is no corollary. Nobody's rights are being breached under the Patriot Act in any way, shape or form that would draw a sane person to compare our political climate (past, present or future) with that of Nazi Germany's.

On a daily basis.

...on a completely superficial basis. Hitler blanketed an entire population of people with a guilty verdict; their actual behavior and record of servitude to their country (his country) be damned. We inconspicuously investigate specific targets, as a response to real breaches of national security.

We also leave to their own devices people who very publicly practice and promote what Hitler would consider treasonous and punishable by death behavior in this country. The government doesn't bat an eye. The government has the ability during this technological era to know eactly what each of us are doing and saying and still they sit back and let us do as we will despite behaviors that would see us riddled with SS bullets should even a fraction of such behaviors be exhibited during Hitler's rule.

In making these continued asinine comparisons you seem to want to overlook the most basic defining differences here: Degree, and motive.

We have the ability to do what you say. We simply don't do anything truly invasive and prejudicial with that ability. We aren't trying to seize and lord our power over our citizenry through the threat of private intrusiveness and, ultimately, terror.

Motive: Motive defines acts. Motive defines corollaries.

Degree: Your lack of basic comprehension regarding the importance of the differing degrees between Hitler's and Bush's "similar" acts is just incredible.

Hitler's and Bush's acts speak for themselves. No corollaries.

And Bush defends the practice, even though it is in stark contrast to what is GUARANTEED (you know what that word means, right?) in the BOR.

Not according to the current arbiters and stewards of the BOR, it isn't. If and when they should decide that those safeguards are being violated by Bush, things will then have to change.

So far, that has yet to be determined.

Even then though...no corollaries.

Bush is attempting to safeguard his people. He's not attempting to become a tyrant of terror to his people and he's not blanketing an entire population of his own with no trial, a guilty verdict and a death sentence.

In the name of "your safety," of course.

Yours too, you insipid whining poser. You're so comfortable and so used to taking for granted what's been handed to you on a silver platter by others who do the heavy lifting that you don't even realise the whiny and pathetic ingrate you've become.

So, how are these comparisons not valid, exactly?

Exactly? Try, "at all". These comparisons of yours are utterly stupid. You just sat there and compared Hitler's rise to power "based on the use of faulty intelligence" with George Bush's.

You're arguing to argue, is all. You're arguing that the number 14 is equal in value to the number 4,432 by virtue of the fact that they're both numbers.

Common sense and all sense of perspective have left you.

I haven't commented on any other similarities. I haven't extrapolated any direction the indescetions that Bush has committed might lead. I just pointed out these two similarities. That's all.

And that was enough, since there are no similarities and therefore even your limited comparisons are preposterous.

And if you deny these similarities (I'd have a hard time believing that people are struggling with that word, but it's apparently the case, or they're so deep in sheepledom that they see the comparisons as some sort of personal affront, to which I would have to say "get a life, loser")...if you deny these similarities, you're either an idiot, or need to cr5ack a history book.

You're quite simply a fool who's too in love with his own words.

Similarities? Between Hitler and Bush, on any factual and/or common sense level?

There are...none.

Hitler advocated scaling back civil rights in the name of "safety."

Hitler's version of "scaling back civil rights" and Bush's are similar only in the way that the significance surrounding Pop Rocks candy and Hiroshima both center around explosions.

For you to mention the two as somehow comparable at all either in intent or fact is either comical or just plain sad.

Bush advocates rolling back civil rights in the name of "safety."

Difference is...Bush means it. His version doesn't involve terrorizing his own citizenry. He is attempting to protect them against real threats.

The good news here is that despite whatever egregious affronts to your civil rights George Bush may attempt to impose, hey, don't worry, you'll still be able to surf for Goth kiddie porn and you'll still be able to publicly post treatises with your name attached to 'em describing why you think George Bush is more evil than Idi Amin and should therefore be eviscerated and displayed at the fifty yard line of Autzen Stadium...

Doesn't matter that you probably don't actually feel that way. The point is, for all your cunty hand wringing over your supposed loss of civil rights you still have the ability to do exactly as I described. You'll continue to enjoy those rights and George Bush and your government (pick your president, it doesn't matter) wouldn't have it any other way.

No fucking corollary.

Hitler launched a pre-emptive military strike against a country that he and his staff grossly misrepresented in terms of the level of their threat.

Hitler attacked ALL OF FUCKING EUROPE with the sole goal of conquest. He wanted to enslave the conquered. He planned on removing the vanquished from their own lands, to be replaced by his own hand picked citizenry.

Also, he attacked countries that were in no way threatening his people. Hitler rolled through Poland and the Low Countries strictly as a matter of geographic consolidation. Belgium just happened to be sitting there in a bad spot.

George Bush attacked Saddam Hussein's army, and Saddam Hussein himself. He's attempted to leave Saddam's civilian citizenry out of the conflict, even at the cost of U.S. troops.

Totally different motives, totally different political tactics (don't recall Hitler ever attempting to drum up much world support for invading France, Poland, the Netherlands, etc...), totally different enemies, totally different circumstances and totally different levels of aggression.

Absolutely absurd. If Bush were Hitler he simply would've ash trayed Iraq and then taken all the oil fields and given them as rewards to his generals for making them pick up and move from Virginia to some god forsaken shithole desert.

Bush has no goal of taking Iraq as his own. There are no plans to slaughter the Iraqi citizens and replace them with a bunch of hot looking kids from the O.C...

Bush launcvhed a pre-emptive strike against a country after he and his staff grossly misrepresented their level of threat.

Current caches of WMD or not, Saddam's regime needed to be taken out. Period. You know and I know that was the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was and remains a main hub of support for terrorism.

Neither Hitler's Germany nor his allies were under constant threat of terrorist attack from the countries he invaded. Plain and simply, Hitler formulated and attempted to carry out a plan of global conquest. Bush formulated a plan of strategic terror containment and don't fool yourself, the shock and further threat of 9/11 necessitated the incursion into Afghanistan and Saddam's imminent removal from power...as just two of the first major steps.

Hitler's Germany had no 9/11s, Saddams or bin Ladens to which they needed to respond. They simply set out to conquer. They attempted to expand their borders. Bush hasn't, and won't, even though he easily could.

These were the comparisons I made.

Thanks for playing, I guess?

Regardless what other words you're trying to attribute to me, that was it.

I haven't attributed a single word to you, nor have I ever "lied".

No need. Your statements don't stand up to even the slightest surface scrutiny.

And not only do I stand by those statements, I will go so far as to say that if you deny these SIMILARITIES(and again, I'm starting to seriously wonder if some of you even know what that word means), then you're a fucking idiot, and you need to toddowen yourself from the gene pool, in the interest of the rest of our "safety."

Yep, and Starr Jones is similar to Jessica Alba. Really, they are kinda similar, if you wanna look at things The Dins Way...

JTR posts similarly to Moorese too. They both type up words (sorta), they both post pics, they both post here, they both post for entertainment purposes and they both hit "submit" in order to make the magic happen.

Similar. Fucking similar. Eerily similar.

Those are textbook definitions of "similarities."

...in textbooks given out on the short bus...

I made no comment on whether either's actions had positive or negative connotations

"Connotations"???? That's it??

Bwaaahahahaa!!!

Yep, it's just the "connotations" that screw up the dichotomy!!

Dins, you fucking rule, you magnificent monkey.

nor did I express any viewpoint either way...I merely stated FACT...in the form of "similarities."

FACT: You and R_T_S have similar lifestyles, since they both revolve around the hilarious abuse of recreational chemicals plus loads of late night internet based deviancy.

The very idea that some of you are soooooo eager to put additional words in my mouth is quite telling, though.

Never did, never needed to. All on your own, you're a peach, hon.

Sorry if the leader of your country is trying to parallel a course that was followed by the one of the most evil humans in history, but don't shoot the messenger, bud.

I won't. The bullet would likely just bounce off your steel reinforced tinfoil beenie propeller.

Dude, seriously, re-read that sentence you just wrote and see if you still can't figure out the depth of Chicken Little Alarmist Insanity you're projecting here, sport...

If you don't like it, it's much better to not sit in denial, and speak against the wrongdoing, even it if isn't the popular thing to do. All it takes for evil to take hold is for a few good people to look the other way.

Dins!! Internet Warrior...Righter Of Wrongs...Paul Revere Of The Dot.Com Millenia...Queefing Vag Of The U&L!!

Seriously, get over yourself here. You're not sitting up, taking notice and attempting to speak out against injustices. You're simply grandstanding against another safe target (George Bush) as part of your non stop internet goal of making yourself look..rebellious.

Nothing more. You don't worry one iota about losing your precious personal liberties and if Big Brother did actually came knocking on your door in the guise of Russian apparatchiks you still couldn't be bothered to remove your latest Home Town Buffet hotty's syphillis ridden dumper from your way too self satisfied chocolate glazed donut grill...

You?? Concerned???

:D :D :D

Better to live a day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb. Don't be afraid to point out the obvious, just because it's against the grain of popular opinion.

Fight the good fight, hero!!

:george "spicolli" patton:

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:44 am

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I haven't had the time to wade through the 300 posts in this thread, but the teacher's rant was a hot topic of discussion in the faculty room at my school..

My .02:

The teacher was out of line insofar as he was using his privileged position to make characterizations that were obviously politically biased (the guy obviously has a certain opinion regarding the U.S.'s "proper" role in the world...). It's 100% appropriate for him to *have* these views and express these views....but not in a frigging classroom where he is 'holding court." he should save his blasts for the op-ed page of a paper.

His job is to teach his discipline according to the curriculm approved by the school board and the state standards. Period. This nonsense of "teaching to transgress" or, in the words of some of my U of R education profs "to undermine the white, patriarchal, Western, heterosexist hegemony" has NO place in a public secondary school. None. Claiming to "just be showing the other side" of a topic but doing so in a tone that portrays an obvious bias on the teacher's part is patently unfair and intellectually dishonest. It's also piss-poor teaching.

In the subject area I teach, biology, there are certainly controversial topics on which I hold opinions - stem cell research, global warming, euthanasia, genetically modified crops and animals, abortion, the political nature of science funding, etc., but I make damned sure that, if the nature of the controversy is brought up at an appropriate juncture, that BOTH sides of the issue are discussed so that the kids know WHY there is a controversy. I want my students to grasp a very difficult concept (one that a lot of folks here don't get) - that it is possible for genuinely good, educated, well-intentioned folks to hold diametrically opposing viewpoints from yourself and that their beliefs are, in their minds, as well-supported as yours.

I'm no fan of the current administration (especially given my libertarian leanings and how the Bush administration has needlessly politicized scientific issues), but even I can hear the blatant bias in the teacher's screeching. It's pretty telling that the leftists on the board can't seem to hear it...

A perfect post. Very well-reasoned, and honestly expressed.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:22 am

Holy shit Van.

I actually read that whole thing.

Best post since I don't remember when.

Van wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:...don't shoot the messenger, bud.
I won't. The bullet would likely just bounce off your steel reinforced tinfoil beenie propeller.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:11 pm

poptart wrote:String-haired teacher douche, early in his rant, said..........

Capitalism is at odds with humanity. It is at odds with caring and compassion. It is at odds with human rights.

He's right. Just because it is the best system available at this time doesn't mean it doesn't come with it's flaws.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:22 pm

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:SCS,
Do you think the teacher should be given anything more than a slap on the wrist for discussing something that wasn't part of his curriculum?

I don't like the thought of anyone in the public school system trying to influence minds in the manner that said teacher did.

TWIS have you heard the complete tape? I don't approve of anyone with any sort of political affiliations making student feel that if they do not have the same opinions as the teacher they will fail.

My wife is an educator and doesn't feel he should have a job either.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:37 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:TWIS have you heard the complete tape? I don't approve of anyone with any sort of political affiliations making student feel that if they do not have the same opinions as the teacher they will fail.

But he didn't make that kid feel like he was going to fail. In fact, he praised the kid's questions and offered them to the class as examples.

And yes, I've listened to it 3 times.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:12 pm

BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:TWIS have you heard the complete tape? I don't approve of anyone with any sort of political affiliations making student feel that if they do not have the same opinions as the teacher they will fail.
But he didn't make that kid feel like he was going to fail. In fact, he praised the kid's questions and offered them to the class as examples.

And yes, I've listened to it 3 times.

I've heard a numbe of kids, the kid who recorded, and others from his classes on the radio and more than just one kid has said that they were made to feel that if they did not agree with the teacher that they would fail the course.

As I said my wife is an educator and even she feels as though he should be fired. The only people defending his actions are hard lefties such as yourself, Bsmack.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:24 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:I've heard a numbe of kids, the kid who recorded, and others from his classes on the radio and more than just one kid has said that they were made to feel that if they did not agree with the teacher that they would fail the course.

Yet the teacher made a point of saying, while being taped without his knowledge or consent, that "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

Methinks these kids have an axe to grind with that particular teacher.

As I said my wife is an educator and even she feels as though he should be fired. The only people defending his actions are hard lefties such as yourself, Bsmack.

And she has her own biases. Don't go JimInPhilly on us and hide behind your wife. Speak for yourself or let her drop her own post.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:27 pm

BSmack wrote:
Yet the teacher made a point of saying, while being taped without his knowledge or consent, that "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

Methinks these kids have an axe to grind with that particular teacher.

C'mon man. You really have to be smarter than this. Are you actually being serious or are you just fucking with the "neo cons"?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:31 pm

WhatsMyName wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Yet the teacher made a point of saying, while being taped without his knowledge or consent, that "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

Methinks these kids have an axe to grind with that particular teacher.
C'mon man. You really have to be smarter than this. Are you actually being serious or are you just fucking with the "neo cons"?

Hey, I'm not the one seeing threats where there are none. That would be you. And SCS's wife.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:37 pm

BSmack wrote:
WhatsMyName wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Yet the teacher made a point of saying, while being taped without his knowledge or consent, that "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

Methinks these kids have an axe to grind with that particular teacher.
C'mon man. You really have to be smarter than this. Are you actually being serious or are you just fucking with the "neo cons"?
Hey, I'm not the one seeing threats where there are none. That would be you. And SCS's wife.

If that had been a righty we all know that Bsmack's tune would be different. He only agrees with the teacher and that is why he is defending him.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:41 pm

BSmack wrote:
WhatsMyName wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Yet the teacher made a point of saying, while being taped without his knowledge or consent, that "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

Methinks these kids have an axe to grind with that particular teacher.
C'mon man. You really have to be smarter than this. Are you actually being serious or are you just fucking with the "neo cons"?
Hey, I'm not the one seeing threats where there are none. That would be you. And SCS's wife.

I don't expect you to see a threat. I expect you to at least have the ability to be honest and admit this teacher took a bad approach, regardless of whether you agreed with what you FELT he was trying to do.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:10 pm

BSmack wrote:IMO, the teacher's point was that we, as a nation, are completely ignoring the perspective of the nations we interact with with grave consequences.

If that was his point, he made a very poor series of arguments to support it. He engaged in deliberately slanted terms and arguments in order to 'show the other side" - for example, his synopsis on the founding of Israel (founded solely by terrorism and by the U.S. urge to have an ally in the Middle East) was so biased that it could have come from a PLO tract; his positing that capitalism is "at odds" with human rights and equity was blatantly slanted in that he phrased his argument as a rhetorical question; his description of the US attack on the Pakistani border notably left out the Pakistani government's cooperation with the intelligence prior to the attack and furthermore the guy had the temerity to hint that the U.S. may have killed civilians on purpose.

His arguments were also all presented in a high-pitched, rapid pace consistant with passion - the teacher obviously has some emotional investment in the topics he was addressing, because he subscribes to an anti-capitalist, anti-US military, anti-Israel political point of view.

I do not see any partisan bias in his presentation. In fact, he very pointedly compared Clinton to Bush in their conduct of the "war on terror".

The partisanship is in attacking similar military interventions, regardless of whether the action was taken by either a Dem or GOP president. The teacher's bias is not that he adhere's to a party, necessarily, but t a particular worldview and view of the U.S.

If this teacher is displaying bias, to whom do you think the bias is intended to favor?

Not a whom, a what. An anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. view in which our nation should consider itself merely just one nation among equals...one of moral relativism with regards to considering other nations and cultures...and perhaps actually a nation with a particularly and uniquely dishonest, violent, nasty past for which we must atone.

Which is 100% bullshit and has no place in a public school classroom. The "Howard Zinning" of history has absolutely NO place in a classroom of 15-year olds.

None.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:12 pm

I don't think the shrill-voiced twit ought to be fired.

I just think some of the parents should take him behind the school and rub his face in the dirt.

If a 'right-leaning' teacher went off on a 21 minute rant like this little twat did BSchmuck would be squeeling like a stuck pig.

NO doubt about that.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:29 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
BSmack wrote:IMO, the teacher's point was that we, as a nation, are completely ignoring the perspective of the nations we interact with with grave consequences.
If that was his point, he made a very poor series of arguments to support it. He engaged in deliberately slanted terms and arguments in order to 'show the other side" - for example, his synopsis on the founding of Israel (founded solely by terrorism and by the U.S. urge to have an ally in the Middle East) was so biased that it could have come from a PLO tract;

When the UN started the entire process of giving the middle east its own rule they promised both arabs and Jews that they would have their own homelands. The Arabs (including palesteinians) received their own countries in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Jordan but left the Jews waiting for years until they took the initiative.

his positing that capitalism is "at odds" with human rights and equity was blatantly slanted in that he phrased his argument as a rhetorical question;

Forgot to mention just how effective communism was in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe and is the reason their populace has a much higher pverty rate than the west.

I don't have anything else to comment on your post about other than Rack!

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:54 pm

BSmack wrote:
poptart wrote:String-haired teacher douche, early in his rant, said..........

Capitalism is at odds with humanity. It is at odds with caring and compassion. It is at odds with human rights.
He's right. Just because it is the best system available at this time doesn't mean it doesn't come with it's flaws.

In the future, out eyewear will adjust automatically to the sun- imo

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:15 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:If that was his point, he made a very poor series of arguments to support it. He engaged in deliberately slanted terms and arguments in order to 'show the other side" - for example, his synopsis on the founding of Israel (founded solely by terrorism and by the U.S. urge to have an ally in the Middle East) was so biased that it could have come from a PLO tract; his positing that capitalism is "at odds" with human rights and equity was blatantly slanted in that he phrased his argument as a rhetorical question; his description of the US attack on the Pakistani border notably left out the Pakistani government's cooperation with the intelligence prior to the attack and furthermore the guy had the temerity to hint that the U.S. may have killed civilians on purpose.

So do you disagree with the facts he presented? Listening to Bennish's lecture again, I don't see much to disagree with from a factual standpoint. The Israeli portion of the presentation I did think was his weakest moment. He should have anticipated that in a discussion concerning the Middle East that Israel would have been raised. Had he anticipated that question, I suspect his answer would have been much more fleshed out.

As regards the Pakistani government cooperating with the US Military, I don't see what that has to do with the people of Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by a military junta and has been since 1999. Were the people of Pakistan to have a voice in their future, the US would be kicked out of Pakistan.

And lastly, why does framing a rhetorical question about capitalisim show bias? I didn't hear him say socialisim was good, or that communisim or feudalisim or the merchantile system would be better ways to go than capitalisim. He simply pointed out that part of the bargain when you choose capitalisim is that money, not people, is the bottom line. That is a simple matter of fact.

His arguments were also all presented in a high-pitched, rapid pace consistant with passion - the teacher obviously has some emotional investment in the topics he was addressing, because he subscribes to an anti-capitalist, anti-US military, anti-Israel political point of view.

His tone and pitch are also exaggerated by the fairly low tech recording equipment being used. Let us just say that there's no low end to that recording at all. As for the rapid pace, that could well be his normal style of speaking. We heard him speak for 20 minutes about the SOTU. Would he sound the same if he were speaking about the mountain ranges of Peru? Maybe, maybe not.

The partisanship is in attacking similar military interventions, regardless of whether the action was taken by either a Dem or GOP president. The teacher's bias is not that he adhere's to a party, necessarily, but a particular worldview and view of the U.S.

I would submit that he was presenting the opinions of the vast majority of the planet's population as something the kids in his class should think about and incorporate into their own world view.

Not a whom, a what. An anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. view in which our nation should consider itself merely just one nation among equals...one of moral relativism with regards to considering other nations and cultures...and perhaps actually a nation with a particularly and uniquely dishonest, violent, nasty past for which we must atone.

Which is 100% bullshit and has no place in a public school classroom. The "Howard Zinning" of history has absolutely NO place in a classroom of 15-year olds. None.

Now you're just rehashing rhetoric and putting words into Bennish's mouth. As for Howard Zinn, thanks for reminding me that I should read some of his stuff.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:21 pm

Holy shit!

Rack Van for the oustanding effort, and my new sig.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:39 pm

BSmack wrote: He simply pointed out that part of the bargain when you choose capitalisim is that money, not people, is the bottom line. That is a simple matter of fact.

[earthshatteringnews] Hate to have to be the one to break this to you comrade B, but regardless of the system to which you adhere, the bottom line is always money.[/earthshatteringnews]

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:41 pm

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote: He simply pointed out that part of the bargain when you choose capitalisim is that money, not people, is the bottom line. That is a simple matter of fact.
[earthshatteringnews] Hate to have to be the one to break this to you comrade B, but regardless of the system to which you adhere, the bottom line is always money.[/earthshatteringnews]

What is this money you speak of?

sin

Christainity

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:49 pm

BSmack wrote: What is this money you speak of?

It's that thing of which no matter how much you have, it never seems to be enough.

Sin

Everybody

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:51 pm

BSmack wrote:So do you disagree with the facts he presented? Listening to Bennish's lecture again, I don't see much to disagree with from a factual standpoint. The Israeli portion of the presentation I did think was his weakest moment. He should have anticipated that in a discussion concerning the Middle East that Israel would have been raised. Had he anticipated that question, I suspect his answer would have been much more fleshed out.

His answers were factually in question in that for someone allegedly so interested in showing 'the other side," he sure as hell didn't do anything remotely like that with regards to the founding of Israel. His choice of terms was questionable and in no way neutral.

As regards the Pakistani government cooperating with the US Military, I don't see what that has to do with the people of Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by a military junta and has been since 1999. Were the people of Pakistan to have a voice in their future, the US would be kicked out of Pakistan.

Fine. But the fact remains that the teacher hinted that the U.S. knowingly took civilians off the count deliberately. That was flat-out speculation on his part, completely unnecessary, and totally unprofessional. Dabbling in conspiracy theories while teaching 15-year-olds may pique some kids' interests, but it is not what he was hired to do.

And lastly, why does framing a rhetorical question about capitalisim show bias? I didn't hear him say socialisim was good, or that communisim or feudalisim or the merchantile system would be better ways to go than capitalisim. He simply pointed out that part of the bargain when you choose capitalisim is that money, not people, is the bottom line. That is a simple matter of fact.

No, it is not. Not at least in the way the teacher presented it. He presented a false choice in his contention that EITHER people can be helped OR profit can be made. It is not a given, by any stretch of the imagination, that capitalism by its very nature must necessarily marginalize, trivialize, or destroy the value of human rights. I realize that a lot of leftists take the teacher's view as Gospel, but but it is not. Count me as one of those that believes wholeheartedly that capitalism, when done properly, is completely compatible with human happiness, prosperity, and equity. Additionally, I find the concept of governmental redistribution of wealth (via taxation or socialism) to be abhorrent to human freedom and contrary to any concept of fairness.

The partisanship is in attacking similar military interventions, regardless of whether the action was taken by either a Dem or GOP president. The teacher's bias is not that he adhere's to a party, necessarily, but a particular worldview and view of the U.S.
I would submit that he was presenting the opinions of the vast majority of the planet's population as something the kids in his class should think about and incorporate into their own world view.

I would contend that as American citizens, choosing to incorporate the opinions of other nations into our worldview without first taking the step of analyzing those opinions is dangerous and undermines our country. I am opposed to the idea of folks not of this country deciding our nation's policies (hence my opposition to the SC using other nations' contemporary laws/legal opinions to decide US court cases).

I don't give a rat's ass what the "rest of the world" feels on certain topics. I'm an American and not about to cede my national sovereignty to any "citizen of the world/one world government" crap. A good chunk of the world has yet to catch up with the frigging Enlightenment. When folks with the proper education and moral outlook have something worthwhile to share, I'll check it out.

Any teacher who subscribes to and deliberately teaches the "America historically has tended to be wrong, is wrong now, and really needs to stop being so gosh-darned selfish and do what the rest of the world says" is a demagogue preaching to a captive audience and should be disciplined. It's frankly not his job to change kids' into "world citizens."

I realize that because you sympathize with the teacher's views, you don't see a problem. My major issue with the teacher is that he DOES have obvious opinions regarding contentious/disputable topics and that he presents the topics in a way in which his views are obviously the ones that the kids should buy into. The teacher's claim that he is just putting those ideas out there for the kids to think about rings frigging hollow when you keep in mind that there was no true discussion going on, just the teacher's monologue. Even when he allegedly concedes that the taping kid brought up a good point, he does so in a way that was patently dismissive. It's the same tone one takes to brush past an objection.

What he SHOULD have done was set particular topics out and assign sets of students to research -on their own- the opposing sides to debate and discuss in class, with the kids making up their own minds. Instead, he gave a little speech in which he laid out the topics, used politically loaded definitions and terms, asked rhetorical questions, and gave false choices. That's the kind of crap that bad professors in college use to impress the co-ed hotties and gullible, starry-eyed students. It's bad enough when done in college campuses and nothing short of malpractice when done to impressionable 15-year-olds who can't walk out of class...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:04 pm

Van...well written, to be certain. Some very valid points.

But, at the end of the day...Goodnight Irene.

Van wrote:The government has the ability during this technological era to know eactly what each of us are doing and saying and still they sit back and let us do as we will

You could have just typed:

Van wrote:I don't get it.

And it would have conveyed the same point.

So, somebody I elected, house, and cut a paycheck to "lets" me do what I was guaranteed, out of some kindness of their heart?

I'm not sure which "inalienable" part of Numbers 1-10 you aren't understanding, but you, and many other Americans need to review these Inalienable Rights before you run your trap. Any person who opposes #1-#10 is my enemy, regardless what country they claim allegiance to. Hate to be the one to break it to your simple mind, but the United States of America is a whole lot bigger than the Bush Corporation's little world.

The USA is the greatest nation in the history of civilization, and there's a reason for that -- we fight and die for #1-#10...it's what we do...it's who we are. It's the reason that we are, and the reason we will continue to be. The people who laid the groundowrk for this great nation made a steadfast rule for all future generations, no matter which way technology and threats went -- #1-#10 are carved in stone, unnegotiable. It's worked for over 200 years. But now, we have someone with some radical political policies who claims we need to back away from those steadfast rules that worked so well for 200+ years. Red flag...big time.

I feel the same horror about 9/11 as everyone else does. But whether 3000 die, or 300,000, or 30,000,000, my loyalty will remain the same -- when I pledged allegiance to the flag, I fucking meant it. My allegiance is to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands. And the republic "for which it stands" is defined by the Bill of Rights. So excuse the fuck out of me if I get a little bent out of shape when someone threatens that republic. I don't care what fucking title the offender is sporting, even President of the USA -- if you oppose the Bill of Rights, you are my enemy. And if someone attempts to breech or compromise the BOR in ANY way, they had better fucking explain themselves. The onus is clearly upon them, and it sure THE FUCK isn't on the citizens of the US to "sit back and enjoy it." I'm not sure which part of "by the people" you aren't understanding. I'm 1/280,000,000th OWNER of the US government -- I'M the one(along with the rest of you) that the leaders need to answer to...not the other way around.

Way to go Van...you just helped the terrrrrists score yet another victory...props.

The notion that the government "lets" me do things is so fucking traitorous, it makes me sick.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:10 pm

Dinsdale wrote:So, somebody I elected, house, and cut a paycheck to "lets" me do what I was guaranteed, out of some kindness of their heart?

I'm not sure which "inalienable" part of Numbers 1-10 you aren't understanding, but you, and many other Americans need to review these Inalienable Rights before you run your trap. Any person who opposes #1-#10 is my enemy, regardless what country they claim allegiance to. Hate to be the one to break it to your simple mind, but the United States of America is a whole lot bigger than the Bush Corporation's little world.

The USA is the greatest nation in the history of civilization, and there's a reason for that -- we fight and die for #1-#10...it's what we do...it's who we are. It's the reason that we are, and the reason we will continue to be. The people who laid the groundowrk for this great nation made a steadfast rule for all future generations, no matter which way technology and threats went -- #1-#10 are carved in stone, unnegotiable. It's worked for over 200 years. But now, we have someone with some radical political policies who claims we need to back away from those steadfast rules that worked so well for 200+ years. Red flag...big time.

I feel the same horror about 9/11 as everyone else does. But whether 3000 die, or 300,000, or 30,000,000, my loyalty will remain the same -- when I pledged allegiance to the flag, I fucking meant it. My allegiance is to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands. And the republic "for which it stands" is defined by the Bill of Rights. So excuse the fuck out of me if I get a little bent out of shape when someone threatens that republic. I don't care what fucking title the offender is sporting, even President of the USA -- if you oppose the Bill of Rights, you are my enemy. And if someone attempts to breech or compromise the BOR in ANY way, they had better fucking explain themselves. The onus is clearly upon them, and it sure THE FUCK isn't on the citizens of the US to "sit back and enjoy it." I'm not sure which part of "by the people" you aren't understanding. I'm 1/280,000,000th OWNER of the US government -- I'M the one(along with the rest of you) that the leaders need to answer to...not the other way around.

The notion that the government "lets" me do things is so fucking traitorous, it makes me sick.

One of the coolest rants I've ever read on the board.

And I agree with it. Racks.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:14 pm

BSmack wrote:His tone and pitch are also exaggerated by the fairly low tech recording equipment being used.

Not really.

The 15 yr old boy's voice on the tape was more manly than his.

This 'teacher' needs a sex change operation.

Either that or he should just STFU.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:18 pm

poptart wrote:I didn't realize that THIS is the teacher.

Forgive me.

I take back my takes in this thread and hereby declare that this silly string-haired freak should be off'd.

Holy CRAP.

IIRC, you posted your high school pic awhile back. Based on that pic, I wouldn't be making fun of this guy's look if I were you. Just sayin'.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:22 pm

MtLR wrote:I don't give a rat's ass what the "rest of the world" feels on certain topics. I'm an American and not about to cede my national sovereignty to any "citizen of the world/one world government" crap. A good chunk of the world has yet to catch up with the frigging Enlightenment. When folks with the proper education and moral outlook have something worthwhile to share, I'll check it out.

Any teacher who subscribes to and deliberately teaches the "America historically has tended to be wrong, is wrong now, and really needs to stop being so gosh-darned selfish and do what the rest of the world says" is a demagogue preaching to a captive audience and should be disciplined. It's frankly not his job to change kids' into "world citizens."

RACK

Terry, what are you trippin' about....?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:23 pm

And the very notion that a person who continues their allegiance to the document that defines the very soul of this country, yet has people in this country giving them crap about it, and even questioning their patriotism over it clearly shows that sad times are upon us.

So many people are confused right now, and people even try to mix in the catch phrase "why do you hate America?" All partisan rhetoric for people who are trying to profit from others insecureties and despair.

Some of y'all's talk a mean game about what great Americans you are, but talk is cheap...an AMERICAN is defined by this:

Everything I Stand For wrote:Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Learn it, know it, live it. And if you choose not to, you have two choices: Either move to a country that suites you better, or die for your foolish cause.

See that one up there labelled "#4?" I don't see any fucking asterisks on that fucker. It doesn't say " * - Unless some rich businessman says otherwise." Its language is both strong and clear.

Excuse the fuck out of me for continuing my allegiance to AMERICA.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:31 pm

88 wrote:When a foreign enemy, which completely disregards all international conventions on warfare and human rights, has as its primary goal the destruction of your country and its people, I think it is wholly reasonable for the federal government to monitor the communications eminating from such indviduals into this country. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good idea, and one which the founding fathers would have endorsed in writing if the technology existed at the time the Bill of Rights was penned.

As you, and I assume everybody else here has figured out, I don't take playing the role of devil's advocate lightly, and I generally take a fairly contrarian stance when making my points. But at the core of the issue, I'm not opposed to this...if it's done within the context of the BOR. It doesn't say you're secure in your person unless some other country is waging war against you." There are no qualifiers, save for the "unreasonable" word. I guess my point is, that if there are terrorists in our midst, which there undoubtedly are, then it should be no problem whatsoever to obtain the neccessary warrants to monitor these people. I believe a system is in place, and I also wouldn't be opposed to expanding it, that gives our officers in the fight against domestic terrorism all the tools they need to obtain warrants against these suspects in a timely, if not instantanious manner. No problems with that here, none whatsoever. More power to them.

What I have a beef with is warrantless searches, which are in DIRECT violation of the 4th Amendment.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:31 pm

88 wrote:I also agree with most of Dinsdale's rant. But I disagree with his characterization that the Patriot Act violates the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It doesn't prohibit all searches.

But the people who are doing the searches - the current administration - ar the ones defining what "reasonable" is. THAT is wrong.

When a foreign enemy, which completely disregards all international conventions on warfare and human rights, has as its primary goal the destruction of your country and its people, I think it is wholly reasonable for the federal government to monitor the communications eminating from such indviduals into this country. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good idea, and one which the founding fathers would have endorsed in writing if the technology existed at the time the Bill of Rights was penned.

True, but when it secretly extends to the general populace who are not involved in any of those things, how do you stop that?

You do so by having a third party review - IE a judge - who can make sure that those in power are not using said power unjustly. I dont' think that is unreasonable, matter of fact it helps to ensure that searches ARE reasonable.

And this is not about protecting terrorists, it's about protecting the rights of the American Citizen. There is no reason you cannot accomplish that and go after terrorists at the same time.

Placing that kind of power into the hands of too few individuals who can then interpret the bill of rights as they see fit is scary.