Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 8, 2004.
Nothing quite like rewriting History.
OK Let's cut to the chase. I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law and say this sounds like the actions of the Third Reich!
To be fair, I would like to know the rest of the story, namely, what was the (potentially) objectionable content in the UCLA's "National Standards for History". I couldn't get to the original LA Times story (i.e. subscription required) but the part of the story quoted by IJ only says that:
Have you actually read the standards in question? Maybe you have, but I'm guessing not. That's OK, I haven't either; I just googled and came up with this link to them, but I haven't read through them. So without having read them, who's to say whether they're slanted or not?
Cheney sucks, i dont see how any republican minded person can still back him or the current administration with all the lies,spin and B.S. they have produce. what happened to ethics and honesty? Nothing like creating a police state. vote this scum out America can do better. Iam voting for John Kerry, not the draft dodger fortunate son nor the draft dodger vice president. This pair of chickenhawks have us in a mess in Iraq, at Home and on anything else they have touched. Talking about making up history lets see we invaded Iraq for having WMDs but now the administrations says we invaded because Iraq wanted WMDs........Spin Masters the first WMDs were given to Saddam by CIA chief Bush sr. amazing!!
The generalities of Cheney's objections to the standards are discussed in the article, but I didn't think this story was about the merits of the National Standards for History. To me, it's about an abuse of power by an administration that doesn't understand its limits.
Since this is a bit off topic, perhaps you could start a new thread to share your brilliant analysis with the rest of the forum's readers. I would hate for anyone to inadvertently miss out.
from the article:
time to play "spot the irony"
I agree. This act may or may not be questionable, depending on whether it is reasonable to assume that it is within Mrs. Cheney's office's jurisdiction to push agendas within the DOE (which it may be, to a certain extent) and whether it was jingoist tendencies and not good pedagogy that tried to discredit the quality of the National Standards. However, I don't think it is necessary to take the administration to task on entirely unrelated topics in this thread, considering the direction of the thread so far.
I think that the Bush administration is a terrible plague upon this country. However, I'm not entirely convinced that this act is very heinous. Certainly, it is not the most heinous act out of the White House in the last four years.
Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!
(I know, you don't want to keep seeing the same hands.)
That's a bit judgemental<sp?> don't you think? You don't even know the whole story and you are coming down like a ton of bricks. I don't see how you can pin this as an abuse of power by the current administration considering Ms. Cheney has been very involved w/it sense the very begining.
As a couple of other posters have said, w/o knowing what her specific objections were I don't see how anyone can cheer or jeer.
Here's a bit more from the article:
Going just by what I've learned about this topic in the past few minutes it 't sounds like Ms. Cheney wants to ADD to the NHS guide lines not REMOVE or REPLACE anything.
Yes it is judgmental. I judge it to be wrong for the Second Lady to use her influence to get a book shredded. I don't give a hoot what it was about, she had no business doing it.
Isn't this the kind of thing that got Hillary on every right-wing black list? Being 'uppity' and creating/altering policy from a figurehead position?
How's that for irony, eh?
"It Takes A Village" to burn a book, i guess.
Do you disagree w/her entire involvement or just what's happend recently?
Playing devil's advocate here, so if even if the booklet "designed to encourage parents to get involved in their children's education" contained misinformantion and had some eyebrow raising historical omissions you don't think anything should have been done about it?
Probably as ironic as anyone who didn't mind Hillary's influence using a situation like this to condem Ms. Cheney and/or the current administration.
She's entitled to be involved and to express her opinion, just as she has for some years on this particular issue. She is not entitled to use her influence as the spouse of the Vice President to have a government publication shredded because she doesn't personally approve of its content. That is a classic abuse of power, and if there's another side to this, I don't know what it could be possibly.
You keep trying to turn this discussion to the history standards, which implies a belief that her objections might somehow justify this abuse of power. This is in fact a definition of the problem, not a solution.
Personally, I think it is more instructive for students to learn from and about their country's mistakes in detail and spend somewhat less time on the somewhat romanticized constructions of their country's victories. While both must exist within instruction of history, the latter is so deeply ingrained in popular culture that the former must be emphasized to gain a balanced and realistic perception of the nation.
Huh? Isn't Hillary in a position to criticize, regardless of whether you agree with her criticism or not? Or would you say that sitting Senators should refrain from criticizing sitting First Ladies?
I'm very confused by what you are implying here.
I believe what he is saying is that you find it ironic that right wingers got all in a tizzy when Hillary did this kind of stuff, but not when Mrs. Cheney does it. But it is just as ironic that left wingers who ignored Hillary's actions are now in a tizzy about Mrs. Cheney's.
Corect me if I'm wrong.
Just pulling one of the pages up (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/standards/era10-5-12.html); it seems to me that are some (Like Ms. Cheney) that would not want these standards. For it forces students to put to practical use the subject of history. And students then get to decide for themselves each parties policies. And move on to be better informed voters.
Very dangerous for any party that tries to use just nice sounding sound-bites, and jokes to win an election.
I guess a village in Wyoming is mising a couple of its idiots then?
So lets keep sugarcoating history as it was when I was in school then?
Why not have a broader focus on the wrongs of the nation, so that we don't repeat them? Oh, that's right, if we did that we might not have the USPA or even the war in Iraq today.
Maybe the parties would not blindly support their incumbent Presidents.
Okay, you're wrong -- unless you tell me when "Hillary did this kind of stuff."
Huh. The saying, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past," comes to mind. Now where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah, "1984".