Obama-fied textbooks? Already???

[Bev in B'ville]

That said (my previous posts) I was not attempting to inspire anyone with Obama's statement. I was just using his own words to show how pro-abortion he is. I will not hijack this thread with another abortion debate but I did want to clarify that I was not supporting his position on this issue.

 

 

I thought you provided a clear, logical argument as to why you feel the way you feel (and I happen to agree). You didn't resort to name calling or attacking the messenger simply because you disagreed with other statements. Very well spoken, mature, and adult. We need more post like this. I'd rep you if I could.

[Doran]

...the tone on the board is VERY caustic. It gets that way on occasion, but not to this extent nor for so long. Nor so divisively. This is the very first time we've ever been allowed to talk politics during an election season. We're new at it, and I do not think we're particularly good at it.

 

 

As I've divulged to you already, I can barely tolerate being here lately. The end result is, possibly, good for me, in that I find it easier not to give over such large amounts of time to my board habit. When I stop in, I try to make a pact with myself that I will not open politically charged threads, because once I'm in, like momof7, I end up regretting it. The divisiveness which has come about here, with the advent of the political discussions, has made the whole experience of being here less enjoyable for me, and I dare say, less valuable. It fuels in me a sourness that has enough energy on its own without getting recharged here. I respect that there is a desire to discuss the issues and the candidates behind them. What I detest is that that discussion is so horrifically slanted toward pointing out the negatives in the candidate people oppose than it is about pointing out the positives in the candidate people support. I have no stomach for the profusion of bashing. If I don't miss my guess, I suspect momof7 is feeling similarly.

 

Thanks, Pam, for working so diligently to provide perspective and balance, to say what needs to be said, again and again, and for being able to do that with such diplomacy. You are stronger than I.

[LizzyBee]

And well there should be. Like it or not, he's the first African American to actually win his party's endorsement for President of the United States. THAT is historic. As is Hank Aaron's life story, and Condolezza Rice's biography, and that of Nellie T. Ross and yes, Sarah Palin.

 

To everything, spin, spin spin.....

 

astrid

 

:confused: Isn't that history, not literature?

[LisaNY]

Hey! :001_smile: I do so love to see my man's name pop up!

 

That's in my top 5 fave Marx quotes!

 

IMO this world needs a lot more politicians who recognize the truth in that statement.

 

Hi Audrey,

 

Can you share with me some of the reasons why you believe in Marxism? What is it about Marxism that attracts you? In your ideal world, how would this be fleshed out?

 

This is an honest question - really. I am not trying to start a debate. When I read your post, I saw it as an opportunity to really try and understand another POV.

[hsmamainva]

As I've divulged to you already, I can barely tolerate being here lately. The end result is, possibly, good for me, in that I find it easier not to give over such large amounts of time to my board habit. When I stop in, I try to make a pact with myself that I will not open politically charged threads, because once I'm in, like momof7, I end up regretting it. The divisiveness which has come about here, with the advent of the political discussions, has made the whole experience of being here less enjoyable for me, and I dare say, less valuable. It fuels in me a sourness that has enough energy on its own without getting recharged here. I respect that there is a desire to discuss the issues and the candidates behind them. What I detest is that that discussion is so horrifically slanted toward pointing out the negatives in the candidate people oppose than it is about pointing out the positives in the candidate people support. I have no stomach for the profusion of bashing. If I don't miss my guess, I suspect momof7 is feeling similarly.

 

Thanks, Pam, for working so diligently to provide perspective and balance, to say what needs to be said, again and again, and for being able to do that with such diplomacy. You are stronger than I.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't like coming to the general board anymore. It's just...exhausting. And no one wants to be informed, really. They just want to bash the other party and sling the same mud that I can watch on CNN anytime I so choose.

[Cornerstone Classical]

:confused: He's pro-choice. Like a lot of people. What's extreme pro-abortion? Does he sit down any pregnant woman he sees and lecture them on the need to get an abortion? :001_huh:

 

Probably not, but anything can happen behind closed doors.

 

 

 

 

http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf

 

 

"Support Parents with Young Children: Barack Obama will expand evidence-based home visiting programs to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership, for example, provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families. The trained nurses use proven methods to help improve the mental and physical health of the family by providing counseling on substance abuse, creating and achieving personal goals, and teaching effective methods to nurture children. Proven benefits of these types of programs include improved women's prenatal health, a reduction in childhood injuries, fewer unintended pregnancies, increased involvement of fathers and increased maternal employment, reduced use of welfare and food stamps, and increased children's school readiness. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis concluded that these programs produced an average of five dollars in savings for every dollar invested and produced more than $28,000 in net savings for every high-risk family enrolled in the program. The Obama plan will assist approximately 570,000 first-time mothers each year "

[LisaNY]

http://www.classzone.com/cz/books/ml_lit_gr08/page_build.htm?id=resources/jsp/author_studies/8_bio_obama

 

http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2008/10/racine-schools-hand-out-textbook-with.html

 

 

Okay, I am purposing to find a little humor here. :001_smile:

 

Beth, are you coming up with a new term when you say our textbooks are becoming "Obamafied"? :D

[Laura K (NC)]

Why NOT be pro-abortion?

 

What could possibly be wrong about abortion? If you're just removing a burdensome piece of tissue, it's like having a wart frozen off, right? Why not rejoice in it?

 

Why is there a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion? Aren't they the same thing? Aren't you celebrating such a great choice?

[unsinkable]

I would suggest making a point to go out into the world and talk one on one with some people who are pro-choice. You will learn that most of us are not pro-abortion. Actually, many of us give time and money to charities that help the women who choose life.

 

 

 

I have met doctors (2) who perform abortions. To me, they are pro-abortion. One said he is providing a service. He worked at a clinic. The other was a OB-GYN would perform abortions only for her patients...so you just couldn't go to her and have an abortion unless you were already her patient.

[Amy in NH]

But the Obama camp is just as guilty. Frankly, I detest ALL of the mud-slinging.

 

-Robin

 

Well, if you look at the last x# of pages of this board, it is the proMcCain camp that is constantly posting lies and smears about Obama, and the proObama camp refuting them. If people feel it necessary to post something negative about a candidate, I wish they would do their research first and present ONLY the facts in their proper context.

[Beth in SW WA]

Okay, I am purposing to find a little humor here. :001_smile:

 

Beth, are you coming up with a new term when you say our textbooks are becoming "Obamafied"? :D

 

Yes, Lisa. I woke up to find my thread is now about abortion -- not the fact that Obama is now mandatory reading in Wisconsin 8th grade English classes.

 

No complaints, though. Obviously abortion is heavier on everyone's hearts (its on mine).

[Michele B]

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion, but I suspect you already know that. It just doesn't make your point as nicely when you tell it truthfully, though, does it?

 

 

That is pure cattiness, and doesn't help the discussion or edify anyone.

[Michele B]

:confused: Isn't that history, not literature?

 

 

:iagree:

[Laura K (NC)]

Not even all fetuses have an equal right to live. If you're in China, say, abortion specifically stands for inequality, since more female fetuses are terminated. In the U.S., (since the ruling was a U.S. one, I'd better stick on topic), Roe v. Wade means discrimination against differently-abled Americans. It also discriminates based on race. Fetuses of ethnic backgrounds are terminated more frequently than they used to be.

 

But as far as the sexes go, I don't think abortionists discriminate for sex, so in that sense, I guess one can count equality. Male and female fetuses are killed equally, as far as I know (fetuses have genders, of course, so this isn't mere rhetoric).

Edited October 15, 2008 by Laura K (NC)

[Tammyla]

:lurk5:

 

http://www.classzone.com/cz/books/ml_lit_gr08/page_build.htm?id=resources/jsp/author_studies/8_bio_obama

 

http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2008/10/racine-schools-hand-out-textbook-with.html

[Amy in NY]

I have never, in all my born days, EVER met ANYONE who was pro-abortion. I am sure there are some out there, just like there are some doozy right wing nut jobs out there who bomb abortion clinics. I've never met one of those either.

 

There is nothing unintelligent about being against a woman's right to choose. There is something extremely unintelligent and ignorant about saying pro-choice = pro-abortion.

 

Logically, pro-choice means that you support the right to an abortion. If you support the right to an abortion, you are pro-abortion. Therefore, you are pro-abortion. (A implies B; B implies C. Therefore, A implies C. Someone please tell me if I am wrong - it has been years since I studied logic.) There is no way around that. You may not choose an abortion for yourself, but you are saying that others can. Now, let's say that a woman decides that she doesn't want to be a mother and ends the life of her child. Would you support that? I don't think any of us would. To me, that choice is the same as abortion. It's very plain and simple. And should it not be the purpose of law and justice to protect the rights/life of the innocent? Who is more innocent than the unborn?

 

And, to go back to what Soph the Vet posted, how can a presidential candidate logically link Roe vs. Wade to equality? That was just not a logical statement. For, by it's very nature, Roe vs Wade is choosing to make one person more important than another.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Amy in NY
to explain my reasoning

[Doran]

Yes, Lisa. I woke up to find my thread is now about abortion -- not the fact that Obama is now mandatory reading in Wisconsin 8th grade English classes.

 

No complaints, though. Obviously abortion is heavier on everyone's hearts (its on mine).

 

 

It's one person's perspective on what goes on behind the scenes with textbook editing.

 

You didn't really see the humor in LisaNY's post, eh, since you didn't particularly address that your reply to her. I think what I find most difficult about answering your initial post is the negativism that comes across so clearly in your subject line. "Obama-fied"? It could have been humorous. But, I don't get the sense that you're smiling, even a little bit. The woman who is quoted on the blog is most definitely showing her pearly whites; they're bared.

 

But, to answer -- I can understand why Obama's story would be considererd worthy material for a textbook. His nomination by the Democratic party to run for President this year represents a significant milestone for America. It doesn't mean that others haven't made their own contributions to history, only that he is the first black man to be running for President. In light of our country's past, I'm not sure why you or the woman who was quoted on the blog take such strong exception to this. How does one distinguish between indoctrination and a basic retelling of the facts? Because from my perspective, it looks like the latter.

[Laurie4b]

The truth is that the two sides use different words for their positions and the opposing side has a competing set of words. Each side's choice of words casts itself in the better light and the opposition negatively. By and large newspapers,etc. use prochoice (the word with which people on that side of view choose describe themselves) and anti-abortion or anti-choice (the prochoice choice of words for the other point of view.) This certainly slants the issue.

 

I think pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would tell it about the way it is. People who call themselves prochoice are not pro-choice across the board: they do not all believe in school choice, they don't all believe that we should be able to choose whether we want a light bulb that uses more power or one that could cause mercury contamination in our home. They are typically against the right of the father to have a choice. He can't opt out of the abortion of his child, and if his choice is abortion, he can't opt out of the responsibilities of parenting if the woman wants to carry the fetus to term. He will be paying child support. The fetus clearly has no choice. Nor do prochoice people allow their ideological opponents their choice of words to describe themselves. So prochoice isn't any more honest or free of bias than prolife.

 

People in the pro-life movement are indeed anti-abortion .They are not necessarily pro-life on the death penalty or pro-life by being anti-war. The issue to them is not denying or assenting to the woman's rights. It's an issue of unilaterally elevating any right of the woman's over any rights of the fetus, including the most basic right: the right to live. They believe the fetus has rights. Pro-fetal rights would be descriptive and limit the issue to what it is. Pro-fetal rights would encompass measures such as anesthesia for the fetus prior to abortion, even if the abortion was going to happen anyway.

 

So pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would, to my mind, be a fair way of characterizing each position.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Laurie4b

[Amy in NY]

The truth is that the two sides use different words for their positions and the opposing side has a competing set of words. Each side's choice of words casts itself in the better light and the opposition negatively. By and large newspapers,etc. use prochoice (the word with which people on that side of view choose describe themselves) and anti-abortion or anti-choice (the prochoice choice of words for the other point of view.) This certainly slants the issue.

 

I think pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would tell it about the way it is. People who call themselves prochoice are not pro-choice across the board: they do not all believe in school choice, they don't all believe that we should be able to choose whether we want a light bulb that uses more power or one that could cause mercury contamination in our home. They are typically against the right of the father to have a choice. He can't opt out of the abortion of his child, and if his choice is abortion, he can't opt out of the responsibilities of parenting if the woman wants to carry the fetus to term. He will be paying child support. The fetus clearly has no choice. Nor do prochoice people allow their ideological opponents their choice of words to describe themselves. So prochoice isn't any more honest or free of bias than prolife.

 

People in the pro-life movement are indeed anti-abortion .They are not necessarily pro-life on the death penalty or pro-life by being anti-war. The issue to them is not denying or assenting to the woman's rights. It's an issue of unilaterally elevating any right of the woman's over any rights of the fetus, including the most basic right: the right to live. They believe the fetus has rights. Pro-fetal rights would be descriptive and limit the issue to what it is. Pro-fetal rights would encompass measures such as anesthesia for the fetus prior to abortion, even if the abortion was going to happen anyway.

 

So pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would, to my mind, be a fair way of characterizing each position.

 

Isn't pro-choice usually linked to abortion? I have never heard it used in reference to any of the other examples you gave. (This is a serious question - not an attempt to be snarky.)

[LisaNY]

The truth is that the two sides use different words for their positions and the opposing side has a competing set of words. Each side's choice of words casts itself in the better light and the opposition negatively. By and large newspapers,etc. use prochoice (the word with which people on that side of view choose describe themselves) and anti-abortion or anti-choice (the prochoice choice of words for the other point of view.) This certainly slants the issue.

 

I think pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would tell it about the way it is. People who call themselves prochoice are not pro-choice across the board: they do not all believe in school choice, they don't all believe that we should be able to choose whether we want a light bulb that uses more power or one that could cause mercury contamination in our home. They are typically against the right of the father to have a choice. He can't opt out of the abortion of his child, and if his choice is abortion, he can't opt out of the responsibilities of parenting if the woman wants to carry the fetus to term. He will be paying child support. The fetus clearly has no choice. Nor do prochoice people allow their ideological opponents their choice of words to describe themselves. So prochoice isn't any more honest or free of bias than prolife.

 

People in the pro-life movement are indeed anti-abortion .They are not necessarily pro-life on the death penalty or pro-life by being anti-war. The issue to them is not denying or assenting to the woman's rights. It's an issue of unilaterally elevating any right of the woman's over any rights of the fetus, including the most basic right: the right to live. They believe the fetus has rights. Pro-fetal rights would be descriptive and limit the issue to what it is. Pro-fetal rights would encompass measures such as anesthesia for the fetus prior to abortion, even if the abortion was going to happen anyway.

 

So pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would, to my mind, be a fair way of characterizing each position.

 

Great post, Laurie.

[LisaNY]

It's one person's perspective on what goes on behind the scenes with textbook editing.

 

You didn't really see the humor in LisaNY's post, eh, since you didn't particularly address that your reply to her. I think what I find most difficult about answering your initial post is the negativism that comes across so clearly in your subject line. "Obama-fied"? It could have been humorous. But, I don't get the sense that you're smiling, even a little bit. The woman who is quoted on the blog is most definitely showing her pearly whites; they're bared.

 

 

 

ROFLOL! Oh my gosh! I'm hysterical sometimes! Doran, here's another funny for ya - I actually thought that Beth meant to say "Obama-fixed", and it came out "Obama-fied". :lol:

[Soph the vet]

... how can a presidential candidate logically link Roe vs. Wade to equality? That was just not a logical statement. For, by it's very nature, Roe vs Wade is choosing to make one person more important than another.

:iagree:

[Kate in Arabia]

Logically, pro-choice means that you support the right to an abortion. If you support the right to an abortion, you are pro-abortion. Therefore, you are pro-abortion.

 

I'm not really following your logic here. I mean, I am pro free-speech, but I am not pro-everything that is said; I would venture that most here are pro-religious choice in the States, but would not necessarily consider themselves pro-Christian or pro-Athiest or pro-Hindu. If someone is pro-choice vis-a-vis reproduction rights, but that doesn't determine whether he is pro-abortion, or pro-birth control, or pro-quiverfull or pro-adoption.

[Paula in MS]

Getting back on topic. If I were to completely ignore the blog post and just look at the facts, the real question would be this. Is this a high quality piece of literature that should be studied in 8th grade? This was not in a history textbook but in a literature book. I'm guessing it is an exerpt from one of his books. I haven't read it, by the way.

 

I would probably guess that there are other books that have stood the test of time that would be better suited to a literature study. But, like I said, I haven't read it. Has anyone read any of his books? Are they important pieces of literature that should be studied? (I mean, they might be important at this point in time to get to know the candidate, but I'm looking more longer term.)

 

Paula

[Tammyla]

Great post. You have a way with words once again.

 

The truth is that the two sides use different words for their positions and the opposing side has a competing set of words. Each side's choice of words casts itself in the better light and the opposition negatively. By and large newspapers,etc. use prochoice (the word with which people on that side of view choose describe themselves) and anti-abortion or anti-choice (the prochoice choice of words for the other point of view.) This certainly slants the issue.

 

I think pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would tell it about the way it is. People who call themselves prochoice are not pro-choice across the board: they do not all believe in school choice, they don't all believe that we should be able to choose whether we want a light bulb that uses more power or one that could cause mercury contamination in our home. They are typically against the right of the father to have a choice. He can't opt out of the abortion of his child, and if his choice is abortion, he can't opt out of the responsibilities of parenting if the woman wants to carry the fetus to term. He will be paying child support. The fetus clearly has no choice. Nor do prochoice people allow their ideological opponents their choice of words to describe themselves. So prochoice isn't any more honest or free of bias than prolife.

 

People in the pro-life movement are indeed anti-abortion .They are not necessarily pro-life on the death penalty or pro-life by being anti-war. The issue to them is not denying or assenting to the woman's rights. It's an issue of unilaterally elevating any right of the woman's over any rights of the fetus, including the most basic right: the right to live. They believe the fetus has rights. Pro-fetal rights would be descriptive and limit the issue to what it is. Pro-fetal rights would encompass measures such as anesthesia for the fetus prior to abortion, even if the abortion was going to happen anyway.

 

So pro-abortion rights and pro-fetal rights would, to my mind, be a fair way of characterizing each position.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Tammyla

[seanda]

I'm not really following your logic here. I mean, I am pro free-speech, but I am not pro-everything that is said; I would venture that most here are pro-religious choice in the States, but would not necessarily consider themselves pro-Christian or pro-Athiest or pro-Hindu. If someone is pro-choice vis-a-vis reproduction rights, but that doesn't determine whether he is pro-abortion, or pro-birth control, or pro-quiverfull or pro-adoption.

 

But there is a difference here. Pro-choice only deals with one kind of choice... the choice to have an abortion. It supports the woman's right to abort her child. It is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is not about the right to choose one's schools, or the right to choose a particular church, or the right to choose anything else but abortion. Pro-choice doesn't mean anything but the decision of supporting abortion as a valid choice... it is pro-abortion.

 

On the opposite side... I am pro-life but specifically I am anti-abortion. The more offensive term would be if I called those who are pro-choice anti-life or pro-death. But... to many in the anti-abortion movement that is exactly what those who support abortion are... pro-death.

[Beth in SW WA]

 

You didn't really see the humor in LisaNY's post, eh, since you didn't particularly address that your reply to her. I think what I find most difficult about answering your initial post is the negativism that comes across so clearly in your subject line. "Obama-fied"? It could have been humorous. But, I don't get the sense that you're smiling, even a little bit.

NO, not smiling. Its pathetic. Its indoctrination of unsuspecting youth. The liberal agenda is infiltrating our schools to a degree that is frightening.

 

But, to answer -- I can understand why Obama's story would be considererd worthy material for a textbook.

Yes, maybe they could do a compare and contrast of Obama to Robin Hood. They both have this worldview: Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

 

.

[admin]

Please stick to the OP's topic or risk this thread being closed.

[Beth in SW WA]

Thanks, Admin.

 

I really do think this is an important conversation. It has such severe implications, since the Wisconsin school system is now blatantly promoting Obama in tax-funded schools.

[elizabeth]

I am really confused as to why a wiriting by Senator Obama in a textbook is a concern in tax funded schools-there are an abundance of references to many,many political figures in textbooks used by public schools. Please clarify

[seanda]

I am really confused as to why a wiriting by Senator Obama in a textbook is a concern in tax funded schools-there are an abundance of references to many,many political figures in textbooks used by public schools. Please clarify

 

I am concerned for several reasons... the first is that this is a literature class. So, the works studied should be literature. We have traded in the study of classic literature for Obama's writings. Second, this is not a passing reference. My understanding is that this is a large piece... 15 or more pages, if I remember correctly.

 

If this was a political science class, or a study of government, or history, I might understand... although this much seems to be a favoring of a candidate. This is however a literature textbook. Given the wealth of literature worthy of study this seems not only a poor choice but one motivated by political or social agenda.

[dawn of ns]

Has anyone actually seen the textbook in question??

[Georgie]

If this was a political science class, or a study of government, or history, I might understand... although this much seems to be a favoring of a candidate. This is however a literature textbook. Given the wealth of literature worthy of study this seems not only a poor choice but one motivated by political or social agenda.

 

Obama is running for president now and he has written this piece. Maybe they are trying to bring something into the classroom at this time that has something to do with something happening today. Now I suppose if people want to be fair, find a piece that McCain has written and also introduce that.

[Melinda in VT]

Well, I'm an Obama supporter, but I do think it's probably a little soon to include him in literature textbooks.

 

However, I don't think this is an attempt to influence the election. These 8th graders aren't going to vote. In fact, they probably won't even be able to vote in 2012. I suppose it's hypothetically possible that the parents of the kids might read the textbook and then change their vote . . . but I don't think it's likely.

 

As for whether it's an appropriate inclusion, I'd have to see the textbook to decide. It appears from the textbook web site that the Obama section includes his speech at the DNC 2004 convention, and a selection from his book Dreams From My Father.

 

Both political speeches and biography are accepted literature genres that were included in my middle school textbooks. Given Obama's historical significance, I think including an excerpt from his biography is not unreasonable. Likewise, he is generally (but not universally, of course) considered an excellent speechwriter, even among those who disagree with his politics.

 

So it's possible for more details to change my opinion, but based on what I know so far, it doesn't seem outrageous.

[Doran]

NO, not smiling. Its pathetic. Its indoctrination of unsuspecting youth. The liberal agenda is infiltrating our schools to a degree that is frightening.

 

Yes, maybe they could do a compare and contrast of Obama to Robin Hood. They both have this worldview: Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

 

 

Steady, Beth. Steady.

 

pathetic

indoctrination

frightening

Robin Hood

 

 

I have nothing more to add.

 

:willy_nilly:

[Jenny in Atl]

NO, not smiling. Its pathetic. Its indoctrination of unsuspecting youth. The liberal agenda is infiltrating our schools to a degree that is frightening.

 

Replace Obama with Nixon and liberal with conservative and you sound like my mom. :lol: Ah memories of 1972. :D

To everything there is a season. ;)

[Mom to Aly]

All the comments on the blog call Obama a "socialist".

 

Do they send out a "memo" for this stuff???

 

Or is it Rush or Fox News setting up today's talking points?

 

But the attacks are like one big ((((((((((echo-chamber))))))))))

 

No requirement for "truthfulness", just smear, smear, smear.

 

:iagree: As always, Bill, I'm behind you 100%.

 

I also am proud of any textbook that has included Obama--I'm afraid many will not. As the first African American to get the nomination of one of the two largest national parties, he has made a huge mark! And, I don't think anyone can deny, at huge risk to himself and his family! My daughter and I have already spent a good amount of time studying him and his life, as I would hope all school children will, when he is sworn in as our next president :D.

 

As for it being in a literature class, if anyone here who is criticizing him has actually read his book, I think they would have to admit that it is outstanding. Although I really doubt most who are so quick to judge have read anything written by him.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Mom to Aly

[dawn of ns]

Has anyone actually seen the textbook in question??

 

Still wondering this.

[Mom to Aly]

Replace Obama with Nixon and liberal with conservative and you sound like my mom. :lol: Ah memories of 1972. :D

To everything there is a season. ;)

 

:lol:

 

And, to preempt all those who will be asking, yes, I just couldn't resist! ;)

Edited October 16, 2008 by Mom to Aly

[Beth in SW WA]

Steady, Beth. Steady.

 

pathetic

indoctrination

frightening

Robin Hood

 

 

I have nothing more to add.

 

:willy_nilly:

 

Doran,

Are you a "rich" small business owner? If not, you would probably not understand/appreciate my angst. We already drown in red-tape and pay $60K/year for our office paper-pusher to deal w/ govt./taxes/compliance, etc.

 

My husband works more in one week than most work in two. We work hard and I don't want the govt. taking away what is OURS and giving it to people who have not had the privilege and honor of earning it themselves.

 

Will our story be told in any public school text books? Doubt it.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Still wondering this.

 

The OP has a link to the textbook in question.

[Doran]

Doran,

Are you a "rich" small business owner? If not, you would probably not understand/appreciate my angst. We already drown in red-tape and pay $60K/year for our office paper-pusher to deal w/ govt./taxes/compliance, etc.

 

My husband works more in one week than most work in two. We work hard and I don't want the govt. taking away what is OURS and giving it to people who have not had the privilege and honor of earning it themselves.

 

Will our story be told in any public school text books? Doubt it.

 

 

At the risk of seeming terribly off topic, I'll try to address your question. Yes, my husband is a small business owner, but he is not of the income caliber that he pays an "office paper pusher". His is a small corporation of only 4 individuals. He has never been unemployed in our almost 20 years of marriage, has spent the past 15 with the same company where he has been a partner for close to 10 years. Yes again -- my husband works more in one week than most work in two, as has - incidentally - his father, as a small business owner on Long Island (not the same biz) for 30 years. Despite doing so, and alongside my own financial contributions over the years, my husband and I still consider ourselves a low income family. We've had the privilege/honor of working da*n hard for the money we earn, but we still don't see things the way you do. We pay for our own health insurance out of our own pockets to the tune of $350/month (that's a recent decrease from a policy that was costing us $700 monthly). We are not victims of a subprime mortgage because we don't own a home. We get along with very basic necessities and do without so much of what most Americans would consider standard issue. We feel that there are some enormously significant issues threatening our country right now (energy, health care), but higher (or lower) taxes is not a top concern for us. So, no. I probably don't quite understand your angst.

 

Not that any of the above has much to do with whether I think excerpts from some of Obama's writings should appear in a literature text for 8th graders. I don't view their inclusion as a campaign for the merits of being either a Republican or a Democrat. I believe they will describe how one man ran for President in the year 2008. And, I just can't see that as either pathetic or subversive.

[Laura K (NC)]

*sound of crickets chirping*

[dawn of ns]

The OP has a link to the textbook in question.

 

Ah! I clicked that link before but must have done something becasue I didn't see that page. Thank you!

[Laurie4b]

I was reacting to this post: "Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion, but I suspect you already know that. It just doesn't make your point as nicely when you tell it truthfully, though, does it?"

 

I think that abortion is an issue that we really have to be able to discuss in a thoughtful way, where we can genuinely acknowledge the points on both sides. I think there are a lot of challenges on the surface issue of labels, and I don't think that is constructive.

 

It is very common to hear people who call themselves prochoice challenge people who call themselves prolife on the basis that if they were really prolife,they would also oppose the death penalty, the war in Iraq, and be vegetarians. :) It is asserted that they are hypocrites if they are not "prolife across the board" . I'm taking that same "logic" and applying it to the term prochoice. I did it because someone's honesty was challenged because she chose to use the term pro-abortion rather than prochoice. The term prochoice can be challenged on lack of consistency just as well as the term prolife.

 

I think honest words to describe each position without creating red herrings, straw men, etc. would "pro fetal rights" and "pro abortion rights". Using prolife or prochoice does leave one open to challenge for being overly broad and not really being either prolife (though I've known some prolife people who were as prolife across the board as one could think of) or prochoice (few of us are total libertarians.) Let's face it: both labels were chosen more to influence people by using a Pro- word that everyone would tend to favor. Who is not prolife? Who is not prochoice?

 

I think the labels we use and the disputes, arguments and challenges made about the labels and what they imply, don't imply, etc. get in the way of discussing the actual issues.

[Laurie4b]

I think that it's an appropriate selection. Political writing has typically been included in literature anthologies. I can't lay my hands on my Norton's Anthology of American Lit right now, but I am fairly certain it includes selections from the Federalist papers, Thomas Paine's writing, etc. Autobiographical works such as Dreams of My Father are typically included.

 

I saw one article online where some parent had objected because there was not a balancing selection of literature by McCain. Huh? This anthology wasn't published this election cycle. Obama does make good speeches. I think they have a place in a literature anthology--probably won't ever make Norton's, but for middle school? It's appropriate.