Tuesday, April 29, 2008

textbook is from 1952

I stumbled across this on the Rush Limbaugh website:

An Optimistic Homeschool Mom

RUSH: This is Cecilia in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you so much for taking my call.

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: I want to tell you, I am living proof that your optimism for this country is not a false optimism. I homeschool three children, and my history textbooks were published in 1952. And I have to tell you, these are very popular. In the Catholic homeschooling community specifically, they foster an appreciation for the truth and the past. I say, based on the pope's speech in Washington, you'd swear that he read them, and I want to encourage your friends who get down on it sometimes. This is a movement that's going on in the United States, and it's big.

RUSH: I know it is.

CALLER: I'm sorry.

RUSH: I know it is. You know, Pope Benedict XVI loves America.


RUSH: This is his first trip here. He loves America. You could tell he knows more about the founding and the history of this country than a lot of Americans know. You could hear it throughout his remarks that he made throughout his visit. But your textbook is from 1952?


RUSH: It leads me to conclude something. I was talking about this with Snerdley here at the top of the busy broadcast hour. Before I tell you the final version of the story, I have a story here from Reuters: "Young Pennsylvania Voters Drawn to Obama -- 'Initially I thought I was really going to support Hillary, but I slowly changed because she's just so divisive, and I don't like her tactics,' said a senior at Duquesne University," Alexandra Nseir. She's 23. "Just by electing Obama, I think America's image will improve." Now, this woman is in college. She's a senior. My guess is, she has no interest in history because of the way it's been taught. It's probably been taught as mundane and boring. It's probably been taught as a political science class.

CALLER: I tell you, I have further evidence of the person's reasoning abilities that it gives my children. I brought my 12-year-old son to look at the Drudge Report headlines about Hillary Clinton's internal poll numbers, and I said "Son, what does this tell you?" And his response was, Operation Chaos is working.

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: I kid you not! I had to call you and tell you.

RUSH: (laughing) And so --

CALLER: There is hope for the country.

RUSH: There is hope for the country!

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: If an 11 year old understands that --


RUSH: -- or 12 year old --

CALLER: All my children love you.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that.

CALLER: In fact, last night at dinner, I said, "If you could have dinner with three people, who would it be? And they said the pope, the president, and Rush Limbaugh."





RUSH: No, no, no.

CALLER: I'm not making that up.

RUSH: Well...

CALLER: Does that make your day, or what?

RUSH: Of course it does. That's humbling.

CALLER: Well, you make our day every day. Thank you so much.

RUSH: Thank you Cecilia, I appreciate it.

I also found the college student's comment a little frightening. Voter awareness is at an all time low. I can respect legitimate differences in opinion, but I have complete disdain for voters who are swayed by sound bites on commercials or celebrity endorsements.

Technorati tags: homeschooling, homeschool, home school, home education, parenting, children, education


Faces In The Water said...

You're bothered by the college student's comment and not by Rush Limbaugh's? Nothing in her quote said anything being swayed by celebrity endorsements or sound bites on commercials. Where are you getting that from? She said she had been leaning towards Hillary until Hillary started becoming divisive. I have watched full length speeches by all the candidates, read through all their websites, and press releases and I agree that Hillary has become divisive. (I know that I have no life plus I'm ardent Independent so I research extensively before I make a choice even my husband agrees I get obsessive about it)

So please tell me you're going on more than a quote from an article that was turned into a sound bite on a talk radio show.

Janine Cate said...

>Nothing in her quote said anything being swayed by celebrity endorsements or sound bites on commercials.

That was a passing reference to Oprah's endorsement of Obama.

What I found scary about the college student's comment was that is was based on such superficial things like personality and "image." There was no mention of policy or philosophy of good government.

I would have been impressed if she had said something like "I'm going to vote for Obama because of his strategy to reduce the national debt and to prepare for coming crisis with social security" or "I'm going to vote for Hillary because I support her plan to protect America from terrorist activity."

Instead she mentioned nothing of consequence, just fluff and nonsense. Of course, she couldn't have commented on any candidate's strategy to reduce the Federal deficit or terrorist activity because none of the candidates has mentioned anything of consequence. And if the candidates had actually talked about something of consequences, chances are she and voters like her would not have understood a word they said.

Just call me cynical.

Anonymous said...

Are you not astonished that a 12 year old would say that the three people he wants to have dinner with would be the pope, the president and Rush Limbaugh? Is this family living on some Republican whacko commune. The Christian brainwashing of little kids is bad enough, but my gosh, let the kid grow up a kid before we indoctrinate them with Rush bigotry.

Janine Cate said...

>The Christian brainwashing of little kids is bad enough, but my gosh, let the kid grow up a kid before we indoctrinate them with Rush bigotry.

I have a question. Would you call it brainwashing and bigotry if you agreed with their point of view?

I don't necessarily agree with this family's religious or political views, but I have no problem with the way they teach their children or the fact that their child wants to meet the president, the pope and Rush.

I've found the many so called open minded people are extremely intolerant and bigoted when it came to any point of view that is different from their own.

So, if the family that called into Rush had defended the Democrat party and exposed atheist beliefs, would you have used the terms "brainwashing" and "bigotry" or do those terms only apply to Republican Christians?

Faces In The Water said...

Where are you seeing that she based her choice on personality or some one's endorsement? The first comment was on Clinton being divisive, to which I can attest, can really make someone reevaluate whether the person their planning to vote for is the right one. Someone being as divisive and hostile as Clinton is unlikely to being willing to work with people who do not share her view to get good legislation past. They would also be unlikely to listen to views outside what her yes-men say which can lead really poor decision making.

As to the image part I think her comment has some merit. We need to function in the rest of the world for trade and military agreements and the like and at this point most of the world doesn't like us (at the very least). This makes working together on goals to improve our country extremely difficult. We need to try and show the world that we are not just going to toss our end of agreements out the window when it suits us so that when we make agreements other countries won't then follow suit and break those agreements with us.

There was no more of what she said in Rush's quote which makes it impossible to really get an idea beyond those two things as why she chose Obama over Clinton and McCain. I certainly didn't see anything there that said an endorsement swayed her, though as with Clinton being divisive an endorsement by someone your respect can inspire you to take a closer look at them. Without getting the full interview or at least the article (which will inevitably be slanted because, in my opinion that's the way all journalists work no matter whose side they slant to. You just can't turn off your beliefs you can only try and minimize their impact on your piece and well the mainstream media sells more from slanted work than work that does it's best to remain impartial /rant) we can't really get an idea behind her full reasons. I know my opinion is based on reading and listening to all sorts of things but I have no way knowing how she chose Obama over anyone else because there are no solid references to be able to determine accurately why she chose that way.

If there is more showing that you're correct and she is basing her choose on superficial things than yeah it's very scary and sadly too many people make their choose that way. It's even worse when people base their choice on lies and misinformation without going and find out the details (for example the distortion of McCain's statement of "100 years in Iraq" and the continued belief by people that Obama is a Muslim. Honestly Clinton does enough lying that trying to find out if her words are twisted or she's twisting them herself has become an exercise in futility- sorry that was my outside voice).

Regarding the candidates not giving plans on reducing the deficit I've not heard anything from any of them that really gives a solid plan and I share your frustrations on that. Which is aggravated by the fact that I support some of high spending plans they want to put into place because of how badly I need them myself. I've instead made my choice by looking at the plan that I feel will provide me with what I need to be able to return to the workforce and thus contribute to the overall economy as well as improve the national economy over the long haul.

I've seen all three candidates put forth ideas on how they would reduce terrorism. The very simplistic way of breaking them down is as follows: Obama is looking to use primarily friendly diplomatic efforts and keep force use down to areas where we've had constant problems, like Pakistan; Clinton says she'll use a more heavy handed diplomatic approach that relies more on force of will than agreement; McCain's plan is work with our allies and use a primarily military force with those that are seen as hostile. I'll admit these are not 100% accurate but they are the impression that I've gotten without having to dig up resources right now as to how I got those impressions it's the best I can do.

The candidates do occasionally talk about things of consequence in depth. McCain did this in a debate back in January regarding Iraq and it got reduced to a sound bite by the other candidates and the media. Obama has his detailed plans on things on consequence laid out on his website if you go the bottom each topic there is usually a pdf with what most people might see as mind numbing details. I haven't seen Clinton giving this sort of detail anywhere but I'm willing to follow any leads someone provides. Most people don't have or want to take the time to go over such information so they rely talk shows, news programs, and articles they read to provide them with what they think is enough.

To Kammueller-

Your comment shows a level of ignorance and intolerance that is ridiculous. You have little room to talk about bigotry with statement like "Christian brainwashing". Please learn to think before you speak. Thanks for playing though.

Janine Cate said...

>Honestly Clinton does enough lying that trying to find out if her words are twisted or she's twisting them herself has become an exercise in futility- sorry that was my outside voice).

I totally agree.

I not thrilled with any of the front runners in either party. I feel like this election will be a choice between bad and really bad. It feels like the candidates are campaigning to be head chearleader, not a leader of a country.