high-five!
why r u so dismissive 
I invite all participants of this thread to participate in the related GD thread I’ve just posted.
Of course, in the very next sentence, Lippincott develops what he is saying with this:
but as an award-winning journalist you of course do not need to provide correct, contextually accurate quotes, since your interpretation is the only possibly correct one, even if it did come from a Washington Times article, which also said this:
*“A lot of what’s stated in these lesson plans are lies,” said William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative policy think tank. “None of what is mentioned in these plans are facts. It’s an ultimate sin to now defend Western culture. It does not matter today whether a student learns any facts or any skills. What matters now is the attitude they come away with when they graduate school.
The critics also have trouble with schools teaching about Islam, specifically when teachers describe it as a “peaceful religion.” Instead, they say, schools should warn children that the root of the problem lies in Islamic teaching.
“There is no such thing as peaceful Islam,” Mr. Lind said. “It says that followers should make war on those who believe that Christ is the Messiah.”*
Now * that’s* unbiased reporting.
**
Maybe that is why Lippincott says: *“be careful to ensure students (e.g., Arab-American students,) do not assume blame in order to make classmates feel better.”/i]
**
You are right in that that is an incorrect analogy. You are wrong in your replacement. A correct analogy is: “My Seiko alarm clock did not go off, and so I was late to work. It is a product of Japanese manufacture, and I too am Japanese. Therefore I am unreliable and should be fired.”
**
So when the kids in your class say “Let’s kill Abdul who’s over there cowering in the corner” you suggest saying what?
**
This gets a bit complicated. If the US did not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, then clearly from our POV no governments were involved. This makes it clearer for us- we can say (with full justification) "We helped overthrow the usurpers holding illegitimate power in Tabul.
**
The problem is that december considered the reference to the WWII internment camps as an “analogue” to the 9/11 horror. He is wrong in that. The reference to the internment camps is meant to help us analyse whether or not our response to the horrific attacks carried out by hijackers funded by Osama bin Laden and trained by his Al Quaeda network, with the aid and abetting of the Taliban, in the name of a horrifically, evilly misguided view of the teachings of the Muslim religion, is the correct response, the appropriate response for a people dedicated to the pursuit of justice, of equal protection under the law, and to the freedom of the individual citizen within the boundaries of a government compelled to:
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
I understand that you, december, and even President Bush’s Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, as well as myself, are so horrified by the attacks by Al Quaeda last year that we all need to feel that justice is being done. We must, however, ensure that it is truly justice that is done, and that we as Americans remain true to the principles that have made us the “shining city on the hill” that President Reagan extolled. JDM
The NEA defended itself in a letter from NEA President Bob Chase to the Washington Times.
I may be changing sides in this debate. Bob Somerby has a pretty powerful argument that the Washington Times unfairly criticized the NEA. See http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082602.shtml and also use the link to Sept. 23.
Both the N.E.A. letter and december’s about-face provide good evidence that the OP was on target.
Similar to what its supporters did in this thread, the N.E.A. completely ignored the offending passages on its site in favoring of praising its overall approach. And in responding to criticism by saying “We stand by our belief that the entire Muslim community cannot be held responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda terrorists.”, the N.E.A. is implying that its critics want to blame the entire Muslim community, a false and despicable allegation. Talk about distorting the facts.
And **december[/b[, I know that your ability to distinguish the reliability of news and opinion sources is severely compromised, but you might retain a bit of skepticism about a site that rants that pundits it disagrees with were “bought off”. And to try to explain away objectionable N.E.A. site material on the grounds that it had some difficulty finding it is laughably lame.
argumentum ad hominem, Jack? If december says it, it must be wrong?
Nice.
Ad hominem? In the Pit? Heavens to Betsy. Sorry to be diminishing the tone you’ve so nicely set.
Still ignoring all evidence that conflicts with your diatribes?
Swell.
Happen to notice a glaring omission in the N.E.A. letter to which you linked? I was looking for something like this:
“The Washington Times completely misunderstood the suggestions on our site. Of course we welcome class discussion of all facets of 9/11, including the culpability of Osama bin Laden and al Queda.”
But it’s not there. Instead, we have an insinuation that N.E.A. critics think it’s wrong to condemn discrimination against Arab-Americans. I’ll refresh your memory as to the key phrase in the N.E.A. press release: " We stand by our belief that the entire Muslim community cannot be held responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda terrorists." (as if the Washington Times or any other N.E.A. critic is holding the “entire Muslim community” responsible).
Care to repudiate this tactic (which you’ve also stooped to in your GD post)? It’s quite decemberesque, in keeping with your new ally.
That’s not a bad general guideline.
Jack, in short, your characterization of “key phrase” is idiotic. Try again.
Only a cretin would need to NEA to categorically state what’s already obvious from their website.
Dumbass.
Hey, gobear, how about cutting me some slack? Now I’m being criticized for taking a liberal position. Bob Somerby is Al Gore’s ex-college roommate.
Let me know when you get out of fourth grade, xeno, and further conversation can be possible.
No comment.
I’d make the argument that when december takes the position of the liberals on the forum, then the liberals have argued their case really well.
::d&r::
To be serious for a second, I really think december gets picked on too much in the pit (do I sound like a fourth grade-teacher now?). It’s fine to point out when he gets too partisan, but december-bashing in completely unrelated threads is just mean.
OK, Ms. Dryga_Yes we’ll be good. Sorry.
(Waits till she turns her back, then sneaks in one more wedgie on December, who has never yet made it to the lunch room with his milk money.)
I don’t really see how Milo and company can possibly be supporting their position for any other reason than just shits and giggles, or perhaps because they just can’t admit that their initial uninformed reaction was wrong.
I’m no fan of the NEA or even of the IDEA of groups like the NEA. But this particular issue is just maddeningly ridiculous.
Yes, the Times article is being extremely dishonest in its characterization of the NEA. How can anyone possibly argue to the contrary when faced with the evidence? The idea that the NEA, or even that one article itself, is saying anything about not talking about Al Queda and Osama is just beyond ridiculous.
Read the first non-bolded sentance, for goodness sakes! Read the sentance in the supposedly offensive paragraph that says: “Address the issue of blame factually. Explore who and what may be to blame for this event.” That ANYONE could claim that this article is asking teachers to avoid the subject of who carried out the terrorist attacks is beyond what I can reasonably believe is a honest mistake. This paragraph says: explore who is to blame, but don’t scapegoat Muslims. If that wasn’t clear enough, it goes on to say: “Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. However, explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership.” Now, I don’t know what other sorts of situations there are where someone is NOT at fault, but how can any honest person read through this paragraph and conclude that the author is saying “don’t blame anyone, no one should be held to be at fault.”
The worst this author is guilty of is in assuming that teachers know who factually is to blame, and that, like every American not living in a cave for the last year (and perhaps Americans who DO live in caves would be even more likely to know) we know that Osama And Al Queda did it (fact).
But that doesn’t even begin to cover the nonsense of generalizing about this article to invent a purported position for the NEA on squelching discussion of who is to blame. Their site is filled with references to “the terrorists” “Al Queda” “war in Afghanistan” all of it perfcetly laudatory of the American mission. Claiming that simply because this one minor article (dwarfed by all the other resources) doesn’t take Al Queda as its main focus, that the NEA is avoidig the subject, is insane. It’s like searching the Straight Dope for a staff report on what matter toothpaste is, and then accusing the Straight Dope of shying away from religious questions, simply because this one article doesn’t go into the religious implications of toothbrushing. Except that’s not even a fair analougy, because the article in question DOES contain, all over, language that shows that it takes blaming the terrorists as a GIVEN.
—Now I’m being criticized for taking a liberal position. Bob Somerby is Al Gore’s ex-college roommate.—
This isn’t a “liberal” position. One can well hate the NEA and their positions, and yet not think that every possible slander against them is justified. This one is clearly not: it’s a lame attempt to try and cough up a conspiracy via extremely gross misrepresentation. Principled conservatives care just as much about fairness and honesty as principled liberals do, even when it means passing up an opportunity to bash. It’s short-sighted, and demeans debate.
I might even agree with you in principle, Apos. However, in practice, the ultra-conservative Washington Times attacked the liberal NEA. The Times’s attack was echoed by just about every leading conservative pundit from Rush Limbaugh on down. The NEA has been defended by a number of liberal pundits, including the one I cited.
What backlash?
I searched the net and could only come up with secondary sources claiming there was backlash. I am not saying there was none. I’m sure there were some cases, as this is a big country. But, a similar search for cases after 9/11 does produce concrete examples. On the other hand, finding articles on the unity of oppositon to any backlash after 9/11 was simplicity itself. I could cite 10 more without going four pages into my search.
In 1991-2 the internet was not the big thing it is now, but there should be something. Even the sources claiming the Gulf War backlash conceded that the 9/11 backlash was worse. Still, the number of serious cases was not even in the hundreds after 9/11, according to the sources I found. For a country of over 280,000,000 citizens this is pretty good, IMO. By “good,” of course, I mean statistically. Zero would be better, but c’mon.
To say, “obviously” the Gulf War backlash anything seems a little disingenuous and overly inculpating to U.S. children and their nation.
In summary, my whole criticism comes down to making a constitutional or sensational crisis out of what appears to be a very small backlash. If the children are not capable of avoiding overgeneralization against Arab-Americans then what do we conclude about confusing historical criticism of the U.S.? Apparently a different standard is applied. Irrational or excessive anti-Americanism is a risk we can take?
I just saw RT’s attempt to demonstrate the subtleties to gobear…interesting how we both went for something sex-related. Hmm.