Republican state Sen. Alan Hays really really liked the film “America.” So much so that he wants to make viewing the film by conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza required viewing for all students. Hays seems entirely unaware of the inherent conflict in responding to what he views as the dangerous influence of liberal views by seeking the mandatory viewing of conservative views.
Hays reported that “I saw the movie and walked out of the theater and said, ‘Wow, our students need to see this.’ And it’s my plan to show it to my colleagues in the legislature, too, before they’re asked to vote on the bill.” He would make every student, absent parental objections, watch the film in middle and high schools. That would cover 1,700 Florida public high schools and middle schools. For many of us, such a law seems a tab Orwellian.
D’Souza has become a rallying point for conservative due to a federal investigation that was launched while he was marketing the movie. He pleaded guilty in May to a charge that he made improper donations to a Senate candidate in 2012, though he insists that the case was the result of selective prosecution.
In fairness to Hays, he said that he would not object to a pairing of the movie with Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (which is already shown in many classes) or some of Michael Moore’s left-leaning films. However, mandating such films through legislation is a dangerous and destructive path for politicians. These classes should be left to teachers and school administrators — not dictated by the shifting alliances of the legislature. These children are not a captive audience to be tossed about by our increasing rapid political debate. While I have been a long critic of administrators over the application of zero tolerance rules and lack of accountability, this intrusion into the classroom is menacing and ill-considered.
On the slippery slope of politically mandated education, we could see a race to the bottom as liberal and conservative states implement their own agendas of education. The result will be the further reduction of educational standards in the United States and the replication of the same intolerance that we see across the country in our political discourse. I have not see D’Souza’s movie or read his book. However, I am opposed to politicians picking reading or viewership lists for students. Indeed, politicians may be the least suited for such a role. There has to be some limit on the mutually assured destruction of the two parties — some protected zone that can be free of this self-destructive internecine struggle. We should at least be able to tell politicians to keep their hands off the kinder.
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Tried to read Crime and Punishment, Samantha. That was before Prozac. Maybe I should get an RX and try again.
“He was one of the numerous and varied legion of dullards, of half-animated abortions, conceited, half-educated coxcombs, who attach themselves to the idea most in fashion only to vulgarize it and who caricature every cause they serve, however sincerely.”
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
SMH, I sometimes use progressive but since they want to go back to the days of choo trains. Since they hate nuclear energy. Since they hate progress and the ultimate goal is “getting off the grid.” Since the progressive terrorist Ted Kaczynski hated progress and murdered people of science, I just have a hard time w/ progressive. I don’t think liberal is bad. I have some pretty liberal philosophies. I just tire of ideologues on both sides cramming their ideology into every issue. If you think for yourself almost everyone is liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Saucy and I marvel @ many of the folks here. And, although fierce independents, Saucy and I disagree on some issues. There is one person here who taunts us when we disagree or when Paul, Karen, Samantha, and others disagree. Well, when you think for yourself, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. The duopoly doesn’t allow independent thought. That’s why it must be destroyed. Think of how freeing it would be to not be a slave to the duopoly. Unfortunately, too many take comfort in the herd.
definition #2
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/06/26/the-true-meaning-of-liberalism/
Benjamin Franklyn was a wise man. It may be wondered what he would think if he were alive today. For more than a century, we in the US have experienced a gradual dilution of our republican principles, consequently also of our individual freedom and rights, all in the name of “democracy.” This dilution has been so gradual and subtle that it has not always been noticed. Even the term “liberal” has been perverted to mean not the rights of each and every individual citizen, but the supposed rights of one group or another over the rights of individuals. It has been said that human life cannot be weighed by the pound. But Stalin said that while one death was a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic, indicating that from some perspectives human life can indeed be measured collectively. In fact, this is exactly what a pure democracy does. It votes as a collective to treat “the people” (a collective) and not individual citizens. This is what is being done to citizens in the US today. When the government says this or that is best for the majority, especially when the this or that being spoken of is some political expedient, the rights of individual citizens are abrogated.
since every ill in the world is blamed on liberals i think it would be fun for those who love to throw that word around at anyone who doesnt agree with them. to understand its true meaning…
first let me inform you that liberal is a word that tavistock came up with. way back when it was known by another name. and its origins stems from its use to distract what was really happening in po lie tricks. but anyway lets move along because im sure nick and many others will attempt to argue me down about it.
link 1. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/the-true-meaning-of-liberal-leftist-and-conservative/
JUST A LITTLE TAP OF THE TRUE MEANING
If you’re not ‘LIBERAL,’ what are you?
By definition using antonyms, you are: uneducated, unintellectual, closed of heart, selfish, narrow, contracted, mean, small, fascist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, stingy, closed-minded, supportive of monarchies and slavery, against FREEdom of religious expression and speech, low in birth and mind, anti-American.
If you’ve been out bashing ‘liberals’, you’re probably all of these things, as this would perfectly describe someone who would go out ‘liberal bashing’ (FREEdom bashing), which is also known as ‘liberticide’ – the destruction of civil liberties. (Webster’s International Dictionary, 1893)
‘Liber’ (as in liberal), is also the root word of ‘liberty’ (FREEdom from restraint); ‘Libertarian’ (one who holds to FREE will); ‘libertine’ (a FREEd man); ‘liberalism’ (the principles of liberals); ‘liberalist’ (one who is a liberal, or who favors the principles of liberals.); ‘liberalized’ (FREEd from narrow views and prejudices); ‘liberate’ (to make FREE); and several others. Liber is Latin for “FREE.”
MikeA, Cultists from both sides of the spectrum go nuts when you attack their sacred cows. Saint Ronald Reagan is a right cultist hero. The fact that you don’t is because you are not a cultist. You are a free thinker and I believe the Jesuits have something to do w/ that. But, if you don’t think the cultist defend Obama like kamikaze pilots then you’re missing the show.
I am constantly amused by comments suggesting that progressives succumb to apoplectic fits when their “sacred cows” are attacked by the right. I have never suffered that sort of distress. The trick, I believe, is to remind oneself that no one’s cows are sacred.
mespo, The White Knight protecting the honor of the fair damsel. Let me know when your done being chippy and we can discuss Churchill. I have read about 20 books on him including History of the English Speaking People. But, you are sexy when you condescend. Too bad I hit from the other side of the plate.
Nick:
“Samantha, Funny how there are so many liberals who evolve into libertarians, conservatives, moderates. Seldom does it go the other way. “Anyone who is young and conservative, doesn’t have a heart. Anyone who is older and liberal doesn’t have a brain.” Winston Churchill”
*************************
Like so many things, you’re about 5% correct. Churchill is associated -wrongfully– with something like what you said. What Churchill is reputed to have said was ““If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
In reality, he never said it since has no application to his own life. At age 25, Churchill became a member of the Conservative party, his first political affiliation. Before that he was a soldier. He became a member of the liberal party several years later (1904) and remained so for 20 years, well past his 40th birthday. In 1924, he returned to the Conservative party at age 50. So his attributed saying makes no sense in terms of his own life.
The actual author of the phrase was with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges
Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of
want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”
Know your facts before you strike out to try and convince someone of something.
John, Civics is no longer part of the curriculum in any schools of which I’m aware. The education industry wants to keep students barefoot and pregnant vis a vis understanding government and politics. That’s a big reason why the US annually has some of the worst voter turnout in the world.
Besides the fact we need government out of the classroom and unless they have compulsory civics education milestones to achieve in primary and secondary school; then this would not have any lasting effect.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/20/‘it’s-issue-fair-treatment’-d’souza-speaks-out-campaign-finance-violation
Harry Reid’s own campaign violations go ignored. That’s the issue of fair treatment, not whether Dinesh was guilty, but rather why similar wrongdoing is ignored from cronies.
the science is settled.need I say more about critical thinking and open mindness in todays class room
Nick:
“This stupid proposed law originates from frustration.” I agree that this is likely the motivation. If they can’t get Liberal bias out of the classroom, then the next logical step is to simply add Conservative bias.
But I don’t like making kids the subject of political campaigns, and with the overwhelming majority of teachers Democratic, a few Conservative movies wouldn’t change their attitude or indoctrination in the classroom.
The only solution I support is a law that requires teachers to leave their political bias at the door.
rafflaw:
“Nick, you didn’t have a problem with me, you made a false and disgusting accusation and repeated it and I called you on it. Along with Paul and Karen.”
Sorry, what??? I just viewed the blog this moment. Shouldn’t I have to post something before I’m in trouble?
I disagree with legislating content like this for students. I already disagree with the Left-leaning films currently shown to students. Politics don’t belong in the classroom outside of History and Government classes, and even then, there should NEVER be a bias either way.
I see nothing wrong with promoting the film to parents to watch with their kids, however, through commercials, free local viewings, flyers, etc.
I watched Dinesh’s interview with Megyn Kelly a while back, in which he discussed his guilty plea. He said that he made a mistake, and tried to help a friend out with campaign contributions that clearly broke the law. (He explained what he did, but I can’t recall all the details.) He said he was wrong. He also went into how the court system is being used by the administration to target its critics. Many people openly break campaign law in exactly the same way as Dinesh did, which is why he didn’t think it was too big a deal at the time. But he was selectively targeted. There was a discussion about the financially successful computer whiz kid who released federal documents, paid for by taxpayers, that it would not allow taxpayers to see. He committed suicide because he faced a long prison sentence. Very young guy.
I believe that anyone who breaks campaign finance laws should be prosecuted, including Dinesh. But the nature of his crime does not negate his movie, or his opinions. I don’t think it should be treated the same as going 5 mph over the speed limit. We need campaign reform, including preventing Unions from mandating that all of their employees donate, against their will, to Democratic candidates. I would love to take a lot of the money out of politics, so we won’t have a David and Goliath scenario as often.
America: Imagine the World Without Her is definitely worth seeing, but keep in mind it’s a movie that covers a lot of territory in a short time, so it’s interesting, but necessarily simplifies its territory considerably. It acts much more as a catalyst for finding out more about the issues raised than fully explaining them.
My perception is that there were no straw men. Rather, D’Souza let a few on the far left speak for themselves, and he repeated what some on the left have stated about the United States, and then presented his refutations. I do understand that one could see some of it as straw man arguments if one were not familiar with voices of the left for the past 50 years though. (I saw the movie July 10, so do not remember it in detail and maybe I forgot something.)
I will warn everyone that It would be infuriating to those on the left whose sacred cows are targeted, but I think most on the left already know to avoid it, unless they enjoy what I call sport anger.
All that being said, my gut reaction to Florida Sen. Hays’s proposal is “No”!
John (at 5:26) and Samantha (at 7:59) make excellent points. I got to thinking about Dewey, institutionalized patriotism, and dogmas…
Still, D’Souza’s film would be good for older kids to see and discuss in social studies or government classes, maybe even as young as 8th graders. And of course the teachers would be well-equipped to counter what they disagree with!
More to the topic. We have many legislators practicing medicine without a license. Now they want to practice teaching without certification. Considering that most legislators are pretty much owned by one corporation or a dozen, this seems to be just another tactic to prepare tomorrow’s workers for NWO and move more money into corporate pockets along the way.
I’d like all students to read the book and/or see the movie, “Johnny Got His Gun”.
One civics class had an assignment that each student was to work in a political campaign for a congressional or gubernatorial candidate. Candidates or their reps were invited in so that the students would know something about the campaigns. The students got to choose the party/campaign.
Different school, social studies teacher refused to teach anything about political campaigns. His reasoning was that it should be taught at home.
Nick, good idea to add the last line. I’m in stitches.
Samantha, Funny how there are so many liberals who evolve into libertarians, conservatives, moderates. Seldom does it go the other way. “Anyone who is young and conservative, doesn’t have a heart. Anyone who is older and liberal doesn’t have a brain.” Winston Churchill
I’m quoting Churchill and not being uncivil.