Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Teacher Suspended for anti Bush comments

Education Teacher Suspended Students Demonstrate Bush Criticism

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 09:37 AM

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11648765/

Ok, be warned, this story has annoyed me so I'm about to rant. Some might not like my comments.

Quote

AURORA, Colo. - About 150 high school students walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on leave while they investigate remarks he made about President Bush in class, including that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Good for them. It's good to see students standing upto an idiotic school administration.

This was a social studies class, and the teacher was talking about Bush's State of the Union speech.

Quote

“After listening to the tape, it’s evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view,” she said.

Yep, heaven forbid if you actually discuss world events in a social studies class.

On MSNBC tv they reported that the student who recorded it hasn't returned to school...they said he was surprised to see such a reaction in support of the teacher. Sorry kid, looks like the others don't support YOUR beliefs. He probably complained because he was failing that class...just a guess on my part.

On MSNBC tv they played a portion of the tape...and there wasn't anything really wrong with in, except that it criticized Bush. The teacher pointed out how Bush and Hitler were using similar tones. Both felt that GOD was behind them in their cause. Both felt that they should go out and make the rest of the world just like their country, ect. The teacher even said ON the tape that Bush and Hitler were not the same, just that they used the same tones.

Last I heard this teacher hasn't, yet, filed a lawsuit...But by GOD he really should. He really really should, IMO.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#2 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 02:38 PM

The class was Accelerated World Geography, and Jay Bennish was conducting it like an indoctrination course in advanced anti-Americanism. His tirade was also sickeningly sympathetic to al Queda, and terrorism in general. Being critical of Bush isn't really what was at issue.(although he attributed things to him that weren't said in the SOTU address) If you're using a public school classroom to aggressively propagandize to the next generation of radical leftists, then I believe a dismissal is in order.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#3 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 02:44 PM

View Postscherzo, on Mar 5 2006, 09:38 PM, said:

If you're using a public school classroom to aggressively propagandize to the next generation of radical leftists, then I believe a dismissal is in order.

All modern education is propaganda to some extent or another.

Question, does anyone believe this teacher would have been suspended for teaching the Bush was the absolute best thing to ever happen, all his decisions are right and accurate, and one should never question him?

Edited by Godeskian, 05 March 2006 - 02:44 PM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#4 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 03:36 PM

More here:

http://www.rockymoun...4508688,00.html

As much as I detest Bush, I think the school district has a point if Bennish wasn't presenting both sides. From the bit that's available, it doesn't appear that way.

Quote

Gode: Question, does anyone believe this teacher would have been suspended for teaching the Bush was the absolute best thing to ever happen, all his decisions are right and accurate, and one should never question him?

Good question--and I surely hope so.

Teachers using the classroom as their own private pulpit is a pet peeve of mine--even if I agree with them. I believe strongly that we're to teach students not what to think, but how to think.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#5 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:16 PM

Well, I have not heard the tape and I have little interest in researching it (tired and wanna go bed is why).

But if the topic was out of sorts with the lesson, if he was needlessly agressive in his approach and if he really was 'preachin'  then he should be discaplined. As Spectacles said, teach how to think not what to think. There is no call for a teacher to enter into political debate himself. By all means allow the class to, if appropriate, but overt political opinions have no place in education. I have been taught politics for two years by rabid lefties and it has not been a productive or pleasant two years. Keep it neutral and keep debate open. That said, if all he did was point out factual similarities and did not actualy infer that Bush was like Hitler in his attitudes and actions, then that is just that - pointing out similarities. It does not have to express an opinion.
Posted Image

#6 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 08:08 PM

I think he was trying to get these kids to really think about what's going on around them.

What I got was that 1) America is naive to assume that because we force democracy on a country that guarantees that the country will become non-violent (well hell, we've disproved that already in Iraq). He also said that we have more WMD's than anyone else on earth, which is true.

2) The Bush vs. Hitler comment was also made by my 79-year-old mother, who sees in Bush's unwavering belief that God is on his side some of the same surety she saw in Hitler as a young woman.

3) He didn't say he was sympathetic to Al-Quaida, he said that the people who caused 9/11 see us as warmongers with blood on our hands, which is a simple statement of fact.

Actually, he sounds a lot like a teacher I had in high school, who caused me to think more outside the box - to actually look at and question my beliefs, than anyone else. He drove my parents nuts, but we all adored him because he caused us to think and question and argue and back up our stance with facts.

And I think we all know that he wouldn't have been suspended for saying Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Edited by Rhea, 05 March 2006 - 08:10 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#7 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 09:36 PM

Quote

I think he was trying to get these kids to really think about what's going on around them.
He wants them to think as he does. If the kids wanna really "think" about what's going on around them, I'd put recognizing when they're being run through a daily propaganda mill, near the top of the list. This guy is off the charts radical, and he's the ringleader of little more than a recruitment program on the taxpayer dime.    

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#8 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 09:56 PM

Quote

He wants them to think as he does. If the kids wanna really "think" about what's going on around them, I'd put recognizing when they're being run through a daily propaganda mill, near the top of the list. This guy is off the charts radical, and he's the ringleader of little more than a recruitment program on the taxpayer dime.

Was anything that teacher said a lie? From what Rhea posted, I'd say no. The Hitler comment probably was the straw that broke the camels back. I'd not have made that comparison aloud but I've thought it and I've heard others say it.

If the kiddies want a good look at the proganda mill, the last 5 years are textbook in that regard. Apparently though, the spin has spun out for this administration.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 10:11 PM

Quote

Was anything that teacher said a lie? From what Rhea posted, I'd say no.
If you're relying on Rhea's post, maybe you're not in the best position to come to a conclusion one way or the other.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#10 Psyche

Psyche
  • Islander
  • 13,556 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 10:46 AM

I have to say I'm with scherzo on this one.

I think the teacher was out of line. He is entitled to his opinion and to not like Bush. But he is the president and its not doing good things for your country if the kids are being taught in school that their country is being run by someone like Hitler. Whether its true or not. They should be taught how to make their own decisions about things like this.

A better approach, I think, would be for them to listen to the State of the Union address and then be assigned a paper about what they think about it, or to discuss it in class without the teacher giving his input, at least at first. That may have been what happened, I don't know. But it sounds like his dismissal was fair.

#11 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 10:55 AM

Quote

If you're relying on Rhea's post, maybe you're not in the best position to come to a conclusion one way or the other.

Okay, fair enough. I just looked at the link and I stand by what I said. Granted that link doesn't provide alot of info. From what I gather a kid didn't like what was being said about Bush so he recorded about 20 minutes of a class. Now does that 20 minutes tell us enough to determine that this teacher wasn't giving both sides or does it display a recording of what this kid didn't like and chose to tape?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,620 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:04 AM

Oh-Kay ...

Aside from the teacher's statements echoing my own sentiments, I have to ask, why didn't the student provide the opposing view?  And what is the opposing view?

In my own Government and Foreign Affairs classes in HS, the teachers encouraged debate, and as long as it wasn't in the form of "That's a dag-blamed lie, you lying liar!" but a reasoned counter-point, it would be welcomed.  After all, in my day it was all right to raise one's hand and ask questions ...

It seems to me that the kid was just determined to cause trouble for a teacher he didn't like than actually attempt to learn anything.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#13 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:41 AM

A teacher spouting stuff like that was not going to allow dissention.

And it wasn't just anti-bush stuff he was saying; it was anti-American, like for example that the USA has invaded every other country on the planet to try to force them to act like us... which is not only anti-American but also a lie. He should be in trouble just for teaching false "facts", nevermind the rantingness or off-topicness of it.

And for whoever asked about "if it had been on the other side"... funny how whenever teachers and professors try to indoctrinate their students by forcing them to sit through rants like this, it's always from the same side...

#14 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,620 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 12:08 PM

^^^ But was the teacher spouting stuff in a diatribe?  Or was he asking his students to think?  And since when is asking questions, or coming up with a counter-point dissension?  It seems to me that the dissenting voice in that community was the teacher's and look how effectively they managed to silence him for his heresy.

In asking the students to consider what they see in the newspapers, hear in the media, and compare it with historical models, is a justifiable teaching method; because "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."  

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#15 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 09:00 PM

Here's a transcript of what's apparently on the tape.  I can't vouch for how accurate it is, particularly given that it's from Michelle Malkin's site.  I would assume that the idiosyncratic spellings, punctuations (LOTS of ?!'s in this thing) and such are either hers or her flunky's, as well as the identification of one student as "brainwashed."  

Now, it's fairly easy to see why rabid right-wingers such as Malkin would get a bit dyspeptic about this lecture.  It disses their Dear Leader in no uncertain terms.  What they're not telling you is that it's a perfectly equal-opportunity "rant," since it also scours the Kennedys and Bill Clinton in terms just as harsh.  (See bolded passages.)  In fact, had Mr. Bennish not come down on Boy George so hard, I suspect that the same people who are frothing at the mouth and screaming for his head would be singing his praises.  

Given the quality of his questions and his responses, by the way, I suspect that young Master Allen was doing none too well in the course.  He's now provided himself with an excuse not to return.
.  

Quote

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.
I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

1215

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill innocent people?

Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.

Allen: But what gain do we get from killing innocent people in the Middle East? What gain does that pose to us?

Bennish: Let me ask you this. During the 1980s, Iran and Iraq were involved in an 8-year-long war. The United States sold missiles, tanks, guns, planes, to which side?

Unidentified student: Iraq?

Bennish: Both. The answer is both. Why would we send armaments to two sides that are fighting each other. That seems to be self-defeating. Don't we want one side to win? Not always! Sometimes you just want there to be conflict!

The British -- this is one of the grand strategies of the British imperial system--was to play local animosities off each other. To prevent them is to divide and conquer.

Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political and cultural body?

No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.

We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA. People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?

Listen, between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States through the CIA conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small island nation of Cuba. Over 7,000 terrorist attacks were waged against just one little country called Cuba in a two year period, intentionally, let me rephrase that, intentionally blowing up medical supplies, intentionally burning down crops that feed their country, thereby creating starvation, right? Intentionally trying to make that system collapse. And we're willing to expend however many thousands of people died because we just want to get rid of Castro. And the sad reality is that there are some policy planners who are willing to let people die in order to achieve their objectives.
1506

Now, do I think President Bush says 'I'd like to go kill some innocent Palestianians?' I don't think he thinks like that. But I also know that he's not the only one making decisions. I also know that after September 11, President Bush got on TV and he said, 'You will feel our wrath. You will feel the full force of the United States military. There will be paybacks.' He said it again last night. He said, 'We've killed a lot of top-ranking al Qaeda members. And for those who aren't killed yet, you're day will come!' Right? That kind of language to me is very obvious.

1547

And when you go trying to kill one particular type of person, you know that you're gonna kill other people, too. And let me ask you this...

Allen: Later in that, he stated that he's [Osama bin Laden] trying to kill innocents...

Bennish: I understand that, but hold on, you have to understand something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy.

1625

The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned!

We portray them as innocent because they're our friends and neighbors, family, loved ones. One of my best friends from high school, elementary school, and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. You know, he was right there, he was four blocks away from it. So, anytime it comes close to home, you begin to see things differently.

1711

In no way am I implying, I don't know, you got to figure this stuff out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things--you know, think about this right here. [Apparently pointing to American flag.] Here's the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since 1492! Ok. I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon varying people's perspectives
varying. And of course, we're going to see ourselves as being in the right , at least the majority of us, because that's us.

Allen: But we were the ones that were attacked first. On September 11, 2001,
we were the ones that were attacked. We were not attacking anybody until that point. Then we said ok, we're going into Afghanistan. Then we said ok, the Iraqi government has ties with al Qaeda. We're going to go into Iraq. We were the ones that were attacked.

Bennish: In actuality, if you remember back to my first day, the Sept. 11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to our 1) support of the nation of Israel, which they consider to be a terrorist regime that does not have the right to control the land that the Palestinians lived on for over 1,500 years, and they also did it because of what George Clinton did--Bill Clinton, not George Clinton, they had a little documentary on him on PBS last night I was watching--Bill Clinton, when he launched the missile attacks into Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or anything. In fact, in sudan, he blew up the country's largest pharmaceutical plant, which was producing medicines, alright, um, you know, that's as far as, in their eyes, that was retaliation for those attacks.

And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible, you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the Palestinians. You know.

Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt. They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how they killed all their neighbors
and took over the land.

2002

Alright, and so this becomes very, very muddled. And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface. And I'm glad you asked all your questions, because they're very good, legitimate questions. And hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about some of those things, too.

END

Transcript of tape

I've reproduced this in its entirety, since it's not copyrighted.
Posted Image

#16 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:08 AM

Quote

Here's a transcript of what's apparently on the tape. I can't vouch for how accurate it is, particularly given that it's from Michelle Malkin's site. I would assume that the idiosyncratic spellings, punctuations (LOTS of ?!'s in this thing) and such are either hers or her flunky's, as well as the identification of one student as "brainwashed."
Seems a little nasty to get on Michelle Malkin's case when her blog proved to be the first place you could successfully track down the desired information on your new hero. I know a kudos would be completely out of the question, but trashing the source of this transcript seems like bad form coming from the person piggy backing the actual work.

Quote

Now, it's fairly easy to see why rabid right-wingers such as Malkin would get a bit dyspeptic about this lecture. It disses their Dear Leader in no uncertain terms. What they're not telling you is that it's a perfectly equal-opportunity "rant," since it also scours the Kennedys and Bill Clinton in terms just as harsh. (See bolded passages.)
You're contradicting yourself. If "rabid right wingers" like Michelle(and if she's rabid, she sure wears it well) are annoyed at this nerd's tirade, your own observation should tell you it has very little to do with Bush. All right wingers have a natural(and admirable)hostility for America haters. Particularly the snotty elitist type. The left have come to associate this instinct with an all consuming love of Bush, but only demonstrate their own twisted obsession in the process. Listen to Malkin talk about the UAe port controversy, then tell me she consider's Bush her "Dear Leader".

Quote

In fact, had Mr. Bennish not come down on Boy George so hard, I suspect that the same people who are frothing at the mouth and screaming for his head would be singing his praises.
You suspect wrong.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#17 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:51 AM

View PostG-man, on Mar 6 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

^^^ But was the teacher spouting stuff in a diatribe?  Or was he asking his students to think?  And since when is asking questions, or coming up with a counter-point dissension?  It seems to me that the dissenting voice in that community was the teacher's and look how effectively they managed to silence him for his heresy.

In asking the students to consider what they see in the newspapers, hear in the media, and compare it with historical models, is a justifiable teaching method; because "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."  

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

And how does his political feelings have anything to do with his not teaching geography? This is a guy who has a class of students who were not being taught what he was suppose to be teaching but getting a class filled with his political views.

Once again what would the feeling be if he had gone on how the jews and other minoroites deserved to be killed in the camps by the Nazi. Would the left be cool with the guy giving his political views in that case.

I somehow suspect that if that were the case the folks defending this guy would be falling all over themselves to demonize him. I guess we will see people try to use anything to attack Bush and will go out of their ways to excuse anything as long as it has uses.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#18 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:37 AM

It's an interesting ramble, but I have a problem with it purely from a pedogogical standpoint. He does a good job of treating differing views implied in student questions with respect. And he makes it clear that students are free to disagree with him.

The problem is that he's climbed up on his own soapbox and gotten carried away. When teachers do this, when they're perceived as the expert, then students are invited to absorb the teachers' perspectives.

Let's imagine that this teacher had said as many words defending the neoconservative position on American empiricism. Would his "I don't think I'm really taking a position" disclaimer be sufficient? Would his respectful reception of one student's disagreement? Or would those of us who view that position with skepticism be concerned that he had crossed the line from teaching to indoctrination?

And his aim seems to be to teach the concept of ethnocentrism--one of the definitions, I presume, that he had them copy down. While they copied, his personal ruminations commenced. A better way to get the students themselves to work with the concept of ethnocentrism (and to keep his butt outta the fire) would be to assign students to explore some conflicts, like the Israeli-Palestinian one or the Western-Al Qaeda one or the cowboy-Indian one, from both sides through the lens of ethnocentrism. That way, he's not injecting his own views into the discussion--and students are exploring all the factors involved in conflict.

I'm not for stringing this guy up. I think he's bright and has the makings of being a good teacher. I do think he needs some mentoring. He's making a "young teacher" mistake of getting seduced by the soapbox naturally provided us in front of every classroom. It's something we all have to beware of--not just because it can land us in hot water when we wade into controversial subjects, but because when we do this, our students are, for the most part, passive. Those who are less knowledgeable will not have the background or context necessary to critique the perspective that the teacher dispenses.  And that's not good.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#19 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:47 AM

I agree with Specs on the pedagogical aspects of Bennish's lecture.  The only point I'd take issue with is the students' passivity, since a hundred plus kids who were not even in this class took sufficient initiative to walk out of school in protest of his suspension.  Whether or not one sympathizes with their action, it does show they're very much engaged.  

Ah, scherzo.  Where to begin?

For starters, here's Ms. Michelle "Arbeit macht frei" Malkin "bearing her rabies well" while suggesting that John Kerry inflicted his own wounds in Vietnam:

Quote

From the August 19 edition of Hardball:

WILLIE BROWN [Former mayor of San Francisco]: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There's no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I'm asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I'm saying some of these soldiers...

MATTHEWS: And I'm asking question.

MALKIN: And I'm answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: You're saying there are -- he shot himself on purpose, that's a criminal act?

MALKIN: I'm saying that I've read the book and some of the...

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds -- in February, 1969.

MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN: I'm saying that's what some of these...

MATTHEWS: Give me a name.

MALKIN: Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis.

MATTHEWS: They said -- Patrick Runyon...

MALKIN: These people have...

MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?

MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS: That's cast a lot of doubt. That's complete nonsense.

MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right now, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purple heart.

MALKIN: I'm not sure. I'm saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I'm talking about what's in the book.

MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there -- is there a direct accusation in any book you've ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven't heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask -- have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don't you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don't. It's never occurred to me.


Even Tweety thinks she's nuts

Quote

All right wingers have a natural(and admirable)hostility for America haters.


:howling: :howling: :howling:  :howling:

Gotcha.  It's just the Constitution and the American people the radical righties  can't stand.  

Quote

Particularly the snotty elitist type.

I don't know whether this calls for laughter or pity, frankly.  It seems a bit--dissociated, perhaps--for right-wing gazzillionaires to be calling ordinary working stiffs "elitists."  It's even more bizarre for other, presumably ordinary, working stiffs to take up the meme and repeat it as their creed.  Whatever.

Quote

You suspect wrong.


I seriously doubt it.  After all, we're talking about the folk who rail about Hillary Clinton's alleged lesbianism while claiming that she murdered Vince Foster because he was her lover.
Posted Image

#20 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:43 AM

Wow... I wish I'd known you could do this, because I had a few professors who used to bash Clinton like you wouldn't believe.   But, that's probably legal in Mississippi.  If you don't like Bush, however, the College Republicans will set your house on fire. (Yes, this did happen, and yes, they got away with it).  

That teacher was definitely waaaaaay leftie, and I think he's a nut, and shouldn't project so much of his own opinion onto what he's teaching.  I don't like Bush worth a damn, but I still wouldn't want to sit through that class.   But, that said, I've had to sit through plenty of rants from professors who fit the other side of that coin, too... including one teacher who handed out free anti-Clinton bumper-stickers (which he'd designed himself and had printed up) in class.  I didn't care much - I wasn't a big fan of Clinton - but I did get tired of having the classtime I was paying for get wasted on hearing the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of whatever Rush Lintball had said the day before.  Especially when the classes happened to be about things like electronics or geology.

I'm wondering if the fella with the tape recorder wasn't trying to earn some bounty money from somebody.   This place was offering money to any student who could provide proof of a professor's "leftist radicalism."  (I believe they've since had to withdraw that offer,, after suffering some legal action).  Which is, ironically, quite a brownshirt sort of tactic.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Education, Teacher Suspended, Students Demonstrate, Bush Criticism

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users