Saturday, January 15, 2005

A short followup on the Cupertino Declaration of Independence brouhaha.


For those of you who really need to see the appalling disinformation that you're fed regarding just
this one media event, let me leave you with a bit of homework. And while you're checking out these references, feel free to keep track of how each of them has a habit of differing from all the others in some of the subtle and not-so-subtle details.

First, this SFGate article seems to be reasonably balanced and low-key -- most of the details seem to be correct, and they're explained well. In addition, if you really have some time on your hands, check out this site by the Stevens Creek Parents group.

Having laid the foundation for some actual scholarship, steel yourself for a trip through the right-wing twilight zone, and see how the following sites describe what went down in Cupertino -- it's hard to believe they're talking about the same thing:
  • WorldNetDaily (affectionately known around these parts as WingNutDaily): Note how they claim that the issue is about whether a teacher can just read the Declaration.
  • Rush Limbaugh, where the right's favourite drug addict claims that "a teacher has been forbidden from teaching the Declaration of Independence because it says "God" in it. Sadly, that's the sanest part of Limbaugh's rant.
  • FreeRepublic: Yes, these clowns are always good for a chuckle. I'm not even going to comment on their rantings; you can see for yourselves.
  • Traditional Values Coalition: More of the same ... yadda, yadda, yadda.
And the list just goes on and on, minor to glaring misrepresentations in every one of them. And, hey, it's not like you even need to take my word for any of this. That's what the links are for.

At this point, I think I've ridden this mule as far as it's going to go. Tomorrow's another day and another topic.

P.S.: There is one mildly-amusing point made in the SFGate article. The author initially describes Williams' handouts as "historical documents to supplement the district-approved curriculum", and yet, later in the article, he notes that one of those handouts is "President Bush's statement on National Prayer Day 2004". Let me guess -- this guy is not the school's history teacher.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

yo, time to let that mule die....btw:stevens creek blvd is a rousing and raucous ride in the saddle. steep, long, and under the canopy of redwoods along a creek. just thought you'd appreciate a side note to all this bs.

Jason said...

Uh, yeah. You call the SFGate article "balanced" only because you agree with it. And all you do with the WND, Rush Limbaugh, Free Republic and TVC is mock and ridicule them instead of actually putting your brain to work in directly addressing the articles. Unsurprising, really.

And what exactly makes you think that the president's 2004 National Day of Prayer proclamation is not a historical document? Is it because it's not 100 years old? Is it because it was issued by a president you hate? Or is it because it has to do with prayer and God?

Jason said...

Oh, yes. I forgot to add that the parents' website is hardly an unbiased source of information. You treat it as if it is, though, which comes as little surprise. "Actual scholarship." Yeah, right.

CC said...

"And what exactly makes you think that the president's 2004 National Day of Prayer proclamation is not a historical document? Is it because it's not 100 years old?"Um ... yeah. That's kind of what makes something "historical". If you catch my drift.

Jason said...

Um ... yeah. That's kind of what makes something "historical". If you catch my drift.Not really, no. Something does not have to be 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 or even 1 year old to be considered historical. Check out the defintion of the word sometime before you continue to make a complete fool out of yourself.

Jay Gatsby said...

He's got you there. The Iraq war is certainly historical, but it ain't 50 years old. Say your wrong, CC. Go ahead. Say it.






No, really, say it.