Liberal lies in textbooks [FOXNEWS, suprise.]

[Pulp Hero]

Today I saw something on FOX (Its the default channel at the gym) that made me want to wretch. The Fox And Friends show was running a segment they described as "exposing the liberal lies that children are being taught about our soldiers." Being military myself, I was fascinated and compelled to watch (in the same way as if I saw two high speed trains heading at each other).

Anyway the segment comes on and the talking heads begin with how in the textbook in question, the 9/11 attackers were described as "terrorists" and not immediately as "Muslim terrorists", and only by reading on were they later identified as Muslims. Uh, okay?

Next, they begin screeching about how in several textbooks Cindy Sheehan is givien a full paragraph or full page treatment (for those not in the know, her son was killed in the war and she became a fairly famous anti-war protester.). Well, agree or not, she represents a large American social movement and the voice of many protesters for her time in history. They bitch about how some of the MoH winning soldiers or SEALs should get full page treatment. While I find that more personally interesting, a soldier or small battle does not have the cultural or historical impact of a thousands strong protest movement.

And more importantly, nothing they addressed was a lie. Unfavorable treatment and perhaps slanting toward an anti-war (is there a positive way to put this war in a history book?) perspective. But no lies.

So I googled for a reference to post this thread, and what do I discover? This school textbook segment is a running series on FOX, and almost every segment was as dishonest and vile as this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/2 ... _lies.html

Some goldies in there.

[Darth Wong]

This is a longstanding trend among right-wingers: they keep lowering the bar for what they consider to be "dishonesty" until they can apply it to pretty much anything they dislike. It kind of reminds me of Darkstar, who (although I haven't seen his page in several years) used to refer to anything he didn't like as a "fallacy".

[Mr Bean]

I know the feeling. My Fox News intake is not limited to Gyms. For whatever reason people in gyms or perhaps gym owners really like Fox News.

Fox News is and has been since it's inception has been a long running attack on all things "liberal". Rare is it that they attack actual Liberals or Xenu forbid... communists. I would love to see on those little round tables of their's someone from the actual Workers Party of America. Or just the United Socialist Workers Party, or the Green's. The closest they get is to invite on Democratic "strategists" or "Liberals" which are about as liberal as John McCain.

Part of this long running drive is to label anything that is bad as "Liberal" regardless of how related it is to left wing policies or Liberalism or Progressives. Just find something unpopular, label it liberal and then profit!

This has worked very well for Fox News as they draw millions of people every day to watch their channel. The Fox demographic is notoriously uncaring about logical arguments, just facts. Who can shout the loudest and say it the most simplistic, that's the Fox News way.

[Ford Prefect]

For whatever reason people in gyms or perhaps gym owners really like Fox News.

My gym likes CBS!

Are we honestly still surprised by anything that Fox News does any more? Making shit up to throw at liberals is par for the course.

[The Spartan]

I was at the bookstore on Friday and I spotted a book about this sort of thing. I knew it was going to be right wing horseshit as soon as I saw the word "Liberal" in the summary on the back.

Sure enough, that's exactly what it was. See, they worded every "Liberal lie" very carefully so that it was 1) not something I've ever heard a liberal say, save for maybe some fringe wingnuts and 2) it was, at best, a strawman of a liberal position, if not outright lie. The only ones that I remember off hand was "9/11 was a government conspiracy," and "It was Gorbachev and not Reagan that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union."

I bought a collection of Jefferson's writing instead. I'd much prefer to read what he thought about something, as flawed a man as he was, than that kind of drivel.

(And I get to see Glen Beck when I hit the gym. Yay... Just seeing him irritates me. Seriously, watch him without the sound on and you'll just what a chucklefucking douchenozzle he really is.)

[Mayabird]

One question, since I don't want to give their site any more hits than I have to: do they ever talk about evolution or climate change (or hell, any kind of environmental damage humans do) being "liberal lies"? I have strong suspicions here, and I'm a bit curious what the old folks these days think.

[Coyote]

I just started reading a book called "What's the Matter With Kansas?", where the author examines good-old solid-red loyal-Republican Kansas and seeks answers to why working-class people who are poorly educated, on tenuous employment, and have very little continually vote for the Republicans-- the party of the fat-cat business elite.

Since I'm barely two chapters in, it's still groundwork laying, but so far it points out how business has managed to finally harvest a labor movement in its favor, rather than against it, and they do it by completely harping all the key social topics (abortion, the flag, prayer in school, etc etc) and avoiding much talk about economics. Apparently, back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Kansas was actually a hotbed of worker's progressivism; a lot of workers and socialist parties were based there, but by harping on a few intractable social issues over the years, it has become more and more Republican... and more and more poor.

Oddly enough, the harder things get for working-class Kansans, the more they vote Republican, because the Republicans have constantly packaged liberals as the sissy, limp-wristed, whiny, latte-sipping big-city elitists. Wave the flag, show 'em the Bible, mutter platitudes about "Values", and they continue to vote against their own interests.

[ray245]

I just started reading a book called "What's the Matter With Kansas?", where the author examines good-old solid-red loyal-Republican Kansas and seeks answers to why working-class people who are poorly educated, on tenuous employment, and have very little continually vote for the Republicans-- the party of the fat-cat business elite.

Since I'm barely two chapters in, it's still groundwork laying, but so far it points out how business has managed to finally harvest a labor movement in its favor, rather than against it, and they do it by completely harping all the key social topics (abortion, the flag, prayer in school, etc etc) and avoiding much talk about economics. Apparently, back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Kansas was actually a hotbed of worker's progressivism; a lot of workers and socialist parties were based there, but by harping on a few intractable social issues over the years, it has become more and more Republican... and more and more poor.

Oddly enough, the harder things get for working-class Kansans, the more they vote Republican, because the Republicans have constantly packaged liberals as the sissy, limp-wristed, whiny, latte-sipping big-city elitists. Wave the flag, show 'em the Bible, mutter platitudes about "Values", and they continue to vote against their own interests.

Could it be the fact that those people likes to suck up to big business man and is easily impressed by people's 'success'? The idea that big businessman knows best because they know how to manage things, and stupid poor people should not stand up against those businessmen.

After all, if you can give those people the impression that 'the big business man shares the same values as us! ', it becomes easy to manipulate people.

[Ma Deuce]

I have always been amused by the American definition of "Liberal = left wing". Case in point, hilarity usually ensues when you explain to American right-wingers how their god Reagan was in fact a neoliberal. Explaining that he was a neoliberal and a neoconservative at the same time usually results in some exploding heads.

[Darth Wong]

I just started reading a book called "What's the Matter With Kansas?", where the author examines good-old solid-red loyal-Republican Kansas and seeks answers to why working-class people who are poorly educated, on tenuous employment, and have very little continually vote for the Republicans-- the party of the fat-cat business elite.

Since I'm barely two chapters in, it's still groundwork laying, but so far it points out how business has managed to finally harvest a labor movement in its favor, rather than against it, and they do it by completely harping all the key social topics (abortion, the flag, prayer in school, etc etc) and avoiding much talk about economics. Apparently, back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Kansas was actually a hotbed of worker's progressivism; a lot of workers and socialist parties were based there, but by harping on a few intractable social issues over the years, it has become more and more Republican... and more and more poor.

Oddly enough, the harder things get for working-class Kansans, the more they vote Republican, because the Republicans have constantly packaged liberals as the sissy, limp-wristed, whiny, latte-sipping big-city elitists. Wave the flag, show 'em the Bible, mutter platitudes about "Values", and they continue to vote against their own interests.

I've come to understand why this is: it's the politics of spite. Put simply, if you make people cynical enough about government, they will lose faith that any party will ever look out for their interests (this is facilitated by the Democrats' shift to the right, since there is no real workers' party out there at all). So what's left? Electing a party which hates the same people you hate. If no one will look out for your interests, at least somebody will hurt the people you despise.

[Coyote]

Could it be the fact that those people likes to suck up to big business man and is easily impressed by people's 'success'? The idea that big businessman knows best because they know how to manage things, and stupid poor people should not stand up against those businessmen.

I think that's part of it; there's always the notion pushed in America that with enough hard work and motivation, someday you or your kids could be that big, fat, wealthy businessman.

Plus, business owners have successfully portrayed most pro-labor, pro-union activities, and other trade restrictions, as "too expensive". When a corporation closes an American factory and re-locates to Malaysia or Mexico or whatever, they blame "expensive environmental regulations" and similar things that "the liberals" pushed on them: "I have to fire you all because the liberals decided that the spotted owl was worth more than your jobs".

From time to time, unions do overstep their bounds, the GM "jobs pool" thing can be argued as an expensive, pro-labor concession that heaped costs onto the company. So "the liberals" become "anti-business"... which ironically gets sold as "anti-worker" because businesses close/move.

After all, if you can give those people the impression that 'the big business man shares the same values as us! ', it becomes easy to manipulate people.

Oh, absolutely. The author pointed out a couple of Kansas Legislators who always describe themselves as "Kansas farm-boys" who share the values of "hard work", etc. They harp on abortion and prayer in school all the time, but oddly enough, even when they have the House, Senate, White House and Courts solidly packed with conservatives, somehow all these key topics never quite get dealt with...

I'll give a more in-depth review when I'm done, but it's good reading.

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, a lot of liberal policies are bad for the economy. The caveat is that they're not necessarily bad for peoples' jobs. Conservatives would try to ensure that the economy grows as quickly as possible, but they don't particularly care whether it's based on huge numbers of American jobs or simply huge amounts of capital flowing in and out of Wall Street based on jobs in Malaysia.

People need to get over this bizarre belief that what's good for Wall Street is necessarily good for every citizen of the country.

[Coyote]

I have always been amused by the American definition of "Liberal = left wing". Case in point, hilarity usually ensues when you explain to American right-wingers how their god Reagan was in fact a neoliberal. Explaining that he was a neoliberal and a neoconservative at the same time usually results in some exploding heads.

The thing to remember is that in American politics, there are actually two political systems at work: Economics, and everything else.

Our "Conservative" party is 'socially conservative/economically liberal'.
Our "Liberal" party is 'socially liberal/economically conservative'.

And, as mentioned, even our most "socially liberal" people that are politically viable are still to the right of most other global politics. The American poilitical system is a bizarre beast, and seems fairly unique. Unfortunately, it is also like the snake that is constantly eating its own tail... feeding on its own perpetuating cycle of 'creative destruction'...

[Isolder74]

To be fair some of those are actual historical errors that just weren't caught. Like the Louisiana purchase one. Complaining about a page for a war protester is a bit out there. I guess they shouldn't have coverage of the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's either.....

[jcow79]

Today I saw something on FOX (Its the default channel at the gym) that made me want to wretch. The Fox And Friends show was running a segment they described as "exposing the liberal lies that children are being taught about our soldiers." Being military myself, I was fascinated and compelled to watch (in the same way as if I saw two high speed trains heading at each other).

Anyway the segment comes on and the talking heads begin with how in the textbook in question, the 9/11 attackers were described as "terrorists" and not immediately as "Muslim terrorists", and only by reading on were they later identified as Muslims. Uh, okay?

Next, they begin screeching about how in several textbooks Cindy Sheehan is givien a full paragraph or full page treatment (for those not in the know, her son was killed in the war and she became a fairly famous anti-war protester.). Well, agree or not, she represents a large American social movement and the voice of many protesters for her time in history. They bitch about how some of the MoH winning soldiers or SEALs should get full page treatment. While I find that more personally interesting, a soldier or small battle does not have the cultural or historical impact of a thousands strong protest movement.

And more importantly, nothing they addressed was a lie. Unfavorable treatment and perhaps slanting toward an anti-war (is there a positive way to put this war in a history book?) perspective. But no lies.

So I googled for a reference to post this thread, and what do I discover? This school textbook segment is a running series on FOX, and almost every segment was as dishonest and vile as this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/2 ... _lies.html

Some goldies in there.

Did you catch Larry Schweikart's comment about Sheehan in the U.S History Book, "American Passages"? Is he suggesting she doesn't stand out in U.S. history like such huge historical figures as Julius Caesar and Hannibal?

[Adrian Laguna]

I've come to understand why this is: it's the politics of spite. Put simply, if you make people cynical enough about government, they will lose faith that any party will ever look out for their interests (this is facilitated by the Democrats' shift to the right, since there is no real workers' party out there at all). So what's left? Electing a party which hates the same people you hate. If no one will look out for your interests, at least somebody will hurt the people you despise.

Or alternatively they could figure out which party is going to screw them over less.

If the Lazy Party's platform is to kick me in the crotch from sunrise to noon, and the Industrious Party's platform is to kick me in the crotch from sunrise to sunset, I'm voting Lazy. Even if the Industrious Party also pledges to kick somebody I hate in the crotch from midnight to sunset.

Maybe I'm just not very spiteful.

[Patrick Degan]

I've come to understand why this is: it's the politics of spite. Put simply, if you make people cynical enough about government, they will lose faith that any party will ever look out for their interests (this is facilitated by the Democrats' shift to the right, since there is no real workers' party out there at all). So what's left? Electing a party which hates the same people you hate. If no one will look out for your interests, at least somebody will hurt the people you despise.

The historian and political scientist Walter Karp basically outlined this as the game-plan for conservative politics: to break peoples' essential faith that representative democratic government can work and work for them, by wrecking it's mechanics (whenever they manage to get in power) so completely that voters would eventually turn cynical and cold toward government and either cease political participation altogether or vote purely on grounds of political resentment. Either way, the upper classes gets to do whatever they please, with no popular interference in their schemes to worry about.

[phred]

For whatever reason people in gyms or perhaps gym owners really like Fox News.

Hot chicks on the morning shows. I don't think many people in the gym are actually listening to what the people on the screen are saying

(And I get to see Glen Beck when I hit the gym. Yay... Just seeing him irritates me. Seriously, watch him without the sound on and you'll just what a chucklefucking douchenozzle he really is.)

He does spend a lot of time wearing the smile of the extremely self righteous doesn't he?

[Pulp Hero]

He does spend a lot of time wearing the smile of the extremely self righteous doesn't he?

I remember watching live when he premiered his "Road To Socialism!" segment, I almost fell off my bike.

[Darth Wong]

Glenn Beck is one of those ignorant blowhard windbag morons who actually looks exactly the way you'd expect an ignorant blowhard windbag moron to look.

Something about his face, his expression, his entire mannerism just screams "idiot", even if you've never heard a word he's said.

[Pulp Hero]

Glenn Beck is one of those ignorant blowhard windbag morons who actually looks exactly the way you'd expect an ignorant blowhard windbag moron to look.

Something about his face, his expression, his entire mannerism just screams "idiot", even if you've never heard a word he's said.

The daily show ran an unaltered clip of his show where his eyes took up half the screen. He was doing it as a "Being able to look you in the eye, so you know I'm telling the truth" thing. Needless to say, it was really creepy. (And the TDS started doing super close ups of he eyes. )


But anyway, back on topic. What grates me is that FOX still has a quite sizable U.S. audience, and as such hold a lot of sway. Now there has always been a conservative bias against "higher learning" which I have encountered in person, but I have never encountered many GOPers who complain about the "liberalism" of high school classes (excluding science. Also many complain of non-academic related policies.) Stuff like this segment stirs up more outrage thrown at teachers and schools who are finding teaching as difficult as pulling teeth. Especially since, objectively, nothing "reveled" on this show is a lie, and as such, doesn't need to be "reveled" in the first place.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Glenn Beck is one of those ignorant blowhard windbag morons who actually looks exactly the way you'd expect an ignorant blowhard windbag moron to look.

Something about his face, his expression, his entire mannerism just screams "idiot", even if you've never heard a word he's said.

Not to derail or anything, but I think Sean Hannity epitomizes this much better than Beck does, followed by Joe Scarborough. Something about their beady eyes and stammering, quivering chins that substitute steady noise for insight and bellicose attitudes pisses me off more than Beck could ever hope to.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Glenn Beck is one of those ignorant blowhard windbag morons who actually looks exactly the way you'd expect an ignorant blowhard windbag moron to look.

Something about his face, his expression, his entire mannerism just screams "idiot", even if you've never heard a word he's said.

Did you see the TDS clip where he is sobbing for his country and exhorts his audience to "believe in something, even if its WRONG!"?

[Guardsman Bass]

I just started reading a book called "What's the Matter With Kansas?", where the author examines good-old solid-red loyal-Republican Kansas and seeks answers to why working-class people who are poorly educated, on tenuous employment, and have very little continually vote for the Republicans-- the party of the fat-cat business elite.

Since I'm barely two chapters in, it's still groundwork laying, but so far it points out how business has managed to finally harvest a labor movement in its favor, rather than against it, and they do it by completely harping all the key social topics (abortion, the flag, prayer in school, etc etc) and avoiding much talk about economics. Apparently, back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Kansas was actually a hotbed of worker's progressivism; a lot of workers and socialist parties were based there, but by harping on a few intractable social issues over the years, it has become more and more Republican... and more and more poor.

Keep in mind that Frank's argument may not be applicable to the greater working class. Working class voters have actually tended to stay democratic everywhere except in the South.

Oddly enough, the harder things get for working-class Kansans, the more they vote Republican, because the Republicans have constantly packaged liberals as the sissy, limp-wristed, whiny, latte-sipping big-city elitists. Wave the flag, show 'em the Bible, mutter platitudes about "Values", and they continue to vote against their own interests.

It's a catchy argument, but as the study I linked to points out, it's not necessarily the truth.

[JLTucker]

Glenn Beck is one of those ignorant blowhard windbag morons who actually looks exactly the way you'd expect an ignorant blowhard windbag moron to look.

Something about his face, his expression, his entire mannerism just screams "idiot", even if you've never heard a word he's said.

Did you see the TDS clip where he is sobbing for his country and exhorts his audience to "believe in something, even if its WRONG!"?

For those who haven't seen it, you can view Glenn Beck crying multiple times on his show at the beginning of this video. It's absolutely hilarious.