Don't Mess With the Texas Curriculum


It is difficult to determine just what specific curriculum changes the Texas school board has in mind, though the ringleader of the revisionist faction, a creationist weirdo named Don McLeroy, strikes me as one who wants to impart ideology into the textbooks, not balance. Historians, it seems, are also skeptical. According to this report from Yahoo News, the McLeroyites, who believe that humans raked leaves alongside dinosaurs, want changes in the following areas:

Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board's conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, "imperialism" as a characterization of America's modern rise to world power is giving way to "expansionism," and "capitalism" is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression "free market." (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America's economic superiority across the board.)

A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy's death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.

Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse "unintended consequences" in the curriculum's preferred language.

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation's intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board's judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson's place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation's important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.

McLeroy and his allies are quite plainly fanatics, so while there should be a mention of Venona in high school history classes (but this doesn't in any way, as I argued here, vindicate McCarthyism) and the 1960s shouldn't be treated only as a time of peaceful revolution guided by sensible, non-violent liberationist impulses (most students are baffled to later find that, contrary to those lazy documentaries full of Scott McKenzie songs, most Americans supported the war in Vietnam, YAF filled Madison Square Garden with student anti-Communists, and Nixon stomped the liberal George McGovern in 1972), these people are not to be trusted to achieve some sort of "balancing" of the historical record. The band of amateur historians and paleontologists in the McLeroy camp simply desire more Jesus and less liberalism—full stop. Which explains the calumny of expelling Thomas Jefferson from the pantheon of American founders for his well-known skepticism of organized religion.

NEXT: Constitutional History

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Present all the information and let the students decide for themselves. Base curriculum on educational value; leave politics out of it.

    1. Seriously, is it possible to present all the information on any topic? I was a history major specializing in 20th century American history, particularly World War II, and I certainly couldn’t tell you all the information on that one topic even if I had a whole school year to do it. You have to take the available data and whittle it down to a manageable level. The problem comes in when you decide what goes in, what stays out, and most importantly, how exactly are you presenting the material? Bias always makes its way in, even if it’s unconscious.

      The biggest problem I have with the way history was taught to me before I got to college is that there was way too much “here’s what happened”, as if all history is indisputable. That was usually followed by “here’s what it meant” as if interpreting history only leads to one viewpoint of events.

      Asking a question or voicing an opinion that conflicts with the orthodoxy espoused by your teacher usually gets a “wrong” response or a blank stare. Honestly it wasn’t until I got into a college level history course that I got a reasonable answer to my “if the Japanese attacked America at Pearl Harbor, why did we spend so much time fighting Hitler” question. Not to mention the “since they had been up to their eyeballs in the slave trade, why would the Union care so much about slaves that they’d fight a war over them” point.

      It seems to me the central problem here is that we’re confused about what the purpose of learning history is. Seriously, who gives a damn about events that happened 1000 years ago, unless you just happen to find human drama interesting, unless they have applicability to your life now? I find that most people, when I ask them about their history classes in high school, found them boring because they saw no point in them. It was just a bunch of information about the past.

      The reason you study history is because you can learn to think critically when presented with massive amounts of information as well as, more importantly, learn to avoid some of the same screwups that have plagued humanity throughout history. Such as letting zealots control education. But I digress.

      1. if the Japanese attacked America at Pearl Harbor, why did we spend so much time fighting Hitler

        *blank stare* To end slavery!

        1. if the Japanese attacked America at Pearl Harbor, why did we spend so much time fighting Hitler

          We invaded Iraq to fight Osama, and occupied Vietnam to fight the Soviet Union.

          Perhaps we should have a history class about the terrible aim the US has.

        2. Nothing is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Contrarian?

          1. Forget it, he’s rolling….

          2. Not that simple…occupied Vietnam to stop communist expansion and invaded Iraq to fight terrorism

            1. And did both in both cases! Umm…wait.

            2. …occupied Vietnam to stop communist expansion

              Yeah, all while Nixon made nice with Communist China. It was his administration that gave China official diplomatic recognition as a legitimate government. Hellava way to stop communism.

      2. why are we talking about history classes? It’s social studies people. lol

      3. I have a better idea.

        Take History out of the public school system and add a calculus class or two.

        If people want to learn about history then go spend your money on some books and leave my money alone.

        1. I have a better idea.

          Take History out of the public school system and add a calculus class or two.

          If people want to learn about history then go spend your money on some books and leave my money alone.

          Let me guess, you have Asperger’s Syndrome, right?

          1. Nah, he wants us to be able to plot an asymptotic line for our masters.

            1. why not learn both from textbooks and save even more of his money?

        2. Because you can’t learn math from books?

      4. Teaching history without philosophy is the reason we find ourselves in our current predicament. It isn’t enough to point out when so-and-so did what, and when. Why he did it is critical. And it’s being left out so as not to offend anyone, among other reasons. Students have no idea how we got here, and why, and how we could so easily lose it all.

  2. Furthermore, underwear shall be worn on the outside, so we can check.

  3. There really is something wrong when “capitalism” has become such a dirty word that people feel the need to call it something else, just so the kids won’t automatically assume they’re hearing about the bad guys.

    1. Progressive was changed to liberal, because of the vile reaction to the Progressives.

      1. And now, ironically, I hear a lot of liberals calling themselves progressives b/c liberal has attained dirty word status.

    2. I kind of thought this too. Free market good, but capitalism has a negative connotation? WTF?

      1. It doesn’t focus group as well as “God’s free market paradise” or whatever.

        1. They should teach about the free market and capitalism, they’re two different things, both important factors in improving human welfare.

      2. I don’t get bent out of shape about the term capitalism, but try not to use it myself. Why would I want to let the enemy create my label? My ideology isn’t based on who owns the capital, thats for commies. It’s based on maximizing freedom, and the commies like to distract people by labeling everybody as either “good” or “capitalist”.

        Plus the whole crony-capitalist/corpratism deal. If I don’t label myself as a “capitalist” I have a much lower rate of reflexively (and incorrectly) defending any of that crap.

      3. One of the reasons I never refer to myself as a capitalist — aside from it not being accurate — is because it has too much baggage. Don’t know when it came to be that way.

      4. Markets are good for consumption, and capitalism is good for investment. Look at our debt levels and tell which will poll better.

    3. The word capitalism originally coined by Marx, as a derogatory term for free market economy’s. So yes it sorta is a dirty word.

      1. Marx didn’t really view it as synonymous with a free market, he was describing the system prevalent at the time, which wasn’t a free market by any stretch of the imagination, and while he may have been wrong about many things, he didn’t really conflate capitalism with the free market, his more vulgar successors did.

      2. Marx being a seminal political philosopher who influences many things beyond just terms.

        Bubba from bumfuck Texas has a better idea?

        1. YAWN, Tony.

          Marx is a popular philosopher, therefor he gets to create the name that his opponents will be known by?

          Why don’t we just call pro-choice people pro-death? Or pro-lifers anti-choice?

          By the way, I think it was Adam Smith who first used the term free market. Yeah what a bumfuck Texan that guy was, huh?

  4. Simply confirms – not that I required confirmation – my decision to never let the Diva attend a public school (we’re in Houston). Her Episcopal school is rather more socially conservative that we are, but she’s getting a rigorous and classically liberal education.

    1. Good choice. I know entirely too many public school teachers in the Houston area to ever trust a child’s education to them.

      1. Second that.

  5. I almost feel like this is deserved after years of progressive BS dominating the public school agenda. Then I remember that either way, the kids and parents who want to teach their kids get screwed, and partisan demagogue assholes win.

    Also, just ask Jack Chick about huntin’ them dinosaurs!

    1. Chick is God’s gift to cartooning.

    2. OMG! That was a new chick track on me. That shit’s just funny.

    3. My favorite Chick tract is the one where the plane full of Muslims on their way to Mecca crashes, and they all go to hell. Chick is truly a legendary troll.

      1. I’ve always been partial to the Dungeons & Dragons one. Classic idiocy from Chick on that one.

        1. My fave includes a young woman in the hospital, dying of an LSD flashback(!), lucidly repenting to her grandmother and accepting Christ, just before she dies.

          1. Linky.
            Have fun… muhahhaha!

    4. Best Chick pamphlet is the evil pimp ghetto gangsta who commits every kind of despicable crime ending in a machine gun shootout with police.He’s Hell bound for sure but his sister rushes to him with the GOOD NEWS (Romans 10:13?)and with his dying last breath he says jee-suz.

      1. Hey, I remember that one.

        I also remember one that implied the Pope was the Anti-Christ (Max avert your eyes).

        1. Max is a hard one to offend. I am sure he is already aware that the pope is the Anti-Christ.

    5. Let’s see, there was the tract where the guy and his neighbor repeatedly molest his 5 year old daughter, and when the doctor tells the guy that his kid has the clap, rather than alerting the cops, he saves the dude and instead of going home and continuing to be a pedophile he promises never to hurt his daughter again. That one was so bad that even Chick thought better of it and doesn’t show it on his website, but a little digging can turn it up on the interwebs. The anti-Catholic ones are good for a larf, as are the ones where a giant world wide cabal of Devil Worshipers implant magic spells into rock music. Man that shit is great.

  6. This problem, like so many, can be solved by removing the government. Let people choose where their kids go to school and what they are taught and this problem disappears.

    Ah, who the hell am I kidding. Some liberal fascist would still attempt to prevent kids from learning what they don’t approve of.

  7. Ed vShultz was really pissed off about this last night.

    1. Ed Schultz is the mirror-universe version of Limbaugh. Both are arrogant, partisan pricks separated only by ideology.

      1. Except Limbaugh was once actually funny. (Might still be, but I don’t think so).

  8. Idiots to the left, idiots to the right. When can we just rise above thier petty, controlling selves, and be free? I want a good spot in line too…

  9. Country and Western? Now they’ve gone too far!

    To wit:

    (Look at me, pimping my blog like I’m Guy Montag or something!)

    1. You’re an idiot.

      The “Western” part of Country and Western came from the cowboy songs that used to be prominent (think Marty Robbins’s “El Paso,” for example, and you’re frankly lucky) more so than anything else. Also, the Grateful Dead played a ton of country, and I’m pretty sure that they count as Western, being from California.

      Musically, country is a lot like punk, anyway.

      1. Simmer down there, pardner.

        We can all name one or two songs that name-check a given Western state, but the vast, vast majority are about Texas and points east. Sure, Dan Seals and Marie Osmond performed “Meet Me In Montana”, and Johnny Cash “shot a man in Reno”, but let’s face it, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. As far as the bulk of the current usage of the phrase goes, it’s plainly inaccurate.

        And I’ve checked with the judges, and, sorry, they’re not accepting the Grateful Dead as “Country and Western” artists.

        You might want to take a look at the blog’s subtitle thingie before you get too emotionally invested in all this, by the way.

        1. Yeah, Grateful Dead are Speed Metal. Right?

            1. Black metal. Or maybe Extreme metal.

        2. Country sounds like the Carter family, Western like Bob Wills. What’s so damn hard about that? If you don’t know those groups, you are missing a major block of musical education. Its like not knowing about Robert Johnson or Louis Armstrong. You don’t have to dig their style to understand their value to American music.

          1. Brett, I’m not actually sure if you’re responding to me or not.

            If you’re trying to argue against my point (that “Country & Western” music comes largely from non-Western states), then your examples of the Carter family (from Virginia) and Wills (from Texas) aren’t exactly argument-winning counterexamples. Not that I mind.

            If you’re arguing against someone else, on the other hand, you should probably specify that.

  10. As for revisionism, is not the revisionism in the 70’s through 90’s that pulled the books to the left just as bad?

    Calling capitalism “free enterprise” just to avoid bad thoughts is a lot much, but the “Great Society” programs did have very bad unintended consequences. In the 1950’s, most African American adults were married and the divorce rate was very low, now look at things. Honest people were hunted by prosecutorially immunized bureaucrats for affirmative action violations even when they were innocent. A generation of white males coming of age in the 70’s and early 80’s were basically stripped of their constitutional rights to due process and equality before the law all to make liberals feel better about themselves. (Odd, how I never seem to remember one of Ted Turner or Warren Buffett’s kids getting the short end of the affirmative action straw.)

    Creationism is for Sunday school, but most biology books are so focused on evolution that fundamentals of things like epigenetics and enzyme kinetics don’t show up in the course, even though they are increasingly fundamental to medicine and biology. I would rather delete all references to the origin of life. Discuss natural selection (even Creationists have to admit that happens) and then swing for the fences on the real meat of high school biology as above.

    Lastly, in agreement with Jordan above, which kind of fascist is better? Hands down, the right wingers are the best ones. The media will scream blue murder over anything they do. The MSM never seem to get so incensed over the evil doings of the left wing fascists. Makes it harder to rein them in.

    1. “In the 1950’s, most African American adults were married and the divorce rate was very low”

      And poor as shit. 55% lived under the poverty line as compared to 22-25% since the late 1960s.

      But I guess they “knew their place” better back then too…

      Face it, a black person would have to be mad to not realize post-Great Society is a much better place for them than pre-Great Society.

      Talk about revisionism.

      1. I also don’t think liberalization of divorce laws to be a bad thing. It seems somewhat tied to some poverty issues and child raising, but most people that divorce don’t fall into poverty or produce mass-murderers. Anyone who has been in a marriage gone bad can appreciate how much misery would pile up if everyone had to be trapped in it all because we can’t resist some people being tempted to engage in it and then having their kids poor or neglected.

      2. Well, how about the astonishing % of African American males in jail or dead at a young age (pre 25?) post-Great Society? That is *not* progress! I am in no way suggesting pre-GS was great for AA’s, but poor is better than poor & convict, eh?

        1. It’s all Whitey’s fault.

          There, now MNG doesn’t have to post further.

          1. How ignorant of a cretin you are. How much time and money have you expended to make sure whites are not victimized for the sake of liberal white guilt? I worked on petition drives to place ending affirmative action on ballots in three separate states (Ward Connerly’s org) and have given a good chunk of change to organizations like the Center for Equal Opportunity who have been in the lead against affirmative action type programs.

            Sorry, but your candy ass doesn’t get to lecture me on “blame it on Whitey.”

            On the other hand only an ignorant fool or bigot would not recognize that being black pre-Great Society would have sucked way more than being black post-Great Society.

        2. Do you really think blacks got a better shake re: the criminal justice system pre-1964? That’s incredible…

          1. That last one was reply to celtgirl…

            1. I’m reasonably sure they didn’t get a fair shake pre GS; however, the systematic breakdown of the AA family post GS plus the incredible rate of incarceration and very high death rates at a young age are not what I would call progress. If you are poor, you can find a way out of that (there are some very prominent examples of this); it is much, much harder to find a way out of poverty with a criminal record and/or being dead. That was my point.

        3. “Raaaaacist!!”

      3. wow MNG, you really beat the crap out of that racist strawman.

        1. Face it, a black person would have to be mad to not realize post-Great Society is a much better place for them than pre-Great Society.

          Correlation does not equal causation. The Great Society can kiss my ass. MNG, we’ve already been over this.

          1. P.S.: I don’t mean to include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I don’t consider that to be part of the Great Society.

      4. The point wasn’t that it was all rosey before the Great Society. Obviously, it wasn’t, otherwise we would have had no reason to have the laws. These laws did have unintended consequences that have turned out to be very bad.

  11. “programs such as Title IX?which provides for equal gender access to educational resources?and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “programs such as Title IX?which provides for equal gender access to educational resources?and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language”. The intended consequence for Title IX was success and ironically the unintended consequences for some, is that Title IX is successful.

    1. Of course Title IX also led to the preponderance of ridiculous women’s college sports. Ever wonder why colleges have a women’s curling team? It’s not because anyone wants to watch it. But if you like football, you have to have just as many women’s sports slots.

      1. “Slots”? Indeed.

      2. “ridiculous women’s college sports?” Fuck you, Contrarian P? Football is for insecure men to substitute their need to play war and belong to a pack.

        1. Fuck you. Football is popular because violence is awesome.

            1. Bingo. Checkmate. Sorry!

              1. I have to agree with Warty.

              2. Gin!

          1. ya I’m against Title IX just because it fucks with football. I could give a shit if chicks get to play indoor rythim field hockey.

            1. My ass it fucks with football. Football still gets 85 – eighty-fuckin’-five – full scholarships.

              That fucks with men’s sports in a really nasty way, especially if you’re the typical Division I school and can’t make money even on football.

        2. w/e it is a gladiatorial sport for my amusement. Why the hate little man.

        3. Yeah, we should make it illegal if you don’t like it…

        4. My daughter plays rugby. You wanna talk about viscious pack animals – women’s rugby RULES!

        5. Maybe it is, but women’s curling is apparently for nobody judging by the numbers of people who buy tickets to it.

          1. Why should a public institution make its programming decisions based on how many tickets it sells? It should make it based on the population it is serving, i.e., the student body.

            And on some of those students, oh what a body! Wowsa!

            1. Seriously though I can see the argument some feminists have about this. For hundreds of years of our history women were forcibly forbidden and culturally dissuaded to not play sports. Official government policy sanctioned and promoted the idea of their inferiority in many areas. Then the government, after much struggle decides to lift these policies. But of course the culture doesn’t dramatically shift: women as a whole don’t suddenly take up sports and our overall culture doesn’t just drop the meme, created in large part by government force, that women are inferior in many areas. So basing program benefits based on their popularity is a bit daft at this point…

              1. So your solution is to use government force in the other direction? Brilliant!

                By the way, whatever happened to those Guiness commercials?

                1. What government force? It’s a condition of reciept of federal monies.

                  1. “”No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”

                    It’s just a condition of getting federal financial assistance. And quite a reasonable one: if you want the money from the US citizenry you have to spend half of it benefiting half of the citizenry.

                    You really are woefully misinformed about Title IX. There is a lot of silly right-wing propaganda out there on it, so I guess I can’t blame you. Try reading outside of such media outlets in the future to reduce how many incorrect statements you make.

                    1. To an institution that has been made dependent on government money for its existence, the threat of the loss of that money is the same as force.

                      You may not be aware of it, but estimates by women’s sports advocates (probably not right wing propagandists) are that about 80% of colleges are not in compliance with Title IX right now. Often, there just aren’t enough available women who have an interest in pursuing the sport in question. That’s the reason there are no women’s football teams. But I suppose the mere fact that the thing is often unworkable, based on the choices of the women themselves, is no barrier to your thinking.

                      You cite no “incorrect statements” of mine, unless you mean the ones with which you disagree. You have cited nothing but the actual statute, and that once. I’m well aware of what the thing says. I disagree with your idea on proportional expenditure of money, something that is patently not happening in any other area of government funding, nor is it happening in college sports in real life. But please, go on believing that it’s okay, that you can mandate equality just by a few legislative lines. It’s worked so well in other areas.

                    2. “To an institution that has been made dependent on government money for its existence, the threat of the loss of that money is the same as force.”


                      “You have cited nothing but the actual statute”

                      Yeah, how irrelevant is that!

                      “I disagree with your idea on proportional expenditure of money,”

                      And yet you can’t seem to say WHY. What makes it wrong? Why is wrong to have public funds go to groups in proportion of their % of the citizenry that pays for those funds and for whom those funds are meant to be spent?

                  2. “It’s a condition” = blackmail.

            2. MSG, it’s not about offering a sport or serving the student body. It’s about scholarship spots. Generally speaking, you would think that a school would offer a free education if they were receiving something in return. Like *gasp* ticket sales.

              But those pesky unintended consequences just keep popping up.

              1. A public college is not a business, and a federal grant of money to aid citizens in obtaining a good, i.e., the goods that come with a college education, which includes the opportunity to participate in college sports (this is how the NCAA justifies their sports programs btw), is not based on how many tickets that program will sell. It’s based on serving the citizenry that paid for those funds. Why is it wrong to condition those funds on the principle that they must go equally to certain groups which a. paid for the funds and b. are half of the citizenrythe funds are meant to benefit?

        6. You’re a candyass, rctl.

          1. The Libertarian Guy, I’m not sure what I taste like but I’ll ask my man;-)

        7. If women want to play sex-segregated sports they should put on some spandex panties and fight each other in the mud, or barring that Jello.

        8. Would you rather they roam in packs, waging war on each other?

      3. I imagine you don’t have/don’t love any sisters, daughters, spouses, etc. What if one of them wanted to play sports, with all the enrichment that comes with that? Should they be told that’s ridiculous because they have vaginas?

        1. No, but it’s ridiculous that those sports are mandated by the courts in the name of gender equity. If these girls want to play rugby, they should do that…at their own expense. Why are colleges mandated to fund teams? Colleges have to fund just as many women’s scholarship slots because football requires a lot of people to play. So universities had to create teams in whatever sport they could find for women. And I notice you aren’t pissed off that men who might want to go out for crew can’t, because there is no men’s crew team at that school. But there is a women’s one…because there has to be.

          1. “If these girls want to play rugby, they should do that…at their own expense. Why are colleges mandated to fund teams? Colleges have to fund just as many women’s scholarship slots because football requires a lot of people to play.” I agree that sports should be funded according to the ratio of men and women in college. Oops, you’ll be fucked on that one too.

            1. Wouldn’t it make more sense to fund them according to the ratio of people who want to play or watch the sport? Oh no, practicality and logic, liberal kryptonite!

              1. screw you, I can’t take another sexist pig.

                1. What’s sexist about it, rctl? Why spend money on womens’ sports if they don’t WANT to play? Should women be forced to join sports teams against their will in order to fulfill Title IX pogroms?

                  Women wanna play, let ’em play. They don’t, they don’t have to. Move on to another more-important issue.

              2. The idea is that the current cultural climate is one that has been fashioned by hundreds of years of sexism, a sexism that was backed by government sanction and government force. So the current “ration of people who want to watch or play the sport” is not legit itself.

                If after a few hundred years of mandating equality (note equality, not favortism of one sex like the government enforced the previous few hundred years) women still truly don’t want to play sports and the public doesn’t want to watch womens sports, then maybe we should go back to that ratio. But going to it now would just legitimate the current cultural climate on that, one that has largely been created and fostered by years of straight out government oppression…

          2. “Why are colleges mandated to fund teams”

            Because the colleges are public (or get public money) and a good chunk of the public are women? Because we think that the 50% of the citizenry whose taxes are collected to fund these schools should be given equal shot at the benefits of these public institutions?

            1. Pardon me, but how many tax-paying college attending women’s curlers do you know of? The last time I checked, virtually no college athletes paid any federal taxes whatsoever. Why? Because they don’t generate an income. And in case you didn’t notice, athletics are highly discriminatory by their very nature. You can’t play, you get the axe.

              I’m surprised you aren’t calling for “opportunities” for anyone who wants to play. Hell, my federal taxes support these places! I want to play for Roy Williams at North Carolina. It’s not my fault I’m older…that’s ageism! It’s not my fault I can’t jump all that well…that’s jumpism! It’s not my fault I can’t handle the ball worth a damn…ballism! This discrimination is killing me inside!

              Dude, seriously, relax. I’m against the government mandating things. If the student body demands a team for women, they’ll likely get it. The courts shouldn’t be the ones who make those demands. That’s it. Chill.

              1. Yes they can discriminate based on ability and such when going FOR the slots, but they must provide equal amounts of slots re men-women.

                I’m not sure what you’re point is supposed to be about most students not paying taxes. Wouldn’t that fall pretty equally on the men as well as the women? The point being is that when public money is spent it’s not exactly nuts to require 50% of it to go to programs that benefit a group that is 50% of the citizenry…

                1. Yeah, because, as we all know, whenever the government spends money, it benefits us all equally! Right?

                  1. I’m not sure what your point is, or if you have one to be honest. Is it wrong or absurd to condition receipt of monies from the government on the condition that it will be spent 50% on a group that makes up 50% of the citizenry?

                    1. It’s not my fault you don’t understand it. Your proposition, that money collected from a certain percentage of the population should be spent to benefit that percentage in direct proportion to its representation in our society, does not occur anywhere in our governmental system.

                    2. I’m not sure you are right, but even if you were you are confusing “is” and “ought.” Maybe no other government program requires funds to be spent equally among genders, but why would requiring that be wrong? Especially when the funds are meant to provide a definite good? This isn’t a “need based” program like welfare or medicare. This is a program that says “educational opportunities are good and we are going to foster them for our citizens.” What is wrong, or not right even, about saying “funds we spend for these educational opportunities will be spent in a way to provide an equal amount of such opportunities for women as for men?” They are half of the citizens the opportunities are meant for…

                2. If the public women really cared about equal opportunity in college sports, why don’t they go to the sporting events to support them? Its obvious by the fact they don’t go to curling that they don’t give a dam about it. Stop forcing them to pay for it through taxes.

          3. Does football need 85 full scholarships?

            Football’s insatiable appetite to pay amateurs skews the numbers for compliance with Title IX, which fucks other men’s teams.

            Now Title IX is deeply flawed, and the chief application method is terrible, but football is highly complicit in the problem.

          4. Except they’re federally funded, which kind of makes it fair to enforce whatever the popular view of “equality” is.

            I’m not saying I agree with it in principle, I just recognize that the status of certain schools as receiving public funds entitles the government to impose standards on them. Taxpayers are footing the bill, after all.

            I prefer private schools anyway.

    2. Is “rctl” a contraction of “rectal”?

  12. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment

    I provided a co-worker (a former good times hell-raiser who got jilted and then, in her grief, found Jesus, but who nevertheless adored Tom Jefferson) some of his skeptical writings regarding Christianity. She read them and handed them back, visibly saddened by what she had seen. I asked her, why so sad? She replied, “I was so looking forward to meeting Jefferson in Heaven. Now I know I never will.”

    1. Jefferson is in limbo at Libertarian Heaven. He’s still working off that little slavery thing. So we can chat through the fence with him

  13. So, looks like this faction has somewhat of a point, and then want to go way too far in their own direction of bias.

    1. Agreed. I see this list as:

      1. OK.
      2. Fine.
      3. Good point.
      4. What?!? No way.
      5. Ummm… not seeing it.
      6. Maybe. I’m always a little reluctant to have school time devoted to some bit of pop culture the kids are going to pick up elsewhere anyway.

      1. That’s about right. As for #5, I’m all for including Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, if they have the time. Likewise, #6 is good if they’re teaching popular culture – Country and Western is the most popular genre in the United States and to ignore it for the favorites of the Left is decidedly unbalanced – but I also don’t know why they want to throw out hip-hop, the second most popular genre in the USA.

        But #4 is the big one, but it doesn’t surprise me. These jerks have removed Jesus from the Bible, so why wouldn’t they remove Jefferson from American history?

        But the bigger problems are (1) how history is taught, and (2) public schools are a bad joke and were established as a means to tyranny.

        1. “I’m all for including Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, if they have the time.”

          On an equal footing with Lincoln?

          1. well, without them Lincoln’s task would have been decidedly easier, and less historic.

  14. Really? Thomas Jefferson wasn’t an intellectual influence on the early United States, despite being a noted anti-federalist, writing the Declaration of Indepedence, and being the third president, as well as the founder of one of today’s political parties (admitedly, the modern Democratic Party has almost nothing in common with the Democratic Republicans, but still)?

    Really Texas?


    1. Really. Y’all.

    2. You’re a nitwit…it’s the whole Sally Hemings thing. You’d have to live here to know.

  15. When you read this kind of nonsense you realize immediately how the Republicans are no better than Democrats.

    It’s like choosing between getting raped by hammer or a screwdriver.

    1. I’m just curious here, but what dark sad part of your past did that last comment come from? Just saying….

      1. Are you SURE you want him to answer?

    2. Who in their right mind would pick the hammer?

  16. Some leftists are responding to this by saying, e.g., that’s it’s completely insane to want Hayek to be discussed in history.

  17. “The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.”

    Wat da fuck? I’ll see your cracker Texas asses in hell, bitches!

    1. But… but what about rap metal? That still counts, right?

  18. What about the hip hop? Double calumny!

  19. 2+2=1. Teach the controversy.

  20. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

    Technically the Protestant movement just before the enlightenment was informed by a new interpretation of the bible. ie that regardless if you are Pope or King you are still equal under the eyes of god. To say this did not have an influence in liberal enlightenment thinking is pretty idiotic.

  21. So shall Texas history books eliminate all reference to the Declaration of Independence, since it was written by that secular deist Jefferson?

  22. Separate education and state.

    We (rightly) don’t want the government to run the churches. Americans would be shocked at the idea of adults worshipping for a few hours every week in a church run by a government agency. That would give the government the chance to pour its propaganda into the ears of the citizens, and tell people what opinions they need to hold. Such a thing cannot be allowed in a limited government!

    Yet Americans are generally OK at the idea of children spending hours every *day* in a government-run school, where the content of the instruction is based on what government employees want.

    1. Better yet, let’s have taxpayer vouchers given directly to the Catholic school of one’s choice, right Max?

      “Americans are generally OK at the idea of children spending hours every *day* in a government-run school, where the content of the instruction is based on what government employees want”

      Since America is a democracy those employees are periodically up for dismissal by the people if they don’t like what/how they are teaching.

      1. Oh, good, I forgot about those safeguards. I had forgotten that public-school teachers and federal judges could be thrown out of office by the people. Or that the minority can vote the majority school-board candidates out of office.

        1. ‘Better yet, let’s have taxpayer vouchers given directly to the Catholic school of one’s choice, right Max?’

          Once I’ve reinstated the Inquisition, *every* school in the country will be a Catholic school.

          I’ll still keep a few Puritan Protestants as vice-principals, to sew scarlet ‘A’s on the sweaters of female students if they misbehave sexually.

          And scarlet D minuses on the sweaters of their boyfriends. Zing!

        2. You can vote for the school board, and they set the curriculum and hiring practices. Additionally you can vote for various lawmakers to make laws that the teachers have to abide by.

          If a majority of the people don’t like what is going on in the schools they can change it. They’re certainly not helpless.

          1. Indeed, if the atheists don’t like what the majority wants for their school, all they need to do is elect an atheist candidate!

            We all know that a one-size-fits all system is best for children. If a majority of parents prefer a given education approach for their kids, then of course that approach should be used on kids in the minority.

            1. If the majority wants to hire ruler-wielding nuns to smack any kid who gives them lip or refuses to recite the Rosary, then of course majority rule must prevail!

            2. I do happen to think that majority rules is better than minority rules when it comes to government institutions and programs Max.

              Now, perhaps government should not have programs in this area. That’s an argument I entertain elsewhere on this thread. But where it does offer programs certainly it’s better to have the nature of those programs defined by majority rule than minority rule…

              1. Are you saying that allowing parents to provide for the education of their own children is ‘minority rule’?

                1. No, parents should be able to provide for the education of their children. I’m saying that if government gets into the business of providing schooling then majority rules should determine the nature of that schooling.

                  1. There used to be a really decent voucher program in DC. It was getting results.

                    But apparently it’s only okay for politicians’ kids to attend Sidwell Friends.

                  2. I’m saying that if government gets into the business of providing schooling

                    Government’s not supposed to be in the business of “providing” schooling, you asshat! We’re supposed to be a representative republic, not a tyranny-of-the majority democracy of the sort you want. Our Founding Fathers hated the very word “democracy” with a vengeance because they remembered from their history books how it ruined Athens and were determined not to repeat the Greeks’ mistakes.

                    Something I notice this asshat Moynihan fails to mention is that the Texas School Board’s rulings also made this distinction, requiring the textbooks to note that we’re a constitutional and representative republic, not a democracy.

              2. Isn’t it fascinating that liberals screamed for decades about their minority rights, until they finally got enough useful idiots to agree with them; and now they are ALL the fuck about majority rule?

                1. If you have a better way for government, whatever level of government you think should exist mind you, to make decisions than majority rule,then let’s hear it.

                  Even in Libertopia there will be debate over policy. Take intellectual property rights. Widespread disagreement among libertarians. OK, so in Libertopia how will that stuff be decided? By minority rule? WTF?

                  1. Why, yes. Everyone knows that “protect the rights of minorities” means anything and everything a minority claims as a right legitimately is one.

    2. They are taught in public schools that you have to have public schools or the sky would fall.

    3. “””Separate education and state.”””

      Schools would love that as long as they continue to get federal money. They love that money a lot, and would prefer not to get seperated from it.

  23. I’m scared. Why have these biased and lowly scum been allowed to ultimately brainwash and indoctrinate children?!

  24. Hmm. There has to be a solution to this problem. Maybe a different kind of education system…something like a privatized education system.

    1. I guess the idea is that if we all could save the money we paid in taxes for schools, and the public schools were closed, then it would create new markets for private education, and that demand would induce supply, and the profit motive would make for better run schools. None of that sounds crazy to me to be honest. But here is a concern, as it was pointed out last election a good chunk of people actually pay no taxes. These people are poor. I can’t see any market reason enterprises would rush to teach their kids for free.

      And so a huge chunk of kids would not get school, and would not get even the merest chance (and I agree many public schools currently provide these kids the “merest” of chances) of learning skills that would get them out of the cycle of poverty they are in…We’d have like a “super-underclass” compared to the one we already have, and I can’t think that would end well for the entire society…

      1. I can’t see any market reason enterprises would rush to teach their kids for free.

        And so a huge chunk of kids would not get school

        Your conclusion does not logically follow from the first sentence. Rebuttal: homeschooling; scholarships; parents setting financial priorities; and the abysmal failure of, say, the Detroit public school system to educate children despite sucking massive sums of money out of people’s pockets.

        1. Oh, SCHOLARSHIPS! Prole wants a huge chunk of the kids in this nation to “depend on the kindness of strangers…”

          1. As opposed to the forcible theft from strangers which results in a nonfunctioning entity that they depend on now.

          2. That sounds totally stupid, until you realize their other option is the American Public School System.

        2. If people like MNG had their way, the only schools would be government-approved.

          1. “No, parents should be able to provide for the education of their children.”

            You either can’t read of can’t scroll. Homeschooled?

            1. I can read just fine, despite your slur of homeschooling, which I wasn’t, not that it’s any of your fucking business.

  25. Can someone please help me understand this one?

    From an earlier article from the AP, McLeroy said that he saw nothing in the Constitution that stipulates a separation between church and state. I thought the Establishment clause pretty well covered that idea, but I suppose he is making some sort of semantic argument and I’m missing it…so if anyone can explain it to me, I’m rapt.

    1. Many religious conservatives say the Establishment clause simply prevents government from actually establishing a church, compelling financial or ideological support. There must be some element of actual, explicit coercion of support or else there is no establishment, just government officials or the community through the government expressing their faith. That’s at least how I understand their argument.

      1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

        This means government can’t establish a state religion, and exclude all others. Arguably, excising all references to any religious belief in public schools would be establishing atheism / secular beliefs as a state religion. Whereas, mentioning the effects of various religions upon history, etc., with no particular sect of religion being the sole or overwhelmingly dominant one mentioned or portrayed favorably would NOT violate the First Amendment.

        To the extent that changes in curriculum roughly reflect this balance, then they are constitutional.

        1. As I said elsewhere prole is one of our resident conservatives, so I imagine his exposition of this view would be helpful to you.

          1. As I recall, at the time of the “founding,” some states had official churches. So it was OK on the state level, and what they wanted to prohibit was implementing that on the federal level. It’s why they used the words “congress” and “establish.” Nothing, as far as I know, limits congress’ (congress’s?) ability to otherwise promote religion.*

            *SLD, limited powers, etc.

        2. “Arguably, excising all references to any religious belief in public schools would be establishing atheism / secular beliefs as a state religion.”

          The argument is without merit. Atheism holds that there is no god, hence atheism can’t be a religion.

          1. Atheism holds that there is no god, hence atheism can’t be a religion.

            This argument is without merit. Buddhism does not have any god, but is a religion; therefore, atheism certainly can be and is a religion.

          2. It
            1) draws most of its philosophical significance from a firmly established metaphysical outlook (there are no gods);
            2) which informs a set of moral beliefs (people who believe in god must be retarded or evil);
            3) which lead people who adopt the metaphysical outlook and morals to be more likely to act like a self-righteous dick to people who don’t believe the same universal truth or follow the same moral code.

            It’s close enough to a religion for me.

            1. That might be a tad overstated. I DO draw my philosophy from a metaphysical starting point that there is only ONE reality, and we are in the midst of it.

              However, I don’t think that anyone who disagrees with me is evil or retarded, any more than I think that people with a differing political viewpoint are retarded or evil. (Well, other than Joe, Chad, Tony, MNG, et al) That would tend to cut me off from the other roughly 6 billion people on the planet.

              And while the atheist viewpoint has it’s share of self-righteous dicks, I have encountered a lot more of that from religionists in my lifetime.

    2. I understand it as them not seeing the exact words “separation of church and state” and being so dumb/cynical that they can’t/pretend not to realize that this is a perfectly good way to restate the religion clauses. Coincidentally, the author of the words “wall of separation between church and state” is downplayed.

      1. Tony, as I noted above, “separation of church and state” is establishing atheism / secularism as a state religion.

        1. Perhaps instead of simply characterizing people who disagree with you as dumb / cynical, you might try understanding their POV and trying to see how maybe, just maybe, they have a grain of truth in their argument.

          1. Well you’re either one of the cynical politicians and church leaders involved in peddling this theocratic bullshit or you’re one of their dumb sheep eating it all up.

          2. It’s no use reasoning with Tony. He’s a radical greentard who worships Gaia and holds the word of scaremongering Global Warming quacks to be infallible.

            1. Ultimately, Tony worships The Church of Godvernment. Where the government is God, y’know.

        2. You’re half right. It establishes secularism. Which means government doesn’t take a position. Surely it would be unconstitutional to make atheism the national creed. But secular means it doesn’t involve itself in theological matters, i.e., there is a wall of separation. What business does government have with religion? What could it possibly contribute?

        3. I’m not sure “secularism” is a religion. For example, would the absence of smell be a smell? Why would not commenting on religious matters be a religion? It would be a mighty strange religion given what I know about what normal people call “religions.” Is there tithing? Houses of worship? Clergy?

          1. Is there tithing?

            Taxes. But in real churches, tithing is voluntary.

            Houses of worship?

            Congress and the White House, with satellite operations in fifty states.


            Senators and state reps. The Pope is currently a black dude with a mean-tempered control-freak wife who thinks her kids are tubby.

            1. That’s the federal level you’re talking about. “Secularism” is kind of like Freemasonry, with levels within levels. At the lower levels…

              Is there tithing?

              Property taxes. In most other religions’ churches (except in Islamic states), the tithing is voluntary.

              Houses of worship?

              They’re called “schools” and unlike most other religions’ churches, attendance is mandatory.


              Teachers and administrators. So far there’s no pope or caliph or anything quite like that, but there is a major pederastic child-grooming pervert in charge of keeping these children “safe” from any influences that might be less than friendly to the state religion.

              1. Oooo, snap!

              2. Wait, are you guys saying you can’t be a secularist without being a statist? Some of the most authoritarian government worshipers are religious, while I loathe the government and consider myself to be a secularist.

        4. Prole, I know arguing with Chad, Tony, and MNG can push one to hyperbole, let’s dial it down a little. To me, seperation of church and state merely means that the Church’s dogma will not be utilized to inform governmental policy. i.e., no theocracy here, please.

      2. The separation of church and state thing flies out the window when liberals use terms like “render unto Caesar” and “my brother’s keeper”.

        Quite conveniently out the window, that is.

        1. Hypocrites are like that, TLG.

        2. They keep it on a long tether for whenever they have to yank it back in through the window.

          1. “Keep your laws off my body! We demand mandatory seat-belt usage!”

    3. I’ve also heard a related conservative argument made that the establishment clause only applies to the Federal government, not the states.

  26. Jefferson Thomas Grade 5
    Jefferson Thomas Grade 8
    Jefferson Thomas U.S. Government
    Jefferson Thomas World History

    The last was a proposed change/addendum to the curriculum, and they decided not to add it. Does this suddenly mean that ‘ol TJ has been excised from all of the other places he is taught in the TEKS?

    I find it quite strange that all the libertarian blogs are making common cause with the academic Marxists on this, and are BELIEVING them rather than checking the primary documents

  27. Here is the link to the most current available documents, the results of the March meeting haven’t been posted yet:

    From thereyou can find documents from the previous meetings as well.

  28. “The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.

    Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day and all that–you could tell the Aristocrats joke in the history books, only with “communists” as the punch line this time, and it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

    Great Society programs such as Title IX?which provides for equal gender access to educational resources?and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language.”

    I have to admit that when I’ve read this covered by others, they haven’t mentioned Title IX as being the relevant example, and I have to say that when I think of the term “Great Society” Title IX isn’t the first thing that springs to mind…

    I think of Medicare and Medicaid, and anybody that doesn’t think Medicare and Medicaid need to be reconsidered in terms of unintended consequences is pushing their own agenda.

  29. John Stuart Mill supported laws requiring parents to educate their children while giving them a choice of where to educate them. Taxpayers would give assistance to poor parents to help them meet their obligation. This is the idea I was promoting above.

    From Chapter V of Mill’s book On Liberty:

    ‘Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State’s taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence. Unless, indeed, when society in general is in so backward a state that it could not or would not provide for itself any proper institutions of education, unless the government undertook the task: then, indeed, the government may, as the less of two great evils, take upon itself the business of schools and universities, as it may that of joint stock companies, when private enterprise, in a shape fitted for undertaking great works of industry, does not exist in the country. But in general, if the country contains a sufficient number of persons qualified to provide education under government auspices, the same persons would be able and willing to give an equally good education on the voluntary principle, under the assurance of remuneration afforded by a law rendering education compulsory, combined with State aid to those unable to defray the expense.’

  30. Max, like I say, why not just say we should fund Catholic Schools with taxpayer money and get it over with? Stop being so coy.

      1. You said above:

        ‘No, parents should be able to provide for the education of their children. I’m saying that if government gets into the business of providing schooling then majority rules should determine the nature of that schooling.’

        Your principle would allow a Catholic majority to establish and run ‘Catholic Schools,’ and to force Jews, Protestants, and atheists to pay for it. I oppose this.

        So, not only are you lying, you are projecting.

        1. Max it’s obvious to anyone with any shred of US history what you’re up to. Catholics have for the longest time tried to get government funding for their schools. You’re up to the same game.

          “Your principle would allow a Catholic majority to establish and run ‘Catholic Schools,’ and to force Jews, Protestants, and atheists to pay for it.”

          Except that I believe in the seperation of church and state construction of the Establishment Clause, which have said in the past you don’t accept (remember your bitching about the Blaine amendments, I do). So stop being so coy and trying to come off as some freedom loving libertarian. You’re a conservative Catholic activist who thinks so little of the people on this post, or so much of yourself, that you come on here and try to couch your pro-Catholic bullshit in libertarian terms, hoping you’ll sway these folks.

          Shit, I don’t pretend to be a libertarian to “budge” the folks here, at least I respect them that much.

          1. I’m not asking you to be honest, which would obviously be too much of an effort for you. I am asking you to remember what you said from one minute to the next, so that you don’t get caught with blatant lies.

            You support taxes for education. You said that these taxes should be expended based on ‘majority rules.’ You said nothing about *restraints* on majority rules. You are simply trying to cover your ass because you misspoke.

            Your ‘proof’ that I support tax subsidies for Catholic schools is that ‘Catholics have for the longest time tried to get government funding for their schools.’

            By the same logic, ‘liberals have for the longest time promoted racial preferences,’ and therefore you do, too. Why be so coy – come out and say that affirmative action is OK! All liberals are interchangable!

            Getting a lecture on honesty from MNG is like getting a lecture on chastity from his fellow liberal, Elliot Spitzer.

            1. What’s inconsistent about believing in majority rule and the separation of church and state? So majority rule has exceptions, that’s how it works here. But they are still exceptions and there’s usually a good reason for them (not the filibuster, of course).

              1. The only things consistent about the tyranny of the majority you promote and your “separation” canard is that they are both consistently contrary to both our Constitution’s purposes and our Founding Fathers’ original intentions for this nation, they are both consistently totalitarian lines, and they are both consistently evil.

                Majority rule does not have exceptions, it is the exception. We are a representative republic, not a democracy; and you treasonous Dims are headed for a slaughter in the polls this November because you have not faithfully represented us.

              2. @Chony: What HH said, you putrid little troll. You apparently never heard the words “Constitutional Republic”, or read a single Federalist paper.

            2. For a religious nutbag you sure made quick work of MNG’s specious claims. Well done.

              1. Mad Max is one of my favorite commenters. This is why.

  31. With the exception of the Jefferson excision, the rest of these changes seem like either a positive change or innocuous.

    1. I imagine most other conservatives would agree with you prole, though that is hardly shocking….

      1. I’m not a conservative, MNG, I’m a libertarian. Try not to malign me untruthfully, please.

    2. Yep, we do. ‘Bout time textbooks got jerked back to the right after friggin’
      decades of being jerked leftward.

      ‘Bout time the high school coaches had free rein with the whole “board of education” corporal punishment vibe, too.

      1. ‘Bout time textbooks got jerked back to the right after friggin’ decades of being jerked leftward.

        Indeed. Most of the changes sound pretty much like the history I learned in the 1960’s – in the Chicago Public School system, which was hardly a bastion of conservatism even then. This sounds more like a refutation of the liberal revisionism of the last 40 years than any radical conservative revisionism.

  32. Isn’t KULTUR WAR great?

    If I ever have a kid, they won’t even step foot in a public school. Ever.

    1. Dad, Emma [** sighs **] invited me to the Sadie Hawkins Dance at her high school …

      1. Are you giving me lip?

        (starts taking off belt)

      2. What Epi meant is that his kids will be kept locked in the basement at all times, keeping their valuable organs nice and supple. Epi’s not one to let an investment depreciate.

        1. Don’t give away all my plans, Warty. Because if I don’t have any kids of my own, I’ll have to find donor matches amongst everyone else’s kids. Starting with ProL’s.

        2. [** mutters under breath **]

          Emma’s the one keeping my valuable organ nice and supple.

          [** skulks back to basement **]

          1. Ooh… That was naughty on sooo many levels.

            Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

  33. …and by about 7.9 million dollars a year, and about 7.9 million listeners a week. Other than those two very MINOR differences, they’re inseparable!

  34. I’ve reflected on my education and by today’s standards it was indeed quite liberal. Of course today’s standards are so obviously biased rightward–and not just toward an alternate interpretation of history and facts, but of an entirely different set of history and facts. If my education seemed liberal it was because it was fact based. Conservatives have a long history of working for affirmative action for their ideas in education rather than submitting them to the rigors of being factual.

    1. Tony, which is you favorite M. Knight Shyamalan movie? I’m guessing yours is Lady in the Water. Mine is none of them.

      1. Admit it. You saw The Happening.

        1. Ha, sucker: I saw The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I turned Lady in the Water off after 15 minutes, and I haven’t been stupid enough to waste any time on the rest.

          But it seems you have.

          1. Oh no, I gave up after The Village. I should have given up after the aliens one, whatever its shitty name was.

            Although, to be honest, Unbreakable was enjoyable enough.

            1. Oh, I forgot about the shitty alien one. Which tells you something.

              Unbreakable had an interesting atmosphere but was ultimately unsatisfying.

              He just sucks monkeyballs at this point. One-trick pony.

              1. Signs? I thought it had a pretty meta twist.

                Like, you thought you were watching a suspenseful, atmospheric movie about invasion, tension, fear, protecting loved ones, crises of faith, interpersonal drama and shit…

                But it turns out you had actually been watching a movie with a backstory that was so retarded even a five-year-old would be able to point out, “But daddy, why would aliens who die in water try to take over, without any sort of protective gear, a planet mostly covered in water, where water occasionally falls from the sky, and which contains water vapor as a major component of its atmosphere?”

                1. Yeah, I don’t see how you can master interstellar travel and be that dumb.

          2. *whispering* I see dead premises!

      2. Who’s up for pie?

      3. Epi, this has become my favorite part about visiting H&R — your repeated attempts to get Tony to lighten up. He’s no Neil, maybe it’s time to give up.

      4. The Village. Underrated, but that’s not saying much.


        2. That was my second guess, Tone-ster. Now I’m going to ponder–for another time–what your favorite Joel Schumacher film is.

        3. Tony, it’s awfully sweet of you to recommend that film as an oblique way to pay homage to my book, It Takes a Village.

          You’ve been a loyal worker drone for a long time now. You will be allowed to live.

          1. hahahaha

  35. Use school for the basics. Then educate and raise your own fucking kids.

    You can then enjoy the regular reports about how your son or daughter is not cooperative when they disagree with something the teacher says, and some how magically are capable of backing it up.

  36. What a delightfully rowdy bunch you all are. Wish I could detect less corn and more scorn.

    Methinks the writer tries too hard to balance this one out:

    1. less corn and more scorn

      I would be happy to insult you, if I knew what you were talking about.

      Corn is edible, but not always digestible, so when you take a crap you can still see it. So it’s some kind metaphor, right?

    2. Oh, I get it. You are the one who wrote the collide-a-scape thingy. And you judge our outrage to be lacking. Sorry, I’ll try harder next time. It’s just that History text books tend to be so full of prepackaged shit (that I’m forced, at gun point, to pay for) that I don’t really give a flying fuck if the corn in the shit is red or blue flavored, cause I’m pretty much outraged-out. And yes, that does make me cool,above the fray, and better than you in a totally horn rimmed glasses kind of way.

    3. You want some scorn? Fine.

      Go fuck yourself with a greased flagpole, and take your shitty blog links with you. You suck. I’d rather be raped by bears than endure you for any length of time. Please die.

  37. Anything that reduces trust in government textbooks is progress.

  38. Where are the quotes from all the Bolshevik textbooks?

    Perhaps there would then be some basis for reasoned (drink!) discourse. Until then, I’ll maintain my opinions that Jefferson was a great patriot, Davis and Jackson were traitors, and McCarthy was an alcoholic fool.

      1. Is this from a textbook or your memoirs?

        1. I, er… plead the Fifth.

      1. In which school district was this taught and when?

        And what exactly does it have to do with history?

        1. It’s what we’re going to be teaching in your kid’s school, ya renegade kike!

          If it’s history you want, you’re gonna see history a whole new way when we get finished revising it!

          1. Specifically, you’re not going to be seeing quite as much of it.

          2. Umm … I don’t agree with the approach, but nothing seems particularly sinister about what’s going on in North Carolina. Seems more like another tiresome attempt at relevance.

            1. That’s right, Jubes! Nothing that came before 1877 is really important for your kids to know. Now quit fretting about your history and go back to sleep.

  39. Mrs. Apostate just mentioned the we should remember to “Hang Jeff Davis on a sour apple tree.”

    1. I’m not really insulted. But I should be. Go ahead and tell your wife she pissed off some Crackerty Ass Cracker if it’ll make her feel better.

      1. It’s a good song (although not quite as good since the competent authorities banned the profanity).

        “Any ice today, lady? No? Fuck you!”

        I’m just surprised any educated person would dispute that what was going in in Texas was a travesty without producing the Bolshevik quotations from the textbooks in question.

        1. I agree it’s a travesty whenever public money is used to pimp a certain point of view. That’s why I’m against public schools altogether. There is no way to have public schools not be political organs of the state. So I enjoy watching a new batch of people introduced to the opportunity to finally realize this.

  40. Oh dear, I’m in 205th place already. Nice to see religious whackjobs finally surrendering in their quest to Christianize Jefferson and simply decide to expel him from history altogether.

    1. I don’t know, the other day I watched some Glenn Beck because Andrew Napalitano was on and after him some guy was pimping the idea that Payne and Jefferson “saw the light” and that the reason the French Revolution turned into a clusterfuck was that Gawd wasn’t involved. I died a little inside.

  41. I actually think Chuck Norris’s double-length exclusive column on the issue is pretty good (“Don’t mess with Texas…textbooks”) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f…..eId=127935 Here’s a sample:

    “Limited federal government is what has allowed us to be independent and autonomous over our curriculum. For example, while federal courts have banned educational options like Intelligent Design in biology, many who are involved in the curricula decision-making process in the Lone Star state believe there is a place for it somewhere in academia, if even in classes on government. If God was good enough for our Founders, and Creator-language important enough to be in pivotal documents like the Declaration of Independence, then why can’t our kids be educated about that Creator from at least their original documents?

    “Opponents’ primary rebuttal to Creator education is often to retort that the First Amendment prohibits it, but America’s founders penned the First Amendment to protect not prohibit the practice of religion, even in public arenas. That misunderstanding was witnessed again on the SBOE, as Democratic board member Mavis B. Knight introduced an amendment covering the separation of church and state. She explained that it was “intended to inform students that there is a political and legal doctrine out there that addresses the issue.” But Republican board member Ken Mercer rightly rebutted, “I think [the Founders’] point was that they did not want a separation from religion, they just wanted to avoid having a national denomination…one religion everyone would have to follow. I think they had a different understanding of religious freedom.” Mrs. Knight’s amendment was voted down by the SBOE.”

    For another 1000 additional words from Norris on this issue, go to http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f…..eId=127935

    1. Creator education? Jesus Christ. This had better be the set up for the best Chuck Norris joke ever, or else that’s just seriously lame.

      1. Damn! One of the few times in my life that I’m completely at a loss for a punch line, even a bad one.

        1. Wait!! Norris….punch line….damn! I’ll get back to you.

          1. This is why thinking people shouldn’t be Founding Father fetishists. Attempts to turn them into bible thumpers get us side tracked for one. The framers were wrong about all kinds of shit (like the need for a central government for one, the Anti Federalists were way better, though had there been any prominent anarchists they would have been the best.) Some of them owned slaves or supported slavery, and it’s not being overly PC to point out that that was about as contrary to the notion of freedom as anything can be.

  42. the stoopids really come out of the woodwork hier…

    1. hi there!

  43. McLeroy lost in the primary this year. Even Texas Republicans think he’s nuts.

    IIRC, the “moderates” will have a 5-4 majority next year.

  44. “The idea is that the current cultural climate is one that has been fashioned by hundreds of years of sexism”

    And it hasn’t gotten one bit better, has it, MNG? And we’re still just as racist as we were, say, fifty years ago, correct?

    Jesus tapdancing Christ.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.