Bryan

That's fair, but some news reports have young LaClair apparently exaggerating the supposed bias in the book. Standing up for integrity should be done with integrity. I'll note that I haven't read the book, but I've looked at the CFI report, and at least one of Matthew's statements seems to go much farther in its criticism than does the report. That type of exaggeration was also present in young LaClair's letter to the school administrators regarding Mr. Paszkiewicz.

The more we learn about Obama, the more it seems he is of a kind with Bill Clinton. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowl...ha_b_96188.html Check out the way the Obama campaign spins this one.

I'm sure the Huffington Post appreciates your help in spreading their lie. McCain said that he would stimulate the economy like Reagan, not cut deficits like Reagan. Are Democrats really that dumb or do they just lie about stuff like that out of a thirst for power (no offense to those Democrats who happen to be intelligent and honest)?

And that's why you're here. To twist things around. So what? Who said that Matthew asked for the book to be pulled in the first place? Why bring up the point (other than to apply a twist)? That point remains at issue (what is a factual error and what isn't), and doesn't appear to have been the topic of the post to which you responded. A text with a "conservative slant" should contain more than the mild examples raised, don't you think? Especially in 500+ pages (iirc). Whirl, whirl, twist and swirl.

Yeah, 'cause it' not like they're both wars or as though they both had/have a big impact on the economy. Obviously an invalid comparison.

McClay's jealousy of Matt LaClair is palpable. Same goes for the so-called "teachers" who say that the book either isn't so biased or that other books have a liberal bias.

Well, at least you have a healthy imagination. Yeah, that must be it. Yes, and it leaves me less time than I'd like to admire myself in the mirror. Semper Fi. Marines.com

They didn't exactly bend over backwards to admit error in their official statement, did they?

Even people with credentials have agendas. Hmmm. LaGuest. No, I'm saying that young LaClair is making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't think he will be effective, except in getting his name in the papers and about that last I am apathetic. That doesn't follow. If it did, it would follow that all meritorious complaints of bias should be pursued, which would result in a crippling of our educations system, a chilling of free expression, and even richer lawyers. Though perhaps that last one appeals greatly to you. No, I don't--but why should the publishers pay attention to him? I think you'd be blind to the myriad instances of biased writing that happen to agree with your political stripe. Uh, yeah. And when I get really mad I yawn. I'm so incensed now I think I'll take a nap.

So since you can't think of any examples you decided to lie about it, eh?

Hard to hear you through the many layers of silk in which you have wrapped yourself.

What was the positive outcome of those communications from our perspective? You underestimate the danger of asymmetrical warfare in the age of superweapons. Like how? Not talking to them is a hard stance, and it has worked somewhat well (though it would work better if Russia and China weren't helping them out on the side). What "hard stance" alternative do you suggest? Talking to intransigent entities just increases their appearance of standing. The policy of the United States has been to demand good faith as a foundational basis for discussion. Lacking that, engaging in discussion is futile. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188

Keith for president 2008 Semper Fi. Marines.com

As you shall demonstrate? Correct, with the caveats that there was nothing whiny about it and my statement reflected jurisprudence reflected in Supreme Court decisions. Possibly, though that remains to be seen. I think there's a good chance that Matthew took the passages on that topic out of context, though I trust that that incidence involving the photo caption was accurately conveyed (photo captions might be provided by the editors rather than by the authors). Both. Matthew is trying to chill conservative bias out of school textbooks, which will leave liberal bias (though as politics shifts left I suppose some of the now-liberal biases will turn "conservative" and those will have to be excised from the curriculum as well. Great demonstration, Squizzler.

If you're talking about the high school student's complaint then we're still talking about the same thing (there is no "as well"). If you're talking about the experts, you can just never tell how a journalist went about getting the opinions (except when the transcript of the interview is available). I'd read it that they agree that the text contains some hints of bias, not that they're up in arms about it. They probably realize that textbook bias is endemic to the teaching profession. That makes Matthew an even bigger whiner. I'm sure he'll be much more comfortable in school once he's in a cocoon of liberal bias.

If by "bitching" you mean I point out when an opponent relies on ad hominem (including name calling) I consistently point it up in order to rhetorically play up the paucity of reasoning, yes. Otherwise, no. Feel free to keep digging into your three insult bag when you reply to my posts. Insults do not bother me. I'll simply point out to the reader that your approach to argumentation features the hallmarks of error. In the current case, I'm answering a person who has made an implicit ad hominem attack ("If you could read PatRat's posts honestly, it would be clear to you") by challenging him to an examination of the evidence. If he backs out of presenting the evidence, I suggest that he does so out of cowardice, and based on the evidence the reader probably ought to agree. Though he may complain that he feels insulted, there is no ad hominem fallacy involved except on his part. Do you think we should avoid the use of evidence when we argue, Keith? Semper Fi. Marines.com

What, no mention of its torture provisions as treated by the U.S. Congress? Is it that you don't know, or are you deliberately suppressing information in your account? Like you did? The administration has an excellent argument regarding the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps you'll get around to answering it.

Great. Now that you've got that off your chest deal with the Democrats' history regarding earmarks and go get your facts straight regarding their use (McCain is one of a number who have avoided the surreptitious earmark process that amounts to a legal mechanism for tit-for-tat dispensing of favors to a congressman's constituents).

He still has time for that, so far as I know. Actually I called it a civics lesson in whining. If every student did this type of thing the lawyers would be 100x richer than they are and the schools could not teach. Bias is rife in the public school system, usually with a leftward bent. I do think that his complaint may have some merit, but as with the Paszkiewicz situation it hardly calls for the type of melodrama brought to it by the LaClairs.

Smells like cut & paste. Gene, you weren't asked to explain the ultimate nature of being and the world. Your answer implicitly confirms that you're interested in the ultimate nature of being, for you aim to base your actions on the "best" information you have available. What makes a given datum the "best"? Metaphysically, on the basis of my preferences via libertarian free will. Yes. One that is both kind and just. Are you preparing the way to keep yourself from going on the defensive? No, not necessarily. But it could be. I think your answer is equivocal. I think that the Constitutional system of amendment is fine except that the courts have turned into a shortcut to constitutional amendments, making the use of amendments for significant changes seem unduly arduous. What makes you think I think that? Was I not specifically talking about application of your logic? I thought we were talking about your logic. You're not a goddess, are you?

That doesn't seem possible. Even if you think the ultimate reality is that there is no ultimate reality it should have some concern for you. Perhaps you mistake "metaphysics" for supernaturalism? That seems odd considering you specified one of them for me. That's the example I had in mind and no other, unless you'd like to specifically add to the list you started ("I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice"). Have you really, if there is no metaphysical basis for sin? If you're not concerned with metaphysics then why let it concern you? If that were the greatest feature should we perhaps make it easier to amend the Constitution? When was the last time it was amended? I'm not supposed to apply that reasoning to the 13th Amendment by analogy, I guess.

Ever wonder how WW2 helped end the Great Depression while lining the pockets of war profiteers, Keith?

... said "Guest" with another impossibly huge blast of unintended irony.

This is hilarious. I wonder if young LaClair will be able to detect the bias in his college textbooks. I doubt it. For the most part that bias will agree with his own knowledge and as such will be fine. He's giving a civics lesson in whining.

For example? If you would provide an example I'll give it a try. Then we can compare notes afterward. Unless you're a coward?