|Reviews for Liberal High School|
| Joseph chapter 3 . 5/24/2007
This is just flat-out frightening, but probably not in the way you intended. I agree wholeheartedly that liberal politicians have done some stupid and immoral things while getting elected, and while in office. But so have conservatives. It's incredibly hypocritical to bash liberals for telling people what they want to hear (which, I agree, they do) without mentioning _the_ most obviious example of this-G.H.W. Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes." By the same token, yes, liberal candidates have fought unethical campaigns and have used smear tactics. But, working for G.W. Bush's campaign, Karl Rove had voters in one southern state called up, and insinuated (though never flat-out stated) that McCain, Bush's rival in the primary, had fathered illegitimate half-black children. The things you so bluntly criticize in liberal politicians are comitted by almost all politicians. And while this doesn't make it okay, only criticizing the left because your sympathies obviously lie to the right is very hypocritical. As for your ideas about question-dodging, have you watched any of the Gonzales hearings? I don't think I've heard a word out of his mouth besides "I do not recall."
As for the course list, you have a disturbingly narrow world view. What's wrong with being required to learn another language? Studies have shown that students who learn to speak other languages become more proficient at their own as they begin to understand the actual mechanics underlying linguistics. And if it really had anything to do with making you understand immigrants, why would they offer french? Do you honestly think we have all that much illegal french immigration? In your world history class, did they really completely skip over Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Regan? Because they were both republicans, and in my school we learned a great deal about their contributions to history.
And as for science, it is a _science_ class. If there was another _scientific_ hypothesis, it would be taught. You mention global warming. Do you really understand the overwhelming evidence for it, or do you dismiss it out of hand because officials in the republican party do? This applies to evolution as well, which I believe you indirectly adress as you are bashing the natural sciences. Do you understand the incredible amount of information-from darwin's finches, to vestigal structures, to the experiments that have demonstrated that out of nothing but loose, mineral-filled sludge, the protiens that allow and sustain life (and form DNA) will start forming on their own-or do you simply dismiss it? If intelligent design had anywhere near the amount of scientific evidence in its favor that evolution does, it would be taught in science class. But as of now, it is a matter of faith. Why should we teach an alternative hypothesis if that hypothesis has no scientific evidence to back it up?
| TaltushMeiMei chapter 3 . 5/2/2007
While some things here can be said in the opposite direction (actually, just about everything can... people always complain about what they're not), the wit level here is pretty high, so good job with that. I don't quite get why there's the presence of the course list TWICE (eek, repetitive and long). Anyways, the mockery is pretty funny, though it does sometimes go a little overboard. (and after reading your profile, I don't write romance and I don't really write angst [I don't count sad as angst] [usually]. I don't know if my writing's any good, though, so sorry for that. Definitely no sex, so none of the other things mentioned.)