This lady again?

I haven't read her book, and won't; it doesn't interest me. But I see on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0976726904/qid=1132017085/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7058733-8729655?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - that it isn't doing too bad (#321 in Books).

I like this review from a reader who gave the book one star:

It Seems Cute Until You Think About It... Please, Think About It... November 12, 2005

Reviewer: Steve Voiles (Minneapolis)

I am a teacher. When asked about the word liberal, I give all the positive virtues of forward thinking, and open mindedness; when asked about the word conservative, I extol the virtues of guarding what is good in life and conserving resources and wealth thoughtfully. It is divisive to present these terms as antonyms and it is and indulgence in rigid thinking to use stereotyping as a form of definition. That is what is wrong with "Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed." It is the opposite of thoughtful intelligent consideration of political terminology.

"Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed" might be clever on Saturday Night Live, but when aimed at children it becomes the lowest form of propaganda because it relies upon stereotypes of the crudest sort and creates ugly situations (as seen from a child's point of view) that suggest that people can be categorized simply and that issues are black and white, us and them. In this sense it is deserving of the adjective hateful, not so much towards "liberals" but towards children. When Sadaam had his pictures put in all the textbook and children were "taught" to chant allegiance to the regime as if it were divine, all good Americans were nauseated. When we see the film of the brown shirted children of German saluting the fuehrer and being encouraged to spy on their parent for the good of "the fatherland," our stomachs turn. Yet, some of us find it cute to indoctrinate small children in politically divisive story telling about issues they are not yet ready to contemplate.

I appeal to those of you who think this book is cute, to think again about what is healthy for the growing minds of young children. Should we be teaching them to think for themselves and to read broadly and to examine all sides of an issue? Or should we encourage them to rely on narrow, mean spirited stereotypes that encourage judgment and taking sides over thoughtful examination of issues that affect us all? For 200 years Americans have believed the former to be true. How easily we lose track of our values. It is clear that these "conservatives" who think this book cute, have forgotten (or failed to learn) to conserve the basic American values that have long provided a firm footing in our effort to wrestle with our various points of view in a clear minded effort to find the common ground which provides for the common good. Suddenly its all about what club you belong to and how cute you can be in your efforts to demonize those who disagree with you and you closest friends.

As and adult, I can appreciate the satire of this book, but it is not offered as a satire for mature adults, it is offered at a political primer for our children. As an American, then, I must be deeply offended by simplistic stereotyping (propaganda) aimed at children. As a parent and a teacher I am alarmed at this gross disrespect and manipulation of the minds of the young. This is not about free speech. DeBrecht has the right to behave badly, but let's not call it "cute" or consider it a proper diet for our children. This issue is about decency towards children, good manners, and honoring the foundations of freedom of thought in a free society.

Gordon in SF - I find it interesting that you admit that you haven't read the book and that you won't but then take the liberty of posting a review by someone whom you think you might happen to agree with?

Mr. Voiles seems offended with the thought of parents using this book to teach their children their values - something they have every right to do - without being accused of using propaganda etc. Yet, as a teacher, I suppose he thinks he has more rights than the parents to instill his own sense of values in someone else's children?

Vicky, I find interesting what you term as "interesting". What's wrong with posting a review by someone who read the book? Nothing.

You say: "Yet, as a teacher, I suppose he thinks he has more rights than the parents to instill his own sense of values in someone else's children?" There is not a hint of this in his book review.

I am still hiding under her bed with the dust bunnies--EEEEEEK--this isn't any bargain for me--well it was either this or a Howard Dean fundraiser

As with most Republican debaters we will be listening to one skilled in the art of dishonesty. I have had occasion to listen to her elswhere. We might want to ask her about the billions of treasury dollars being fed to insider special interists or about their overall plan of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Ask her about how they have stolen our Social Security reserves and have a national debt that is expanding several billion dollars every weak while they look to cut further the taxes of the very richest Americans.

Ms. DeBrecht will spin all of this (lie about it all) but at some level she best be hoping that some liberals crall out from under beds so that her child might have a country to grow up in and a place to put her bed. Still she will be here to share that special kind of truth provided by the Rush Limbaughs & company.

Mark, you might want to ask her the questions that Ann C of Democracy Now asked of many at the Republican convention; Did you see Michael Moore's movie about 911? and; Did Iraq cause 911 to happen?

Great big SIGH....in response to Dave's post.

You are dealing with another sociopath Mark and you are holding your own. Thank you/

Mark,

Why don't you try getting author Peter Schweizer to agree to a Debate Tuesday with you?

The last part of tonight's show with Ms DeBrecht made me think of Schweizer's book, "Do As I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy".

Would be very interesting!

Vicky said: "Mr. Voiles seems offended with the thought of parents using this book to teach their children their values - something they have every right to do - without being accused of using propaganda etc. Yet, as a teacher, I suppose he thinks he has more rights than the parents to instill his own sense of values in someone else's children?"

Worse. If he teaches in a public school, it's above his pay grade. Instead, he think's the state has a right to instill whatever values they deem beneficial and by whatever means they deem necessary.

It takes a village idiot to believe that any government will do a better job of educating their kids than families and communities have done down through the ages. Homeschooling is self regulating. If the superindendent fails at his task, he's not going to have illiterate, lazy, helpless adults munching potato chips on his couch.

Vicky,

I'm not familiar with Peter Schweizer but I'm always happy to debate anyone interesting and knowledgeable who has views different from my own. (That's what Debate Tuesday is all about.) I'll look into it. And if you want to encourage him to contact me to be on my show, please go right ahead.

While you're there, ask Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to debate me. For some reason, they're too afraid to take me on....

Laughing out loud Mark....you are so funny. ;-)
(I mean this in a good way.)

But what do you mean, "while you're there"? At the moment I have no idea how to contact Schweizer...but I guess I'll see what I can find!

Ginger....Do you care to elaborate a bit more on your comment on homeschooling?

Hi Vicky,

I hate to bring your favorite topic up on this show board, abortion, but I'm curious....are you a one-issue voter (issue: abortion)? And that is why you (presumably) only vote Republican?

The reason I ask is because I have a sister, Marcia, who votes Republican only due to this one issue...she's extremely anti-abortion and an activist in the movement. She's very liberal on ALL other issues.

I've discussed this issue with her many times, saying things like "Marcia, don't you realize that you're being hoodwinked?...Republicans don't want Roe to be overturned, it helps them get elected to CLAIM they're against Roe....they run on social issues and forget them once they're elected...blah blah blah."

She's truly "Blinded by the Right"....are you too?

Looks like you found a friend in Ginger. I know an atheist who very successfully homeschools her son (no, I'm not an atheist, but I know one...I wonder if you'd support my atheist friend in homeschooling her son. Why does she homeschool him? Cuz she finds the public schools inadequately prepared to educate her gifted son.

Issues Issues Issues

There is a certain group of Americans that always want to debate issues, and another group that want to fight. The issue group will always talk about specific examples, the other group will paint fictional scenarios. The issue group will discuss the specific purpose of a proposed change to our current system, the other group will argue any angle they can to distract from the subject of the change.

For example; Mark tried to press the guest for opinions on specific issues like torture or government oversight, but the guest seemed intent to try and paint the entire subject as though is was somehow unpatriotic. When Mark asked about the bill that would outlaw torture, the guest tried to make the argument that the bill somehow attacked our military men and women.

In short when some try and debate issues others find it more effective to simply attack the debater. After all if you have a indefensible position, why would you want to debate it? If you don’t stand with the American people on an issue, then better to seem to “win” by an effective attack on anyone wanting to debate.

Clinton told us that if we can bring the Republicans to the table to debate the issues, then we’ve won already.

Examples from this interview of this point:
1 – CIA leak case is a “witch hunt” –
Of course anyone that has observed any of the facts of the case know this is impossible. A “witch hunt” is when you go looking for the crime. The crime is undisputed in the CIA case. No one disputes the fact that a CIA “classified” person was exposed. That is why the CIA asked for the Justice department to investigate. They can’t win on the issue of WHO EXPOSED THE SPY, so they attack the process by lying calling it a “witch hunt”.
- counter argument: “Are you trying to imply Dick Cheney is a witch?”

2 - The Left wants us to loose the war –
The issue being asked was should the US government have oversight of our treatment of people in detainment. Instead of engaging in the argument, the guest went on a talking point rampage attacking “the Left”.
- counter argument: “The Right is costing us the war!”

3 – Peoples concern are with those that strap bombs to themselves –
The issue being discussed was Georges threat to veto a bill to outlaw torture. Faced with an indefensible position, the guest instead attacked the Left. Not only did she attack the Left, she lied. There is no one on any side of the political aisle that sides with terrorists over Americans.
- counter argument: “Terrorists bomb, they kill, and they torture; and we don’t want to have anything in common with them.”

4 – Torture of terrorists save American lives –
Again this is in response to the indefensible position of protecting our ability to torture people. This one at least does address the debate. Let them debate with this position.
- counter argument: “Tricking terrorists save more American lives” and “The Right want us to lower ourselves to the level of terrorists.”

5 – Ted K has tax shelters –
Skipping the fact that this is a blatant lie, it also does not address the point being debated which was the ESTATE TAX vs INCOME TAX.
- counter argument: “Halliburton ‘period’.”

Thanks and remember: “George is not a crook!”

Today's guest disgusted me, and I think it was because she sounded so pleasant and happy while she lied. I could just see her sitting there smiling while I called her a liar. Something about her pleasantness made me detest her, just like yesterday's guest, who was so disarming before he said that prisoners had no rights except to eat.

Sorry if I came off as a rabid on the phone, but that woman was so...

grrr.

Jeff,

Don't play into their hands! Their professionally developed psychologically based framed talking points are engineered to provoke an emotional response. They can not win on the merits of their position, so instead they develop language and talking points that provoke support from their target audience…. and ire for the likes of you and me.

peace

Jeff: "Today's guest disgusted me, and I think it was because she sounded so pleasant and happy while she lied."

Symptoms, no doubt, of the conservatives' favorites drugs: valium (look at Laura Bush's looks & mannerisms, she's clearly on this...who can blame her?) or Rush's oxycontin.

Jeff,
"help, the President is wiping his butt with the constitution", LOL,LOL.
You should be commissioned to write the opposite reflection of her book and devisive outlook. That way it can be instructed in school along with her book. You know, so there will be balance in our education system like science vs biblical.
I thought she sounded politely paranoid of people. And with her book it may be an acute case of childhood schizophrenia. There is no doubt she wants to indoctrinate young minds with a political bias of hate.
You did call it by asking if she lacked reality or was just lying. You were fine on air jeff.
It came from the honest heart, Thanks. I enjoyed listening.

I have to agree with this remark of Jeff's...."Grrrrrr."

Jeff, please try not to judge someone for sounding pleasant and happy. She was much easier to listen to than one of Mark's recent guests by the name of David Horowitz. ;-) Can't you disagree with her without "detesting" her? Sheesh. Where's the tolerance?

Hi Gordon in SF...Thank you for your curiosity...I am NOT registered with any political party. Please give my regards to your sister. Is she involved with "Feminists for Life"?

To answer your question....NO, I am not blinded by the right. I vote my conscience ... do you do any less? Do I think the Republicans have done everything they possibly can to overturn Roe? No, I don't but I believe strides have been made. Do I think there are politicians who might use the "pro-life" position to further their political careers? Yes, I do....that is on their heads. (For an opinion that I pretty much share, read Gordon of Michigan's poem on the Nov 10 blog - "A Skeptic's Indictment" -it's darn good.)

Would I support your atheist friend's right to home-school her son? Absolutely. Will you support those Christians who home-school their children? Do you agree that the public schools are inadequate in giving children a proper education? At present there are approximately 4 1/2 million homeschoolers...apparently there is some dissatisfaction with public education! Being a liberal, Gordon, I would think you would support the liberal schools, aka public education!?

Yes, pleasant laughing liars--they are the worst kind

Well, Gordon, now you know two atheists who homeschool their kids. I've only got one left at home, though. One's grown and the other decided to do highschool.

The littlest one tried 2nd grade for a couple of months, hoping to make friends in our new little home town (3 years is like a day around here) But she was only frustrated. Turns out, as it does occasionally, mom was right. Kids are no longer allowed to socialize in school, what with the pervasive threat of unauthorized ideas getting around and all. There is no more recess, talking while wating in line to board the bus or go to lunch is verbotten, etc. She already knew everything they were pretending to try to teach and it took up all of her time and energy so she couldn't stay up late and watch the Daily Show with the rest of the family.

Vicky, my philosophy on education is almost identical to that of John Taylor Gatto. Not only is he a local boy to our new home region and that I happen to agree with almost everything he says (I part ways with him attributing all the good of American culture to Western Christian tradition), but his credentials and real life experience give him standing as an esteemed expert on the topic of education. You can read his whole book online at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm and I can't recomend it highly enough. I'm not too sure about that Odysseus Group retreat thing they keep talking about, though. Seems a little cultish to me. But then, I'm highly allergic to even trace amounts of that stuff.

Ginger, Why are you an atheist?

Vicky - I support homeschooling in general. By the way, I went to public school from grades 10-12 (I was forced to go to Catholic school from grades K-9, but I told my parents--much to their anger--just before grade 10 that I had rejected Catholicism). But I didn't find my 3 years of public school to be "liberal" or "conservative" at all....it was just an education....and a great one at that. I got into a great university thereafter (also secular, not Catholic) and I now have a great career as a result.

Ginger - I really enjoy your posts; I find them very thoughtful.

Vicki, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in the existance of a concious diety. I was raised Presby (mostly... long and convoluted story). When it was time for me to formally become a member of the church, I found that I couldn't honestly swear that I believed. And so I didn't. See, "god" gave me a sense of reason which, to this day, has not found satisfaction in the particular dogma of any religion.

And I don't see that as a problem to be solved. Don't worry, though. I'm not an evangelical atheist. I don't go around trying to save others from a belief in god. I draw the line at theocracy, as most good Christians do (at least the Christians who I find to be worthy of admiration). Last time we mixed politics and religion, people burned at the stake. We don't want that again. Other than that, have at it.

Why thank you, Gordon. Will you read that book I keep hawking? (just google John Taylor Gatto) I think every educator in the country should be required (by law? lol!) to read it. And I'd dearly love to find out what you think of it.

Ginger--could you explain to me what grows your fingernails and beats your heart (try to hold your breath and pass out and you still wake up)--is there a force beyond religion that passes through all the creatures of the universes of universes?

Everything is Everything

Everything is everything, anything is everything.

Nothing is nothing.

It’s a holographic universe.

Everything is a little bit of everything;

there is a slice of everything in everything there is.

It’s quantum physics, and for us, it’s cutting edge stuff.

We’re just finding out what God’s made of,

his scope and majesty spread through everything.

Scientists are realizing this is reality,

As a matter of fact: Matter isn’t matter, it’s energy.

Everything is energy; it’s high or low, fast or slow.

Everything!

How large and, at the same time, small, this concept is,

it’s a self-contained miracle as far as the mind can see,

in all directions…Infinity…

Be still and listen to the truth, God’s joy and happiness are ours because,

nothing is nothing,

and everything is everything.

My dear new friend asks, "Ginger--could you explain to me what grows your fingernails and beats your heart"

Nope. And neither can you. Did you know that your hair and fingernails will continue to grow long after you're dead and burried? Can you explain that? Wonders never cease.

And it's fine to have beliefs based on faith. The problem comes in when people become so thoroughly convinced that their theories are fact that they're willing to kill and die, to put people in cages or otherwise employ coercion against one another based on their theories about life, the universe and everything.

I know very brilliant and compassionate Finlanders who believe, litterally, in fairies the way many Christians believe in angels. I'm fine with that. I even enjoy learning about their traditions and folk lore and musing over how those beliefs hold together a society and how they connect (or sometimes disconnect) with the imutable laws of physics and nature.

In a nutshell, I believe that all of the diety worshiping religions down through the ages have been attempts to personify those immutable laws and facts. Science, when people treat it like a religion, is no different.

Ginger--everyone has faith in something--some have faith in nothing--the problem is when experiences happen that redefine one's faith--something like being outside of your body and still thinking--and realizing there is not such a thing as death--in a very real and pragmatic way

Looking at your body and still thinking--think about that--there is nothing else to realize except that you are a spirit that was once housed in a human body--but now quite independent and functioning from that body

The growing fingernails and hair? The life force is still in the corpse although the spirit has left it--your beating heart--you don't control it--the life force does

Out of Body

Surrounded by darkness,
I see the light,
magnificent, alluring,
beckoning hypnotically with mother’s love,
shining figures of Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna,
displaying the elegant, exotic beauty
of human being,
void of evil, unified,
relaying in telepathic voice
the essence of existence,
breathing, absorbing me in
to another realm…

To the River of Life
where I drink in
ecstasy,
realizing something that can be
less than nothing
and greater than anything
and that everything is light
and love
and alive,
cycling, recycling endlessly.

Returned to my body
my heart knows I am
a creature of light
and
I am at peace within the process.

Purple Heart

I looked down at the sky, flat on my back,

at the Southern Cross,

and wondered why I was still alive.

That day before I had seen death,

and death spit me up,

like Jonah out of the whale,

or was it more like a chunk of bad meat rejected,

even by the taste of a jackal?

Part of me felt exalted,

another part felt like a piece of vomit.

I looked down at the stars, and they didn’t seem to care,

they just shined back at me and said nothing.

They just shined their fire at me,

that they had cast off eons ago;

the stars seemed unaffected by my plight.

And yet, I couldn’t forget that feeling,

that tranquil flight from my body, I had just taken,

all encompassing peace,

stillness that was complete,

a feeling I wanted to feel forever,

that I knew was still there,

waiting,

for me, when my time was right.

Neurologist Olaf Blanke and colleagues from the University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne have found that electrical stimulation of a site in the brain called the right angular gyrus can cause OBE.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s680326.htm

who knows for sure...??

Bob--when you have OBE--tell me about it--I know a B-40 blown up about five feet from me can do it--I know that for sure