Make Mommy and Daddy's little brain-washed tadpoles THINK for the first time!

The Reagan who did more to destroy unions and the middle class than any other president in US history.

through entitlements. Go ahead, throw the book away, or continue to write your truth in the margins-no one cares honey. Live in your dream world like your hero St. Ronnie. I just noticed this was from the New York Daily News....

...but managed not to see how all that was squandered.

Secretary of the Department of Transportation, HHS, Labor, and UN Rep. His record was better than Carter.

The statement that conservatives are "incapable of true charity" is not what their stated fundamental belief. In fact it is just the opposite.

At least, based on these quotes, the author is attempting to advance a political position in a book that should be exploring Social Work. It is needless and damaging to her primary goal. I know nothing about the field, but I do know a textbook should not be a partisan. If you want to criticize Reagan's policy decisions and their impact on Social Work that is fine, but this drivel has no place in an academic text in my opinion.

"House Negro"

among different perspectives as a starting point for classroom discussion and debate. Something like: here's someone who sees Reagan's presidency as harmful (which I personally believe it was) and here's someone who sees Reagan's presidency as a good thing. What do you think and why?

That would be fine with me. However, as much as I really loathe Reagan (I lived through both terms, ), I don't think it's the role of a textbook to grind an ax against him, anymore than it's the place to lionize him. A history of the Reagan years (like Sleepwalking Through History)? Sure. But not a textbook.

without reading the textbook how can we know how objective and truthful it is? the commenter above misread the excerpts quoted above to base the criticism anyway.

I see your point, but I was imagining the textbook being used more as a prompt for the real education that comes from discussing opposing viewpoints. For me, the important part of my take on this is the need for people to engage each other in explaining (and defending) why they believe what they believe. Not in the FAUX News/Corporate media shouting fests, but in presenting *uninterrupted* defenses of what a proponent believes and why.

That's what I liked about Nye's recent "debate" with the creationist. Hamm, or whatever his name was, could not really explain why he believes what he believes, just that it's in a book that's thousands of year old and has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and misinterpreted for just as long.

I understand the criticism people have of that debate that it gave Hamm legitimacy to put him on the stage with Nye and that it most likely didn't change the minds of any of those on Hamm's side. But it also has at least initiated a larger discussion that can help to reach and possibly influence a larger audience.

If there was the approach I'm talking about in the classroom, for instance, this person in the article probably would not be influenced to change her mind about Reagan, but what of other people in the class who were neutral or didn't know much about Reagan or whatever? If she offered up her FAUX-Dittohead veneration of Reagan and the wealthy to defend her beliefs and someone who knew Reagan's record and how it has shaped our country today (including crushing student debt) could actually lay out why he or she sees his presidency as a devastating thing for America's working and middle classes, minorities, women, etc., it would perhaps prompt these students at least to question their assumptions or neutrality.

Honestly, though, I haven't read the actual context of the textbook in question, so I don't know the larger context is (I'm at work and not able to do that kind of review).

I'm just saying that I believe it would be better to use the classroom to initiate that kind of discussion than to continue talking past each other in our respective echo chambers.

myths and non-existant facts. with rw radio especially they've created alternate realities and histories (along with all the straw men and red herrings) that force their way into the national dialogue and all it does is waste time and distract.

if that alternate reality enters an historical discussion of the pros and cons of reagan then it's a waste of time, IMO, unless the purpose is to identify and determine what is bullshit. that may be possible in a classroom even if some are unconvinced but on a national scale it's impossible as long as 1200 radio stations get away with lying all day. we spend huge amt of time on left leaning blogs talking about crap that only exists because the left gives 1200 stink tank coordinated radio stations a free speech free ride (to deny global warming, rewrite history, etc). lately it's benghazi, irs, and whatever other molehill they want to turn into a mountain this or the next week.

for me it's also a waste of time for a debate in which religious beliefs are given equal time with science unless it's billed as such. science and religion should have those debates, but not when the religious POV is legitimized as merely another way to analyze the data (and getting brushed off by david gregory for instance on national tv with "the debate continues&quot - or becomes a front for oil industry denialism expressed in a major political party platform. we have problems and we've lost 25 years dealing with many of them because the right has the ability to distort our national dialogue at will. and we let them.

For Reagan. He won 48 states. Somebody voted for him. I was way too young. He was a disaster but it was the country's disaster.

would have done, but I was not too young and certainly did NOT vote for him.

I only said most because Reagan won so overwhelmingly that they even called Democrats "Reagan Democrats". I am glad that you did not fall in that category. Reagan must have had some issues that appealed to liberals for some reason. I am sorry to ramble but I am still stunned not that he won reelection but that he won by practically the entire country.

In a free country, it is the prerogative of the professor to present the text that they best feel will accomplish the goals of the class.If an instructor thinks that this textbook best represents the truth regarding the topic she is teaching, then she has a responsibility to use that text.
Besides that, the brief excerpts from the book are definitive of actual conservative characteristics, as opposed to their "stated fundamental belief". If there is anything we have learned about the conservative Republican is his or her inability to be true to their "stated fundamental beliefs".

a certain critical perspective.

You might want to order a copy of the textbook and read it in context before deciding it is "drivel."

It's the NY Daily News.

Also, might want to read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024540901

This is a Democratic, leftist leaning website. We generally support progressive, not so called conservative, ideas.

Raygun lit the match that started the fire that is burning down our country

I lived in CA when Raygun was governor and saw how he destroyed that state and especially it's heretofore excellent educational system - I was so beside myself when idiot America made him president.

him so much we wanted to share him with the whole nation!"

about cons in a general way, which is perfectly acceptable.

look at the psych studies.

without knowing the economic history of this country and just why their case loads are so heavy now with parents working multiple jobs charged with neglect because they can't supervise their kids from work and the low wages from multiple jobs can't feed them properly.

Since many of the laws covering this were written in the happier times in this country before Reagan got in and blamed OPEC inflation on unions, they are inadequate to cover what's going on out there. Workers need to know about that, too.

Reagan was an unmitigated disaster for this country. If you don't yet realize it, please start doing some reading outside the pro Reagan bubble. You need it desperately if you are to survive on a reality based political discussion site.

You are obviously on the wrong discussion group.

Anyone who admires Reagan either does not know what a negative effect he had on the social structure of America or is too lacking in compassion to become a social worker.

I cannot imagine a Reagan admirer going into social work. There is a huge contradiction in values between Reagan and the field of social work.

Rather than burning their new textbook, they should read Terrel Bell's history.



They'll see how little they know, PDQ.

I LOVE the fact that the textbook tells it like it is and doesn't skimp on the horrible 8 years that Reagan was in office. To all those that are crying over the fact that someone actually wrote a true book about the GOP - truth hurts, maybe you should ask why it hurts your feeling so much to hear the truth?

This is good news.

He absolutely had no idea what was going on during his second term. Anyone alive during those years knew he was suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's. Nancy was very protective of her husband, one of her only redeeming qualities that I will recognize. He was an old man when he took office though he was physically fit I don't think he had the stamina or mental capacity to be a great president. His reputation over the years has grown largely through the efforts of many others to paint an image of a great leader. While I think he's an important president for launching the "conservative revolution" I think in reality he was a guy who projected an image and made people feel good (while he picked their pockets clean).

Great leader? He was a fucking piece of shit and so are his supporters.

He knew how to milk it.

the fairness doctrine to allow the right to monopolize 1200 radio stations into the most powerful propaganda weapon in earth's history.

that's what allowed them to pressure and intimidate their critics, excuse their crimes to 50 mil a week, put hacks like thomas on the supremes, rebrand traitors like oliver north and bush, and get away with a hell of a lot.

and now it is the very thing that has turned the party of lincoln into the party of limbaugh and is driving the GOP off the cliff. unfortunately, because the left ignores rw radio, the rest of the country is going with them.

Ending the fairness doctrine killed real news.

Now our news is controlled and everything is scrutinized by a few powerful companies with an agenda.

None.

But then I am not nor have I ever been a rethug. Not even a so called 'moderate' one. That party is slime.

Apologies to slime.

Conservative means "I got mine screw you".

He was a carnival barker for corporate America.

He was good at reading speeches. That's it. Nothing else.

His entire presidency was scripted.

The Republicans HAD to because otherwise nobody who worked in his administration would have ever worked in Washington ever again.

Think about it.

"You worked under Reagan? Which part? Trading arms for hostages or crashing the economy?"

They will never accept the facts, the data, the charts, the grafts, the research, the economics, the science, the anthropology, the biology.

They have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since birth.

This was done intentionally.

Edward Bernays would be so very proud.

I love truth and facts.

I am the first to admit when I am wrong.

I am excited to correct any misinformation.

I get my news from independent media from all over the globe.

I listen to both sides.

I do my own research.

I make an informed opinion.

I have a high school diploma. 1970-1971

I have a certificate in computerized office skills. 1992

The internet (I have had internet access since 2008) has been a teaching tool beyond my wildest dreams.

It gives me the feeling of empowerment and helplessness simultaneously.

I read it as "any"

that conservatives are "corrupt and lazy" what the book actually says is that conservatives are "more likely" to "view others as corrupt.....lazy" they completely lied in that regard. The other place I found this article was in Newsmax. That should tell you something.

Reagan appointed over 1,000 women to administrative positions inside his staff. Not sure how to verify that figure. I'm sure that Mark Levin, who worked in the Reagan white house, has said the same thing on his radio show. If true this author really fucked up.

(Edit) But if you look at this photo of the 1984 Reagan cabinet, his cabinet was majority male, so the author is right in a sense albeit crudely:

distributing cheese bricks.

with what they charge for textbooks theses days

rather than saying "I'm offended"...besides, aren't LIBS supposed to be the ones saying "I'm offended at everything?"

I have yet to see a serious debunking of that so called "leftist propaganda" whenever conservative college students complain about it.

are "corrupt and lazy". ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN NOT! The book states that conservatives: generally see humans as “being corrupt, self-centered, lazy, and incapable of true charity.” In other words, it's how they see others.

That book is also quoting a study. It has negative things to say about liberals, too.

I should have known when the only other source I could find for that article was Newsmax.

Thanks

Per Wikipedia

"Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, partially true, or false. Critical thinking is a process that leads to skills that can be learned, mastered and used. Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process."


I wonder if these students applied critical thinking when they read “Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives" to the claims in the book and contributed meaningful discussion to the class, or if they just went straight to tantrum mode like typical Republicans.

Go back to school.

when he was President of the Screen Actor's Guild and forced his way into her apartment at 3:00 am. Or does it?

Please, give us all a link. I've been reading DU for almost 10 years and have never seen this.

and there are many websites that lay it out. It originally came from Kitty Kelley's biography of Nancy Reagan that had several explosive stories, such as George H.W. Bush's auto accident while drunk and with another woman in his car while he was Reagan's VP and the cover-up. And actress Selene Walters was personally interviewed after the book came out and essentially confirmed the "date rape" story, only she denies it even occurred during a date; Reagan just showed up at her door and forcibly took her on the couch against her will.

http://www.bartcop.com/reagan-rapist.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1999/03/gipper_the_ripper.html

Somehow I missed that discussion on DU. I must have been AWOL on those days. Thanks again.

that the book's intention is to grind an axe rather than educate. You'd have a tough time explaining how that relates to the subject matter.

have no bearing on the textbook's point that Reagan was a sexist and corrupt man? Using his power as the President of the screen Actor's Guild to take advantage of an actress is irrelevant to a conversation about what a corrupt individual he was? Yeah, right.

to the point that they would include a story about a crime that he was never even charged with? Is the inclusion of this story necessary to make their argument, and is Raygun's character critical to "Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives".

I'm not saying it's not true, or that it shouldn't be in any book, but if it found it's way into a textbook on social work and social welfare, it's REALLY easy to make the "axe to grind" argument look good.

The book apparently discusses Reagan's attitudes about women in general and his discounting of them ("ascribed to women primarily domestic functions&quot . What could be more relevant to this argument than specific instances where he abused them in previous positions of power before his Presidency such as where he used his power as President of the Screen Actor's Guild to feel that he could sexually impose himself on a woman and then get away with it without consequence? You suggest that the book is not concerned with Reagan's character, but from the article it seems that the textbook obviously examines Regan's character in general, at least from the review of it at the website provided:

"...suggests that Reagan had narrow views about women’s roles and may have been unconcerned about the well-being of minorities.

Reagan "ascribed to women, primarily domestic functions and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency,” Kirst-Ashman wrote in the textbook. ..."

Does the text go into detail about the hostage exchange with Iran? If there is only one crime that stands out as absolutely treasonous, its that. Because it resulted in stealing an election from a good man. The man who we elected after the criminal enterprise that was the Nixon admin we endured through the 70's. I mean think of the irony.
There should be 100 books written about that alone.

History has made this allegation much more credible than we were told. I always thought it was real, but that went against conventional wisdom for many years. Funny how when the truth finally comes out, the record doesn't get corrected, or not at any scale that impacts the minds of as many people as it should.

Excellent point.

Perhaps the young lady should get all her history from Fox News, then.

Hitler made the trains run on time, you know. Next up: Should women have the vote? For more on this debate, a panel of five conservative men.

...how RR felt about women in general, but he certainly knew a good BJ when he got one...and he married her.

Conservatives do not like facts which is why they watch Fox News

Any mention of reality is considered to be BLASPHEMY!!!

Richard Pryor in his own words: his telling of meeting President Ronald Reagan in 1983 : "I went to the White House, well i was invited anyway because i made this movie Superman III, and everyone was in line to meet him, and when he came to me, he looked at me liked i'd just walked in off the street and totally blanked me. I didn't even want to go in the first place, i felt like a turd on his shoe or something".

he believed in what ever benefited him. he knew how to manipulate women to achieve his goals. he went to college on the dime of the church his mother and he attended. he was`t political until his dad finally found work at the ccc/wpa office in dixon then he became a fdr democrat. my dad worked for the wpa at that time. as to his overt racism his attitude was not something he really developed until later. after he was shot he basically lost any control of what was his presidency to the bush klan which nancy hated. she had a good reason to consult the charts.

my dad said he was a big dumb mick and history proved him right.

n/t

The stuff about the right

I can't think of any. I ask this because it seems to me it is the liberal who betters the course of history, and is later honored for it.

Of course they go running to Faux News...

Shocked I tell ya!

There was plenty of people at the time who thought his views were barbaric who grew up the same time he did, and as we can see they were right and he was wrong.

The evolution "controversy," the climate change "controversy," now the conservatives are sociopaths "controversy"

Just take a look at his foot-dragging as the AIDS epidemic exploded under his watch. His dead silence on this issue certainly cost at least tens of thousands of lives. It wasn't until Reagan speechwriter Landon Parvin was finally given the task of drafting a response on AIDS that Reagan finally uttered a word on the subject. It other words, he had to be dragged fighting and screaming then shoved in front of a camera before he would lift a finger. The tarnish from this can never be removed.

from both homophobic and racist views held by Reagan and his cronies. I was a young man during all of that, unsurprised at Reagan's inhumanity as I was a child during his Governorship of CA and heard him say so many horrible things about so many people and subjects for so many years. The worst President of our time.

...reading any Introduction to Social Work textbook and not feeling insulted and outraged.
Can't quite do it, given that the history of Social Work is a history of working against most of the Conservative Agenda.
(Have never really grasped the notion of Conservative professional social workers either, really -- not that there are all that many of them...)

He was good at two things: making feel-good, self-congratulatory, "America is the best, because God made it so!" speeches, and wrecking the country through his warped right-wing understanding of politics and economics.

Good on the author of that textbook for daring to tell the truth about Reagan.

She was not born yet. She only knows of Reagan from a twisted conservative revisionist history. Those of us that were there know how badly Reagan damaged the nation.

... BRATS. This is history. Sue it and see how far you get.

as one of their top ten US Presidents in all of US history.

everything. I'm generally an optimist. And dad sure is quite the opposite. taking his so called favourite movie about Hope. He's not even Red. I'm more like Andy but even many Obama supporters are like Red. latch on to the word Hope and thing it comes right away. It's far harder to repair damage than it is to damage something. Bush did 8 yrs of Damage. I assume it'll take 16 yrs of full Progressive control to repair it. Until then. Just taking longer. No the world isn't ending at the end of the year. No coup next year or 2016. Although I do worry about right wingnuts killing people true. They certainly make the Secret Services job way harder

during the magazine's 45 year history:
Ronald Reagan
Even before Reagan was elected president, The Advocate was warning readers about the former California governor, who had called gay people “sick unfortunates” and stalled repeal of antisodomy laws in the state in the early ’70s. When LGBT activists invited earlier this year to a reception at the Obama White House were photographed giving the finger to the official portrait of Ronald Reagan, they got shamed for poor manners. But during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s it would have been different. Reagan was named 1985’s Homophobe of the Year and made the Phobie list repeatedly. Reagan didn’t give a formal speech about the epidemic until 1987, after thousands had died.

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/advocate-45/2012/08/21/45-biggest-homophobes-our-45-years

Including the poisonous political atmosphere. I've been involved with Democratic politics since I was 14. I never experienced the nastiness of political hacks infiltrating opposition rallies and trying to break them up UNTIL the 1980 campaign. I was at Miller Outdoor Theater in Houston to see President Carter during his reelection campaign, and the place was filled with Young Republicans who wouldn't let Carter talk because of their chanting about Carter killing the B-1 Bomber. This was the year Bob Dornan became "B-1 Bob" and after we knew that the B-1 Bomber was a boondoggle.

Reagan began his Labor Day campaign that year in Philadelphia, MS, and didn't mention the 3 civil rights workers killed there, but talked instead about states' rights.

There was the plot with the Iranians to sell them spare parts for their missiles if Iran did not release the hostages until AFTER the election.

He ended federal funding for mental care facilities and created the homeless, along with his crippling recession that also put people on the street and living in their cars for the first time.

He did everything in his power to kill the American trade unions.

He gave us the trickle-down joke of Reaganomics.

He deregulated the savings and loans, and they imploded.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the damage this man and his minions did to the United States of America.

What a concept.

He was a marketing campaign spokesman not a lot different from that Progressive Insurance woman. A whole lot of dummies willingly exchanged their steaks for sizzle.

geeze.. just a long ass euphemism for hypocritical liars.