I enjoyed your rant, but of course, I do have one bone to pick, when you say:

“The schizophrenic nature of our national story – a nation that loves liberty above all else but kept millions in bondage for the first 80 years of its existence among other dichotomies – cannot be illustrated in any single textbook…”

I think it can be shown why this happened. If the non-slave owning states had not gone along with The Compromise, there would have been no United States of America. The fact that they did it in secret was shameful, though.

Did they leave the problem to fester for later generations? Of course. Was that worse than what they did? I’m not sure.

It’s hard to come up with a moral solution after the fact. This evil existed since the beginning of the colonies, long before the idea of a separate nation was ever in the air…

Everyone from the Original founders to Alexis de Tocqueville knew there would be a break, and probably a war, eventually. It was a Gordian knot that none had the wisdom nor moral courage to cut.

Not to defend the South’s “peculiar institution,” the North benefitted from it while condemning it. The South, on the other hand, blindly refused to see that a society without a true middle class was doomed to failure eventually. The fact that it has yet to recover from that blindness doesn’t compensate for the evil it caused.

Nonetheless, the factors involved could indeed be outlined, described, and accounted for in one book. In fact, a good fat chapter in one book dealing with our first two centuries would suffice. Hindsight is a wonderful tool when placed in skilled hands.

PLEASE do not call the people who think this comic book is a good teaching tool (or shows accurate history) “liberals”. True liberals would find this attempt at brainwashing disgusting. The kind of history fools like Zinn and Chomsky is equivalent to jingoistic propaganda - it has no basis in historical fact and it’s just there to score political points.

You also used the tu quoque logical fallacy (don’t worry, I’ve seen it many times in the comments) - that if Rick condemns San Fran he must condemn Kansas (he did do both, but that’s beside the point of your fallacious argument”.

The problem with being an idiot is that it is so easy to make you look stupid:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/11/09/small-victory-for-sanity/

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/08/02/dear-mr-president-shut-your-yap/

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/08/03/the-absolutely-positively-very-very-last-thing-i-have-to-say-about-id-and-evolution/

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/05/06/attack-of-the-killer-potato-heads/

Next time, before making a fool of yourself, I suggest you use Google. That way, you’ll be able to mask your towering ignorance.

Ideologues may make for “sloppy, uninformed debaters” - and you should know. You proved your own point in spades.

Funny, this is only about the liberal school boards, and what a shock… you’ve never written anything critical of Kansas schoolboards.

Propaganda is so much more effective when the writer is a “true believer.”

You don’t get points for credibility or balance when you spend 99% of your argument attacking one side, then toss in a “this goes for X too.”

Ideologues make for sloppy, uninformed, and laughable debaters.

Hi, I’m Al Franken. I’m running for the United States Senate here in Minnesota…

The Soviets held a huge advantage in conventional forces which is one reason many in Europe were against the reduction of nuclear arms and the INF treaty (Thatcher for one).

But you can’t quite tell what he means. Of course you could just say we were stronger morally - but I am sure he didn’t mean that.

Oh, and in another chapter he discusses total military spending vs. the cost of everything in the U.S. but fails to mention that without our stong military we most likely wouldn’t have all of the things mentioned.
DKK

I also thought I’d get angry when I first heard about this - but my reaction ended up being the same as yours. It’s just a riot - you couldn’t make up a better parody of far-Leftist thinking.