My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[emilynghiem]

If you are actually a 14 year old kid, I would suggest you do your own research and then start a discussion about what you've concluded with your teacher.

Text books are only a tool, and only as good as the person teaching them.

What do you want me to do, go and tell my obviously liberal teacher that they're teaching us bad information? I'd look stupid; and I'd seem like I was overreacting.

Dear Pkid:
I agree with your taking caution here, and thinking carefully before bringing up anything political with your school. All the cases I have read about in the news of controversies coming out of the classroom all spelled out huge hassles for the students, and I would not want this to interfere with your educational relationships.

Here are some ideas I would ask you to explore BEFORE you say anything:
1. Can you work WITH your teacher to set up a political debate or discussion club at your school, where you are CAREFUL to invite diverse students on all sides of issues, such as including Muslim or pro-liberal students to have equal roles in setting it up so it is "safe."
If the students have a council or club that addresses issues, then in the future, things like this could be brought to the attention of a "peer review" group (supervised by teacher sponsors) so it is not on "one student" targeted as the whistleblower, but the students can hear each other's grievances and defend the right to make complaints or suggestions without fear of reprisal.

2. Can you send a copy of the text and publisher information ANONYMOUSLY to a media watch group or educational lobby group, and let THEM handle it, and totally stay out of it. If this will not be traced to you, could you ask a group that specializes in addressing textbook issues or lobbying the State to take on this issue for you? If this could still be traced back to you, including through this website, then I would not recommend this approach until you are out of that class or out of that school district. I just wouldn't take that chance.

As long as you take an open, all-inclusive approach, I prefer #1 and would encourage you as a politically aware and advanced student to try setting up a peer review council to handle issues that may come up between students or teachers regarding classroom materials.

I would prefer students form their OWN peer groups, with assistance from teachers and parents, to manage input and participation in how to teach religious history, even evolution or creation and prayer or sex ed, or other sensitive subjects that otherwise run into biases of one kind or another.

Why wait for bigger conflicts or lawsuits to escalate?
Why not be honest and form dialogue groups to address the differences we do have and run into EVERY DAY?

I'd rather students take charge and learn how to address conflicts democratically.
If you think your liberal teacher would be cool with this idea, I encourage you to go for it!

Whatever ideas you have to follow up on this, whether writing to a local legislator who may be sympathetic about textbook biases,
or forming your own student club around issues that interest you, feel free to post and get feedback
on how to develop your ideas.

Thank you for posting, and please continue directing your talents and interests in the most productive ways you can.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[daveman]

I and my colleagues here stomped the TP when it attempted to rise in the summer of 2009. They were warned what would happen if they disrupted the town hall meetings, did it anyway, were handcuffed and led away. In the three years since then, daveman, the TP and the libertarian wings have not elected anyone to the central committee or got one of their candidates out of the primaries. So, here, in your neck of the woods, yes, we crushed the far right.

And, in the nation, that is what is happening and will continue to happen, davenman, and we will continue to support that movement.

There is nothing you can do to prevent that.

You have no influence or power.

Yep, you're a liberal, all right. No respect for First Amendment rights, and no tolerance for differing views.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well at least you're at the right level...

If I want to communicate with a dumb animal, I post with you...

Ok, now you would be batting above your level...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I and my colleagues here stomped the TP when it attempted to rise in the summer of 2009. They were warned what would happen if they disrupted the town hall meetings, did it anyway, were handcuffed and led away. In the three years since then, daveman, the TP and the libertarian wings have not elected anyone to the central committee or got one of their candidates out of the primaries. So, here, in your neck of the woods, yes, we crushed the far right.

And, in the nation, that is what is happening and will continue to happen, davenman, and we will continue to support that movement.

There is nothing you can do to prevent that.

You have no influence or power.

Yep, you're a liberal, all right. No respect for First Amendment rights, and no tolerance for differing views.

He's in a Democrat district

 

[MisterBeale]

You're in a government school, and the textbook given to you in a sociopolitical class seems to have an agenda. Does it really matter if it seems to have a left leaning or right leaning agenda? I would say, no.

In the end, you can be sure, the book paints the state as helpful. If it didn't paint social engineering laws of the left as helpful, it would paint corporatist control mechanisms, with the government choosing winners and losers on the right as helpful.

Do you think that parochial schools teach their students a true history about the Spanish inquisition or Salim witch trials? Do you think they teach an unbiased account of the reformation? Come on.

Compulsory education is for schooling. At your age, it is time for you to be responsible for your own education. I once heard somewhere, I forget where now, "Get your facts right before you get your questions wrong." And indeed, you are asking the wrong question. You have however understood something extremely basic though, and it is this, they are not teaching you fundamentals. This is what high school should be about. This is why so many high school students leave school ignorant. What class is this for? Human Geography? Really? How about they spend some time on actual geography, you know, things that can not be questioned or debated as fundamentally factually. As you can see, here on this discussion forum, the ADULTS have a hard time with facts.

If you ask any number of people, "Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen?", you will get a myriad of answers. But there is factually only one answer. It really isn't open to debate. And it isn't at all dependent on where he was born. That is a bloody smokescreen.

From wikipedia;

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

What does this mean? It means a natural born citizen is born to a mother and a father who are both citizens of the United States. Why is this important? It is important so that who ever becomes the leader of the nation feels an natural allegiance to the land that he or she is the steward of. It is quite clear what the founders of the constitution had in mind. If your parents aren't both citizens, why would you feel as much loyalty to the land of your birth in as much as to theirs?

"Get your facts right before you get your questions wrong."

So to the topic of whether you book has bias, who cares? The question that should first be asked, is, "Should such a book or this topic be taught in a high school?"

http://vega.jeffco.edu/szak/handouts/BookerBloom.pdf

The answer is a resounding NO. High school is a place for fundamentals, not higher order thinking on the questions of governance. In the lower grades, you should be learning about states, their capitols, forms of government, ect.

In the higher grades, you should all have the reading skills by now to be digesting primary sources. However, you should not be taught what to think about those sources. The only thing that should be tested is that you have read those sources. College is the place where higher ordered thinking is taught. Some students will go on to other careers where such intellectual debate and thinking is not necessary. So they should not be conditioned on how to think about such things.

But government schools have become indoctrination camps. This is why, it matters not whether your textbooks have a "liberal" bias or a "conservative" bias, the state doesn't care. It only cares that you believe that the state is a necessary component of your life. Do you? Do you believe that the State is absolutely necessary to the functioning of your life?

Of course you do. You are only fourteen, and by this young age, you have already been indoctrinated to believe in no other way of thinking. Corporate culture is part of your life blood now. After all, who will build the roads? Who will teach the children? Who will put out the fires? People are helpless, aren't they? There are only two things that are sure in life, death and taxes. (Well, that and compulsory schooling.)

In your case, I would recommend, just read the damn book, memorize it and spit out the answers they want you to. And keep your head down. Don't draw attention to yourself, and get out of there with as much of your mind and soul in tact. It is what I do with my own son. I tell him, the public schools are for schooling him, my job is to educate him.

“I've never let my school interfere with my education.”
~Mark Twain

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPpAPIIZyo]Pink Floyd -- The Wall [[ Official Video ]] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr Grump]

Okay, as flattered as I am that you think I seem older, I am only fourteen. I'm a freshman. I take the time to use proper grammar because I doubt anybody half intelligent would respond if I didn't.

The first sentence is in context, it was the beginning of a paragraph, and it outright said it as if it was fact that the majority of all immigrants from everywhere are well educated, which is not at all true.

Regarding the second point, like I said the book seems to deliberately avoid stating the religion of the terrorists, which is a very important fact. They were not "opposing globalization"; they were opposing America's moral values due to their radical Muslim beliefs.

And yes, the book does briefly cover slavery; but that has nothing to do with today's immigration. The book heavily implies that it's bad to not want to give illegals public services, which is taking a political position, is it not?

Dear PKid: Sorry for the "adults" on this thread who took it upon themselves to use it to criticize each other. I will try to find your posts and replies and respond to those instead.

First, for the point about the motives of the terrorist hijackers:
Because they all died and could not be interviewed, it is left to interpretation.

The textbook COULD have stated this point as "still debated," where Muslim sympathizers blame globalization while Bush and his supporters took the public stance that this was an attack against America's freedom. That would have been more fair, to state the contested views, instead of taking the side of anti-globalization and stating that as "fact," which still shows a bias. Even if you AGREE with the anti-globalization view as the reason for the attack, it is STILL an interpretation, and could have been included "in context" with the public statements that Bush made interpreting the attacks otherwise, and been fair to BOTH views.

Again, I don't expect people to be that fair, much less to be able to express that in textbooks.

No, it is not left to interpretation. Bin Laden said he attacked the WTCs because of US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Bush's they 'did it because they hate freedom' what rhetoric and Tosh.

You might have wanted the Detroit Tigers to win the World Series, they did not. It is either true or not. The text book is correct.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it is not left to interpretation. Bin Laden said he attacked the WTCs because of US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Bush's they 'did it because they hate freedom' what rhetoric and Tosh.

You might have wanted the Detroit Tigers to win the World Series, they did not. It is either true or not. The text book is correct.

OK so the textbook could have explained all that.
That Bin Laden said it was for political support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
That Bush said it was an attack on America's culture of freedom and democracy.
And the Muslim sympathizers said it was an attack on globalization worldwide.

Why not explain this is still debated today?
Because it is! People still do not agree!
If you want to be "politically correct" and inclusive,
then include ALL these viewpoints. That's only fair.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you crazy? No has the right to create a public disturbance. No one has the right to scream when someone in a public meeting is speaking quietly and to the point. I told the lefties as well we would not tolerate disturbance from anyone.

You are not a conservative, one who with a criminal intent pretending to be one.

We did the right thing, without a doubt.

I and my colleagues here stomped the TP when it attempted to rise in the summer of 2009. They were warned what would happen if they disrupted the town hall meetings, did it anyway, were handcuffed and led away. In the three years since then, daveman, the TP and the libertarian wings have not elected anyone to the central committee or got one of their candidates out of the primaries. So, here, in your neck of the woods, yes, we crushed the far right.

And, in the nation, that is what is happening and will continue to happen, davenman, and we will continue to support that movement.

There is nothing you can do to prevent that.

You have no influence or power.

Yep, you're a liberal, all right. No respect for First Amendment rights, and no tolerance for differing views.

 

[MisterBeale]

Bin Laden said he attacked the WTCs because of US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

WRONG.

Bin Laden denied attacking the WTC's and the FBI never had him listed for that crime.

USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (saw) for our guidance. I am thankful to The Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf).

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

The U.S. has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or the U.S. itself considers them as its enemies.

http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it is not left to interpretation. Bin Laden said he attacked the WTCs because of US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Bush's they 'did it because they hate freedom' what rhetoric and Tosh.

You might have wanted the Detroit Tigers to win the World Series, they did not. It is either true or not. The text book is correct.

Dear Dr. Grump and PKid:
Thanks again for your post that is directly on topic to get the thread back on track.

I checked with my boyfriend who is moderate media talk show host, who does favor the conservatives over the liberals. He tends to overlook and dismiss complaints about corporate abuses that are destroying the environment, while specializing in exposing the corruption by liberal politicians and bias in liberal media. So he is not without his biases, because he does not focus on exposing rightwing problems, but he is honest about liberal bias when he sees it.

He said if the textbook did not mention Al Qaeda being behind the attacks, then it is biased.

He said that what Bin Laden said, about the attacks being for "US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia," is only part of the larger statements and overall agenda. That is true, but is only one PART of a longer list. He said that Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda / Terrorists have been waging attacks on an ongoing basis, so this attack cannot be taken out of that context and blamed on just "US support of certain countries" -- it is part of a longterm war campaign against anyone or any group they deem as "infidels" who are not for Allah.

Any omission or attempt to water that down, such as by not even mentioning Al Qaeda,
is biased and/or excluding information to try to be "politically correct" and not offend Muslims.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bin Laden said he attacked the WTCs because of US support of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

WRONG.

Bin Laden denied attacking the WTC's and the FBI never had him listed for that crime.

USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (saw) for our guidance. I am thankful to The Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf).

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

The U.S. has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or the U.S. itself considers them as its enemies.

http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

YES and NO.
I am finding mixed reviews of this, some saying the CIA faked Bin Laden's videos,
and others saying he confessed LATER:

So YES, there were statements of denial
and NO, there were statements of admission made by Bin Laden:
--------------------------------------------------
"Osama bin Laden statements after 9/11

Prior to his death on May 2, 2011, the FBI listed bin Laden as one of the "10 Most Wanted" in connection with several incidents including the USS Cole bombing and the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The FBI's "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" poster does not specifically hang responsibility for 9/11 on bin Laden, instead it only states "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."[56]

Immediately after September 11, 2001 bin Laden praised the attacks, but denied responsibility for them.[57] On September 16, 2001, an Al Jazeera news presenter read a message purportedly signed by Osama bin Laden, in which the following words were stated:

I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.[57][58]

In an interview with Osama bin Laden, published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated: "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act."[59] There was reportedly no way to prove the e-mail published in Pakistan came from bin Laden. The Taliban denied he had access to any communications.[60][61]

In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it[62] and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN[63] due to CNN's broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.[64] In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying

If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists ... We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.[65]

In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[66]

In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people.[67]

On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[68]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."[69]

In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says

"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[70]"

 

[daveman]

Are you crazy? No has the right to create a public disturbance. No one has the right to scream when someone in a public meeting is speaking quietly and to the point. I told the lefties as well we would not tolerate disturbance from anyone.

You are not a conservative, one who with a criminal intent pretending to be one.

We did the right thing, without a doubt.

Yes, that's what Roosevelt said when he ordered Japanese and Japanese Americans on the west coast put in camps.

You leftists sure do like to silence dissent, don't you?

 

[emptystep]

Your book is awful and a waste of valuable tax dollars. Being way left of liberal I probably agree with most of what your textbook's author implies. However when that person wrote that book they needed to put their own biases aside and teach critical thinking about the topic they were writing about.

As an example:
"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries"

This is how I read that sentence. "You should not be prejudiced of Americans born in other countries." This is a good thing. "Because most of them are well educated." This is a lie. The end does not justify the means, especially in grade school education.

You are 14 and while not yet wise you are intelligent and capable of being taught the complexities of the world. Not to be is a failure of the public education system in this country.

 

[MisterBeale]

and NO, there were alleged statements of admission made by Bin Laden:

Show me the body, some photos, or some DNA, and I'll believe that other stuff they claim about him. Sure buddy.

 

[emptystep]

and NO, there were alleged statements of admission made by Bin Laden:

Show me the body, some photos, or some DNA, and I'll believe that other stuff they claim about him. Sure buddy.

He was actually secretly moved to a 1500 acre ranch somewhere to be with his BFF.

 

[MisterBeale]

Currently, it is not uncommon for high school teachers to be teaching fields for which they themselves lack serious training. For example, in the 1999–2000 academic year, 39.2 percent of U.S. high school biology teachers had neither an undergraduate major nor minor in biology. Among high school history teachers, the figure was 55.1 percent.20 A high
school English teacher can teach English and be considered “Highly Qualified” by
merely taking a subject area test, but is not allowed to simply test out of the
curriculum found in the college of education.

http://vega.jeffco.edu/szak/handouts/BookerBloom.pdf

 

[AmyNation]

My 10th grade history class was taught by the football coach. We basically watched Rudy over and over again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False analogy. You extremists aren't any good at this.

Are you crazy? No has the right to create a public disturbance. No one has the right to scream when someone in a public meeting is speaking quietly and to the point. I told the lefties as well we would not tolerate disturbance from anyone.

You are not a conservative, one who with a criminal intent pretending to be one.

We did the right thing, without a doubt.

Yes, that's what Roosevelt said when he ordered Japanese and Japanese Americans on the west coast put in camps.

You leftists sure do like to silence dissent, don't you?

 

[daveman]

False analogy. You extremists aren't any good at this.

Me, an extremist?

It's not me punishing anyone for having dissenting views and enforcing rigid groupthink, Lefty Boi.

 

[Unkotare]

Fakey gets very uncomfortable when FDR's concentration camps are mentioned.