Mediaboss Marketing

David Skidmore| Guest columnist

Poring over the bills that survived Iowa Legislatures March 3 funnel deadline, I came across House File 132, which immediately gave me a sense of dj vu. The Republican-sponsored bill would require both public and charter high schools across Iowa to offer a United States government course that would, in addition to covering electoral procedures and the U.S. Constitution, entail a comparative discussion of political ideologies, including communism and totalitarianism that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy that were essential to the founding of the United States.

This bill follows a similar one signed into law in June 2021 by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that requires high school government courses to include a comparative discussion of political ideologies, such as Communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States. DeSantis followed up in May 2022 with a mandate that schools offer at least 45 minutes of instruction about the evils of communism on Floridas newly designated Victims of Communism Day, set for Nov. 7.

U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, recently introduced a bill in the U.S. House that would require schools nationwide to teach students the dangers of communism.

This sudden urgency to protect the precious minds of todays youth from the allures of communism whisked me back to my senior year of high school in 1976. I recall wiling away hours in the back of the class, counting down the days until graduation, in a required course dreaded by all seniors titled Americanism vs. Communism.

In 1961, following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the Florida Legislature passed a law requiring that all students take AVC, as it was universally called, to graduate. In addition to providing students with a greater appreciation of democratic processes, freedom under law, and the will to preserve that freedom, the law required that the course place particular emphasis upon the dangers of communism, the ways to fight communism, the evils of communism, the fallacies of communism, and the false doctrines of communism.

Initially, the State Department of Education used official reports of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoovers book "A Study of Communism" as texts. Instructors were forbidden from presenting communism in a favorable light. The course continued, in various forms, until the law was finally repealed in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

One study of Floridas Americanism vs. Communism law refers to it as an effort to dispense an official ideology, mirroring the practices of the political systems the lawmakers intended to warn against.

Now we have been suddenly transported back a half century, which is puzzling. It is not as if the earlier precedent was a stunning success. One researcher interviewed faculty and students who taught or took AVC in Central Florida high schools in the mid-1960s. Students universally panned the course, considering it boring propaganda. I can certainly attest to this conclusion. I recall students with their heads on their desks, films showing red ink blots spreading across the globe to illustrate the communist threat and readings informing us that Karl Marx was a bad father. The teacher appeared to enjoy the course least of all.

Indeed, former instructors interviewed for the study generally disliked being forced to teach pre-cooked answers dictated by politicians rather than genuine social science. The bolder instructors sought to transcend the limitations of the required teaching materials by following established methods for teaching comparative government in the classroom, although this sometimes led to harassment in an environment where faculty were required to take loyalty oaths.

The irony of House File 132 is that it fails to recognize that communism and other forms of totalitarianism have failed in most places where they have been tried precisely because humans are generally averse to propaganda and indoctrination. AVC was a waste of precious class time and a distraction from the kind of education that serves as the real bulwark to closed and rigid ideologies: critical thinking and exposure to a diversity of ideas.

The retro-Cold War classrooms that the current crop of Republican legislators want to create as part of their broader culture war branding may prove good politics in the short run but will not serve any meaningful educational purpose. Perhaps that is the point.

David Skidmore is a professor of political science atDrake University.

Read the original post:
Opinion: Fighting indoctrination with indoctrination - Des Moines Register

Sinn Fin is 'bordering on communism' with its approach to housing, Mattie McGrath has said.

The Independent TD for Tipperary said he cannot vote with the Government to end the eviction ban, but he 'can't stomach' Sinn Fin's motion either.

A vote will take place in the Dil on Wednesday.

Deputy McGrath told The Hard Shoulder Government plans to offer more supports in the budget is not soon enough.

"They've had 11/12 years now to build houses and provide homes," he said.

"We have more housing reports than we have had hot dinners; and here [are being told] we're going to have measures that will help renters, first-time buyers and will help small renters.

"The budget is in October: they've seen the figures that tens of thousands of small tenants, landlords have left the market.

"They're being priced out of it, taxed out of it, no supports".

Deputy McGrath said the Government is making 'empty promises'.

"The eviction ban isn't something I like as a tool, it's probably unconstitutional," he said.

"We have nine amendments - obviously none of our amendments will be voted on if the Government's counter-motion is taken first.

"The Government are gung-ho about this; they want business as usual and they want to make empty promises, look after the big...companies who have multiple thousands of units".

However hesaid Sinn Fin is using 'political opportunism' with its motion.

"So what it is [is] grandstanding by Sinn Fin, political opportunism of the worst type using these vulnerable people," he said.

"I hate abstaining, because I like to be present at votes one way or another, but I'm minded to abstain.

"I don't want a slippery slope here".

Deputy McGrath said some people living abroad, who brought a property to come home to, "can't get people out of their houses."

"Are we going to give any rights to people who own property?

"I know what Sinn Fin are at: this is bordering on communism, that people haven't the rights over their own property.

"It's opening the gates for their next plan from [Housing Spokesperson] Eoin Broin... ideas that people's property would be seized and be given out to free to people.

"This is the kind of policies that are abhorrent to me".

Deputy McGrath said he cannot vote with the Government as they "did nothing, sat on their hands" in the last six months.

"Now they're promising 'X, Y and Z' - but I know it's like the snow off a ditch: it'll melt and be gone by the end of the week.

"The Taoiseach today told the Dil that if the [Sinn Fin] motion was to succeed, that it wasn't binding on the Government to accept it and he wouldn't accept it.

"The eviction ban is going to go anyway".

Asked how he will vote on Wednesday, Deputy McGrath said: "One is bad and the other is worse.

"I definitely won't be supporting the Government, but will I even support the Sinn Fin motion: I have no stomach for it.

"It's going down the road of their policies; we know the little red book they operate from, we know where they're going.

"They've no interest in ordinary people getting [and] building people houses, they've an interest in fear politics and hysteria," he added.

Listen back to the full interview below:

See more here:
Sinn Fin 'bordering on communism' with approach to housing ... - Newstalk

50 years since leaving Vietnam: How did the war change perceptions of veterans?

Almost 50 years ago, the Vietnam War came to an end for U.S. troops, leaving millions of veterans struggling to readjust to civilian life in a country deeply divided on the morality and ultimate outcome of the war. This Clarified episode dives into how the Vietnam War affected veterans and changed the way veterans are perceived in America.

Updated: 6:55 AM CDT Mar 23, 2023

The Vietnam war is arguably the most controversial war in living memory, and its divisive nature massively impacted the way its veterans were treated upon return. Perceptions of veterans in the United States changed with Vietnam, and through learning from mistakes and mistreatment, experience has improved for other veterans.The Vietnam War officially began in 1965, at the height of the cold war, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent combat troops into South Vietnam. At the time, the U.S. believed strongly in the "domino theory" if one country fell to communism, its neighboring countries would soon follow. North Vietnam was under communist control, so the U.S. entered the war to try to stop the spread of communism and target Soviet allies. The war proved controversial throughout the nation, with thousands of students and anti-war protestors staging demonstrations. Some rejected the reasoning for the war, arguing the U.S. shouldnt be involved in the first place, but others felt that the U.S. was right to fight communist and soviet allies. It was also the first televised war, and images of the horrors happening had enough power to change some minds. In January of 1973, the US signed a peace deal and began withdrawing troops on March 29. It also marked the end of the draft. However, the war wouldnt officially end until 1975 when communist forces in the North took over South Vietnam. The Vietnam war had a massive impact on American life, culture and politics. Almost 3 million Americans served in the war, which amounted to around one percent of the US population in the 60s and 70s. Both sides took losses, with Vietnam suffering terribly with 3 million dead and the US losing 58,000.Given the controversial nature of the war and Americas ultimate defeat, veterans werent given the homecomings often expected and that had been seen in the world wars before them. Instead, many civilians shied away from talking about the war. This affected veterans greatly. They felt that their war service was something that they had to conceal, that they had to hide, and they felt that their service was often very unappreciated, said Edward Miller, a Dartmouth College professor specializing in the Vietnam War.Even worse, many veterans struggled to access the military benefits they were promised by the government, including education and health care. One of the most poignant examples of this was the challenge veterans faced accessing health care, support, and acknowledgment of the issues caused by Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the war. In the '70s and '80s, you got more American veterans who were coming down with all sorts of cancers and other diseases, which were eventually linked to Agent Orange. For a long time, the Defense Department of Veterans Administration argued that this was not something that they were responsible for, says Miller. It was only after veterans banded together and successfully implemented class action lawsuits that the Defense Department changed its policy and began providing health care to veterans.In the '80s, things began to look up for veterans with the opening of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., which honored the lost men and women of the war. The opening of the memorial led to more marches and celebrations of veterans across the nation, and the government eventually began to acknowledge its wrongdoings in its treatment of veterans. This morphed into the "thank you for your service" culture prevalent today, in which civilians thank veterans in an attempt to acknowledge their sacrifices, regardless of politics.Miller recommends going above just thanking veterans but also engaging them in conversation about their experiences. For me, asking someone to tell you about their military service is an invitation to a conversation and, in my experience, that leads to more productive engagement and an opportunity for Americans to learn from Vietnam veterans, he says.

The Vietnam war is arguably the most controversial war in living memory, and its divisive nature massively impacted the way its veterans were treated upon return. Perceptions of veterans in the United States changed with Vietnam, and through learning from mistakes and mistreatment, experience has improved for other veterans.

The Vietnam War officially began in 1965, at the height of the cold war, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent combat troops into South Vietnam. At the time, the U.S. believed strongly in the "domino theory" if one country fell to communism, its neighboring countries would soon follow. North Vietnam was under communist control, so the U.S. entered the war to try to stop the spread of communism and target Soviet allies. The war proved controversial throughout the nation, with thousands of students and anti-war protestors staging demonstrations. Some rejected the reasoning for the war, arguing the U.S. shouldnt be involved in the first place, but others felt that the U.S. was right to fight communist and soviet allies. It was also the first televised war, and images of the horrors happening had enough power to change some minds.

In January of 1973, the US signed a peace deal and began withdrawing troops on March 29. It also marked the end of the draft. However, the war wouldnt officially end until 1975 when communist forces in the North took over South Vietnam. The Vietnam war had a massive impact on American life, culture and politics. Almost 3 million Americans served in the war, which amounted to around one percent of the US population in the 60s and 70s. Both sides took losses, with Vietnam suffering terribly with 3 million dead and the US losing 58,000.

Given the controversial nature of the war and Americas ultimate defeat, veterans werent given the homecomings often expected and that had been seen in the world wars before them. Instead, many civilians shied away from talking about the war. This affected veterans greatly.

They felt that their war service was something that they had to conceal, that they had to hide, and they felt that their service was often very unappreciated, said Edward Miller, a Dartmouth College professor specializing in the Vietnam War.

Even worse, many veterans struggled to access the military benefits they were promised by the government, including education and health care. One of the most poignant examples of this was the challenge veterans faced accessing health care, support, and acknowledgment of the issues caused by Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the war.

In the '70s and '80s, you got more American veterans who were coming down with all sorts of cancers and other diseases, which were eventually linked to Agent Orange. For a long time, the Defense Department of Veterans Administration argued that this was not something that they were responsible for, says Miller. It was only after veterans banded together and successfully implemented class action lawsuits that the Defense Department changed its policy and began providing health care to veterans.

In the '80s, things began to look up for veterans with the opening of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., which honored the lost men and women of the war. The opening of the memorial led to more marches and celebrations of veterans across the nation, and the government eventually began to acknowledge its wrongdoings in its treatment of veterans. This morphed into the "thank you for your service" culture prevalent today, in which civilians thank veterans in an attempt to acknowledge their sacrifices, regardless of politics.

Miller recommends going above just thanking veterans but also engaging them in conversation about their experiences.

For me, asking someone to tell you about their military service is an invitation to a conversation and, in my experience, that leads to more productive engagement and an opportunity for Americans to learn from Vietnam veterans, he says.

Read more:
50 years since leaving Vietnam: How did the war change perceptions of veterans? - KOCO Oklahoma City

HOMER, La. (KTAL/KMSS) A man who became legendary for being one of the U.S. Navys most prolific kissers visited Louisiana more than 100 years ago, but he did not smooch when he visited northwest Louisiana; he came to rally against the social ills of his time.

Richard Pearson Hobsons heroic efforts began during the Spanish-American war at Santiago Harbor in Cuba.

The U.S.S. Merrimacs Rear Admiral William T. Sampson ordered the ship sunk in the Cuban harbor. Hobson was one of seven men to volunteer for the suicidal mission when they learned the idea was to block the harbors entrance and trap the Spanish ships.

The Spaniards land-based cannons sunk the ship before the Merrimacs crew could, and the Spanish took the crewmen, prisoner.

A month later, the United States destroyed the Spanish fleet at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba. Hobson and the men under his command were released and awarded Medals of Honor for their role in the mission.

The obscure naval officer evolved into a national idol, and hundreds of newspapers celebrated the handsome Navy officer as a survivor of one of the most remarkable feats in the history of the U.S. Navy.

Parents named their newborns after him. A fund was raised to save his parents home, which was facing foreclosure. The Union Central Insurance Company proudly advertised Hobson as one of its policyholders. A cigar, Hobsons Choice, was even named to honor him.

With so much fanfare and adoration, it was only a matter of time before Hobson became a heartthrob.

Requests for Hobson to speak came pouring in, but Hobson refused. When he did speak on August 4, 1898, there was thunderous applause from the crowd at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City. Hobson tried to speak, but the cheering mob stampeded over footlights to reach him.

Hobson headed west to San Francisco, where he was to sail to a new assignment in the Philippines. But along the way, Hobson became a bit preoccupied. A police officer stated he saw Hobson kiss 163 women in Chicago. A day later, reports spread that Hobson had kissed 419 women in Kansas City and was kissing his way across Kansas. Soon word came that the hero managed to kiss 350 women in Topeka and 1,000 Kansas women in all.

Asked if he was tired from his constant exertions, Hobson supposedly responded, No, havent yet: have thoroughly enjoyed it so far. I suppose if I had kissed one woman as often as I have kissed different women, I would be thoroughly exhausted. But the constant change is delightfully exhilarating.

The newspapers often exaggerated or lied about the craze, his kissing binges in Topeka and across Kansas were contrived. When asked to explain his conduct, Hobson told the press he was simply the victim of pure patriotic enthusiasm on the part of others and said he had kissed only a few relatives and some children.

But the reputation was as immovable as the ship Hobson was famous for sinking.

There is no answer to how many women Hobson actually kissed. However, in America in the Victorian Age, such conduct was scandalous. America in the late 19th century hungered for heroes. Hobson was like a knight out of a fairy tale, and the complete and total failure of the Merrimac mission did not seem to bother Hobsons admirers.

After he left the Navy, Hobson represented Alabama in Congress from 1907 to 1915.

During his time in Senate, he advocated for a large U.S. Navy and railed against the dangers of alcohol. He warned about the Japanese, whom he believed would stage a sneak attack on the Pacific Fleet.

Even after leaving the Senate, Hobson continued his fight against alcohol until the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Then he went after the concepts of addictive drugs and communism.

Alcohol and drug prohibition and communism were his focus when he visited Louisiana in April of 1922 as part of a U.S. speaking tour which included stops in Homer, Mansfield, and several towns in Mississippi.

Hobson told a crowd at Homers Baptist church during his 1922 visit that alcohol destroys the Godlike spiritual part of man and leaves him like a beast with the social forces all at war with each other.

He also declared that communists and anarchists were sowing seeds to defy the American Constitution and overthrow this government.

Hobson led the life of a crusader, and whether the nemesis was the Spanish, racism, alcohol, drugs, or communism. Perhaps kissing damsels was simply a part of the role, or perhaps he lived a life contrary to his reputation.

Wesley Harris works as the parish historian for the Claiborne Parish Library in Homer, where he researches, writes, and speaks on North Louisiana history. His specialties are Reconstruction Era crime and World War II in north Louisiana.

An author of several books and hundreds of historical articles over the past 40 years, his work has appeared in national publications such as Americas Civil War, Wild West, and others. After retiring from a 43-year career in law enforcement, Harris joined the Claiborne Parish Library staff in 2020 and has since written or edited five books on north Louisiana history.

Harris was the 2022 recipient of the Max Bradbury Award for the best article published annually in North Louisiana History, the journal of the North Louisiana Historical Association.

Read the original:
Hero or Myth: A man once considered the U.S. Navys most prolific kisser visited Louisiana to spread social conservatism - KTALnews.com

There are certainly popular films and TV shows that speak toward a more conservative ideology. American Sniper and Passion of the Christ were nominated for several Academy Awards in their respective years, with the latter receiving a four-star review from Roger Ebert. While these movies went on to critical acclaim, they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to conservative films.

Dig a little deeper, and youll find what Slate calls an ever-flowing ouroboros of frenzied speculation and self-contradictory propaganda. My Son Hunter (about President Biden's son) and 2000 Mules (about Trump's election loss) are recent examples, but movies like them have existed for decades. In these films, right-wing ideology is disseminated through bizarre, confusing, and often empty reproductions of cinematic language.

These are films that speak directly to their niche audiences, movies that get so caught up in a miasma of talking points that they forget to be actual movies most of the time. They range from bizarre to hateful to genuine propaganda, but, more interestingly, theyre a close-up view of the often wacky and sometimes disquieting beliefs shared by a chunk of the American populace.

In a 2017 interview with Vulture, Judd Apatow explained why he thinks explicitly conservative-leaning entertainment tends to fail: [Republicans are] too concerned about trying to present themselves as correct They dont admit how lost they are. This is, in many cases, true.

Consider, for example, the Atlas Shrugged trilogy and its heroes. Protagonists Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardan, among their other benevolent, bootstrap-pulling mogul buddies, are never wrong; in fact, they are all so good at vaguely doing business that the country will fall into chaos without them. Its an absurd casting of billionaires and CEOs as the people who keep the world running, made even more surreal by the fact that none of the films' writers seem to have any understanding of the way actual business really works.

The hero of the Daily Wires premiere feature, Run Hide Fight, is similarly cast as perfect, though this time with a different flavor. Reviewers across the board recognized the movie as Die Hard in a high school, because its protagonist, Zoe Hull, is a telling mix of John McClaine and Mary Sue. With nothing but her instincts and intense knowledge of firearms, teenager Zoe can deal with her schools assailants where law enforcement cant. It's a pretty disgusting cinematic manifestation of conservative responses to school shootings, and Zoe is a disturbing mascot for the pro-gun movement.

Related: These Are Some of the Best Movies For Conservatives

These characters arent just presented as perfect; theyre barely presented as people. Characters are rendered as nothing more than a visualization of Republican talking points, a sound board that drops in vague political messaging. Rebuttal isnt always offered, but when it is, it comes from the spineless liberal who is conniving, idiotic, or both. This isn't cinema, it's pure ideology.

Nowhere is this clearer in recent years than in the antagonists in My Son Hunter. Actor John James plays a Joe Biden that is equal parts mob boss and bumbling buffoon, the type of guy who mixes up the words election and erection without batting an eye. And, of course, he's always taking a long whiff of his female security guard's hair. The filmmakers here and in other Republican movies only want to express their political beliefs, and are thus incapable of any subtlety; getting their message across is more important than naturalistic cinema or any kind of style beyond 'high school debate team monologue.'

Meanwhile, the liberal Antifa members (the conservative's boogeymen) echo the stilted language of their perfect conservative counterparts in My Son Hunter. In an early scene, Grace, the protagonist, states in the most banal way, I think I got a viral video. Im gonna trend. Her friend dissuades her from this, though, because she doesnt want the protest to have bad optics. She states, Most people are too ignorant to understand complex moral issues. You have to withhold some things for their own good. You have to choose truth over facts. Grace agrees not to post the video, and the two trade the phrase Were on the right side of history like its some sort of secret handshake.

Theres another side to the conservative media sphere: so-called 'documentaries.' Rather than documenting any sort of reality, however, these conspiracy theory movies make outlandish, often bad faith claims that are easily disputable. Movies like 2000 Mules, Plandemic, and Alexs War distort the truth to disseminate lies to an audience that is already primed to receive it. These movies arent meant to document; theyre meant to propagandize and legitimize claims that are ultimately meant to serve the creators bottom line.

Documentarian and convicted felon Dinesh DSouzas film, 2000 Mules, is just one of many, but it aptly illustrates the problems all these movies have. The film purports to reveal incontrovertible evidence that the 2020 election was stolen, and that Donald Trump should have been reelected as President of the United States.

Related: Mermaids: The Cringiest Nature Documentary Ever Made

In reality, the evidence the movie presents is little more than hidden camera videos of people dropping off their ballots. Intermingled with this are scenes of DSouza and members of the organization True the Vote (an organization which was once charged with felony crimes regarding forgery of signatures, and which illegally applied for tax-exempt status), explaining how the videos prove their points. To someone who takes everything the documentary presents at face value, it could be rather convincing. But dig in just a bit and the entire film falls apart.

For as long as people could pick up a camera, weirdos have been using film to spread their version of reality to the masses. Take, for instance, 1971s If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do? The film is an adaptation of a sermon on the dangers of Communism by Baptist Minister Estus Pirkle. It portrays an alternate fantasy world in the United States after the country has been overtaken by the Communists, wherein good Christians are forced to denounce their faith or die.

The movie is a surreal, exploitation-fueled nightmare that was meant to frighten the intended churchgoing audience. Its messaging is clear: you and your fellow Christians are under threat from nefarious forces, and, thus, you must be ready to fight this illusory other.

Footmen is a look into the countrys past, a relic of a different time. It is also an oddly prescient piece, as religious and political leaders once again decry their opponents as socialists out to destroy the American way of life. Though not always through the explicitly religious lens of Pirkle, modern conservative media employs the same tactics. They aim to frighten and deceive for the sake of spreading and reinforcing a bad-faith political message. Little, it seems, has changed.

Go here to read the rest:
My Son Hunter and the Weird World of Conservative Movies - MovieWeb