It was the police officers who testified about the assault on the Capitol who linked the atrocities to the Republican Party, @SenJohnKennedy, and you’d know that if you gave a single damn about them.
Sure, Pelosi put Liz Cheney on the committee, and sure she was even going to let one of McCarthy's picks who voted to overturn the election on, but she didn't let *all* of the picks who voted to overturn the election on there, so clearly, *she* is being partisan and political.
If you're a reporter or pundit saying "actually, this was a gift to McCarthy," well, congratulations on picking up the "actually, this was good news ... for John McCain" torch from Mark Halperin.
Greg's whole piece is a must-read, but I thought I'd expand a bit on what I said here:
The Kerner Commission -- launched by LBJ to explore the causes and consequences of the urban riots of the 1960s -- featured some high-profile Republicans, including NYC Mayor John Lindsay, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, and Representative William McCullough of Ohio.
This bill — which has already passed the Texas Senate — would drastically reduce the coverage of civil rights history in the state’s classrooms. news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice…
This thread offers some jaw-dropping examples of what’s being left out.
I'm still trying to process how Carlson wrote about wanting to PUNCH A 69-YEAR-OLD MINISTER IN THE FACE because the civil rights leader had the audacity to denounce white supremacy while touring a memorial to the slave trade.
"Let's see your citations" is a pretty good rule of thumb for reporting, it turns out.
What's really remarkable about all this is how many critics of Critical Race Theory believe -- with 100% confidence -- that it was designed specifically and solely to make white kids feel bad.
Which is both insane and a deeply narcissistic & self-centered way to see the world.
Deleting this thread because I think people are right in noting that I misread the legislature's language a bit.
Though it seems what they wrote is actually worse?
I read the highlighted lines as Florida only wanting American history to deal with the founding era -- it's poorly written, and the emphasis on "the creation of a new nation" threw me -- but as others noted, the emphasis seems to be on the *principles* of the new nation.
Teaching US history just through the Declaration's principles is like assessing a 50-year marriage through the wedding vows, or maybe just the marriage proposal.
You can't just focus on the intentions. You've got to address what happened after (and before!) that big moment.