Gretchen Carlson's Propaganda That Wasn't?
Reported by Priscilla - February 9, 2011 -
"Real" Americans, from the "heartland," know that anything "furrin" is downright un-American - particularly anything having to do with those evil Muslims who are part of a "creeping Sharia" meant to destroy "real" America as we know it. Thus, there was some "real" American concern when one school district, out of five in the entire country, received a federal grant "aimed at expanding the instruction of' 'critical" languages'." When some residents of the Mansfield Texas school district heard about the plan to teach Arabic language and culture as an elective (but misidentified in the press as mandatory), they proudly showed their "real" misinformed American ethnocentricism with comments like "The school doesn’t teach Christianity, so I don’t want them teaching Islam." Not suprisingly, the Fox morning show for "real" Americans who know that anything to do with "furrin" cultures is downright seditious, provided a platform for one of these folks who claimed that it wasn't about the language but about the "mandatory" nature of the course. Meanwhile, the school department has stated that the program wasn't mandatory and has put it on hold for further study. So the question is why is Fox pushing something that is no longer an issue. The title of the video is "Arabic Culture in Classroom Curriculum, School Program Got Federal Money." But that wasn't the substance of the interview which seemed to be about a parent's indignation at how the situation was handled. Both the nature of the segment and the comments provided were confusing.
Right off the starting gate, Carlson presented contradictory information when she said that the program was on hold yet the chyron read "Lost in Translation, TX school district to offer Arabic classes." She claimed that the program was originally meant to be "mandatory" while the school district states that it was an elective. She spoke of how parents "spoke out" about the program at a school board meeting but didn't note that other parents supported it. She introduced her guest, Ian Macleod, who has three sons in the school district. Gretchen said "you found out the Arabic education K through 12 was going to be mandatory just because you went to a meeting Monday night." He said that after there was an article in a Dallas newspaper, there was a "firestorm of e-mails" through the area "where parents were obviously alarmed not so much that it was Arabic" (yeah, right) but that it was "mandatory." Gretch said that the district was "caught off guard by the parental response, a lot of people were upset about it." (And some weren't but you won't hear it here.) She added that now "they've changed their tune" and read a statement which contradicted MacCleod's assertion that the program was mandatory. She wanted to know what the "true story" is. MacCleod said that his understanding was that it was mandatory in the lower grades and optional in the higher grades. He said that because the original report was that it was mandatory, the district is "changing its tune" or "backpedaling" because of the "backlash." To Gretch's question of why he would be offended by mandatory Arabic,Macleod said that "mandatory in nature is offensive" (uh, so there should be no mandates about, say, drivers licenses?) and that "we are a country of choice" (does that apply to abortion?). He continued that mandatory language requirements "runs counter to the collective wisdom of us as a country." Gretch's eyes sparkled with "real" American pride as she nodded her head in agreement. He then said that "he completely embraces the idea that our kids will be learning a foreign langauge" and that he speaks Spanish and Japanese. He again said the problem was that it was "mandatory" and that the parents weren't involved. He continued to rant that the "power" rests in the people and not the administrators and federal government. He did admit that part of the resposibilty was with the parents but that there "should have been greater reaching out to the community." When he started to say "Iit isn't about the Arabic, I think there are more valuable...Gretch cut him off with a comment about how she agrees with his belief that parents need to be involved because they can "enact change."
Comment: Huh? Did Gretch start off with one idea and get something unintended? Help me out,here, folks!
Addendum: David Horowitz claims that the proposed language program shows 'infiltration of jihaist doctrine." Is this where Gretch wanted to go?