The Texas Education Agency (TEA), a body of fifteen elected, party officials, periodically revises statewide textbooks in fields ranging from history and sociology to economics. Although In its most basic form, the revision of history, which is defined as an account of what has happened, provides a paradoxical situation in that what has happened cannot be changed, rewritten or corrected. However, as the TEA reviews the current proposed amendments to the Texas textbooks, they are not playing the role of revisionists who review history in order to provide a clearer view and encourage independent thought, but are attempting to indoctrinate and slant history.

Just want some thoughts as to whether this is shite, good, too opinionated, not opinionated enough, too short, too long, or anything else that's wrong with it.

I'm going through a rough patch/crossroads with my writing and I can't tell if anything is good anymore. I seem to have lost my, as Hemingway said "built-in, shock-proof, shit-detector"
We were pissed off at this a 3 weeks ago and now we have moved on to being pissed off at something else. I think it's sloths now; them being all unproductively slow and all that jizz.

EDIT: I think the intro is just fine.
"The rule of law -- it must be held high! And if it falls you pick it up and hold it even higher!" - Hercule Poirot

© Soul Power
Last edited by Soul Power at Jun 1, 2010,
You might wanna back up your argument. I mean, you don't have to elaborate on any examples -I don't know what this piece is for and how long it's supposed to be-, but you could insert a quote made by a board member of the TEA himself, in which he explicitly said that they're replacing some of the more left-wing views with right-wing ones

(look at the part where the guy talks about "adding balance")


Also, you could argue that there's a difference between slightly altering the tone of these books (which always leave room for opinion and doubt) and just adding widely disputed historical facts like the stuff about the Venona papers justifying McCarthyism (which most objective historians say is just bullsh*t) or denying that the founding fathers were pleading for a separation of church and state (with Thomas Jefferson, who more or less coined that phrase, being replaced as one of the key figures for the American revolution by more religious characters like John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas)...

/] 三方 [\
Last edited by shwilly at Jun 1, 2010,
It's not the best. It is worded very awkwardly, the sentences are too long and don't flow. It also seems that you are starting the argument of the paper in the second sentence. I would keep it more general, give a general opinion about why it is a bad idea, then outline the arguments that you will bring up later. You don't need to use all your evidence in the introduction. The appropriateness of the length depends upon the length of the paper itself. I would definitely outline the argument though, which should make it a bit longer. Hope that helps.
Quote by Dirtydeeds468
Holy Crap.

I love you more than life itself.