Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (179209)	9/10/2001 10:14:15 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Welcome to NEA-dominated schoolhouse Don Feder As millions of children head back to class this week, members of the National Education Association will be at the schoolhouse door, waiting to warp impressionable minds. Between them, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (its ideological twin) represent upward of 85 percent of the nation's public school teachers. In terms of shaping the content of public education, the NEA is more powerful than all the school committees and education boards in the land. As its 2001 national convention demonstrated, the NEA's platform is indistinguishable from the agendas of the ACLU or People For the American Way. Little wonder that last year the NEA sent more delegates to the Democratic National Convention than the state of California. A popular button spotted at the association's Los Angeles assembly read, "Jesus loves ya, Dubya, everyone else thinks you're an (obscenity)." Thus do progressive educators teach tolerance and show their respect for the office of president. When it comes to protecting public education's monopoly status, the NEA functions as a medieval guild. Predictably, the convention passed resolutions deploring charter schools, vouchers, home schooling and standardized tests, while demanding substantial increases in education funding. But the NEA also took stands on issues not remotely related to education. It supported statehood for the District of Columbia, comparable worth legislation, abortion and "proscriptive" (confiscatory) gun control, but opposed official English and space-based defense. The NEA's political program translates into indoctrination in the schools. In La-La land, the guild embraced multiculturalism, global education, environmental education and race, gender and sexual-orientation studies. All of these courses are based on dubious premises and designed to advance a cause. One side of the argument is treated as received wisdom, the other essentially ignored. In its resolution on environmental education, the NEA pledged to push courses promoting "the concept of interdependence of humanity and nature," "an awareness of ... population growth ... on human survival" (but no consideration of the contributions of population increases to productivity), "solutions to such problems as ... global warming, ozone depletion" and acid rain (which science has yet to establish as problems) and participation in Earth Day celebrations. All that's missing is a demand that Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" be adopted as a textbook and a call for teachers to collect contributions for Earth First. In another of its knee-jerk resolutions, the NEA declared "the struggles of working men and women to establish unions ... should be an integral part of the curriculum in our schools." They're not talking about teaching the history of organized labor, but getting kids to love and trust union bosses. In 1997, the California Federation of Teachers came up with a swell way to introduce grade-schoolers to the Jimmy Hoffa worldview. The federation is an AFT affiliate, but the curriculum it devised (called "Yummy Pizza Company") has been endorsed by the NEA. Kids role-play as workers who make pizzas. Management (the teacher) cuts their wages and increases their hours. The children are then encouraged to organize, engage in collective bargaining and go out on strike. Since the NEA is the largest union in America, and its members frequently strike for higher wages, there's more than a little self-interest at work here. Students are also given problems to solve. One involves a business called "Kids for Hire," owned by Mr. Ink, which employs children to cut lawns, wash cars and baby-sit. Ink pays them less than he charges his customers (otherwise known as capitalism -- a concept teachers, as government workers, are probably unfamiliar with). The kids think it's unfair. Mr. Ink tells them to quit if they're dissatisfied. But he's the only employer who'll hire them, the lesson plan instructs. (Are the kids incapable of offering these services on their own?) Students are asked, "What do you think the children should do?" Oh, go on strike, slash Ink's tires, throw rocks through his windows, and beat up scabs. Lenin said give me a child for the first five years of his life and he'll be mine thereafter. The NEA has your child for 12 years. Vouchers are looking better and better all the time. ©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: gao seng who wrote (179209)	9/10/2001 10:18:01 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Some things are just wrong. Property ownership is a fundamental. * * *

To: gao seng who wrote (179209)	9/11/2001 1:09:28 AM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Gao, That is a chilling story of how arrogant government has become.

To: gao seng who wrote (179209)	11/26/2001 12:30:06 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

*Senate voted down move to label meat with country of origin* Land: Now you see it, now you don't By Barbara Simpson © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com Sometimes I think the whole business of news coverage is just a shell game. You have to keep your eye on things or you'll get fooled every time. It's happening again. Last week I wrote about the outrageous, murderous and racist land grab going on in Zimbabwe, but at least that story is occasionally reported. There is, however, a land grab going on under our noses that the media ignores. It's happening in this country and the government is doing it. The direct victims are ranchers and farmers. The indirect victims are the rest of us. This has nothing to do with the skin color of the "grabee," but that doesn't change the fact that the government is the grabber. The latest is the auction of cattle to satisfy a government grazing fine. The cattle were confiscated and sold at a loss while the rancher remains responsible for the entire fine. News coverage, when it exists, shows only the conflict over the cattle and that the auction facility was threatened as was the young rancher who bought the cattle. What's not reported is that this is part of a government environmental land grab. There's a concerted effort to end cattle grazing on federal land. Little by little, the environmentalists are getting what they want. They use billions of tax-exempt dollars, donated by foundations and good-hearted citizens, to subvert environmental laws and finance lawsuits to force politically appointed judges to deliver the goods. Never mind that lily-livered politicians, always on election watch, allow this rape of property rights. Never mind that these issues are never put to a vote of the people. Never mind that ranchers who graze their cattle on federal land have legitimate leases to do so. Never mind that there is no scientific proof that grazing damages the land or threatens wildlife. Never mind that the media ignore the truth of the story! Who cares about ranchers and cattle? Well, you should. If those ranchers are forced out of business, the American consumer will become more dependent on foreign sources for beef. You can write off another American business. Not only beef, by the way, the same squeeze is also on sheep ranchers and imports are already overwhelming that economy. If you have any questions about the safety of imported foods – think cattle infected with mad-cow disease, hoof-and-mouth disease or anthrax – consider how much fun it will be when all our meat is from foreign sources, none of it labeled. By the way, a Senate committee just voted down a move to label meat with country of origin. They don't want you to know! Forcing a family off its land because of an alleged concern about prairie grass or the effect on the habitat of a desert tortoise is no different than pushing him out because of his color. His land has been stolen; his life and business destroyed; his family dislocated; and his (our) government is doing it! What does that say about us? It's not only ranchers. Remember the Klamath farmer crisis when the government cut off water ostensibly to protect fish? The ultimate goal has nothing to do with fish. It has everything to do with getting people off the land so it can be returned to the "natural" state, meaning no people or domestic animals. Remember the Nevada "shovel brigade" when ranchers reopened a dirt road closed by the government to protect fish? Remember the demonstration by farmers at the Darby River in Ohio as a result of the government taking over prime, private farmland? Then there's the battle going on right now near Barstow, Calif., with the seven remaining ranchers fighting for their lives against an environmentalist lawsuit protecting the desert tortoise. The same type of lawsuit forces area military exercises to stop when one of the critters is seen. As for the rest of us being indirect victims of our government land grab, look at what's happened to land rights over the last eight years. The Clinton administration, by executive order, put millions of acres of land under government control with limits on its use. Little by little, across the country, and usually as a result of green lawsuits, more and more land is off limits to human use, whether for backpacking, camping or jet-skiing or even hiking. Just last week in California, a federal judge ordered that pack trips in wilderness areas in the Sierra be drastically reduced as a result of a lawsuit alleging that horses and mules damage trails. Beaches are closed to "protect" sea birds, and millions of acres face building restrictions because of the red-legged frog. The sad fact is that the media ignore the truth because they are sympathetic to green issues. If the environmentalists say it's good, the media follow in lockstep. This is a 21st century range war, and at this point, the good guys are losing. worldnetdaily.com * * *