SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Mr. Whist who wrote (262159)6/8/2002 3:29:57 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769670
 
I'll be glad to when I have more time. But I'm off the net for now....



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (262159)6/8/2002 4:01:06 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 769670
 
The media is manipulating the populous, but they are being manipulated by the rich (elite). For example: Richard Mellon Scaife used his billions to manipulate politics. cnn.com The findings about how the FBI manipulated elections adds more credence to this Raging Bull post. We're all getting forked... left, right and down the middle.

FRom an RB post:

"In reality, politicians work in close cooperation with the nation's top media managers to sell the elite's actions and policies to the public.

Generally speaking, the two groups work together to carry out the following simple tasks.

1) Convince the public that America has the best social system possible.
2) Prepare the public for the elite's upcoming actions or policies.
3) Defend and justify the elite's actions and policies.
4) Discredit those who criticize the elite's actions or policies.
5) At election time, use any means available to help elect the elite's political candidates.

To accomplish the above tasks, the media team uses every psychological trick they think they can get away with. And it is these tricks and techniques that we will now consider.

Using Recurring, Mind-programming Concepts

Of all the psychological techniques used, the most seductive but the least obvious, is that of giving repeated media exposure to concepts that subconsciously program the public to be pro-elite. The average American still clutches onto flawed concepts of America that are being relentlessly dished out by the media to leave the public in a state of mind that allows the elite to continue their exploitation of national and international resources unhindered.
The owners of the media have been working on conditioning our minds for quite some while, and I remember how slowly my own mind responded to the deep significance of the wealth distribution statistics. We are all handicapped by the fact that it is almost impossible to reverse years of brainwashing overnight.

Nevertheless, being aware of the techniques is the first step to being free of their effects. Some quite erroneous themes have been reinforced over and over, to the point that most Americans have been totally seduced by the underlying message.

Let's take a look at the first example.

1) Anyone Can Get Rich, or Become President
If asked why they thought America was a land of opportunity, many would reply that in America "anyone can be President, and anyone can work hard and get rich".
The fact that only one of the 250 million Americans can be president at any one time seems to get overlooked in the process. To say that "practically no one in America can be President" would in fact describe reality more accurately.

Let me ask the original question again. This time we will replace fantasy with reality.

Why do you think America is the land of opportunity?
Answer: Because only those candidates whom the elite wish to back with campaign financing and media support end up in the White House, and because the richest 1%, as well as the next richest 9%, both separately own more assets than the combined assets of the bottom 90%.
Hopefully, this example exposes once again the need to come to grips with reality and shake off some of the traditional but erroneous ways of thinking about America."



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (262159)6/9/2002 10:50:16 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
World Magazine

When National Education Association delegates gathered in Orlando over the July 4th weekend, a congregation of 10,000 educators united against one evil: school vouchers. For four days, from a pulpit raised above a carnival of banners, buttons, and balloons, a succession of anti-voucher orators hurled down fire and brimstone designed to rally weary soldiers and cause slackers to repent.

Vouchers are like "applying leeches and bleeding a patient to death," preached NEA president Bob Chase in his keynote address. "The most able students-the few that private schools are willing to accept-will leave the school.... So will many teachers who resent being stigmatized with that scarlet F."

At an anti-voucher rally on Independence Day, Florida State Sen. Buddy Dyer continued the litany, castigating Florida's "new voucher governor" Jeb Bush: "Over and over I keep getting the same question: Why? ... And all I can come up with is this: politics and greed."

Then came a moment of almost spiritual unity among the anti-voucher faithful: After the last rally speaker had denounced the threat posed by allowing parents the freedom to choose their children's education, 10,000 NEA delegates held hands, raised them above their heads and sang "We Shall Not Be Moved."

"It was like a revival meeting," says Mike Antonucci, noting that those listening to the anti-voucher rhetoric had heard it all before. But Mr. Antonucci, who heads the California-based research firm Education Intelligence Agency, says that, besides the simple fact of union opposition, vouchers serve another purpose for the NEA: "Vouchers are a unifier that keeps NEA members holding the line together. It's difficult for the union to generate that kind of enthusiasm on other issues. But on vouchers, there's no room for a nuanced position. Vouchers are the Bogeyman and must be defeated."

In Orlando, the NEA Representative Assembly-the union's version of Congress-spent considerable time retooling the battle plan it hopes will kill vouchers, and all other forms of school choice, for good. One 1999-2000 resolution adopted by the Assembly reads like a paramilitary execution order: "The following programs and practices are detrimental to public education and must be eliminated." Three of the six "deleterious programs" listed-tax credits, vouchers, and privatization-involve school choice.

In its furious war on school choice, never has the NEA had to fight on so many fronts. School-choice activists have launched publicly and privately funded voucher programs in more than 60 cities, according to Fritz Stieger of CEO America, a Texas-based foundation that funds private vouchers. Florida's Governor Bush signed into law the nation's first statewide voucher program earlier this year. And even voucher programs knocked for a loop by litigation repeatedly live to fight another day. Case in point: the resilient Cleveland Scholarship Program (CSP).

The NEA, the American Civil Liberties Union, and others had filed suit against CSP on the grounds that the program carried the primary effect of advancing religion. When a federal judge on Aug. 24 suspended the program, leaving more than 3,000 publicly funded voucher students stranded one day before school was to start, the NEA cheered. But three days later, the judge dissolved his injunction and CSP was, at least temporarily, back in business.

In all, five new business items at the Assembly were designed to combat school choice. Two reflected union alarm over growing support for vouchers among minority families. In Cleveland, where voucher kids are 80 percent minority, satisfaction is high. Even adjusting for the "Hawthorne effect," which says that satisfaction levels decrease as the shine wears off a new experience, a Harvard survey released in June indicates that voucher parents are more likely to be "very satisfied" with nearly every aspect of the school they attend than are parents of students in Cleveland public schools. NEA's New Business Item 25 is designed to change all that.

That item provides for "membership training in the issues of vouchers ... especially targeting ethnic minority communities, so that NEA members can inform all community members of the threat [of vouchers] to public education." The union has been busy. When 800 students in San Antonio left the Edgewood district's public schools last year to take advantage of privately funded vouchers, the NEA deployed a strike team.

In Edgewood, national union representatives met with parents, teachers, and administrators at a district high school. What was said? The public does not know: After about 100 community members arrived, NEA officials asked the only reporter present to leave, and then locked the public school doors.

"NEA is spending a lot of time trying to come up with arguments that will dissuade minorities from supporting vouchers," says Mr. Stieger. "But these arguments just don't resonate any longer because these parents can see for themselves that inner-city schools are so atrocious." Specific minority "outreach" arguments relate to cost (vouchers won't cover tuition costs at a private school), equal access (elite private schools discriminate against minority students), and educational strip-mining (public schools will be stripped of "advantaged" students, leaving minority students stuck in schools with diminished resources).

The NEA this year budgeted $142,000 to beef up its own mining effort-the data mining it conducts on activities of the "far right." The NEA Assembly's New Business Item 32 calls for the investigation of "organizations, corporations, and recognized individuals" that support vouchers. The NEA's data-mining efforts are military in their language and precision, says Mr. Antonucci, adding that "right-wing intelligence briefings" are a standard agenda item at union executive meetings: "Whenever a voucher bill comes up in a state legislature, NEA considers it an extremist act."

But even NEA's own members, though perhaps not opposed philosophically to the union voucher stance, aren't much help on the front lines. According to some union officials, grass-roots involvem



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (262159)6/9/2002 11:24:19 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
flapjack, first of all, I believe the single most important challenge we face as a society is the improvement of our public education institutions.

I believe that in order to promote decent values, faith, honor, duty, country, integrity, and all the other cultural principles we've strayed from as a society, we must start with a fair and balanced education experience for our children.

The NEA doesn't care about teaching our children time honored values, they only care about their power. They are the barrier to a return to the kind of sociological underpinnings we most admired from our past. In the past, parents and the school system worked in a sort of harmonious way instilling the kind of values we admired as a society. Today, the NEA largely works in opposition to those values.

The NEA promotes a secularist anti-judeo-christian agenda in which they believe teaching morality and ethics to young children makes about as much sense as teaching morality to dogs and cats. After all, if people are nothing but sophisticate animals, then blaming a human for behavior is inappropriate. What is good for one person, is not necessarily good for the other. What is right is not absolute, but only relative to the situation or to how you feel. Character? Who's to dictate what makes good character? Morality? Who's morality, from where does it come?

The loudest voices from the NEA are raised not over failing educational standards and results, but over whether the Bible (even a posting of the ten commandments) should be permitted in public schools. This out of focus alignment with our values is having a terrible effect on those children who lack a moral compass to steer their life by.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (262159)6/9/2002 1:37:44 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769670
 
NEA: Protection or indoctrination?

Posted: February 26, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
worldnetdaily.com

While the decades-long debate over school choice rages and a potentially landmark case concerning it is about to be decided by the Supreme Court, I thought I'd share with you a few tidbits involving recent trends in public schools.

The National Education Association, the 2.6 million member teachers' union and school choice's most militant opponent, holds itself out as being "America's largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education." Put aside the fact that the union is lobbying to keep inner-city children locked in inferior schools. Instead, let's look at one of its current initiatives.

On Feb. 8, the NEA Board adopted a plan it says will make schools safe and hospitable for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students and education employees. Under the plan the union will ask school districts to protect homosexual students and staff by adopting policies that punish harassment and discrimination.

The plan doesn't stop there. It will also encourage schools to develop factual materials for classroom discussions on homosexuality.

The NEA's press release reports that the union will endeavor "to provide students, education employees and the general public with accurate, objective and up-to-date information regarding the needs of, and problems confronting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students." Any such information would be "nonjudgmental in terms of sexual orientation/gender identification."

There you have it: the magic word "nonjudgmental." I wonder if it would be judgmental to impart the fact that AIDS is overwhelmingly more prevalent in the gay than the heterosexual community. I wonder, too, whether the "objective" information the union would provide will encourage condom distribution – and imply that condoms immunize you from contracting HIV?

I don't know about you, but I don't want teachers "educating" my children about the "objective" facts regarding homosexuality and so-called alternative lifestyles. Besides, I thought liberals believed that teaching those kinds of value judgments in public schools violated the Establishment Clause.

One of the main premises of the plan is that negative attitudes toward homosexuality lead to violence against homosexuals. Only by correcting those attitudes can we stop the violence.

This tactic of promoting the gay lifestyle under the guise of preventing violence a la Hate Crimes legislation is often used by gay rights' advocates, and sometimes to an absurd degree. For example, the United States Students Association is pressuring this country's universities to provide single-stall "gender neutral" restrooms to protect transgender students from harassment and assault. A USSA spokesperson explained that cross dressers "have a problem with bathrooms" that are for men or women only because "they face a risk of being assaulted if another person in there doesn't think they belong." If they aren't safe in the bathroom, "they won't necessarily be able to go to college."

Aren't existing rules and laws against violent behavior sufficient to punish those who harm homosexuals? Apparently not. That's why certain states are passing legislation in this area.

California recently enacted the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act, which requires the state curriculum to be modified to enable students to acknowledge homosexual, lesbian, transgender and bisexual historical figures and events. Here again, the pretense is to prevent violence, but the transparent purpose is indoctrination.

I'm sure that sounds innocuous enough to the enlightened, but not to everyone. The Washington Times reports that a group of parents is suing a Novato, Calif., public school district "for allowing their children to see pro-homosexual plays at school without any prior notice or parental consent." The school's program is called "Cootie Shots": Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry."

The plays exposed second through sixth graders to skits pushing homosexual themes. In one, a boy wears a dress and discusses cross-dressing; in the other, a female becomes involved with a princess rather than a prince.

The school district's public information director stuck to the party line in defending the subject matter of the plays. "Providing a safe environment in our schools for everyone has and will always be our main priority." Hmmmm. I suppose this is why the plays were followed with question and answer sessions about what constitutes normal families and acceptance of those who choose the homosexual lifestyle.

A similar bill, "Dignity for All Students Act," is pending before the Florida legislature. It, too, would ban harassment and bullying on the basis of many things – including "sexual orientation."

It appears that the real bullies are those who insist that their value judgments be forced on our children. Doesn't this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about developments in public education?