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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (5971)	2/4/2003 11:59:37 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

I never followed NASA and the space shuttles. I recall that there were people who never felt that the program's scientific results were a disappointment, but I don't know if that is true. Last night, I heard on the news that we owe the zip lock bag and our weather satellite programs to Nasa and those were only a few items. Even the contstruction of my bed is based on materials designed and used in the space program. I don't know how we can afford to support the program. The country is deeply in debt. In every state, people are faced with increased property taxes and other taxes to cover the shortfall. The Bush administration has not proposed any help for the states. Bush makes many promises. How many does he break? A year or so ago, he touted a big education bill, got his picture taken with Ted Kennedy, which is what Bush really wanted. Then, Bush backed away from the bill. For education bill information see: Message 17320038 " Senator Ted Kennedy Delivers"……"Response on Bush's Broken Promise to America's Schools" You can't trust BUSH. He promises everyone the sky. Where will the money come from? In his State of the Union address, I heard Bush promised help for prescription drug benefits, but he never had a plan, much to the embarrassment of the Republican party. He has the same problem with Iraq. He wants to invade the country, but he doesn't have a plan for its reconstruction. Who will pay for the Iraq war. We will. Who will pay for Iraq's occupation? We will. We will spend and spend until our own economy collapses. JMOP

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (5971)	2/4/2003 1:16:24 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

AMERICAN MYTH versus Reality Hi Pat, Here's something I just happened upon. "America's Cherished Myths - and their realities". freewarehof.org I'll start out with a bried intro from the website. We'll see if the topic elicits any interest...... Ciao! Ray ***************** Every nation sees itself as superior to all other nations. Patriotism is universal. It is built partly on fact, mostly on myths created by its people and its government. Americans believe we are superior to other nations and can tell you why. Britishers think they are superior and can tell you why. Germans are convinced they are and can, with apologies, tell you why. The French believe it more firmly than most, though they are unsure why. That doesn't stop France from requiring that every nation must print its passports in French. The people of Libya, a country three times the size of France and a sponsor of what Americans call international terrorism, believe leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi is the greatest living person, and believe their nation is the world leader in moral values as a freedom fighter. They believe it so completely that people who study these things, like CIA and State Department agents, call Libyans the most patriotic people in the world. Iraqis feel the same about Saddam and Iraq. They are as willing as Brits, French, Libyans, or U.S. Marines to lay down their lives in their just cause. Everyone who believes in a god believes he sides with them. Patriotism is, for the most part, a bundle of exaggerations pleasant to believe, recorded onto human cassettes. There are many ways it gets recorded on young minds. School textbooks for one. State education codes require that public school textbooks promote, in the typical words of the Texas code, "democracy, patriotism, and the free-enterprise system." Convincing people they are the greatest is an easy process which is why every government is successful. People want to believe it. First they interpret history so they look good. Then they create myths of superiority for themselves. Mark Twain's wise observation "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into" explains why these myths last a lifetime. Here are some American examples. Your school history book told you the British burned the US capital in 1814 during the War of 1812. Poor, mistreated us. It didn't tell you we burned Canada's capital the year before and the Brits were settling the score. That's why you just learned that. Our moral superiority to the British evaporates if history isn't abbreviated to make us look good. We must abbreviate to paint a favorable image because actual history shows we've been bad as well as good. Another example. For the most part American immigrants were people who left home because they had nothing. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. They came from the group that hadn't made it, or lost whatever they had and decided to start anew in a new land. We glamorize them because some deserve it, but in truth our forebears were largely Europe's losers. Their strength was not taking losing lying down, for which they deserve respect. Does that explain why so many Americans find it easier to bond with incompetent and bumbling leaders than to able and accomplished ones? Democracy allows people to choose leaders they can relate to. The flaws of the elected mirror our own. We aren't taught that. Instead we're given an inflated self-image. We do learn that most of old Europe doubted the principle on which the US was founded, the principle that common people are capable of choosing their own leaders. We learn that but promptly forget it, and wonder ever after why our local, state, and national governments make blunders, refusing to accept that they are us. Another example. Historians decided Woodrow Wilson should be admired for championing the League of Nations because that appealed to historians. Their textbooks tell us all about that but omit that Wilson revived rigid racism in government hiring, and that his armies invaded more of our neighbors to the south than any other President before or since. Documents show beyond question Wilson was responsible for the banana republics. To gain Wall Street support in his campaigns he ordered wholesale military incursions in Central and South America and installed corrupt governments friendly to US business interests His administration invented the concept of colonialism without responsibility but no school text says so. His policies destroyed the chance for successful democracies in the area by giving landowners everything and peasants nothing. Would it damage Wilson's credibility as the tireless champion of the League of Nations to teach a balanced view of the man? Absolutely, so North Americans get zero information in school to understand the US role in creating unstable, unpopular governments in Central and South America.