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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5374)	3/31/2003 7:49:58 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Hawk. Maybe this is part of the reason there are so many protestors with no idea what they are doing or why. Artificial stupidity Thomas Sowell March 29, 2003 A recent news story about a teacher who assigned her students to write anti-war letters may have seemed like just an isolated episode, but teachers using students for their own little ego trips is by no means uncommon. Perhaps the worst recent example was a teacher who unleashed her venom on the children of military personnel who had gone off to fight in Iraq. Just last week I received a bundle of letters from students who have apparently been given an assignment to write to me by a teacher in an English class in Flat Rock High School in Flat Rock, Mich. This was occasioned by a column of mine that said some things that were not politically correct. The first of these letters was from a girl who informed me, from her vast store of teenage wisdom, of things I knew 30 years ago, and closed by telling me I needed to find out about poverty. Since I spent more years in poverty than she has spent in the world, this would be funny if it were not so sad. With American students consistently scoring at or near the bottom on international tests, you would think our schools would have better things to do than tell kids to write letters to strangers, spouting off about things of which they know little or nothing. Flat Rock High School's envelopes, in which the students wrote their assigned letters, have the motto: "Where Tomorrow's Leaders Learn." Sadly, they are learning not to be leaders but to be sheeplike followers, repeating politically correct notions and reacting with snotty remarks to anyone who contradicts them. It is bad enough when someone takes the position that he has made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts. It is worse when someone else makes up his mind for him and then he dismisses any facts to the contrary by attributing bad motives to those who present those facts. Creating mindless followers is one of the most dangerous things our public schools are doing. Young people who know only how to vent their emotions, and not how to weigh opposing arguments through logic and evidence, are sitting ducks for the next talented demagogue who comes along in some cult or movement, including movements like those that put the Nazis in power in Germany. At one time, the educator's creed was: "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." Today, schools across the country are teaching students what to think — whether about the environment, the war, social policy or whatever. Even if what they teach were true, that would be of little use to these young people in later life. Issues and conditions change so much over time that even the truth about today's issues becomes irrelevant when confronted with the future's new challenges. If students haven't been taught to think, they are at the mercy of events, as well as at the mercy of those who know how to take advantage of their ignorance and their emotions. Classroom brainwashing is not new. I wrote about it a decade ago in my book "Inside American Education." Education Department hearings brought out the same things a decade before that. When will the voting public get the message? Where are the parents of these children? Do parents in Flat Rock, Mich., want their children's time in school wasted on their teachers' ideological hobby horses, instead of being used to prepare an intellectual foundation for their further education? In the long run, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is stupidity. In an age of artificial intelligence, too many of our schools are producing artificial stupidity, in the sense of ideas and attitudes far more foolish than young people would have arrived at on their own. I doubt whether the youngsters in Flat Rock, Michigan, were brought up by their parents to say and do the silly things their teachers have assigned them to do. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an avowed enemy can destroy many Americans, but they cannot destroy America, because we are too strong and too capable of counterattack. Only Americans can destroy America. But too many of our schools have for years been quietly undermining the values and abilities needed to preserve any society — and especially a free society. washtimes.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5374)	4/1/2003 10:21:43 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

Please explain to us your beliefs as to why Bin Laden was able to rise to power, why he issued a declaration of war against the US, and how the presence of US troops on Saudi soil to contain Saddam played NO part in leading to his acts of terror or recruiting for Al-Qaeda. I am not going to write a book here, Hawk. Saddam and Bin Ladin are unrelated. You know it and I know it and so does everyone else. Bush et al tried very hard to prove a connection, with all the intelligence capabilities they possess, and comically failed, which tells me that there probably isn't anything damning to be found. Possibly because Al-Qaeda effectively launched, or attempted a major terrorist attack each year since the embassy bombings in africa, which killed 200, and injured over 5,000, predominantly locals. That figures he would try one attack every year for 20 years, or 5%. Huh? "Figures he would try one attack every year for 20 years" DOES NOT MEAN that the current Iraqi regime raises the probability of a terrorist attack by 5%!!! It doesn't even mean that the PROBABILITY of Al-Qaeda trying or succeeding in an attack in any given year IS is 5%, as you seem to believe !!! I can't believe you said that :-) Here's what the original sentence, if you are a bit confused after this comment: suppose that the current Iraqi regime raises the probability of a terrorist attack of the same magnitude as 9/11 by 5 percent per year (one additional attack every 20 years). Message 18776442