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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (18391)	4/30/2003 2:57:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 89467

Where's The Pretext? _____________________________________________ Lack of WMD Kills Case for War By ROBERT JENSEN April 28, 2003 counterpunch.org How blatantly can an administration lie to promote a war and get away with it? We'll find out in the coming weeks, as U.S. forces in Iraq search for evidence of banned weapons and U.S. officials shape postwar Iraq. Ironically, the conduct of the war provides compelling evidence that Iraq probably had no usable weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat outside its borders. Everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use such weapons if his regime faced collapse. But no such weapons were used, suggesting that he lacked the weapons or a delivery capacity, suggesting the Bush administration had been lying. That would not be big news. To whip up fear about Iraq, U.S. officials lied and distorted the truth for months: * In his Feb. 5 U.N. speech, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell claimed that a "poison and explosive training center camp" existed in northeastern Iraq. A few days later, journalists visited the site and found "a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings" and no evidence for Powell's claims. * The Blair administration's report on weapons - which Powell lauded in his U.N. speech for its "exquisite detail" about "Iraqi deception activities" - was stitched together from public sources, including a 12-year-old report. One expert described it as "cut-and-paste plagiarism." * U.S. officials claimed that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, later explained that the documents on which the claim was based were faked. Propagandists know that perception counts for more than truth. This was the approach the administration used concerning Iraq's alleged terrorist ties. Bush officials avoided specific claims about Iraqi involvement in past attacks on Americans - but they sowed enough speculation to create impressions. That's why in a March poll, 45 percent of the American people believed Hussein had been "personally involved" in the 9/11 attacks. This strategy of multiple justifications provided a shifting cover story to divert attention from the obvious reason for war: expanding the U.S. empire to control the flow of oil and oil profits. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld called such assertions "nonsense," though it made - and continues to make - sense to most of the world. Rumsfeld and the gang hope that finding some evidence of banned weapons or weapons programs will provide a retroactive justification - something like, "Even if we lied, we turned out to be right." If no or little evidence is found, Bush has ways out. There are several semi-plausible explanations: Weapons and records were destroyed in bombing or looting. Hussein hid them so they can never be found. They were transferred out of the country. There is no way to disprove such claims. But those rationalizations may prove unnecessary if the "liberation" of the Iraqi people sticks as a blanket justification for the invasion. Anyone with an ounce of compassion feels grateful that Iraqi suffering at the hands of Hussein is over. But while the vast majority of Iraqis are glad the tyrant is gone, they seem less excited about military occupation and U.S. domination of their politics. Mistrust is compounded by the fact that Iraqis know the destruction of their civilian infrastructure by the United States in the 1991 Gulf War - along with a dozen years of punishing economic sanctions maintained at U.S. insistence - have intensified their suffering. So Bush's stated concern for freedom in Iraq also will be tested in the coming weeks. If he is truly interested in democracy, he will remove U.S. forces, acknowledging that no meaningful democratic process can proceed under occupation by a nation with selfish interests in the outcome. If strategic advantage was not a motive for war, Bush will not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq from which the United States can dominate the region. If the United States stays in Iraq while a new government is formed, and retains basing rights, the world will justifiably conclude that the motivation for war was to install a compliant government to extend and deepen U.S. control over the energy resources of the region. The question is whether the American public is willing to face those realities or hide in the lies. ______________________________________________ Robert Jensen is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective, and author of the book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream and the pamphlet "Citizens of the Empire." He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

To: lurqer who wrote (18391)	4/30/2003 3:00:43 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

Re Surprised.... Im surprised Tobacco is not considered a veg.. suitable for Fed sponsored school lunch programs...... No child left behind........ T

To: lurqer who wrote (18391)	4/30/2003 5:45:21 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Calif. Offers Textbook Case of Political Correctness Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By Anita Vogel LOS ANGELES — A textbook review process in California has changed or eliminated references to everything from the Founding Fathers to hot dogs, leaving many to charge the state with distorting history in the name of political correctness. The textbook review process, which is routinely done in many states, is meant to eliminate or replace outdated words or phrases. But what’s happening in California has a lot of people wondering – quite literally – "Where’s the beef?" That’s because many California textbooks will no longer feature pictures of hot dogs, sodas, cakes, butter and other kinds of food that are not considered nutritious. Nor will the books contain any phrases judged to be sexist or politically insensitive. The Founding Fathers, for instance, are now referred to as "The Framers," in an apparent effort to make them sound less male-dominant. And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore, where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some American-Indian groups. The changes, which reflect a wide range of political correctness, have been brought about by pressure groups on both sides of the political aisle, as both Democratic and Republican legislators have been lobbied. Snowman? No more. Melt that image and replace with Snowperson. Want to sail away on a yacht? No, again. It’s too elitist. And if you think grandpa is a senior citizen, guess what? You’re wrong. That’s demeaning, according to the new standards. He is now simply an "older person." The laundry list of words and images banned or considered offensive is not a short one. The word "jungle" has been replaced with "rain forest." The word "devil" has disappeared entirely, with no replacement. Many of the changes seem to represent a direct assault on historical accuracy. For example, the new guidelines dictate American Indians should not be depicted with long braids, in rural settings or on reservations. There are no suggestions on how they should be depicted, however. The problem there, say historians, is that some American Indians did wear their hair in braids, and generally lived in rural settings before being relocated to reservations. Some say the changes are needed to better reach out to today’s diverse student population. Others have a different name for it. "It's outright censorship," said author Diane Ravitch, who has written extensively on the subject of how the nation's schools have dealt with the issue. "It dumbs down our textbooks, makes them bland, far less interesting than anything children might see in the movies -- even in G-rated movies or TV. "The problems that have happened in education is that the textbook publishers and the test developers have become so sensitive to any controversy that whenever they receive a complaint it is very likely that they will remove the source of the complaint," explained Ravitch. Textbook publishers admit they are in a bind. They say if they don't adopt the changes made by large states like California and Texas, they would suffer severe economic consequences. Still, there are those who defend the changes made. "I think our textbooks should to our greatest capacity be free of any type of stereotyping," said Sue Stickel, deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction for the California Department of Education. "We need to make sure that all ethnicities are represented. We need to make sure that both males and females are represented. We need to make sure that our materials cover the full gamut." foxnews.com