 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought February 5, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
In the midst of all the hypocritical and self-righteous talk about the fact that the National Security Agency actually listens to calls from known or suspected terrorists talking to someone in the United States or vice versa, is the fact that every single American is under surveillance these days. It begins with the Social Security number that is issued to newborn infants! There is hardly a purchase you make that isn’t monitored for the purpose of selling more of the same or identifying you as a potential customer for something else. As Robert O’Harrow, Jr., a Washington Post reporter and author of “No Place to Hide,” says, “Almost every aspect of our lives is being recorded by someone, somewhere.” Is it time to get very paranoid or is this just the way business conducts marketing research these days? The answer is the latter. This is particularly true when it comes to your credit rating and credit card activity. Like a lot of Americans, I pay a company to constantly monitor my credit status and report back to me if anything odd occurs with one of my cards. Why pay attention to that? Well, identity theft is almost ridiculously easy and not too long ago more than forty million credit card numbers were hacked from MasterCard International, Inc. and Bank of America lost the financial information data for 1.2 million federal workers. Not a day goes by when I don’t receive emails from fictitious ebay, PayPal, banking and credit card operations “phishing” for my credit card and financial information. However, when it’s the government that’s taking an interest in these otherwise mundane activities, then the opportunity to cross the line becomes a potential invasion of privacy if a warrant has not been issued. That should be a cause of legitimate concern. As it is, the government asks for and voluntarily receives tons of personal information every time you interact with any aspect of it. And what they don’t have, they can get from a company such as Acxiom, described by Harrow as “a billion-dollar player in the data industry with details about nearly every adult in the United States.” It is now working closely with Homeland Security officials. I love the “CSI: Crime Scene Investigators” television series. What fun to see its characters run a computer check on some victim or suspect and watch as all kinds of information becomes almost instantly available. Where do you think that information comes from? Do you have a driver’s license? Have you ever received a speeding or parking ticket? Do you work for the government or a branch of its military services? Why Americans would get exercised over government surveillance at this point is a bit surprising, given the fact that a whole bunch of government agencies, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to various intelligence agencies, have routinely been keeping an eye on all kinds of criminals and, thankfully, on our enemies Anyone who works for a corporation is under surveillance. A recent report based on a survey by the ePolicy Institute in cooperation with the American Management Association revealed that nine out of ten companies engage in workplace surveillance; primarily monitoring computer use. Two-thirds wanted to know what websites employees visit while on the job. Just over half of the 500 U.S. employers reported that they monitor phone calls and about one-in-five taped calls. More than half reported using video monitors. There are some very good reasons for this because corporations can be held accountable for the misbehavior of employees when they are on the job and, perhaps, uploading nude pictures of children to their favorite pedophile website. They need to fend off sexual harassment, hostile work-environment, and claims of wrongful termination lawsuits. Just as important, companies need to detect any source of leaks about their products or services to competitors, about sensitive merger talks, and even unfounded rumors. Video surveillance is so commonplace these days that you are being watched in supermarkets, department stores, and countless other places. Is it wrong for the government to tap your phone or read your mail without a warrant? Yes. It has always been wrong, but the current NSA flap is about listening to traffic from outside the U.S. to people inside who may be planning to kill a lot of us. Since this occurs at the speed of sound, the need to get a warrant has been overtaken by modern technology. Key members of Congress knew about the NSA program and were briefed on a regular basis. Did any one of them complain before The New York Times, after sitting on the story for over a year and being personally requested by the President to keep it secret, choose to reveal it just before one of its reporters published a book on the topic? In my view, The Times, the reporter, and probably the publisher of his book should be indicted for sedition. If the public’s “right to know” supercedes the need to protect that same public against a declared enemy, this nation is in deep trouble. My feeling is that most Americans understand what is at stake, know that the nation is at war with a merciless, deranged enemy, and know that, if they aren’t breaking the law in some fashion, such surveillance is a vital element of the war on terrorism. Editor's Note: Caruba is right when he says that technology has become so rapid that there's sometimes not time to seek warrants for surveillance. FISA does, however, take this into consideration with provisions that say in cases where time is crucial after-the-fact warrants can be requested. So whatever the rationale for the surveillance in the first place, "we didn't have time" doesn't cut it as an excuse to conduct the surveillance without a warrant. Lady Liberty. |
|||||
Last week I wrote about some of the tactics currently in play within our own country by "them." When I say "them," I refer to the communist block still very much in power in Russia and China. This week I would like to discuss the tactics in play in the Mid-East in very general terms. If one calmly takes to time to read what our detractors have to say in the Mid-East one can easily recognize a very common pattern. They are all totalitarian regimes with a socialist bent to them. On the surface they appear to be at odds with each other at all times. They claim to be trying to modernize at times, yet they are also trying to maintain their Islamic ways. In the long run we will see that they were all one in the same. This is evidenced by the level of inaction on the part of local governments towards their own troublemakers. There is an old saying in that region that sums up their thinking: “You and me against my brother. You, me and my brother against the outsider.” Historically there is another way to view this situation. Forgive me if I take you back in time. I’ll make it an exciting journey, and since everyone loves ninjas we’ll go there. Fasten your belts and let’s go. During the Sengoku period — sometimes called the warring states period of Japan — ninjas were employed as the eyes and ears of the ruling powers, or daimyo. There was one leader from the Senada clan who was quite interesting in his tactics: Senada Yukimura, the most famous member of the Senada clan. He successfully defended his castle with 3,000 in a battle against 50,000 troops led by Tokugawa Hidetada. How did they accomplish this feat? They went so far as to divide their house into two factions. One side supported Tokugawa and the other supported his enemy, Toyotomi. This was done in order to ensure survival of the clan and daimyo. Because of this tactic Toyotomi rose from obscurity to be the de-facto ruler of Japan. Let’s move forward now into our time. Russia and China have done a nice job of looking like they are at odds with each other for years. Now they are friends and allies. So which one was a lie? In the book "Soldiers of Misfortune," it was documented that scientific and engineering prisoners in the Korean War went to Russia and slave labor went to China. In Vietnam we saw the same type of activity. Our media avoided discussing it in any way. They’re still doing that. Now we see Russian and China saying things such as, "Play nice!" to the islamo-facists. It is a lie. They are in this together, all of them. One can see it in the bastard child of their politics. Socialism is their beacon, and that means the father is once again Russian duplicit There is another thing I want to show you out of the past, so let’s go back to about where we were before. There were two battles that were fought between ninja clans that bear scrutiny in our current times. One clan used the tactic of appearing big when they were actually smaller than thought. This was done to avoid attack. They got into one heck of a fight with another clan that appeared small and almost beat them completely. The clan that appeared small realized why they were attacked and waited. They got to be quite large, but they hid their true numbers by making it appear as though they were at war with each other. What intelligent leader is going to go after two adversaries who are beating each other to death? Once the weaker appearing clan was ready they went after the larger clan. That is where true strength is proven, on the battlefield. The larger appearing clan got stomped in record time. I believe it was Iga that was the larger appearing clan. Anyway, they lost. Now as we move back to our time again I’d like to make a few points. Look on the members of al-Qaeda not as one group but as part of a larger strategy. That strategy is appearing to be smaller than they are; there aren’t really any card-carrying members that will tie all of the groups together because that is stupid. Also, some of these groups appear to be at odds with each other. However, they all have the exact same targets, which would be the west. You’ll notice that they aren’t attacking each other. You will at times, however, see them do things to each other, but the damage will be minimal. This is because they all have the same goals. I started out the article by discussing strategy versus tactics. Here it is. A strategy is something that is predicated on a series of conditions, while tactics are used to create those conditions and to put them to use. So when you read some left wing reporter talking about Anatoly Golistyn as though he was a charlatan just remember that he is as lost as a goose in a hailstorm. He got his history education from some left wing professor who thinks it was more important to talk about what Betsy Ross was wearing when she sewed the flag. In short, he is in idiot who was educated by an idiot. History is very important because as one Austrian politician said a long time ago, “It’s the same old crap…Only the flies have changed.” Reference Links: http://www.markriebling.com/golitsyn.html R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Last week, Drew Westen of Emory University announced the results of a study conducted before the 2004 election, which examined the brains of George Bush and John Kerry supporters. The results of this study suggested that partisan thinking derives not from reason but pure emotion. When faced with favorable facts about their candidates, the men’s brains lit up like junkies getting their fix on. When presented with negative facts, their brains simply refused to consider what they heard. This, of course, comes as no surprise to me. I’ve always wondered why the things I say to most liberals and conservatives go in one ear and out the other. Now I know: Scientifically speaking, these people have no brains. But rather than going on and on about this study, which would probably only get me in trouble, I’ve decided to take a break from spouting off this week to let representatives from both sides of the political aisle make the case for or against the study themselves. Here now are the opinions on this groundbreaking research, as written by two entirely fictional voters, whose names I made up because I wrote this on deadline and couldn’t find anyone real to interview. I think you’ll agree their essays are telling. In fact, both sides might be closer than you think. • • • "My Brain is a Battleground in the War Against America: A View from the Right,” by Bush T. Conservatron So… Drew Westen thinks he’s found scientific proof that Republicans are irrational? That’s interesting. Too bad there’s NO SUCH THING AS SCIENCE. In an ideal world, I suppose life would be one giant fairytale. Special magicians called “doctors” would dazzle us with wonderful, health-improving capsules called “medicines.” Man would soar through the sky in big metal “airplanes.” And who knows? Maybe someday we’d have computers small enough to fit inside a single room. But that’s not the world we’re living in here. This is the real world. And the reality is, there’s no such thing as science. What’re you going to tell me next, Mr. Westen—that the planet existed before I stepped foot on it? Or that mankind was meant to find “answers” to questions? Yeah, sure. Well, I’ve got a question for you: What’s black and white and red all over? All you liberals… with American blood and New York Times print on your hands. Let me put this as simply as I can: I am a Bush supporter. And unlike all you communist, tree-hugging, Brokeback Mountain-watching Kerry supporters, I deal in cold, hard facts—not the colors of the rainbow. Emory University is just another Elite Leftist College, bent on teaching America’s youth about liberal values like research and free parking. It doesn’t surprise me that these people would conduct a study the likes of Mr. Westen’s, because they’ll do whatever it takes to regain political power. Only liberals deal in things like “emotions” and “feelings.” And only liberals would try to convince us these things are normal. This is what we’re up against, people. First they tried to secularize Christmas. Now they’re trying to secularize our brains. Are we really going to sit here and stand for this? Mr. Westen hates freedom. That’s what this comes down to. Anyone who would say I voted for Bush based on pure emotion obviously doesn’t remember September 11th. As a Bush supporter, I have personally rationalized each and every one of the president’s policies—from “torture” and “domestic spying” to “keeping secrets” and “destroying key freedoms and civil liberties.” This country was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of slaves and George W. Bush supporters—people like me who understand you can’t just roll out of bed in the morning and expect things to have “quote marks” around them. You have to work to put those “quote marks” there. You have to work to make things make sense to you. So don’t talk to me about being irrational. Talk to all those freeloading hippie liberals at Emory University. They’re the irrational ones. • • • "He’s George Bush, and He Approved This Hurricane: A View from the Left,” by John Kerry Mellencamp Well, well, well. A new study out of Emory University finds that partisan thinking is completely irrational. Hey, guess what? As a Democrat, I’ve been saying this for years. In fact, if not for all those partisans in flyover country, John Kerry would be president right now. And America would be in a much better place. Already, I know what you’re thinking. Actually, I always know what you’re thinking. And right now it’s this: “What makes Democrats less partisan than Republicans?” That’s easy. Democrats aren’t partisan because Democrats aren’t a party. Oh, sure, we run candidates in every election. We have our own mascot, a chairman, even a color (a nice shade of blue). But whereas Republicans exist to pillage and plunder the country, we exist to stop them by pillage-and-plundering cities and towns. Basically, we exist out of pure necessity. And if that somehow makes us a “party”? Well, that just shows how far to the right our country has gone. I think it’s a shame America chose Bush over Kerry. If Kerry were president, Hurricane Katrina would never have happened. Nor would any of the other disasters that’ve occurred the last five years—including Enron and Ben Affleck’s Gigli. Most of the world understands this. But Bush supporters? Bush supporters are different. These people couldn’t care less about the environment, but when a Category 5 destroys the Gulf of Mexico, all of a sudden it’s a “force of nature.” All of a sudden it’s “just something that happens.” Please. John Kerry predicted Hurricane Katrina. And if John Kerry were president, the blind would be able to see again. And lepers would no longer have leprosy. And blacks would no longer be black. That’s why it’s crucial we get Democrats back in the White House. My party isn’t a party, and I don’t know who my party will nominate next time, but whoever it is—be it Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or even Hillary Clinton—it’s important that they win. Don’t let all those Republican spinmeisters spin the results of this Emory study. Because they’ll just keep spinning like dreidels if you let them. Yes, there are folks in this world who approach politics based on pure emotion. But Fox News has a name for those people. And they’re called “Fox News viewers.” Bush supporters aren’t human. Their brains aren’t misshapen and clumpy like our brains. Theirs are perfect circles, and they taste a little like egg whites. These people are crazy. They wave tiny flags and don’t go to the bathroom. They’ll do whatever you tell them to do, unless you tell them to vote Democrat, in which case they’re suddenly independent thinkers. This makes no sense. And it’s flat out irrational. If Republicans stay in power, the grass will melt and the sun will fall down. That’s the lesson of this Emory study. So keep that in mind at the next election. Vote Democrat and all of your wildest dreams will come true. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court. Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population. Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves. Editor's Note: Samuel Alito was confirmed by the Senate last week by a vote largely along party lines. Whether Alito himself proves to be politically motivated or not, it's readily apparent that the process itself is hopelessly politicized. Lady Liberty. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Recently, Creole, Massachusetts State Representative Marie St. Fleur summarized the paramount predicament inherent in just about all policy debate regarding Immersion versus Bilingual Education. "We need to redefine what we're trying to do. It's not the school system's responsibility or obligation that every child maintains fluency in their native tongue." Representative St. Fleur is absolutely correct in her assessment because, historically, bilingualism has not been a school directive. The question that must be answered at this juncture is whether or not it should be and how this is best accomplished in the individual schools. No one would disagree that students from immigrant families should become fluent in the nation's dominant language, which is English. Many argue, however, that there is value in creating a multilingual citizenry. As a matter of fact, President Bush believes this is a matter of American security. He recently, “launched the National Security Language Initiative, designed to expand Americans' knowledge of critical foreign languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Hindi and Farsi.” He realizes that it is in our best interest to have intelligence officers who can understand those who communicate in these languages. Certainly, it is of great value to understand Spanish, as well, because we are bordered by a Spanish speaking people and we must be able to understand each other, especially if we are to cooperate on matters of national interest. So, the argument isn’t really about whether Bilingual or Immersion education programs work better. According to Arizona State University’s Jeff MacSwan, Associate Professor of Language and Literacy, “Decisions about whether to put students in bilingual or immersion programs are best made at the district level with parental involvement.” It is his finding that, "Good conscientious educators can succeed in either model." That being said, what is the best and most efficient way to accomplish the goal of learning English? There are a number of considerations which must be addressed. According to Laura Wittmann, an ESL coordinator in Bangor, Maine, “Determining whether students need ESL services and what type depends on a number of factors, including their age, the amount of English they know, their ability to read and write in their own language, and how well they've done in school in their native country.” In other words, what works best for one English learner isn’t necessarily what works best for all English learners. This is because immigrants arrive in this country with a wide range of skills and backgrounds. In a speech to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, House Speaker Tom Craddick expressed concern that once a program is implemented, there must be ways to hold schools accountable for ensuring that English learners “are progressing toward English proficiency.” Additional problems result from not having enough bilingual teachers for English learners. A 2005 report by The Urban Institute concludes that in terms of resources, "the shortage of teachers in High-LEP (limited English proficient) schools with experience, adequate academic preparation, and appropriate credentials poses the most significant problem for LEP students." Don Soifer, of the Lexington Institute has found that ineffective bilingual programs can segregate students who are unable to exit the program. Another problem occurs when within these programs there is a greater emphasis on multicultural studies than teaching students to read and write in English. Good school districts have begun investigating proven ways to best educate students in learning English. In some cases, schools are considering dual language programs, which mix native English-speaking students with those learning the language. Students in these programs learn a second language and a second culture. “Instruction is given in both English and another language, so students in the program learn the curriculum in two languages.” Illinois’ Wheeling Elementary School District 21 has begun investigating all the variables which must be considered before committing to dual language to replace any or all of their current bilingual education programs in Spanish, Russian and Polish. According to Rosemary Meyer, the director of bilingual and English as a second language education, "There are a lot of big questions to answer, mainly, can we do it and can we do it well." According to studies, both groups of students benefit from dual language programs. "The key is having an effective program. You can't just put it in place and immediately see results," said Ellen Clark, School Board president. A huge consideration is the cost to implement the program. IL District 54 uses four English/Spanish and one English/Japanese dual language program in five of its schools. The program is optional but there is a waiting list every year. There is no need to transition, “Out of the dual language program, since all the students are supposed to be learning the exact same material as their peers,” according to Terri McHugh, District 54 spokeswoman. Most students remain in the program until high school. In Texas, the State Board of Education wants to learn more about Immersion and "ways we as state policymakers can encourage school districts within Texas to move into this model of successful instruction to enable non-English speakers to close the achievement gap more effectively." To be fair, they want to hear from “Supporters of bilingual education from Texas and California,” as well. Regardless of what method of instruction schools decide to implement, what must be considered are the needs of the particular students, the costs, and whether or not there are qualified teachers available to ensure that the program is working. Schools must be held accountable for providing adequate instruction in any subject. It is the administration’s and the school board’s responsibility to ensure that the necessary components for the success of any program are in place. Only then will the needs of all students be addressed. References: Bilingual classes to get second look “ESL programs
help remove language barriers” Frazier, Cal and
Tim Westerberg. “Closing the student achievement gap in Colo.” Moffitt, Casey.“Is
dual better? District looks at language program” Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:37 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
