 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought August 6, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
At what point do Americans and the rest of the world begin to take Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seriously? He is making no secret of his plans to acquire and use nuclear weapons against Israel, England and America. As any student in Psychology 101 learns, there is something called “projection” in which an individual “projects” onto another person their own intentions, motivations, and justifications. If I say you are planning to harm me, there’s a strong chance the truth is that I am planning to harm you. On August 1, he was addressing a rally that was carried on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) and his speech was translated by the Middle East Media Research Center for anyone to read. Ahmadinejad was denouncing Israel’s efforts to defend itself against the rain of Iranian-supplied rockets and missiles, and of course, it was their own fault they were under attack. The crowd was chanting “Death to Israel.” He proceeded to give his own history lesson to the crowd, but since he does not believe the Holocaust ever happened along with some other extraordinarily paranoid notions, his version is a bit skewed. “They are a bunch of Zionists. Where have they come from? As you know, the rule of hegemony and the web of colonialism strived to establish a base in the heart of the Middle East.” “A hundred years ago, they began to devise conspiracies on the basis of a diabolical plan. Bit by bit they (Jews) arrived (in what was then the British protectorate of Palestine) and backed by the devious, deceiving England, they sneaked people in, and placed them in control over the people of Palestine.” The real history could fill a book, but suffice it to say that a very small group of European Jews, despairing of ever being accepted in their home countries, rife with anti-Semitism, concluded that Jews should immigrate to Palestine with a view to reestablishing the nation of Israel. The idea began with the publication, in 1896, of Theodor Hertzl’s “The Jewish State.” The first Zionist Congress was held in 1897 in Basle, Switzerland. It was never a popular idea, which accounts for why, years later, the Nazis were able to round up and kill six million European Jews. Those who had immigrated bought land from Arabs who largely considered it worthless. It was a desert. After the Holocaust, those Jews who survived concluded that living in Europe was no longer viable and, encouraged by Zionist organizations, they immigrated to Palestine. Did Zionists want to recreate Israel? Yes, of course. It was to be a Jewish nation where Jews would be safe from those who wanted to kill them. They had, however, merely traded one set of murderers for another. When independence was declared in 1948, Israel was immediately attacked by five Arab nations. According to Ahmadinejad, “They claimed that these are people whose forefathers had lived in this land 2,500 years ago, and that they should therefore be the rulers of this land.” The word “claimed” gives away his view that Jews had no claim on the area. On the other hand, during the Crusades, both Christians and Muslims had fought over the same land while making their own claims to it. Ahmadinejad’s interpretation, however, is that “They (the Jews) established a regime, aimed at threatening, trespassing, murdering, and pillaging.” To put it another way, Israel’s 2% of the Middle East population, living on 1% of its landmass, exists to do terrible things to the 98% of Arabs and Persians living on 99% of it. You have to be really nuts to believe stuff like this. By this time, the crowd was chanting “Death to America.” “Everyone knows that this regime (Israel) can do nothing without the orders and backing of America and its intimate friend, England. That’s why we have declared these two regimes are responsible for all the crimes of the insubordinate Zionist regime.” We are now in the Twilight Zone of Muslim madness. “Today, Hezbollah in Lebanon is the standard-bearer of the resistance of all the monotheistic peoples, of the seekers of justice, and of the free people.” Pardon me, but didn’t Judaism introduce the concept of monotheism while folks in the Middle East were worshipping moon gods and a host of others? And isn’t Hezbollah the wholly owned subsidiary of Iran? Kenneth R. Timmerman is president of Middle East Data Project Inc. and author of “Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran”. On August 2nd, writing in The Washington Times, Timmerman compared the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon to the 1936 Spanish Civil War. “Just as Adolf Hitler used Francisco Franco as his proxy in Spain to test new military techniques and equipment on the battlefield, so Iran is using Hezbollah as its proxy to do the same.” This is a particularly apt and ominous analogy. Now here is where “projection” is most evident as Ahmadinejad told the crowd, “I declare…that in light of America and England’s behavior, it has become clear that they don’t have what it takes to participate in international forums. They don’t have what it takes to sit in the Security Council, and to have a right of veto. They themselves are guilty and criminal, and they must be placed on trial. “When I see the behavior of America, England, and their other accomplices in recent days, I get the impression that they are preparing even greater crimes. I warn them: Know that the fire of the wrath of the peoples is about to erupt and overflow. “Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology. Those who want to talk with our people should know what people they are talking to. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people in the language of threats and aggressiveness, they should know that they are making a bitter mistake. “If they have not realized this by now, they soon will, but then it will be too late.” This is the language of a man preparing to use nuclear weapons against Israel, England and America. Waiting for him to do it is not an option. |
|||||
China has always been a benign country when it is weak. When it becomes strong it becomes malevolent. On his deathbed Richard Nixon is purported to have said that he feared he had created a Frankenstein by opening relations with China. Carter wasn’t one to be outdone in doing stupid things and told Taiwan it wasn’t the cat’s meow anymore. Of course Clinton wasn’t to be outdone so he made China even worse. He capitulated to their threats and under him there was so much theft such as the nuke secrets at Los Alamos etc. and allowing the Chinese to take over both ends of the Panama Canal. China is now moving to create havoc in South America through Chavez with his hand on the oil spigot. China was also quite happy when the 911 terrorist attacks occurred and sold books and videos celebrating the attacks. China is no longer a benign country. They have threatened nuclear attacks several times and nothing has been done about it. We just keep importing their slave-labor manufactured goods from the laogis. Along with that we’ve also exported our technology. It might appear that I’m primarily blaming the Democrats for this but that isn’t true. Both parties are guilty. It’s just that the words "stupid" and "Carter" or "Clinton" go together like "Communist" and "concentration camp." But there is a country that has a beef with the Chinese and their expansionist policies. That’s because they are at times toe-to-toe with one of their allies Pakistan and then there was that little war China had with India. Like Israel India has a few problems but it has more advantages. India actually has a capable work force without all of the internal and external strife that is certain to come in or from China. They also don’t have a desire to nuke us. India does have some internal strife, but it is coming from the same source as our current problems: They’ve been putting up with radical Islam for a very long time. As a matter of fact they were one of the first countries fortunate enough to be sacked by the earliest version of radical Islam. Speaking of being attacked they were also attacked by China in the early sixties. That was one of those little border disputes that never got finished. Another attraction to India is that it’s hard to attack it because of geography. Right now would be a good time to switch most of our economic focus away from China and into India. But since it will anger our MFN partner China, we need to make sure we give India a lot of help in eradicating the pesky radicals. I realize that this doesn’t sound very PC but I don’t really care. I’m not now and never have been one for trying to cut deals with a group of people that will work a treaty with you and then break it the moment they think they have the upper hand on you. That kind of thinking is more a neurosis that must be contained or destroyed. India will have its problems on occasion just like any country. But it is the actual seat of civilization, not Baghdad. India has an interesting past but doesn’t seem to be eaten up with hatred. India had once been an economic powerhouse, but trading with the west put it in a rather bad situation. They were eventually ruined and then used to raise opium to be sold in China. The residual anger from the Opium Wars still boils and seethes behind the scenes in China. However, India is different. As a matter of fact they even have a history that precedes the "oldest" civilization in the world. They have always had a little trouble with the rest of the world because of their religion making claims about the age of their books and civilization that were perceived to be asinine at best. Not too many years ago Space Shuttle images showed something that changed all of that. The silence was deafening by the way. The Vedas make claims about the age of their society and refer to a land bridge between Sri Lanka and India that was constructed to save Sita, the wife of Sri Rama when Ravanna, the materialistic demi-god of Sri Lanka, kidnapped her. The Vedas and the land bridge put human beings here and doing a lot of interesting things a long time ago, as written in Bhagavad-Gita for instance. The point is that India is one of the most fascinating places on the face of this earth. It has a history that spans our known history and before. It has been an economic powerhouse many times. But unlike China it doesn’t have a tendency to attack everyone around them. I think its time to quit allowing our technology to go to a bunch of troublemakers with a chip on their shoulder. I’d also prefer to see us dealing with a group of people that don’t have anything but tyranny in their past. Reference
Links: R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
China and Russia are big countries. When world leaders met at the recent G8 summit, President Bush was caught cursing, chewing like a cow, and massaging the shoulders of Germany’s female chancellor on camera. He was also recorded by an open mic informing a Chinese official — reportedly the Chinese president — that China and Russia are, quote, “big” countries. As if this is something the Chinese president doesn’t already know. The whole world seems to be treating Bush’s G8 performance as final proof of his long rumored idiocy at the moment. I understand why they would think this way. After all, he’s the most powerful man in the universe. He shouldn’t be all but a pee stain away from behaving like somebody’s puppy. But someone needs to stick up for the president on this one. And if no one else has the courage to do it, then that someone might as well be me. George Bush may, indeed, be a moron. Most of us will never know, because most of us will never meet him. But if he is, the way he behaved at the G8 still failed to prove it. Telling the Chinese president that China’s a big country isn’t a sign of mental midgetry. It’s a sign of social ineptness. The G8 didn’t prove Bush is stupid. It basically proved he’s me. What do I mean by this? Well, not literally me, of course. And not just me, either. But people like me. And more specifically, guys like me. All across America, there are millions of men who can’t make it through an evening without saying something stupid. It’s not hard to spot us. We’re the ones whose wives say, “Stop it. You’re embarrassing me,” every ten to fifteen minutes. I’ve always known I was one of these men. But it’s only now, with help from a very candid camera, that I realize George Bush is one of these men, too. Take the way he dropped the s-bomb, for instance. I once got in trouble at a small social gathering for mentioning how my roommate had named his pet frogs “F” and “F” (which was short for a four-letter word, which wasn’t Fred). Or take Bush’s amazingly painful attempt at small talk with the Chinese president. That was pure me also. I rarely have anything of substance to say to other grown-ups. When I say something stupid, it’s usually because I’m just trying to think of something — anything — to say. After all, keeping my mouth shut would make me look as out of place and disinterested as I am. Of course, you could make the case that the president and I are much different people, living much different lives. You could even make the case that presidents ought to be able to talk to other presidents. They shouldn’t be disinterested. We’ve been spoiled by smooth-talking commanders-in-chief in this country. Bill Clinton, for instance, could unlatch women’s bras with the sound of his voice. But a wise man once said people get the leaders they ask for. And speaking from personal experience, if George Bush is the kind of guy I think he is, then he’s the most fitting leader we could ask for in this American moment. Why? Because the men whose wives “can’t take them anywhere” are usually the same men who let shells of themselves inhabit their bodies and inhibit their minds for 40 hours a week, every week. They’re the nameless, faceless drones working nameless, faceless jobs in office parks across the country. In short, they’re the white, middle-class cogs in America’s corporate machine. Guys like me don’t just wear social masks in social settings. We wear them in professional settings, too. We restrain ourselves. We act as though we care about spreadsheets. We pretend, as a matter of mere survival, that we’re happy we’re working nondescript desk jobs. Meanwhile, we only have desk jobs because sitting at desks is all the schools ever taught us to do. I realize George Bush is a symbol of sheer corporate greed for some people. Maybe his background in business says more about him than I’d care to let on here. But after seeing how he acted at the G8, I can’t help but think he only got into business — and then into politics — because business and politics are the only things he’s ever known. That wasn’t a rare side of Bush we saw at the summit. It was the real Bush — the Bush that Bush pretends not to be, in order to keep his job. He doesn’t want to be the world’s most powerful person. You can see it in his eyes when he jokes with reporters. He’d rather be off doing stand-up comedy somewhere. And you know what? He would be good at it. He’s not stupid; he’s actually pretty witty. Witty doesn’t always pay the bills, though. Which is why men like Bush end up where they end up. So I’m not buying this idea that George Bush is an idiot. Nor do I think we should be embarrassed by his dubious social graces. I’m not even sure we should be embarrassed by his policies anymore. In context, the Iraq War sort of resembles every project I’ve ever taken on in a moment of over-ambition. His secretiveness reminds me of every time I’ve ever said, “Don’t worry… I’m working on it,” in order to keep my job. If anything, we shouldn’t be embarrassed by Bush, but by the culture that mass-produces directionless young men just like him every summer. Some are lucky enough to be born with his connections. The rest just scour Monster till they find an employer willing to pay their bills. Whatever the case, they enter a world that only allows creativity within the contexts of conformity. They don’t have it as bad as starving children in Russia or China (or wherever children are starving these days). But they do, in the words of Peter Gibbons from Office Space, work “just hard enough not to get fired.” That’s a type of starvation — an oppression of the spirit — all its own. This doesn’t make them idiots. It just makes them the boys who didn’t “apply themselves” on report cards — still restless, but technically all grown up. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Gasoline prices are soaring and the American people are angry. They want something done about it—now! $100 rebate checks to American motorists won’t cut it, nor will mandatory mileage requirements for new vehicles. Taxing oil profits will only force prices higher. But there are some very important things we can do immediately to help. First: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure oil. Before the Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped 50%. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple. Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is nowhere near getting one. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel. Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise — some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy. Exploding deficits, due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of overseas engagements, create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we’re all paying at the pump. If we want to do something about gas prices, Congress should greatly reduce federal spending, balance the budget, and eliminate regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. And in the meantime let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Studying Teacher Education—a voluminous report of the American Educational Research Association Panel on Research and Teacher Education (2005)—reaches some tough and generally honest conclusions about the scant evidence supporting the value of formal teacher education. In short, they concede that there is presently very little empirical evidence to support the methods used to prepare the nation’s teachers.1 When employed, research-based teaching methods and approaches can assure that our children will read proficiently.2 In a new book, Why Kids Can’t Read: Challenging the Status Quo in Education (edited by Phyllis Blaunstein and Reid Lyon), are twelve essays which explain not only how to identify problematic methods commonly employed to teach children to read in our nation’s schools, but also include a number of scientifically proven methods of reading instruction which can help resolve the crisis of inappropriately prepared teachers using poor pedagogy to teach reading. In chapter one, The Crisis in Our Classroom, Blaunstein and Lyon explain that the goal of whole language philosophy based programs, for which there is no scientific evidence to support “is to instill a love of reading, not the ability to read, seemingly without the realization that the latter is the pathway to the former.”3 Although scientific research deems the following skills necessary for reading success: phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary; reading fluency; and comprehension strategies, they are not systematically and explicitly instructed within these programs.4 Blaunstein and Lyon conclude that although the current system is failing our children, “well trained teachers, effective instructional programs, and strong educational leadership” can ensure most children will learn to read.Chapter two, Armed With the Facts: The Science of Reading and Its Implications for Teaching, urges readers to share the scientific basis for phonics-based reading methods and provides clues to help determine whether or not a child has a reading problem.5 Two doctors, Sally and Bennett Shaywitz explain that the National Reading Panel (NRP) found that to break the code, beginning readers must discover that spoken words have parts and that the smallest sounds are called phonemes. Phonemic awareness is being able to segment (pull apart) and blend (push together) the individual sounds in words. Reading difficulties stem from being unable to perform this type of exercise.6 Learning how letters and letter combinations link to sounds is called phonics. There are 44 phonemes and 26 letters. Imagine the possibilities… Unless a child can use phonics, words never before encountered are unmanageable.7 In whole language approaches, children guess words by looking at pictures or using the context rather than sounding it out. Although some phonics may be taught, “letter-sound linkages are not taught in a preplanned or systemic way; often some, but not all, of these linkages are taught, and vowels are often overlooked.” 8 The Shaywitzes dispel the myth that reading difficulties are developmental lags and will be outgrown.9 Furthermore, they explain that evidence-based reading intervention can spur necessary neural systems growth, which results in significant and durable changes in brain organization.10 Finally, they provide a list of symptoms which can indicate reading problems which must be addressed.11 In the next four chapters, individual authors share personal stories about how the system was failing and the ways they each responded to their individual situation in order to receive proper reading instruction. Whether enlisting the help of a “Reading Specialist”, doing some sleuthing to determine whether reading materials are in alignment with current research on reading, realizing that behavior problems are a symptom of reading distress and shopping around for a school that can meet a specific need, or advocating policymakers for widespread changes in instruction, everyone has suggestions on how to solve the problem, although many of the solutions require time and commitment. While chapters seven and eight deal with how to enlist the media and how to advocate to change laws in order to benefit your cause, chapter nine provides a history of how reading came into this state of being. Sara Porter explains that there are many teachers who are aware there are problems with the instruction of a portion of their students but have not accepted the solution. In some cases, remediation is simply more of the same whole language programs. 12 The science and evidence that now tell teachers that they must teach children to read using instruction that is systematic, structured and comprehensive, and that this is necessary for all children, are viewed with suspicion. They do not understand that this is not simply an “approach.” They do not understand that scientifically based reading instruction is not a “one-size-fits-all” solution. On the contrary, scientifically based instruction is built upon our knowledge of how children learn to read and why some children have difficulty learning. It asks that teachers understand this knowledge in depth so they can adjust instruction to meet every child’s needs – needs that differ from child to child.13 Chapter 10 and 11 give accounts about how two different schools implemented plans which would help students achieve grade level in reading. I preferred the plan offered by Benjamin Sayeski at Johnson Elementary School in North Carolina because it took only three years to establish and make gains. Also, the plan utilized at Hartsfield Elementary School, which took six years to implement, required dumping Social Studies instruction at certain grade levels. This is because it relied on commercial curriculums which did not integrate the disciplines. I believe that expository reading and writing can be taught through Social Studies and that just because it isn’t tested doesn’t mean it isn’t important. After the book’s conclusion there are a number of appendixes, a glossary, and resources to help the reader affect change in the way reading is currently being taught in our nation’s schools. I especially enjoyed First Lady Laura Bush’s essay on how to identify a good early reading program. Overall, this is
an extremely informative, helpful book for anyone interested in understanding
what the reading wars are about and how to navigate through the propaganda
and decipher the facts. I highly recommend this book. 2-13 Blaunstein, Phyllis, and Reid Lyon. Why Kids Can’t Read: Challenging the Status Quo in Education. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006. 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 Monday, August 7, 2006 11:09 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
