 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2004Those terrorist teachers
Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of the "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not exist -- even for American citizens -- should someone in the administration take a dislike to them. We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that "terrorist" applies only the union and not its members is cold comfort. Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote on 23 Feb 2004: > Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of > the "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, > Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. Clearly a case of Bush's people defining the core of their foreign and domestic policy: If you're not for us, you're against us. Story at: http://tinyurl.com/2h5jh  SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote on 23 Feb 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/2h5jh And everybody's shouting "Which Side Are You On?" Even though Bush has Sadaam in captivity, he won't be selling postcards of the hanging until it can help with the election. Ashcroft is already busy painting the passports brown. Ron Paige is one of the many blind commissioners with one hand tied to George Bush and the other in his pants. Indeed, the riot squad is restless, needing somewhere to go. We have now reached the stage where they come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do. Indeed, the circus is in town. Cracks about Chaney not needing a heart-attack machine miss the point. > We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a > terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that > "terrorist" applies only the union and not its members is cold comfort. > Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, > Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. What is the problem here concerning the English language, or did you get into the wrong NG? Murgi >>We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a >>terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Murgi Can it be that you really don't see a relationship between labeling teachers terrorists, and English usage? If you don't think attacking the teachers is a problem, then you might want to comment on my claim, often pooh-poohed in AUE and AEU, that "terrorist" is nearly a vacuous word, meaning little more than "someone Bush and his cronies don't like." That is obviously a question of English usage. I have very carefully avoided calling you an idiot. I hope you appreciate that. > Can it be that you really don't see a relationship between labeling > teachers terrorists, and English usage? If you don't think attacking [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have very carefully avoided calling you an idiot. I hope you > appreciate that. Well, some who participate here are neither from the USA nor native English speakers. I don't know about this problem in particular although I have read about it in the news. My perception of this NG isn't discussing the meaning words according to the prevailing political correctness (terrorist for one side, and freedom fighter for the other side; the meaning of communism in the west opposed to communism in China, etc.). Apart from your opinion, there is nothing wrong with sentence structure, grammar or spelling. Otherwise I don't really care how carefully you avoid calling people names. No need to explain what a conceited smart alec is... "Murgi" <srindler@da2.so-net.ne.jp> wrote on 23 Feb 2004: >> We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a >> terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What is the problem here concerning the English language, or did > you get into the wrong NG? You will have to learn what "English usage" is all about, it seems. Do you find the usage NEA = terrorist group acceptable? Can you point out any instances of terrorism attributable to or claimed by the NEA? Of course you can't. We have an instance here of an American government official, a Cabinet officer, misusing a word that has been reasonably rigidly defined by the FBI and CIA. Can't you see the usage error? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, > Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. This is somewhat of non sequitur, but I enjoyed it: http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/wehopesmall.jpg SignatureDena Jo Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain. Have I confused you? Go here: http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/mailme.htm In alt.english.usage on 24 Feb 2004 06:32:16 GMT Dena Jo <me@privacy.net> posted: >> Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, >> Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. > >This is somewhat of non sequitur, but I enjoyed it: > >http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/wehopesmall.jpg I found it not very interesting, except it clearly implies that he has antagonized the Canadians. How has he done this? The only thing I know about was not allowing them to bid on rebuilding Iraq, but then they haven't allowed USAns to bid on anything yet either. s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years meirman infrared: >In alt.english.usage on 24 Feb 2004 06:32:16 GMT Dena Jo ><me@privacy.net> posted: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >know about was not allowing them to bid on rebuilding Iraq, but then >they haven't allowed USAns to bid on anything yet either. Well, there was that little business of starting a war, and trying to undermine the UN. Judging from the press from a range of countries, GWB would be soundly defeated in an election in practically any country in the world. It's a bit of a mystery how he managed to be taken seriously in his own country. Well, not entirely a mystery. Consider: Iran: Reformist candidates were banned from standing for election, so the voters had to choose from among a group of ultra-conservatives. USA: Both major parties consistently put up ultra-conservative candidates, and any candidate not endorsed by one of those two parties doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. It's time you guys got yourself a multi-party system. SignaturePeter Moylan Peter.Moylan@newcastle.edu.au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) Dena Jo: > > This is somewhat of non sequitur, but I enjoyed it: > > http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/wehopesmall.jpg Meirman: > I found it not very interesting, except it clearly implies that he has > antagonized the Canadians. How has he done this? The article that goes with that cover picture is still online at the following long URL (join the pieces if you need to): <http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20040209_74911_74911> SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Anyone who can handle a needle convincingly can make msb@vex.net | us see a thread which is not there." --E.H. Gombrich >We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a >terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that >"terrorist" applies only the union and not its members is cold comfort. > Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, >Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. What's the NEA? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a >>terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What's the NEA? National Education Association. See http://www.nea.org/ and click the tab "about NEA". I read it, but I'm not really sure what the organization's all about. Reading between the lines, it seems to be a group that lobbies in the education area. The "what we are" explanation seems to be one of those statements concocted by professional writers that doesn't really explain what they are. > National Education Association. See http://www.nea.org/ and click > the tab "about NEA". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > those statements concocted by professional writers that doesn't really > explain what they are. It's the largest trade union of school teachers (and other educators) in the United States. It's one of the more powerful unions in the country, mostly because it has members in every locality in the United States. Since the N.E.A. and public school teachers in general tend to be liberal, secular, and Democratic, the Republicans and conservatives have targeted them for elimination. Educational "reforms" such as vouchers (which theoretically would allow students to attend private schools of their choice) and expanding of standardized testing are designed to decimate the public school system in order to thin the ranks of liberal public school teachers. > > National Education Association. See http://www.nea.org/ and click > > the tab "about NEA". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > designed to decimate the public school system in order to thin the > ranks of liberal public school teachers. Good summary. Don't forget that, in addition to being "secular", many teachers are suspected of being "humanists", and therefore subversive (read Communist--the Cold War did not end, it has gone underground), anti-religion, pro big government, and absolutely the cause of the deterioration of the American Way of Life (ie, evolutionist). Public schools in the US are overseen by boards of citizens elected by the resident property-taxpaying citizens within a school district. All politics is local, and that Secretary was politicking for Bush in no uncertain terms. Pat Durkin typed thus: > Don't forget that, in addition to being "secular", many teachers are > suspected of being "humanists", and therefore subversive (read [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Public schools in the US are overseen by boards of citizens elected by the > resident property-taxpaying citizens within a school district. For the record, school governing bodies in England (can't speak for the rest) are about half elected by the parents, and the rest (about 2 of each) are appointed by the Local Authority, the teachers and non-teaching staff, the church if it's a church school, and the body itself co-opts another two or three. Plus the head teacher. I've been a governor of two very different primary schools for nearly 20 years; Party Politics simply doesn't figure and would be strongly resisted by the governors. SignatureDavid ===== > Pat Durkin typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > years; Party Politics simply doesn't figure and would be strongly > resisted by the governors. Party politics don't reall play a part in the elections. The school boards are elected in "non-partisan" elections. In Wisconsin we just held our "non-partisan" primaries, which were over-whelmed by the very partisan Presidential primaries. No, party politics are not considered. But ideology is rather prominent in local elections. And beyond that, we do tend to stereotype the radical conservative in local elections as being right-wing Republican and religious fundamentalist, at least in my neck of the woods. Can we somehow avoid stereotypes, generalizations and other such habits of thought? "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@nothome.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: [...] > we do tend to > stereotype the radical conservative in local elections as being > right-wing Republican and religious fundamentalist, at least in my > neck of the woods. An accurate description, IMHO. > Can we somehow avoid stereotypes, generalizations and other such > habits of thought? Impossible. That's the way humans work. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> National Education Association. See http://www.nea.org/ and click >> the tab "about NEA". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It's the largest trade union of school teachers (and other educators) >in the United States. It's one of the more powerful unions in the Thanks, ok, I get the picture. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>We now find Education Secretary Rod Paige saying, "The NEA is a >>terrorist organization." His subsequent "clarification" that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What's the NEA? One of the two large organzations of teachers in the United States. It is not, strictly speaking, a union. The other, to which I belong, is the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) and is a union. The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) has a different constituency. http://www.nea.org/aboutnea.html What is the National Education Association? NEA has a long, proud history as the nation's leading organization committed to advancing the cause of public education. With its headquarters in Washington, D.C., NEA has 2.7 million members who work at every level of education, from pre-school to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliates in every state, as well as in more than 13,000 local communities across the United States. Founded in 1857 "to elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States," the NEA has remained constant in its commitment to its original mission as evidenced by the current mission statement: To fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the National Education Association shall promote the cause of quality public education and advance the profession of education; expand the rights and further the interest of educational employees; and advocate human, civil, and economic rights for all. In pursuing its mission, the NEA has determined that it will focus the energy and resources of its 2.7 million members toward the "restoration of public confidence in public education." Who's eligible to become a member of the National Education Association? Anyone who works for a public school district, a college or university, or any other public institution devoted primarily to education is eligible to join NEA. NEA also has special membership categories for retired educators and college students studying to become teachers. In 1929, NEA members initially adopted The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. The Code "indicates the aspiration of all educators and provides standards by which to judge conduct." Who sets NEA policy? NEA members nationwide set Association policy, most notably through an annual Representative Assembly (RA) that convenes an Annual Meeting every July. NEA members at the state and local level elect the more than 9,000 RA delegates, who, in turn, elect NEA's top officers, debate issues and set NEA policy. Between Annual Meetings, the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee are NEA's top decision-making bodies. What does NEA do? NEA is a volunteer-based organization supported by a network of staff at the local, state, and national level. At the local level, NEA affiliates are active in a variety of activities as determined by the local members. These may range from raising funds for scholarship programs to conducting professional workshops on issues that affect faculty and school support staff to bargaining contracts for school district employees. At the state level, NEA affiliate activities are equally wide-ranging. NEA state affiliates, for instance, regularly lobby legislators for the resources schools need, campaign for higher professional standards for the teaching profession and file legal actions to protect academic freedom and the rights of school employees. At the national level, NEA lobbies Congress and federal agencies on behalf of its members and public schools, supports and coordinates innovative projects, works with other education organizations and friends of public education, provides training and technical assistance to its affiliates and generally conducts activities consistent with the policies set by its elected governing bodies. At the international level, NEA is linking educators around the world in an ongoing dialogue dedicated to making schools as effective as they can be. NEAFT Partnership The National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers formed the NEAFT Partnership out of a commitment by both organizations to work together on behalf of our members and on behalf of all those whom our members serve. As separate organizations and through the Partnership, the nation's two leading education organizations are committed to nurturing and improving public education above all. We are determined to fight for family needs, which must be met in order to make our public schools the equalizer they have been and should be for society. This encompasses quality of life issues, such as health care for all Americans, safe neighborhoods and a caring government. The Partnership leaves each organization free to differ and to conduct each organization's work separately and independently, but enables the two groups to work together in a new relationship focused at every level of our organizations on common interests we share about critical educational issues and issues of vital significance to children. See the NEAFT Partnership Document for more information. Subscribe to NEA's E-mail newsletter Get a weekly update of what's new on our Web site. Subscribe to NEA Focus. Use the sign-up form in the box above, or send an E-mail to join-neafocus@list.nea.org (no subject or message needed). To unsubscribe, please refer to the directions in your latest issue of NEA Focus. Have questions? Contact us If you have additional questions about NEA, you may contact us by phone, mail, fax and E-mail. © 2002, 2003 NEA.org all rights reserved http://www.nea.org/aboutnea.html > Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of the > "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not exist -- even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently the Bush administration has not found enough Arabs, > Muslims, or insufficiently evangelical people to imprison. Bed-wetting liberal balderdash. Were you as upset over the following comment made by John Kerry in Jan. 1996, commenting on the federal government shutdown? Kerry called the House Republicans 'legislative terrorists,' who used federal workers as pawns and disrespected them. Asked about his terrorist comment, Kerry explained, 'Terrorists hold hostages, and the Republicans are holding the government hostage'... My guess is you'll be less inclined to take Kerry to task for his interpretation of the same word.... MJ >> Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of the >> "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not exist -- even [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >My guess is you'll be less inclined to take Kerry to task for his >interpretation of the same word.... You seem to be totally insensitive to the way the word has emerged from its chrysalis to become a meat eating monster with all the frightening apparatus that Ashcroft can enable it with since the Bush administration has become the fifth horseman. S& >You seem to be totally insensitive to the way the word has emerged >from its chrysalis to become a meat eating monster with all the >frightening apparatus that Ashcroft can enable it with since the Bush >administration has become the fifth horseman. It's rather remarkable, though it has often been mentioned, how individual phrases can weigh on public opinion. The former leader of the opposition in Britain, William Hague, is widely considered to have been ineffectual in that role. But a term he seems to have introduced*, "stealth taxes", is now firmly embedded. The government is now more or less unable to raise any tax that is not income tax without it being labelled a stealth tax. Hague was replaced as leader of the opposition long ago, but the phrase he used remains. In an alternative universe, where a less memorable phrase was used, the population of Britain does not even notice new taxes. R. * - a guess >>> Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of >>> the "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > frightening apparatus that Ashcroft can enable it with since the Bush > administration has become the fifth horseman. Ah! -- more colorful language. This thread is showing great promise. SignatureMichael West >> You seem to be totally insensitive to the way the word has emerged >> from its chrysalis to become a meat eating monster with all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ah! -- more colorful language. This thread is showing >great promise. Actually I had hoped someone might get a laugh out of the outrageous use of metaphor. S& > >> Many of us have been concerned by the Bush administration's use of the > >> "Patriot" act to pretend that the US Constitution does not exist -- even [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > frightening apparatus that Ashcroft can enable it with since the Bush > administration has become the fifth horseman. *YOU* seem to be totally insensitive (or selectively ignorant) to the meaning of the word intended by John Kerry, who, had there been any doubt, clarified what he meant by stating 'Terrorists hold hostages, and the Republicans are holding the government hostage'"...CLEARLY, he meant to use the word in the same manner in which the word is used NOW, yet you seem to be willing to give Kerry a pass while castigating Ron Paige - who has since apologized? Why? MJ >"sand" <jan_sand@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> You seem to be totally insensitive to the way the word has emerged >> from its chrysalis to become a meat eating monster with all the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >be willing to give Kerry a pass while castigating Ron Paige - who has since >apologized? Why? Because the casual use of "terrorist" is a loose cannon these days and an apology is rarely sufficient to spike it effectively. S& moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com (Moorehead Johnson) wrote on 24 Feb 2004: [...] > Were you as upset over the > following comment made by John Kerry in Jan. 1996, commenting on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My guess is you'll be less inclined to take Kerry to task for his > interpretation of the same word.... That was 5 years before 9/11 and the "Patriot" Act, and 4 years before Bush and Ashcroft were appointed and annointed to be the theocrats of decency, indeterminate detention, and "Christian" democracy. Back then, "terrorist" was merely a metphor. Today, it is a thought crime. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com (Moorehead Johnson) wrote on 24 Feb > 2004: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That was 5 years before 9/11 and the "Patriot" Act, and 4 years before > Bush and Ashcroft were appointed elected... > and annointed elected... > to be the theocrats of > decency, indeterminate detention, and "Christian" democracy. Back then, > "terrorist" was merely a metphor. Today, it is a thought crime. You can't even acknowledge the fact that electoral votes, NOT the popular vote, elect presidents, and you expect to be taken seriously? Brush up on history, and then come back and tell us how you are an expert on what John Kerry meant when he called Republicans "terrorists". MJ > <...> > You can't even acknowledge the fact that electoral votes, NOT the popular > vote, elect presidents, and you expect to be taken seriously? <...> Common sense and a sensitivity to justice are always taken seriously, so Franke doesn't have to "expect" it. What's your excuse? You sound adolescent. Is that it? \\P. Schultz "Moorehead Johnson III" <moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: >> moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com (Moorehead Johnson) wrote on 24 Feb >> 2004: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > elected... They were appointed by the US Supreme Court, not elected. Is your memory so short? >> to be the theocrats of decency, indeterminate detention, >> and "Christian" democracy. Back then, "terrorist" was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > popular vote, elect presidents, and you expect to be taken > seriously? Remember what the Supreme Court did? Your "elected" cannot be taken seriously. It's just another case of a stolen election, just like JFK's win in Illinois back in 1960, only that was stolen by the local political machine; the 2000 election was stolen by the judiciary and the government of Florida. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. Instead he should have said that the NEA is tied to the extreme left of the democratic party. Which is generally accepted. And that the NEA will do all it can to maintain the status quo in the expensive monopoly known as 'public education'. Even as test scores drop while costs rise. And Mr. Paige could have further noted that political correctness and political indoctrination have, to a large degree, replaced education. Anyone having their doubts about this should be encouraged to check the curriculum at any College of Education. And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. "US Public Education - where mediocrity is king. " > The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. Instead he should have > said that the NEA is tied to the extreme left of the democratic > party. Which is generally accepted. By whom? The "extreme left" of the Democratic Party doesn't accept that characterization. The moderate left of the Democratic Party doesn't accept that characterization. The Republicans and conservatives in the NEA don't accept that characterization. Your propagandistic "generally accepted" applies only to right-wing people with anti-teacher tendencies. > And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It sounded > to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. That is a completely vacuous statement. One cannot accuse the NEA of being terrorists without accusing its members of being so. >> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It >> sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. > > That is a completely vacuous statement. One cannot accuse the NEA of > being terrorists without accusing its members of being so. Colorful language. If, in a moment of heightened perception fueled by several glasses of Coonawara red, I tell my boss that everyone in the office thinks he is a fascist pig, do I mean him to understand that they believe he sleeps in mud and assassinates his political opponents? SignatureMichael West >>> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It >>>sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > him to understand that they believe he sleeps in mud and assassinates > his political opponents? It is not a question of "colorful language." These are words used to deny American citizens of their Constitutional rights and to deny foreign nationals their rights under international law. When people in the administration start using "colorful language" with legal consequences when used by the administration, it is time to give up your notions of rhetorical use. >>>> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It >>>> sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > consequences when used by the administration, it is time to give up > your notions of rhetorical use. Unless you've got news that hasn't hit the papers yet, nobody is arresting or detaining teachers for terrorist acts on the basis of NEA membership, so the usage was rhetorical. Just like "bedwetting liberal" and "meat eating monster", both of which appear in this thread. On the off-topic question of the 650-odd foreign "terrorist suspects" held at Guantanamo, what would you see as a desirable outcome for that increasingly unsupportable predicament? SignatureMichael West > >>>> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It > >>>> sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "meat eating monster", both of which appear in this > thread. COINTELPRO lives again! (And don't you forget it!) When do you think there will be a movement for loyalty oaths (it happened before, you know) and re-education in patriotism? Michael West infrared: >On the off-topic question of the 650-odd foreign >"terrorist suspects" held at Guantanamo, what would >you see as a desirable outcome for that increasingly >unsupportable predicament? The two Australians being held there are in a particularly strange position. One of them (Habib) appears to be an innocent civilian who was picked up by accident, but he is getting no public sympathy because he is of Middle Eastern appearance. The other (Hicks) was probably a member of an organisation of which the US administration disapproves, but the media like him because he photographs well. (In both cases I'm guessing about their "crimes", because as with everyone held at Guantanamo no charges have been laid and no evidence produced.) While several other countries have arranged repatriation of their own citizens, the Australian government has steadfastly refused to do anything similar. Why? Because, in the words of our Prime Minister, there is no Australian law under which they could be charged for their unspecified crimes. Put another way: if they were brought back to Australia they would have to be given a fair trial. If they were given a fair trial they would be found not guilty. Therefore, they must continue to be held without trial. SignaturePeter Moylan Peter.Moylan@newcastle.edu.au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) > Michael West infrared: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > would be found not guilty. Therefore, they must continue to be > held without trial. "Hicks, 28, has been held without charge for more than two years at Guantanamo after being caught by Northern Alliance troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The former kangaroo hunter from Adelaide has been earmarked as one of the first Guantanamo prisoners to face trial and his legal team believes he is likely to face a conspiracy charge." [http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040122/323/ek1aj.html] (That was the troops, not Hicks, who were fighting against the Taliban. Hicks was fighting for the Taliban.) In the eyes of many, the circumstances of his capture are enough "evidence" to justify his being held until it can be determined that he is not a public danger. The problem, of course, is that no-one can say how long this is. The apparent conflict here between individual freedoms and public safety is something that both US law and Australian law seem inadequate to resolve to anyone's satisfaction. Hicks' Marine Corps lawyer says Hicks should either face a regular court martial or be handed over to the Australian justice system, so he is at least receiving legal representation. Saddam's Iraq, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, weren't beset by these sorts of conflicts. You interrogate someone until they confess, and then you kill them. If they don't confess, you kill them, too. A much more economical set-up. -- Michael West >Saddam's Iraq, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, weren't >beset by these sorts of conflicts. You interrogate someone >until they confess, and then you kill them. If they don't >confess, you kill them, too. A much more economical set-up. This appears to be a rather peculiar argument. Are you saying that, since Saddam behaved brutally, our system is to be acclaimed because the brutality is of a lesser degree? S& >> Saddam's Iraq, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, weren't >> beset by these sorts of conflicts. You interrogate someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > since Saddam behaved brutally, our system is to be acclaimed because > the brutality is of a lesser degree? I'm saying I don't have a solution for what is clearly an unsatisfactory situation, and I haven't heard anyone put one forward. Regimes like Saddam's don't have the problem. Do you have the solution? SignatureMichael West [snipped comments about the Guantanamo prisoners] > I'm saying I don't have a solution for what is clearly > an unsatisfactory situation, and I haven't heard anyone > put one forward. Regimes like Saddam's don't have the > problem. Do you have the solution? Something as radical as, say, charging the prisoners with a crime and then giving them a trial, with defense counsel? How hard can that be? The people have been held without charge for years. What would cause that situation to change? If there is evidence of a crime, charge them. If there is not, release them. If they are prisoners of war, try them under military law (if that is the legally-sanctioned norm). If they are civilians, try them under civil law. If they should be tried elsewhere, transfer them elsewhere and give them a trial. If that is not the complete list of valid options, what else is there? What is *not* valid or legitimate is to hold them without charge, regardless of the conditions under which they are held. Signaturerzed > [snipped comments about the Guantanamo prisoners] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Something as radical as, say, charging the prisoners with a crime and > then giving them a trial, with defense counsel? How hard can that be? That is now happening in a few cases. You have summed up nicely the legal contradictions. How would you address the concerns of people who fear that some of these detainees may have the intention and the means to commit terrorist acts even though no law can be found under which to try them today? This is what I meant by the conflict between individual rights and a concern for public safety. Building conspiracy cases is difficult and time-consuming, and I suspect that that is the main object of the US government with respect to most of these suspects. SignatureMichael West > Saddam's Iraq, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, weren't > beset by these sorts of conflicts. You interrogate someone > until they confess, and then you kill them. If they don't > confess, you kill them, too. A much more economical set-up. Unfortunately, at least in Iraq, it is hard to see any real improvement. SignatureRob Bannister > Michael West infrared: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Peter Moylan Peter.Moylan@newcastle.edu.au > http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) > Michael West infrared: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > would be found not guilty. Therefore, they must continue to be > held without trial. I have little sympathy with the British inmates of Guantanamo Bay. The USA is at war with Al Qaeda, and shall remain so until Bin is caught, and all danger of further attacks on America has passed. The conclusion of the war in Afghanistan does not mean that the war against Al Qaeda is at an end. While the USA remains in a state of war, she has the right to hold as prisoners of war all people that appear to pose a threat to her war effort. I realise, of course, that these prisoners of war are officially called by another name, but this does not alter the principle. It is not normal practice to actually give a trial for prisoners of war. Did we try every German prisoner of war that we took in WW2? The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. Al Qaeda does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. For example, the organisation effectively uses a human shield when it hijacks an aircraft to fly into the WTC. Furthermore, it has no facilities for taking and holding prisoners, and any American soldier who is taken prisoner can expect to be executed. But the fact that Al Qaeda shuns the Geneva Convention does not justify the Americans in doing the same. The USA is losing public support throughout the world from the blight of Guantanamo. The British Government, as far as I can tell from a few of its public statements specifically on the subject, wishes to dissociate itself from this aspect of USA policy, while remaining America's ally in all other aspects of the fight against Al Qaeda. Why were these people in Afghanistan at that time? Why had they not got out of Afghanistan when the war started? It is very probable that they were there to support the Taliban or Al Qaeda, especially if they were taken prisoner in the thick of military actions. All religions, not just Islam, have their share of religious hypocrites. A particularly nasty form of religious hypocrisy is that of a sexual pervert who uses Islam to justify the gratuitous (and sexually "gratifying") on-the-spot flogging of passing women who have accidentally allowed their veil to slip by a couple of inches while walking along the street. Those perverts who went to Afghanistan to perform this public service are despicable. If they are now holed up in Guantanamo Bay as a result, I have no sympathy for them. If they do come back to Britain (but I'd prefer them not to), I hope that their names will be added to the Sexual Offenders Register so that my wife and daughter can be protected from their perverted activities. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >I have little sympathy with the British inmates of Guantanamo Bay. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >practice to actually give a trial for prisoners of war. Did we try every >German prisoner of war that we took in WW2? And here we are, trussed up by another definition. A war is between two states. It usually is formally declared, fought and won when one of the states admits defeat. What we are involved in is not war. It is a conflict of beliefs with a continuous supply of new recruits and can last as long as there are people who are willing to fight. It will never be won and those "emergency" measures which the Bush administration finds so handy for doing all sorts of things not permitted under the constitution will be a permanant part of government to the destruction of democracy. This conflict is a new phenomenon on the worldwide scale on which it has come to act. And because Bush finds it so useful to create a permanant atmosphere of fear, the terrorists have already won a partial victory over our form of government. It remains to be seen how much of a fair democratic system can survive. Bush's power is deeply dependent on this fear. >Why were these people in Afghanistan at that time? Why had they not got out >of Afghanistan when the war started? It is very probable that they were >there to support the Taliban or Al Qaeda, especially if they were taken >prisoner in the thick of military actions. Several of the prisoners, at minimum, were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, but untill an open legal appraisement of their guilt or innocent is permitted, it will never be known who they really are. >All religions, not just Islam, have their share of religious hypocrites. A >particularly nasty form of religious hypocrisy is that of a sexual pervert [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Register so that my wife and daughter can be protected from their perverted >activities. Agreed. Let them be tried as criminals. An international system of law is required for this, which is objected to by the US government. S& > The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the > USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. But the Red Cross has access to the facility, and has inspected it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm SignatureMichael West >> The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the >> USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. > >But the Red Cross has access to the facility, and has inspected it. >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm This puzzled me, too. I found Mr Chamber's comments to be both valid and a very reasonable discussion of the situation. Of course, that's because I agree with him. Anything that I'm in general agreement with is de facto valid and reasonable. Is that not the way of all of us? I did wonder about the Red Cross bit because I had read about Red Cross visits. > >> The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the > >> USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I did wonder about the Red Cross bit because I had read about Red > Cross visits. We initially violated some of the provisions of the Geneva Convention in regard to all of the prisoners. Then President Bush decided that the convention applied to Afghan soldiers but not al-Qaeda fighters. I believe we're still not in keeping with the convention in the latter case. This is from <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9655.pdf>, which includes the controversial legal reasons for the distinction between Afghan soldiers and al-Qaeda. SignatureJerry Friedman > The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the > USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. See http://tinyurl.com/28xzw SignatureMichael West > > The only thing that I deplore in Guantanamo Bay is the refusal of the > > USA to allow inspections by the Red Cross. > > See http://tinyurl.com/28xzw > -- The reason why I am glad that the British Govrnment does not agree with USA on the subject of Guantanamo Bay (as far as I can determine from the very cagey statements made by our politicians), while maintaining all other aspects of the alliance against Al Qaeda, is the following quote from the webpage you have given:- Start quote ___________________________________ 4. Are the internees being treated humanely? The Red Cross view on that is decisive. No comment. That is, and has to be, the Red Cross line on all its visits to prisoners and captives. It will discuss what it finds - but only with the authorities concerned. It will not make any other public comment. It is obvious, when you think about it, that if observations on sensitive or controversial matters were made public, then the visits might stop. The detainees - and their families - would lose out. Guaranteeing confidentiality is the only way that the Red Cross has been able to carry out visits to millions of prisoners all round the world. ___________________________________ End quote The American authorities have refused to recognise international public concern on Guantanamo Bay. If the USA really had nothing to hide, she would lift the requirement on the Red Cross for total confidentiality. The Red Cross could then freely report to the world that all prisoners are, and always have been, treated according to the Geneva Convention. The fact that the USA authorities have not lifted their reporting restrictions leaves even myself, a political supporter of USA in its war against Al Qaeda, wondering what abuses have been going on there. If the Geneva Convention is being broken, Britain should dissociate herself from this particular aspect. My country is too proud and decent to become involved in such a thing. Even so, I believe that I do understand the American position on this matter. Fighting an enemy that itself does not adhere to the Convention, the temptation for tit-for-tat atrocity must be enormous. Giving in to that temptation is disastrous for public relations around the world. This war against Al Qaeda will be won and lost, ultimately, on public relations as much as by bullets and bombs. In my opinion, the USA needs to act more intelligently on this particular issue. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >4. Are the internees being treated humanely? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >concern on Guantanamo Bay. If the USA really had nothing to hide, she would >lift the requirement on the Red Cross for total confidentiality. I thought the confidentiality rule was the rule of the Red Cross and not a rule imposed by the US government. The US cannot lift the requirement if the Red Cross is the one that imposes the requirement. >The Red >Cross could then freely report to the world that all prisoners are, and >always have been, treated according to the Geneva Convention. Only if the Red Cross chooses to report. As I understand it, they choose not to because of their own policies. From http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument the ICRC states their rule saying: Confidentiality: Wherever the ICRC visits places of detention, its findings and observations about the conditions and treatment for detainees are discussed confidentially with the authorities in charge. Guantanamo Bay is no exception. Confidentiality is an important working tool for the ICRC in order to preserve the exclusively humanitarian nature of its work. The ICRC is concerned that any information it divulges about its findings could easily be exploited for political gain. Moreover, the policy of confidentiality ensures that the ICRC obtains and, importantly, maintains, access to tens of thousands of detainees around the world. Based on this, I would say that the US government has no say at all in the confidentiality issue. > I have little sympathy with the British inmates of Guantanamo Bay. You assume that they are all guilty of something? You imagine that, in every single case, the US have picked up someone who was active against the US and who still poses a threat? In general terms, we know that to be false - hence the release without charge over the past year or so of dozens of detainees (the number is approaching one hundred by now) from countries other than Britain. If so many mistakes were made with other nationalities, what suggests none were made with ours? > Why were these people in Afghanistan at that time? Why had they not > got out of Afghanistan when the war started? It is very probable that > they were there to support the Taliban or Al Qaeda, especially if > they were taken prisoner in the thick of military actions. You assume that everyone the Americans picked up was fighting for the Taliban or active in Al Quaida? Indeed, you seem to assume that the British detainees were all in Afghanistan when they were picked up. Several were arrested in Pakistan and handed over to the CIA. Many detainees are there because the US was willing to pay bounties to foreign Governments who handed over 'suspects'. Not 'suspects' in the sense that the US had issued 'Wanted' notices, 'suspects' in the sense that the countries concerned handed there undesirables over with a message they 'we think these people are involved with Al Qaida' So fine was the US net that one of the Russian detainees at Gitmo is a man who had spent months in a Taliban jail and was sent from there to Cuba. Quite an achievement, to be detained without trial by the Taliban AND the USA. Why did those in Afghanistan not leave? Yes, of course, we're all aware of the famous CIA 'open door' policy whereby anyone who wanted to leave Afghanistan was assumed to be a freedom-loving anti-terrorist and presented with a goody bag of freedom toys at Khabul Airport. It clearly never crossed the CIA's mind that the first people out of the country when the festivities began might be the sharpest-witted terrorists. So it was quite safe to go up to the nearest American and say 'I'd like to fly to Britain, can you direct me to the nearest duty-free shop?' The very fact that the US is now releasing British detainees without charge indicates that they have nothing to charge them *with*, because they have made it clear they will take no risks with allowing terrorists to go free. All reminiscent of our 'Internment without Trial' policy in Northern Ireland in the 70s where hundreds of detainees were eventually released without trial, it having been established that their incarceration had zero effect on the ongoing violence. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >All reminiscent of our 'Internment without Trial' policy in Northern Ireland >in the 70s where hundreds of detainees were eventually released without >trial, it having been established that their incarceration had zero effect >on the ongoing violence. You know, this is a very irritating habit of yours. You make a statement that I don't really agree with, and then you turn around and add something to it that indicates that you are reasonable and fair enough to see failings on both sides. The established precedent is to take up a position that "you and yours" are always wrong and "we and ours" are always right. This even-handedness of yours is mucking up the flow. And it came to pass that Tony Cooper replied thus to John Dean: > You know, this is a very irritating habit of yours. You make a > statement that I don't really agree with, and then you turn around and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and ours" are always right. This even-handedness of yours is mucking > up the flow. Yeah. Splitters! Taking all the fun out of it, aren't they. SignaturePeter >> All reminiscent of our 'Internment without Trial' policy in Northern >> Ireland in the 70s where hundreds of detainees were eventually [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and ours" are always right. This even-handedness of yours is mucking > up the flow. It's a bugger iddenit? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> All reminiscent of our 'Internment without Trial' policy in Northern >>> Ireland in the 70s where hundreds of detainees were eventually [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It's a bugger iddenit? Serious(ish) aside: Isn't TC's response -- despite being made in jest (I think; I'm British so I don't do irony) -- a good example of the extreme polarisation of modern American political discussion, of the "I agree/disagree 100%" type that Bob Lieblich explained and explored in a *great* post earlier today about the US election campaign? People seem to want to keep things pitch black or gleaming white, as if conceding that opponents may have a point about something specific were a sign of weakness, indecisiveness or having no stomach for a "good fight". -- Ross Howard >Serious(ish) aside: > >Isn't TC's response -- despite being made in jest (I think; I'm >British so I don't do irony) -- a good example of the extreme >polarisation of modern American political discussion, of the "I >agree/disagree 100%" type If there's any doubt at all in your mind, be assured that the comment was made in jest. Not in a "funny ha ha", way, but in the twisted way that stating a seeming truth can be intended ironically. The real irony, though, is that you have labeled this a characteristic of something solely connected with the Americans. That's just the opposite of what I admire about John's style. Could you not take your sentence, remove "American", and insert British, Indian, South African, Scottish, or any number of other words and expect the sentence to be equally true? Is it your contention that the Americans have a lock on extreme polarization in opposing viewpoints? >>Serious(ish) aside: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >that the Americans have a lock on extreme polarization in opposing >viewpoints? No, it's just that Bob Lieblich's post on precisely that rang a lot of bells. Of course it's not only an American phenomenon, but I do think that America -- and in particular it's binary style of processing information for opinion-forming, particularly when it comes to ethical issues (pro-life/pro-choice, or gay marriage as an inalienable human right/deplorable offence against the laws of nature -- no middle ground is encouraged) or how the dumbed-down media deals with "public opinion" (65% of respondents in our survey said 'yes'; 35% said 'no'") -- is indeed the ground zero of this school-playground approach ("my team rocks; your team sucks") to politics in its widest sense. I'm not saying all Americans are like that. I'm just saying that those who aren't like that -- and you may be surprised (or perhaps disappointed) to hear that I don't actually think you, personally, are like that -- are managing to resist a major campaign by the media to herd them, like Mengele at the railway siding, to one side or the other. Left or right. Life or death. Freedom or terror. -- Ross Howard >. I'm not saying all Americans are like that. I'm just saying that those who >aren't like that -- and you may be surprised (or perhaps disappointed) >to hear that I don't actually think you, personally, are like that -- Actually, I am disappointed. I'd rather hoped that you thought of me an enigma. I think it would be cool to be considered an enigma. I can just hear people saying "That Tony Cooper. So mysterious and inscrutable. Always the unknown. A real enigma." I don't think people say that, though, unless there's a definition of "enigma" that I don't know about. Maybe Simon knows a Norwegian word with the same spelling and a scatological meaning. Franke may go for the "something hard to understand or explain" meaning. Is there someone out there kind enough consider me an enigma? > Actually, I am disappointed. I'd rather hoped that you thought of me > an enigma. I think it would be cool to be considered an enigma. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is there someone out there kind enough consider me an enigma? You really puzzle me, Tony, when you write in this strange style. Can't make you out at all. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > > Is there someone out there kind enough consider me an enigma? > > > You really puzzle me, Tony, when you write in this strange style. Can't make > you out at all. This set me to wondering who started the "enigma wrapped in..." lines. The Quotations section at Bartleby.com has: QUOTATION: I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. ATTRIBUTION: Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, writer. radio broadcast, Oct. 1, 1939. But there's also QUOTATION: The whole is a riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, suspence of judgment appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny, concerning this subject. ATTRIBUTION: David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher. The Natural History of Religion, sect. 15, p. 363, Green and Grose (1898). SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Is there someone out there kind enough consider me an enigma? In his self-portrait Roy Lichtenstein is depicted with an "impenetrable head", according to Newsnight Review. The artist is evidently an enigma. The head is a piece of cheese. R. Richard Chambers typed thus: > > Michael West infrared: > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Register so that my wife and daughter can be protected from their perverted > activities. These people are being treated neither as prisoners of war, nor as criminals. Each condition brings a guarantee of how they will be dealt with. I would be happy to see them treated as either. All we know about them is that they have been taken by US forces, somewhere in the world, and are being kept in a US base. I hope it's not the case, but some of them could be care or charity workers. But I'm not going to do comment any more, as John Dean has enunciated it perfectly. SignatureDavid ===== <snip> I suspect you are an enemy operative. Only the enemy would be devious enough to give such unqualified support to our leaders. Expect a knock on your door. R. > All religions, not just Islam, have their share of religious hypocrites. A > particularly nasty form of religious hypocrisy is that of a sexual pervert [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Register so that my wife and daughter can be protected from their perverted > activities. Seems you have tried and convicted them. If these people were actually charged with crime and if they were put on trial and if they were found guilty, then I might be able to support some of your statements. SignatureRob Bannister >> All religions, not just Islam, have their share of religious hypocrites. A >> particularly nasty form of religious hypocrisy is that of a sexual pervert [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >charged with crime and if they were put on trial and if they were found >guilty, then I might be able to support some of your statements. He need not worry. According to the "US authorities" those found innocent will not necessarily be released. (Heard on R5 last night) R. >>> All religions, not just Islam, have their share of religious >>> hypocrites. A particularly nasty form of religious hypocrisy is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > He need not worry. According to the "US authorities" > those found innocent will not necessarily be released. The UK Bushetarians are clearly of the same mind. Today's Guardian has a letter from the detainees in Belmarsh: http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1156318,00.html << We were arrested in December 2001 and taken straight to Belmarsh prison. We know that the police in this country have enormous powers to investigate suspected terrorists. Why did no one ever speak to us? Why were we never asked a single question before being locked up as terrorists? We have never had a trial. We were found guilty without one. We are imprisoned indefinitely and probably forever. We have no idea why. We have not been told what the evidence is against us. We are here. Speak to us. Listen to us. Tell us what you think and why. If you did, you would no longer believe we were a threat to this country. You would think perhaps that there was not the emergency you have imagined here. Everyone is giving their opinion about us. Why not think of coming to us first, rather than locking us up and never speaking to us? The Forgotten Detainees Belmarsh prison >> SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >The UK Bushetarians are clearly of the same mind. Today's Guardian has a >letter from the detainees in Belmarsh: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The Forgotten Detainees >Belmarsh prison >> Another depressing day in the history of mankind. It's snowing now. I stare numbly through the window. The celestial hourglass shattered, the flakes fall gently on us. . R. [snip] > While the USA remains in a state of war, she has the right to hold as > prisoners of war all people that appear to pose a threat to her war effort. > I realise, of course, that these prisoners of war are officially called by > another name, but this does not alter the principle. Au contraire: the US _refuses_ to call them POWs, because if they did, then they would have to receive certain basic human rights. The US refers to them as "enemy combatants" so that they (the US) can dodge their obligations to POWs. Even if they were POWs, of what "war" are they prisoners? And don't give me any claptrap about the "war on terror"! How the hell do you wage war against an abstract noun? If it wasn't a paper-thin excuse for a schoolyard bully to throw his weight around, it'd be a joke! <rant> Americans often wonder why there is so much anti-American sentiment out here in the big, wide, nasty world: the only reason most of them seem to be able to come up with is "jealousy! - they want what we've got". Well, scuse me, but I like what _I_'ve got, and I _don't_ want what you've got[1]. And while I can usually take yanks in ones or twos (and sometimes not even then), in large groups, and as a nation, I find them (generally) to be (in no particular order): loud rude arrogant ignorant self-absorbed self-deluded superficial tasteless overly-religious (to the point of farce) and above all fundamentally and overwhelmingly hypocritical. [1] ie crap food, crap beer, crap wine (yes, I've been there and tasted them), crap cars, crap TV (I know, our TV's crap too, with the odd exception, but I'd rather watch Aussie crap than yank crap), and rampant gun crime (OK, so Lakemba's a problem, but only recently). </rant> Mark@work >Americans often wonder why there is so much anti-American sentiment >out here in the big, wide, nasty world: the only reason most of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ></rant> Congratulations. I always admire someone that can present a rational, reasoned, well-presented analysis. Also, you did a good job of spelling. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wage war against an abstract noun? If it wasn't a paper-thin excuse > for a schoolyard bully to throw his weight around, it'd be a joke! +++++++++++++++ The war against Al Qaeda, which is ongoing. Al Qaeda is not an abstract noun. I have already said, elsewhere in the thread, that I deplore any contravention of the Geneva Convention. Such contraventions do America's cause more harm than good. But I have no objection to the USA holding prisoners of war, by whatever name they choose to use, until the war is settled. +++++++++++++++ > [cut] > [1] ie crap food, crap beer, crap wine (yes, I've been there and > tasted them), crap cars, crap TV (I know, our TV's crap too, with the > odd exception, but I'd rather watch Aussie crap than yank crap), and > rampant gun crime (OK, so Lakemba's a problem, but only recently). Crap clothing as well. But the beaches in Florida are quite nice. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Richard Chambers typed thus: > I have already said, elsewhere in the thread, that I deplore any > contravention of the Geneva Convention. Such contraventions do America's > cause more harm than good. But I have no objection to the USA holding > prisoners of war, by whatever name they choose to use, until the war is > settled. From http://www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/fs/7910.htm <quote> The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status. Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs. Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status. Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy. </quote> Note "many" - these people are being fed and given medical attention, but the US government feels free to apply only those components of the Geneva Convention which it deems suitable. Because the detention camp is outside the jurisdiction of the US courts, there is nobody to overrule them. If the men being held are not POWs, then they are either suspected criminals who have been arrested, or they have been kidnapped by the US government. If they are suspected criminals, they should be brought before a court, with legal representation. SignatureDavid ===== >That is a completely vacuous statement. One cannot accuse the NEA of >being terrorists without accusing its members of being so. Why ever not? History has provided us with one group after another where the rank and file of the membership are not of the same cut as the leadership of the group. I would have no trouble at all labeling the leadership of the Teamsters Union to be thieves and thugs. This is not an accusation of any kind directed at the rank and file of the union. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: >>That is a completely vacuous statement. One cannot accuse the NEA >>of being terrorists without accusing its members of being so. > > Why ever not? Because Secretary Paige condemned the entire organization and not just the leadership when he said "The NEA is a terrorist organization". > History has provided us with one group after > another where the rank and file of the membership are not of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Teamsters Union to be thieves and thugs. This is not an > accusation of any kind directed at the rank and file of the union. Yes, but you qualified your statement and said "the leadership of the Teamsters Union". The Secretary did not say "the leadership of the NEA", he said "The NEA is a terrorist organization", just as one would say "{HAMAS/Al-Qaida [Take your pick]} is a terrorist organization" and mean that not only the leadership but also the rank and file members are a bunch of terrorists. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mean that not only the leadership but also the rank and file members > are a bunch of terrorists. I disagree. "X is a terrorist organistation" can mean either that (some of) the behavior of X consists of terrorist tactics or that X is an organization made up of terrorists or dedicated to terrorism. The quote in question was clearly in the former sense, and yours is clearly in the latter. In the former case, where you are criticizing the behavior of the organization, the opprobrium falls on those who make the decisions. If one were to say "Libya supports terrorism" or "Libya is a terrorist nation", one is clearly not saying anything about poor people in Tripoli. If "the Teamsters are controled by the mob", individual members may well be unaware of this and disapprove if they find out. If "Microsoft is unscrupulous", you can probably still trust your next-door neighbor to babysit, even though she works as a receptionist there. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig. | Robert Heinlein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 25 Feb 2004: >> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 24 Feb >> 2004: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > X is an organization made up of terrorists or dedicated to > terrorism. Yes, Evan, you are right. The message is ambiguous. You have made your point. It's good for politicians and political appointees to be ambiguous on some occasions, especially when being crystal clear will be undiplomatic. Secretary Paige, however, made a diplomatic booboo by being vague and ambiguous. "X is a terrorist organistation" can also mean that the speaker is insane or a Beat poet or a punk rocker or “The bastards in X don’t agree with me”. > The quote in question was clearly in the former sense, No, it was not clearly in the former sense at all. How can you say that? Even Paige realized that he had erred when he didn’t make the necessary distinction between the rank and file membership --- millions of American public school teachers --- and the leaders of the organization. The fact that he felt compelled to issue a clarification means that his original statement was unclear and that only sympathizers with his POV would understand its real meaning. > and yours is clearly in the latter. How can you say that? Oh. I see. I declared that to be the case when I said ‘just as one would say "{HAMAS/Al-Qaida [Take your pick]} is a terrorist organization" and mean that not only the leadership but also the rank and file members are a bunch of terrorists.’ Imagine that. You caught me out. I clarified my statement but Paige did not. You know clearly what Paige meant despite his lack of clarification because you know clearly what I meant because of my clarification. Your logic escapes me. > In the former case, where you > are criticizing the behavior of the organization, the opprobrium > falls on those who make the decisions. If one were to say "Libya > supports terrorism" or "Libya is a terrorist nation", one is > clearly not saying anything about poor people in Tripoli. Yet, when one says “Palestine is a terrorist {non- nation/state/territory/or whatever one wants to call it)”, one means that that the Palenstinian people are terrorists and supporters of terrorism and not just HAMAS and the other Islamic Jihad-type groups, not just the Palestinian Authority, not just Arafat. One means that the poor people in Palestine who danced for joy in the streets upon hearing the news of the 9/11 suicide bombings are just as guilty of terrorism as their dead martyrs. Not all of them, of course. Only those who encourage their children to go out and throw stones at Israeli soldiers in hopes of causing more violence and, hopefully, only a minor rubber-bullet gunshot wound to magnify into an atrocity worse than the suicide bombings Saddam paid for. > If "the Teamsters are controled by the mob", > individual members may well be unaware of this > and disapprove if they find out. This strikes me as naive given the history of big labor in the USA and given that the NEA is not a labor union, nor is it an organization that one if forced to join within 30 after being hired. Labor unions like the Teamsters usually demand and get union shops, not open shops. I had to join one of those when I worked as an entry- level librarian at NYPL 34 years ago. I don’t remember whether it was the Teamsters or some other union. The NEA, OTOH, is a voluntary association, as we have been shown in this thread. I don’t take that as signifying anything, though. > If "Microsoft is unscrupulous", you can probably still > trust your next-door neighbor to babysit, even > though she works as a receptionist there. When one talks about corporations, one usually talks about the executives. They make policy. Non-managment clerical and other white- collar workers do not. They are just normal citizens, for the most part. One might not be willing to say the same thing about stock brokerages, though. Unions like the Knights of Labor and the WWW were filled with people who were more than eager to engage in what we would call “terrorist” and what we did call “anarchist” activities. Members of the Teamsters --- usually not white-collar workers, though --- and other unions, like the Dockworkers, also have a history of involvement in violent activities, even when not provoked with scabs hired by management. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. On 26 Feb 2004 00:46:12 GMT, CyberCypher >> If "the Teamsters are controled by the mob", >> individual members may well be unaware of this >> and disapprove if they find out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Labor unions like the Teamsters usually demand and get union shops, >not open shops. The determinant is the state law. Florida is an open shop state, so the Teamsters can whistle upwind to with their demands. I think there are something over 20 open shop states (states with Right to Work laws) in the US. >When one talks about corporations, one usually talks about the >executives. They make policy. Non-managment clerical and other white- >collar workers do not. They are just normal citizens, for the most >part. One might not be willing to say the same thing about stock >brokerages, though. The NEA is probably not incorporated, but it would seem the same statement would apply. >Unions like the Knights of Labor and the WWW were filled with people >who were more than eager to engage in what we would call terrorist >and what we did call anarchist activities. What is the "WWW"? Do you mean the IWW? The Wobblies? Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 25 Feb 2004: > On 26 Feb 2004 00:46:12 GMT, CyberCypher >> If "the Teamsters are > controled by the mob", [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The NEA is probably not incorporated, but it would seem the same > statement would apply. Sure, the receptionist in the NEA's office is no different from the receptionist in the Microsoft office. But the teachers who belong to the NEA are not the same as the programmers who work for MS. >>Unions like the Knights of Labor and the WWW were filled with >>people who were more than eager to engage in what we would call >>“terrorist” and what we did call “anarchist” activities. > > What is the "WWW"? Do you mean the IWW? The Wobblies? WWW is World-Wide-Web. I meant the IWW, of course. Just a thinko. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >>>When one talks about corporations, one usually talks about the >>>executives. They make policy. Non-managment clerical and other [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >receptionist in the Microsoft office. But the teachers who belong to >the NEA are not the same as the programmers who work for MS. Why? Other than occupation, how are they different? Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >>>>When one talks about corporations, one usually talks about the >>>>executives. They make policy. Non-managment clerical and other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why? Other than occupation, how are they different? For one thing, while the NEA pays its receptionist, the NEA doesn't pay teachers to teach in schools, the schools the teachers teach in pay them. MS, however, not only pays its receptionist, but it also pays all the programmers in its employ. Did you really need to have that explained? This is painfully obvious, I should think. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Did you really need to have that explained? This is painfully obvious, >I should think. Yes, I do. When you write muzzy stuff, you should expect to have to explain it. The teacher and the programmer are not different. They are so much the same that it's very conceivable that a former teacher is now a programmer at MS, and a former programmer at MS is now a teacher. A programmer at MS can advance to the executive level at MS, and a teacher can advance to the executive level of NEA. (1) What you meant - now that you have explained - is that their source of income and their employment structure is different and not that they are different. How this ties in with the overall point is still muzzy. If you write "for one thing", the assumption is that there is at least a second thing. That, too, remains muzzy because it is far from self-evident. (1) For the benefit of the programmers and teachers reading, "advance" may be a questionable term when applied to becoming an executive. Some may consider it "capitulating". Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yes, I do. When you write muzzy stuff, you should expect to have > to explain it. It's "muzzy" to you only because you make it so by failing to understand what is obvious. > The teacher and the programmer are not different. Now you are contradicting what I said just because you want to contradict it. You cannot make a case for your contradiction given what I have said. > They are so much the same that it's very conceivable that a former > teacher is now a programmer at MS, and a former programmer at MS > is now a teacher. This is so totally irrelevant that it's laughable, I'm afraid. It has nothing to do with my point but with *your* point. Our two points here are quite different, so you dismiss what I said in order to argue a different issue. > A programmer at MS can advance to the executive > level at MS, and a teacher can advance to the executive level of > NEA. (1) You missed the point, mister brilliant debater. The programmer already works for and is paid a salary by MS but the teacher works for and is paid a salary a school. Because the one already works for the corporation, he can advance to executive level without being hired again, only promoted, but because the other doesn't work for the organization, she cannot become an executive without being hired first. And if the executive positions at the NEA are as voluntary (il.e., the member pays instead of the NEA paying), then there is no comparison worthy of discussion here. > What you meant - now that you have explained - is that their > source of income and their employment structure is different and > not that they are different. You are truly an idiot. You deny the differences in their types of employment --- that is one level of discussion --- and assert that they are the same because some teachers used to be programmers and some programmers used to be teachers --- a completely different level of discussion. I wonder if you have any idea of the percentage in each category and, of each percentage in each category, how many keep kosher in Florida. Talking to you is like talking to a bathroom sponge. You are so much the same that it's conceivable that a former Tony Cooper is now being used to wipe excrement out of your commode and that a former bathroom sponge, replete with the many manifestations of all stages of coprophagous activity, is sitting at your computer and sloshing and sliming the keys and the NG with detritus of its semantic evacuation in your name. > How this ties in with the overall point is still muzzy. That's what you get when you evolve into artificial absorbant material. > If you write "for one thing", the assumption is that there is at > least a second thing. That, too, remains muzzy because it is far > from self-evident. One difference ought to be sufficient. If it isn't, that's too bad. > (1) For the benefit of the programmers and teachers reading, > "advance" may be a questionable term when applied to becoming an > executive. Some may consider it "capitulating". That depends, of course, on which definition of "advance" your bathroom sponge is using, but I'm not going to ask which one was meant because your sponge could have avoided this entire issue had it been discriminating enough to choose its words instead simply slopping just anything onto the page. Ooops. Now it's time flush. Woooosh! SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >>>> Why? Other than occupation, how are they different? >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >are quite different, so you dismiss what I said in order to argue a >different issue. If you would say that a member of the NEA is different from a member of the Amalgamated Refuse Collector's Union, my assumption of your meaning would not be that one is salaried and the other is paid by the hour. My assumption would be that you are referring to education, life style, social skills, and other personal characteristics. The teacher and the programmer, however, are not all that different in these respects. When you use "different", it requires some indication of the area of differentness you are alluding to. It reduces muzziness. I note that you have moved from the nursery to the bathroom in your supporting (sic) arguments. Can you be counted on to continue to explore new areas of the house and barn to flesh out your ramblings? Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >>>>> Why? Other than occupation, how are they different? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > of your meaning would not be that one is salaried and the other is > paid by the hour. There's where you are going wrong. You are making unwarranted assumptions. You've heard the old saw about assumptions, haven't you: "When you assumke, it makes an 'a.s' of 'u' and 'me'"? Well, you just made an assout of yourself by assuming things that I woiuld never assume. > My assumption would be that you are referring > to education, life style, social skills, and other personal > characteristics. The teacher and the programmer, however, are not > all that different in these respects. Your assumptions are an example of projection, the thoughtless faith that what you feel and believe are naturally what the other guy feels and believes. False assumption = blind faith. > When you use "different", it requires some indication of the area > of differentness you are alluding to. It reduces muzziness. You asked "How different?" and I told you. But you weren't satisfied to ask a question and wait for an answer. You had to answer it yourself based on what you *assumed* --- falsely --- I would answer. You are a bit too narcissistic for discussion. > I note that you have moved from the nursery to the bathroom When you write stuff that belongs in the toilet, that's what you get. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >There's where you are going wrong. You are making unwarranted >assumptions. You've heard the old saw about assumptions, haven't you: >"When you assumke, it makes an 'a.s' of 'u' and 'me'"? Well, you just >made an assout of yourself by assuming things that I woiuld never >assume. >> My assumption would be that you are referring >> to education, life style, social skills, and other personal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that what you feel and believe are naturally what the other guy feels >and believes. False assumption = blind faith. >> When you use "different", it requires some indication of the area >> of differentness you are alluding to. It reduces muzziness. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >yourself based on what you *assumed* --- falsely --- I would answer. >You are a bit too narcissistic for discussion. What a strange meandering. There are times I think you tipple. Assumptions are necessary in reading most of the writing we read. For example, you are now assuming that by "writing" I mean any use of symbols to represent thought and not just hand scrawled notes to the milkman or published works. The less-clear the writing, the more assumptions the reader must make. Then, you wander off to "projection" and define it as "the thoughtless faith that what you feel and believe are (sic) naturally what the other guy feels and believes". Breaking new ground, there. From that, you break more new ground in defining terms by saying "false assumption = blind faith". You really need to put out your own dictionary. Then, a supposed quote that changes meaning entirely. Surely, you don't think that "How are they different? = "How different?" unless you are mocking Tonto talk. Then, though, a touch of - presumably - the ironic formation. After another example of lengthy discussion, you claim to see no reason to discuss. A contradiction similar to reading your recent post about your disinterest in rock rolling and your immediate return to pushing the rock. Altogether, a strange post indeed. One only hopes it was caused by an outside agent. >> I note that you have moved from the nursery to the bathroom > >When you write stuff that belongs in the toilet, that's what you get. I can't help but admire your originality and devastating wit. Assume what "u" will about my sincerity in this. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 27 Feb 2004: >>There's where you are going wrong. You are making unwarranted >>assumptions. You've heard the old saw about assumptions, haven't [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > I can't help but admire your originality and devastating wit. > Assume what "u" will about my sincerity in this. Your sincerity oozes and drips from this post, Pooper, like pus from a purulent pimple. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Your sincerity oozes and drips from this post, Pooper, like pus from a >purulent pimple. Beware! I expect a devastating furuncular retort from the medical editor. R. >>Your sincerity oozes and drips from this post, Pooper, like pus from a >>purulent pimple. > >Beware! I expect a devastating >furuncular retort from the medical editor. My first reaction was that the effort of alliteration led to redundancy. Being cautious, though, I looked up "pimple" and found that not all pimples are purulent. Only sometimes. This goes against my assumptions. I would call a pore blocked with dirt or oil a blackhead, and the pus-filled eruption a pimple. A pimple is a pustule and pus seems to be required. Straying a bit to usage....is "pizza face" used bipondally to describe a person with many pimples on the face? The reference here, of course, is the appearance of a pizza with pepperoni slices scattered about. >Straying a bit to usage....is "pizza face" used bipondally to describe >a person with many pimples on the face? Or symptoms caused by preprandial cerebellar ataxia and highly polished ristorante flooring. R. >>Sure, the receptionist in the NEA's office is no different from the >>receptionist in the Microsoft office. But the teachers who belong to >>the NEA are not the same as the programmers who work for MS. > > Why? Other than occupation, how are they different? Well, the money does flow in the opposite direction. The teachers who pay dues to the NEA are actually more like the customers of Microsoft. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >>>Sure, the receptionist in the NEA's office is no different from >>>the receptionist in the Microsoft office. But the teachers who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who pay dues to the NEA are actually more like the customers of > Microsoft. Yes, and that's a second difference, Pooper. Not everyone in this NG is a former bathroom sponge. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, and that's a second difference, Pooper. Not everyone in this NG > is a former bathroom sponge. Of course, that characterization makes it even less likely that a description of the organization should be applied to what are essentially customers. Of course, as there is doubtless voting involved, there are other characterizations as well. It would be interesting to see a poll among members that indicated the balance between "I'm a member because I support the goals and tactics of the organization" and "I'm a member because I believe that something the NEA provides its members is worth more to me than the dues I pay". This includes things like insurance, publications, credit union, credit cards, discounts to places like Disneyland, etc. as well as the union doing things like negotiating/threatening strikes at a local level, which may benefit the individual teachers enough that they are willing to overlook their distaste at some of the national lobbying efforts. The latter is often done by a local union, but you often can't join that without also joining the state and national organizations. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | is chaunge Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes | tho kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and (650)857-7572 | straunge |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | hem so | Chaucer Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > description of the organization should be applied to what are > essentially customers. That, of course, brings up the question of the relationship between those who patronize (in the sense of engaging in custom with) bad guys and the bad guys themselves. Are they any less cuplable for the actions of the bad guys than those who are actually in the employ of the bad guys and the bad guys themselves? I don't know the answer to that question, but a lot of people think they do. That's why fundies often call for boycotts of Disney products and lefties called for divestment of investments in apartheid South Africa. Providing any kind of financial support seems to be considered trafficking with the enemy, as is prescribed by Section 805 of the Patriot Act[1]: [quote] TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > Sec. 2339B. Prev Sec. 2339B. - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations (a) Prohibited Activities. - (1) Unlawful conduct. - Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. [/quote] To change the subject, but not necessarily the topic of this discussion, doesn't this kind of legislation imply that it cannot be long before the DEA and the Drug Tzar ask Congress to pass a law that says that anyone who knowingly buys illegal drugs is criminally liable for aiding and abetting the illegal internationsl drug cartels and financing their undeniably terrorist activities in places like Colombia, S.A? To return to Paige, the Patriot Act, the current administration in DC, and the NEA, I don't think I agree with your letting Paige off so easily. All those Bushies non-think alike. NOTE: [1] Sec. 805 incorporates and slightly amends this particular section of the US Code. > Of course, as there is doubtless voting involved, there are other > characterizations as well. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > join that without also joining the state and national > organizations. Yes, and then we can call those who agree with the NEA's policies and behaviors "terrorists" in a Paigean sense and the self-seekers who want cheap tix to Disneyland "terrorists" in a Patriot-Act sense. Either way, NEA members lose, and all one can say to them and about them is that they should've joined the AFT, which, it turns out, is affiliated with both the NEA and the Teamsters, who still revere James R Hoffa the way the PRC government still reveres Mao Zedong. Ain't life a bitch? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > On 26 Feb 2004 00:46:12 GMT, CyberCypher >> If "the Teamsters are > controled by the mob", > >Unions like the Knights of Labor and the WWW were filled with people > >who were more than eager to engage in what we would call ?terrorist? > >and what we did call ?anarchist? activities. > > What is the "WWW"? A passing fad from the 1990s. > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 25 Feb 2004: >> If one were to say "Libya supports terrorism" or "Libya is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > terrorism and not just HAMAS and the other Islamic Jihad-type > groups, not just the Palestinian Authority, not just Arafat. Speak for yourself, please. If I were to say that, I would mean precisely the nation/state/territory/whatever and be casting blame on the people in charge. To impugn Palestinians in general, I would have to refer to "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to |zero, but when you look in kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |detail.... (650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004: >> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 25 Feb 2004: >>> If one were to say "Libya supports terrorism" or "Libya is a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > on the people in charge. To impugn Palestinians in general, I > would have to refer to "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people". Okay, I speak for myself. I make no distinction between most of the people who live there and the people who allegedly run the show. But that has been obvious for a long time to anyone who has read my posts about the conflict over there. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. Yes, I would say so. Considering that nowadays "mother-f.cking sons of bitches" would have been a great deal LESS rough. > Instead he should have > said that the NEA is tied to the extreme left of the democratic > party. <...> And when did that happen? When I was a teacher, the Democrats of us were in the American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO). The NEA was for cotton-brained, wannabee-elite, Republican dupes. \\P. Schultz > > The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO). The NEA was for cotton-brained, > wannabee-elite, Republican dupes. In early 1960's Illinois, I can recall the dissatisfaction of IEA members with the membership of superintendents and principals and other non teaching staff, to the point that a parallel organization was formed: IACT (Illinois Association of Classroom Teachers). I don't know how long that lasted, but in the Skokie chapter we were successful in passing an equal pay for equal work contract which eliminated the "head of family" salary increment. I guess the movement and IACT were subsumed into the earlier organization, but I was long gone. http://www.ieanea.org/about/history.asp "In the 1960's change was once again on the horizon. The paternalistic administrator-teacher relationship that had long been established in the schools carried over into the professional organization. Though teachers comprised the majority of the membership, leadership came largely from the ranks of the school administrators. Throughout the decade a growing number of classroom teachers, frustrated by their lack of input in classroom matters and seeking improvements in salary and benefits, began asserting themselves in the organization. They demanded an association that would help them meet their needs." Later, in 1970's Wisconsin, the support staff were no longer frozen out from representation in locally negotiated contracts, while the school administration was eliminated from the salary negotiations. I don't know when that step occurred. In fact, the locals became unions, and the state organization became some kind of split umbrella--WEA as a lobby group and state labor organizing group, and WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council), which was able to offer life and health insurance programs to teacher members. This was only partly in reply to inroads the AFT was making in local education associations. I left teaching in 1976 and have been out of touch since then. jerry_jn@hotmail.com (Jerry Johnson) wrote on 24 Feb 2004: > The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. They were slanderous. Call that spade a spade instead of trying to spin it into something harmless. > Instead he should have said that the NEA is tied to > the extreme left of the democratic party. Which is > generally accepted. And that the NEA will do all it can to > maintain the status quo in the expensive monopoly known > as 'public education'. The "monoply" of public education is written into the US Constitution last time I looked. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens from sending their children to private schools. But there are many who decry public education while trying to rob the Treasury to pay for the private and non-secular education of their children. They speak with the forked tongue of the hypocrite and ideological cynic. > Even as test scores drop while costs rise. And there's your educational philosophy in a nutshell: Do it on the cheap while giving tac cuts to the rich and equate education with test scores. > And Mr. Paige could have further noted that political correctness > and > political indoctrination have, to a large degree, replaced > education. Thanks in great part to the religious right. > Anyone having their doubts about this should be encouraged to > check the curriculum at any College of Education. > > And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It > sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. What is the NEA but a group of teachers? How can you and Paige separate the organization from its members like that? Are you both charging the NEA's executives with fraud, disloyalty, and brainwashing? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > <...> But there are many > who decry public education while trying to rob the Treasury to pay > for the private and non-secular education of their children. They > speak with the forked tongue of the hypocrite and ideological cynic. > <...> Actually, a lot of people aren't decrying public education in principle. Rather, after years of hard, fruitless effort to better the situation, they are decrying the gross and disgraceful incompetence, waste, and arrogance that the modern U.S. public education establishment has become -- a money pit that has already turned out two generations of illiterates and semiliterates. Responsible parents who expect a modicum of accountability have been given the finger by the public education system. So now they are, reluctantly but necessarily, finding political ways to withhold their money and their children from the clutches of the platitude-dribbling edu-crat weasels, and I can't blame them. \\P. Schultz [ ... ] > The "monoply" of public education is written into the US Constitution > last time I looked. I haven't double-checked, Franke, so this is from memory. But I'm quite sure that the US Constitution is silent on the subject of public education (unless you want to include it in the "general welfare" mentioned in the preamble). Most state constitutions do guarantee a free public education to the children of residents, and most even require that every child be educated one way or another, but they don't require attendance at public schools, so if you pluralize and lower-case "Constitution" in your next sentence you have an accurate statement: < Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens > from sending their children to private schools. Nor am I aware of any state that forbids home schooling. States do try, with greater or lesser success, to ensure that home schooling meets minimum standards (whatever is meant by that vague phrase). Most home schoolers are conservative religious literalists who decry the secular values taught in public school. This does not necessarily mean Christians; I've heard that some Lubavitchers are now home schooling when they can't find an appropriate private school for their children. I wouldn't be surprised if some American Muslims are doing the same. > But there are many > who decry public education while trying to rob the Treasury to pay > for the private and non-secular education of their children. This is pretty strong rhetoric. My kids alternated between public and private as suited their needs. I paid full freight for the private, when they were going, and full taxes as my share of the cost of the public. If I had been given a tax break or subsidy for the private education I'd have taken it gladly. I'm not sure that makes me a thief. > They > speak with the forked tongue of the hypocrite and ideological cynic. I don't deny that there's a tremendous amount of cynicism on all sides of this debate. All I can say is that I wish my tax money supported a good education for all children of my state, no matter what form it took. > > Even as test scores drop while costs rise. > > And there's your educational philosophy in a nutshell: Do it on the > cheap while giving tac cuts to the rich and equate education with > test scores. I think it's legitimate to ask why we're spending more and getting less. I think the answer (answers, actually) will not be easily found. God knows we've tried nostrum after nostrum with little to show for it. The best solution is still, IMO, a properly oriented charismatic leader with almost total discretion and a dedicated staff to match. There aren't many of those around. > > And Mr. Paige could have further noted that political correctness > > and > > political indoctrination have, to a large degree, replaced > > education. > > Thanks in great part to the religious right. Not solely. Both extremes have their hobbyhorses. The left banishes Twain, the right Darwin. The left wants all prayer eliminated, the right wants all prayer mandatory. There's more than enough knee-jerk absurdity to go around. > > Anyone having their doubts about this should be encouraged to > > check the curriculum at any College of Education. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > charging the NEA's executives with fraud, disloyalty, and > brainwashing? The issue is one of usage, and I agree that "terrorist" is now much too loaded a word to be used as Paige used it. He should apologize, retract, and state clearly what he objects to. After Hell is reported thoroughly frozen, I'll check to see whether he did so. SignatureBob Lieblich Who feels surrounded by soapboxes Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > if you pluralize and lower-case "Constitution" in your next > sentence you have an accurate statement: You're right. I'm wrong. > < Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens >> from sending their children to private schools. > > Nor am I aware of any state that forbids home schooling. That is one form of private education, no? [...] >> But there are many >> who decry public education while trying to rob the Treasury to >> pay for the private and non-secular education of their children. > > This is pretty strong rhetoric. I know, but it is qualified: "There are many". And it is vague enough not to be an attack on any specific ideological group. I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to complain about those who want taxpayer money to fund religious schools. > My kids alternated between public and private as suited > their needs. I paid full freight for the > private, when they were going, and full taxes as my share of the > cost of the public. If I had been given a tax break or subsidy > for the private education I'd have taken it gladly. I'm not sure > that makes me a thief. Not everyone unsatisfied with public education wants taxpayers to send their kids to private school, and accepting what the government might offer as a voucher for private education doesn't make one a thief, no. But from what I've seen of the attempts to get tax money for vouchers and charter schools, the focus is on public funding for ideologically tendentious institutions. >> They speak with the forked tongue of the >> hypocrite and ideological cynic. > > I don't deny that there's a tremendous amount of cynicism on all > sides of this debate. Granted. I don't like either side very much. > All I can say is that I wish my tax money supported a good > education for all children of my state, no matter what > form it took. The only problem is that word "good". What does it mean? I know that Mortimer Adler could tell me if he were still living, but there isn't enough cultural commonality in America to allow for a reasonable definition of a "good education". And even if there were --- as there is here in Taiwan --- the nature of the economy changes so quickly that there is no way to predict what will be a useful education by the time one's kids are out in the job market. A liberal education a la Hutchins and Adler is what I consider ideal, but who believes in that anymore? >> > Even as test scores drop while costs rise. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think it's legitimate to ask why we're spending more and getting > less. I think that too many of the answers are obvious and that public education has become far too political to be worth much these days. > I think the answer (answers, actually) will not be easily > found. God knows we've tried nostrum after nostrum with little to > show for it. The best solution is still, IMO, a properly oriented > charismatic leader with almost total discretion and a dedicated > staff to match. There aren't many of those around. They're illegal except in private schools, aren't they? >> > And Mr. Paige could have further noted that political >> > correctness and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not solely. I didn't say solely, just "in great part". > Both extremes have their hobbyhorses. The left banishes Twain, Only some on the left, and that's a combination of racial and mea culpa politics for the most part. This is not all about stupidity and intellectual blindness, though. This involves so much of what has always been wrong with America, and still is. > the right Darwin. And it is from this matrix of stupidity and ideological exclusivity that those now running the American government come. This is about stupidity and anti-intellectualism. These people are in essence no different from the Taliban. > The left wants all prayer eliminated, the right wants all > prayer mandatory. There's more than enough knee-jerk > absurdity to go around. That's the greatest by-product of ideological stridency. >> > Anyone having their doubts about this should be encouraged to >> > check the curriculum at any College of Education. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hell is reported thoroughly frozen, I'll check to see whether he > did so. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > The "monoply" of public education is written into the US Constitution > last time I looked. You might want to look again. I don't believe that there were any public schools below university level when the Constitution was written, and none of the amendments mention it. The words "school" and "education" do not appear. > Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens from sending their > children to private schools. But there are many who decry public > education while trying to rob the Treasury to pay for the private > and non-secular education of their children. They speak with the > forked tongue of the hypocrite and ideological cynic. What about those of us who simply think that there should be a separation between public funding for education and public provision of education and think that public schools should be competitive with private schools? I went to public schools, and I've seen the good and the bad of it. My son is currently in a public school. I have no problem with public schools when they're done well. On the other hand, the state of California is perfectly willing to pay a certain amount per year for my son's education. I see no logical reason why they shouldn't be willing to pay that amount of money to any school that they deem to provide an education sufficiently good that he is not counted as being truant. If I, or another parent, can supplement that to provide him a better education, I also fail to see that as a problem. Granted, this would result in a somewhat smaller allocation of money per pupil, but they're doing that already. Our district literally started a charitable foundation to raise money to put back things like the library, music, and physical education, which had disappeared in the last budget cuts, and we have a new tax on the ballot to try to pay for these things long term. I understand that one nearby town managed to raise a fair bit of money--and was then told that the state allocation would be cut to compensate. Obviously, they didn't need it. >> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It >> sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. > > What is the NEA but a group of teachers? It's a lobbying organization. A big one. As such, its goals, opinions, and utility functions and those of the rank-and-file membership do not always coincide and may well be antithetical. A powerful organization will do what it takes to keep itself powerful. Endorsing policies which give up power, even though the power may largely come to rest locally in the hands of individual teachers and administrators, is seldom in its best interest. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle |key distribution, is a useless kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |farce. (650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > The "monoply" of public education is written into the US Constitution > > last time I looked. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > written, and none of the amendments mention it. The words "school" > and "education" do not appear. You're right about there being nothing in the US Constitution, but many of the colonies offered, even required the establishment of, public schools from their earliest days. http://historyeducationinfo.com/edu1.htm Education in America took root with the landing of the Pilgrims in the early 1600s. The first public school was established in 1635 in Boston, Mass. There followed the creation of "dame" schools and Latin Grammar schools for higher education. Massachusetts was in the forefront of educational "reform", when they enacted a law in 1642, that any child not being properly educated, would have to be apprenticed to a trade. Virginia followed with a similar law in 1646. The Massachusetts "Old Deluder Satan Act" of 1647, required towns of more than 50 families to hire a teacher for reading and writing, and for more than 100 families, they had to establish a "grammar" school, which served as a college preparation. You may be confusing the requirement that towns establish public schools with the "mandatory attendance" laws that came two hundred years later, requiring parents to send their children to them or provide private education. SignatureBest - Donna Richoux Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: >> The "monoply" of public education is written into the US >> Constitution last time I looked. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was written, and none of the amendments mention it. The words > "school" and "education" do not appear. You’re right. It’s the state constitutions that contain gurantees of free public education, not the US Constitution. >> Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens from sending their >> children to private schools. But there are many who decry public [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > provision of education and think that public schools should be > competitive with private schools? They are competitive with private schools, for those who can afford them. > I went to public schools, and > I've seen the good and the bad of it. My son is currently in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > provide an education sufficiently good that he is not counted as > being truant. Aye, there’s the rub. Please define “sufficiently good”. > If I, or another parent, can supplement that to > provide him a better education, I also fail to see that as a > problem. The rest of the country is not as liberally educated as is most of the Bay Area. The alternatives in other places are not as attrative and usually tend to be non-secular or ideologically oriented military academies. > Granted, this would result in a somewhat smaller allocation of > money per pupil, but they're doing that already. Our district > literally started a charitable foundation to raise money to put > back things like the library, music, and physical education, which > had disappeared in the last budget cuts, and we have a new tax on > the ballot to try to pay for these things long term. Yes, and the people where you live ar rich enough to afford to pay the tax even if many do not want to for whatever strange reason they might have for objecting to giving tax dollars to public education. And because most of your neighbors are probably at least high school if not college graduates with decent job, they probably value education for its economic benefits as well as for the personal benefits educated people tend to derive from being either well informed or liberally educated. > I understand > that one nearby town managed to raise a fair bit of money--and was > then told that the state allocation would be cut to compensate. > Obviously, they didn't need it. That’s the way government budgets work. When I was in the Navy, at the end of the fiscal year, we had to splurge on office supplies with whatever money was left over in our department’s budget. If we had not spent all the money allocated for that year, the following year we would have received less because we obviously would not have needed as much as we had been given. A rational way of thinking. >>> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. >>> It sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > opinions, and utility functions and those of the rank-and-file > membership do not always coincide and may well be antithetical. Then why didn’t Paige say that NEA lobbyists are terrorists? Maybe becaue they give money to members of Congress who vote for the bills the NEA likes? > A powerful organization will do what it takes to > keep itself powerful. Isn’t this the case with every organization and even with almost every individual who has power? The more one gets, the more one wants. That’s human nature. > Endorsing policies which give up power, even though the > power may largely come to rest locally in the hands of individual > teachers and administrators, is seldom in its best interest. And what has this to do with whether Paige meant the lobbyists in DC, the executives of the NEA, or the rank-and-file members of the NEA? Or whether any of those folks separately or together are terrorists? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are competitive with private schools, for those who can afford > them. Do you mean "competitive with" in the sense of "in competition with and failing miserably" or "competing at the same level". The only places I know in which the public schools are at or near the level of private schools are in places in which (1) the populace is wealthy and (2) the public school funding is such that local tax money goes to local schools (as opposed to being put into a statewide fund). But you're right in one sense. Those who can afford to pay for private schools without any help probably live in wealthy areas which are more likely to have good public schools. Those who live in areas with poor public schools are least likely to be able to afford to bear the full cost of a private education and would therefore benefit most from being able to transfer the money being spent on the their children's public schooling. >> I went to public schools, and I've seen the good and the bad of it. >> My son is currently in a public school. I have no problem with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Aye, theres the rub. Please define sufficiently good. Each state does that already. My own definition would probably be something like "up to the minimum standard tolerated for a public school in the state". That *must* be good enough. >> If I, or another parent, can supplement that to provide him a >> better education, I also fail to see that as a problem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and usually tend to be non-secular or ideologically oriented > military academies. The former is largely because churches and synagogues are the institutions most likely to be willing to subsidize the education to bring it within reach of poorer families. (My own neighborhood in Chicago was split between the public school and the local Catholic school. By the time we moved, the quality of the public school had declined markedly and there was a decided shift from the one to the other, including among non-Catholic students.) I find it hard to believe that if the subsidy was made available to all families that you wouldn't see people opening up new schools to accommodate students whose parents want to take them out of poor schools. >> Granted, this would result in a somewhat smaller allocation of >> money per pupil, but they're doing that already. Our district [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the tax even if many do not want to for whatever strange reason they > might have for objecting to giving tax dollars to public education. You've been to my neighborhood? About 35% of the students in Josh's school are Hispanic (mostly children of Mexican immigrants), and that reflects the makeup of the neighborhood in general. I believe that a quarter to a third are classed as "limited English proficiency". Looking at the most recent test scores, a whopping 41% met the state standard in English. This is not a wealthy neighborhood. But that misses the point. The people *were* giving tax dollars to public education. And then, unilaterally, the state government, without any consultation with the schools or the districts, decided to slash the education budget and the schools found that they literally had no choice but to get rid of art, music, gym, libraries, and sports. And drastically slash janitorial services. (Which, by the way, due to union contracts, the school is not allowed to let volunteers do, even though many parents have offered. Even though the people have been let go, the job still exists, and so cannot be filled except by rehiring.) If a private school did this, the parents would take their children-- and their money--elsewhere, both because it drastically reduced the level of education and because it would show that the people running the place were idiots. Many of the people in the public school don't have that choice, other than to go to the local Catholic school, and we all know that it wasn't the district's fault, so we're willing to try to do what we can, begging for donations (and donating) and trying to craft a tax that will pass. (I think this one will.) And we still have no assurance that come next year's budget the state won't simply say "You've raised that money so we'll cut the amount we give you" and we'll have to start over again. >> I understand >> that one nearby town managed to raise a fair bit of money--and was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > year we would have received less because we obviously would not have > needed as much as we had been given. A rational way of thinking. Not just government. Corporations work that way, too. But that's a different issue. This is more like being given a $20 per diem for food, adding $10 out of your own pocket and finding that the next time you go on a trip your per diem is only $10. How do you convince people that they should spend more money on schools if the net effect is that the same amount per pupil is spent? (And the districts which are most willing and able to raise money are also those in which the schools are better, largely due to higher parent involvement. Therefore, they're the ones least likely to see any extra money that makes it into the state coffers.) >>>> And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. >>>> It sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then why didnt Paige say that NEA lobbyists are terrorists? Partly synecdoche and partly because as a government official that's the face of the NEA he sees, so that's what he associates with the name. When I worked on standards committees, we would often talk about "Company X being hard to deal with" or "Company Y being stubborn", but what we meant was their representatives on the standards committees (and perhaps the parts of the corporations that they represented, maybe their lawyers). Many times this didn't even agree with our opinions of the companies as a whole as business entities, much less the individual employees. >> A powerful organization will do what it takes to >> keep itself powerful. > > Isnt this the case with every organization and even with almost > every individual who has power? The more one gets, the more one > wants. Thats human nature. Sure. >> Endorsing policies which give up power, even though the >> power may largely come to rest locally in the hands of individual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the executives of the NEA, or the rank-and-file members of the NEA? > Or whether any of those folks separately or together are terrorists? It addresses the question "What is the NEA but a group of teachers?". The interests of the NEA are often very different from the interests of the teachers it represents. Not so different so often that teachers refuse to join, but different enough that I'd say that an attribution of behavior to the organization should be read as referring to those who are responsible for choosing the behavior, not to those who merely pay dues. I wouldn't have read Paige as meaning that he thought that the rank-and-file members were terrorists. And when somebody did read it that way and called him on it he immediately clarified that what he meant was "the NEA's Washington lobbyists". I can see somebody noting that it was ambiguous and, as Paige himself said "an inappropriate choice of words", but I find it hard to credit those who are apparently convinced, even in the face of his clarification, that he was referring to "those who teach America's children", as the NEA asserted. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ jerry_jn@hotmail.com (Jerry Johnson) wrote on 24 Feb 2004: > The remarks of Ron Paige were a bit rough. They were slanderous. Call that spade a spade instead of trying to spin it into something harmless. > Instead he should have said that the NEA is tied to > the extreme left of the democratic party. Which is > generally accepted. And that the NEA will do all it can to > maintain the status quo in the expensive monopoly known > as 'public education'. The "monoply" of public education is written into the US Constitution last time I looked. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens from sending their children to private schools. But there are many who decry public education while trying to rob the Treasury to pay for the private and non-secular education of their children. They speak with the forked tongue of the hypocrite and ideological cynic. > Even as test scores drop while costs rise. And there's your educational philosophy in a nutshell: Do it on the cheap while giving tax cuts to the rich and equating education with test scores. > And Mr. Paige could have further noted that political correctness > and > political indoctrination have, to a large degree, replaced > education. Thanks in great part to the religious right. > Anyone having their doubts about this should be encouraged to > check the curriculum at any College of Education. > > And I'm not sure he was referring to teachers as terrorists. It > sounded to me like a comment directed towards the NEA. What is the NEA but a group of teachers? How can you and Paige separate the organization from its members like that? Are you both charging the NEA's executives with fraud, disloyalty, and brainwashing? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.