We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Ish who wrote (208219)6/10/2007 8:30:42 AM
From: steve harris
   of 755801
Libby would have been fine if he would have pulled the Hillary "I don't remember" defense. Libby got painted into a corner by answering questions. Whether he thought he knew or was guessing, I don't know.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill6/10/2007 8:32:41 AM
   of 755801
JOURNAL: Soldiers as Hostages
By John Robb

The group Islamic Jihad, operating out of Gaza, broke through Israel's heavily guarded border zone in attempt to take a soldier hostage on Sunday June 10th 2007. They were beaten back after a two hour fire-fight. This attack, as with many others like it against Israel and the US, are examples of how the role of soldiers have changed in 4th generation warfare. Key points to consider:

* The abduction of a soldier is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the state -- via a demonstration that even it's guardians are at risk of becoming merely hostages. As a result, this can form the basis for a causus belli if the hostage takers cross borders.
* Western military tradition fanatically follows "a no soldier left behind" policy. It has also become a critical part of the implicit contract with soldiers in professional western militaries. The result of an abduction of a soldier can generate a large/protracted manhunt. In general, abductions of civilians have much less of an effect.
* Elevation of the status of the abductors. In the media/moral landscape of this war, the abduction of soldier puts the offending group on a level equivalent to the state. These actions also attempt to raise the status of captive group members to POW (prisoners of war) status -- in terms of the requirements for treatment, moral justification for actions, and prisoner exchange. Finally, it's a PR/media coup for the group taking the hostages, which improves their position relative to competitors.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Neeka who wrote (208228)6/10/2007 8:59:24 AM
From: DMaA
   of 755801
US Soldiers Beheaded by Subhuman Enemy!

These Pictures are not showing the bodies of the soldiers captured recently! Repeat. These are not showing the soldiers captured recently! But, we have received information confirming that these pictures are real and that the bodies are US soldiers captured, tortured, mutilated, and decapitated by the subhuman bastards our heroes are fighting. You decide whether or not this site should continue to show the true face of our enemy.

This is what is happening. These are the kind of animals we're up against. Should we avert our eyes out of respect for the slain heros or see for ourselves the nature of the enemy so as not to be taken in by the arguments of the appeasers? I don't think that is a slam dunk question.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill6/10/2007 9:46:45 AM
   of 755801
An English Physics teacher on what has happened to the subject in England. I see this coming here. Lede and excerpts

I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn't cover anything I recognize as physics. Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it with… something else, something nebulous and ill defined. I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about the state of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physics teachers — if there will be any.
But this past academic year things changed. The Department for Education and the AQA board brought in a new syllabus for the sciences. One which greatly increased the teaching of `how science works.' While my colleagues expressed scepticism, I was hopeful. After all, most pupils will not follow science at a higher level, so we should at least impart them with a sense of what it can tell us about our universe.

That did not happen

The result is a fiasco that will destroy physics in England.

In this course, pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power. Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants, without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.
The Political:

The number of questions that relate to global warming is appalling. I do not deny that pupils should know about the topic, nor do I deny its importance. However, it should not be the main focus of every topic. The pupils (and their teachers) are growing apathetic from overexposure.

A paper question asked: `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?' This is a political question. Worse yet, a political statement. I'm not saying I disagree with it, just that it has no place on a physics GCSE paper.
The Non-scientific:

Lastly, I present the final question on the January physics exam in its entirety:

Electricity can also be generated using renewable energy sources. Look at this information from a newspaper report.

* The energy from burning bio-fuels, such as woodchip and straw, can be used to generate electricity.
* Plants for bio-fuels use up carbon dioxide as they grow.
* Farmers get grants to grow plants for bio-fuels.
* Electricity generated from bio-fuels can be sold at a higher price than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.
* Growing plants for bio-fuels offers new opportunities for rural communities.

Suggest why, apart from the declining reserves of fossil fuels, power companies should use more bio-fuels and less fossil fuels to generate electricity.

The only marks that a pupil can get are for saying:

* Overall add no carbon dioxide to the environment
* Power companies make more profit
* Opportunity to grew new type of crop (growing plants in swamps)
* More Jobs

None of this material is in the specification, nor can a pupil reliably deduce the answers from the given information. Physics isn't a pedestrian subject about power companies and increasing their profits, or jobs in a rural community, it's is about far grander and broader ideas.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)

From: LindyBill6/10/2007 9:49:18 AM
   of 755801
More on this from Melinie Phillips. This is the "Let's get rid of Jewish Science" approach.

The de-education of Britain

John Clare in the Telegraph records yet another extraordinary development in the de-education of Britain. The GCSE science curriculum, studied by all pupils from 14 to 16, will no longer have much science in it. Instead, according to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, pupils will be taught about science, as well as being fed straight propaganda. Thus:

'Instead of learning science, pupils will "learn about the way science and scientists work within society". They will "develop their ability to relate their understanding of science to their own and others' decisions about lifestyles", the QCA said. They will be taught to consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the "social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions".

'They will learn to "question scientific information or ideas" and be taught that "uncertainties in scientific knowledge and ideas change over time", and "there are some questions that science cannot answer, and some that science cannot address". Science content of the curriculum will be kept "lite". Under "energy and electricity", pupils will be taught that "energy transfers can be measured and their efficiency calculated, which is important in considering the economic costs and environmental effects of energy use".'

Anyone who hasn't closely followed the collapse of British education over the past few years might well refuse to believe all this. Instead of being given the knowledge to enable them to understand science, to decipher how scientific processes work and even to become scientists themselves, pupils are to be taught instead about the effects of science on society -- and from an ideologically correct position. In other words, science education is simply being emptied of content.

The implications for individuals and for Britain are of course astounding. Nor is science alone in this. Maths, history, geography, all have been progressively emptied of content over the years and been replaced by spoon-fed propaganda. Foreign languages, whose teaching was emasculated by the ideological animus against formal grammar, have all but disappeared from many schools altogether after the government weakened their compulsory element.

The reason given for the change to the science curriculum is to make science 'relevant to the 21st century'. This is in accordance with the government's doctrine of 'personalised learning', which means that everything that is taught must be 'relevant' to the individual child. This philosophy, of course, destroys the very basis of education which is all about exposing a child to what he or she does not already know. 'Personalised' or 'relevant' education implicitly means that the child does not progress from the level at which he or she starts.

Once again, one has to ask the key question about this government. Are they mad or bad? Stupid or evil? Do they really have no understanding of what they are doing -- or are they following a programme to destroy the very basis of this society?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill6/10/2007 10:15:12 AM
   of 755801
James Emerick Dean
Trevor Bothwell has the sad story of the U.S. Army veteran executed by a Maryland State Police SWAT team. Dean was despondent over being redeployed to Iraq, and wanted only to be left alone. He hadn't threatened anyone, hadn't taken anyone hostage, and had given no indication he was dangerous to anyone other than himself. He was contemplating suicide.

Naturally, they sent the SWAT team, which went ahead and made the decision for him.
"State's Attorney Fritz has ruled that the shooting of Jamie Dean itself was "justified," inasmuch as the sharpshooter perceived a mortal threat to his fellow officers at the time Jamie raised his weapon. Indeed, the police have just as much right to protect themselves as we do. However, to his credit, Fritz also concluded in his report that the tactics employed by the Maryland State Police "can best be considered as progressively assaultive and militaristic in nature," were "overwhelmingly aggressive," and were "not warranted under the circumstances of the facts present in the case." In other words, the situation never should have been escalated to the point where shooting Jamie Dean was necessary.'

It's a refreshingly honest and farnk report. Yet it's unlikely that anyone will be held accountable

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (208225)6/10/2007 10:34:36 AM
From: D. Long
   of 755801
next time you speak your mind, be a man and stand your ground. Don’t apologize for jack

I hope he saved his pennies. He won't get a job in Hollywood.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (208252)6/10/2007 10:59:50 AM
From: D. Long
   of 755801
`how science works'

A laudable goal, since most people have no idea what the scientific method is. But what he describes bears no relation to that at all. It's politics. They might as well pass out "little red books" for the students to memorize.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (208254)6/10/2007 11:18:20 AM
From: D. Long
   of 755801
The Haditha case is falling apart.

Officer Advises Dropping Haditha Charges
By ALLISON HOFFMAN 06.09.07, 5:00 PM ET

An investigating officer has recommended dismissing charges against a Marine officer accused of failing to probe the killings of 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha, the defense attorney said Saturday.

Capt. Randy W. Stone, 34, is one of four officers accused of failing to report and investigate the deaths of the men, women and children in a deadly sweep on a chaotic day of battle in the village.

His attorney, Charles Gittins, said investigating officer Maj. Thomas McCann concluded in a report to the commanding general overseeing the case that Stone should not face trial and the matter should be handled administratively.

At Stone's preliminary hearing last month at Camp Pendleton, he argued that he never ordered an investigation into the killings because he believed the deaths resulted from lawful combat.

"I have never lied and have worked at all times to assist as best I could to shed light on what I knew and when I knew it," Stone said at his hearing.

The investigator's recommendation is nonbinding. A final decision will be made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commanding general overseeing the case.

If convicted, Stone faces up to 2 1/2 years in prison and dismissal.

Camp Pendleton spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson declined to comment until Mattis issues his decision.

Also Saturday, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani made an unsworn statement in preliminary hearings to determine whether he should face trial on charges of dereliction of duty and violating a lawful order for failing to investigate the deaths in Haditha.

Chessani said he believes he broke no laws.

"Hindsight is 20/20," he said. "I did not believe that my actions and my decisions were criminal."

Chessani, 43, is the most senior Marine of seven charged in the case, and the highest-ranking Marine officer charged since the start of the Iraq war. He faces up to three years in prison if convicted.

His statement came during his Article 32 hearing, a preliminary proceeding that is expected to conclude on Monday.

Chessani and Stone are among four officers charged with dereliction of duty. Three enlisted Marines are charged with murder. All belonged to the Camp Pendleton-based 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (208252)6/10/2007 11:40:59 AM
From: miraje
   of 755801
I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be.

That article describes a vile form of child abuse. What did Rand call it? The "Comprachicos"? How can there be a future when the minds of youth are being destroyed?

I'm going to post that article over on the enviro thread..

Subject 23540

.. where I've been kicking Ratty around a bit.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10