Iraq on the Record

[loki09789]

Where is the line drawn between educated and rational vs fanaticism and paranoid? What if the vast majority of education is just a mechanism to reduce the latter in order to support order? Take a look at Peoples History of the United states and Lies My Teacher Told Me in order to understand what I'm talking about.

I have read these books or at least sections of them. I gave "Lies..." to my father for a B Day present.

Is there a suppression of the truth about our history conspiracy, or is it a decision to focus on the most basic elements that will establish a base line of citizerny knowledge when we are dealing with children? State funded education will, by nature of sponsorship have and agenda of promoting order and citizenship - so what. Don't you want the future of America to have some discipline, control, respect for the group? Besides, there is no Federal curriculum that is used to indocrinate the masses in to the "CULT OF AMERICA." There are disparities between states all the way down to school districts.

From the lack of personal responsibility/accountability and academic performance I have seen in some schools, even if there were an agenda we can't even get all our kids to read and do math effectively to be effectively influenced positively or negatively. Besides, I don't see little automatons goose stepping in time. I see questioning, inquisitive and suspicious minds.

 

[loki09789]

Hey...Im not debating the factual points of the book...just questioning his adgenda/motivations......the fact that he makes $$$ off of its just an added perk huh??

Isn't it logical to say that there could be just as much corruption and personal benefit in the agendas on the outside of the beltway as there could be on the inside? Couldn't those trying to 'tear down the church' only be doing so to put up their own? This is my point about scale and analogy. It is all over, because groups are made up of individuals and those individuals influence the dynamics of the group.

If the basic argument against Bush/Clinton... any politician that a person disapproves of is that they are in office because they think they can do it better... and people on the outside of that office decide that said person can't and 'they can do it better' aren't all parties involved just doing what the system allows them to do? Compete and promote/criticize? Why is it assumed that anyone who is critical of/or presents the POTUS or any politician as currupt is 'morally right' and those who are in office or their supporters are blind/being opressive?

This isn't Jack Ryan of the Clancy Novels, tripping into the oval office - but being the best POTUS based on the fact that he never wanted to be there. It is not a Capra film with Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith as the only moral man inside the beltway. There are prices to doing business on every scale, in every venue that people come together and act as a group...