Education - It wasn't so blatant in the past

In the past, it was more covert:

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes." (emphasis mine)

In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry." (emphasis mine)

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. (emphasis mine)

While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process." (emphasis mine)

Excerpts from an article stored at The Memory Hole: The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile discussing John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001).

Bush (mis)Administration Supports Illegal Immigration

current (mis)administration's lack of enforcement

In 1999, under President Bill Clinton, the US government collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies for employing undocumented workers. In 2004, under President George Bush, the federal government collected $188,500 from 64 companies for such illegal employment practices. And in 2004, the Bush Administration levied NO fines for US companies employing undocumented workers. link

how businesses benefit and how illegal immigrants contribute to our economy

Having a sub-minimum wage working class in this country has the effect of benefiting business.

--snip--


"It creates a group of people do not demand, for the most part, do not demand their rights as American workers," San Miguel said.

--snip--

"The employers prefer to hire undocumented workers because they are more manageable," San Miguel said.

--snip--

University of Houston history professor John Hart said what counts is immigrants' contributions to the economy. He estimates undocumented laborers contribute $540 to $590 billion a year to the economy. link

businesses recruit illegal immigrants as cheap labor

His story is not unusual. A growing number of U.S. employers and migrants are tapping into an underground employment network that matches one with the other, often before the migrants leave home.

--snip--

As debate over immigration heats up in the United States, more and more U.S. companies in need of cheap labor are turning to undocumented employees to recruit friends and relatives back home, and to smugglers to find job seekers. link

Hemp plastics and hemp biofuel...

From an article in Popular Mechanics 1941...

Henry Ford in straw hat. Here is the auto Henry Ford "grew from the soil." Its plastic panels, with impact strength 10 times greater than steel, were made from flax, wheat, hemp, spruce pulp.

"After twelve years of research, the Ford Motor Company has completed an experimental automobile with a plastic body. Although its design takes advantage of the properties of plastics, the streamline car does not differ greatly in appearance from its steel
counterpart. The only steel in the hand-made body is found in the tubular welded frame on which are mounted 14 plastic panels, 3/16 inch thick. Composed of a mixture of farm crops and synthetic chemicals, the plastic is reported to withstand a blow 10 times as great as steel without denting. Even the Windows and windshield are of plastic. The total weight of the plastic car is about 2,000 pounds, compared with 3,000 pounds for a steel automobile of the same size. Although no hint has been given as to when plastic cars may go into production, the experimental model is pictured as a step toward materialization of Henry Ford's belief that some day he would "grow automobiles from the soil."

"When Henry Ford recently unveiled his plastic car, result of 12 years of research, he have the world a glimpse of the automobile of tomorrow, its tough panels molded under hydraulic pressure of 1,500 pounds per square inch from a recipe that calls for 70 percent of cellulose fibers from wheat straw, hemp, and sisal plus 30 percent resin binder. The only steel in the car is its tubular welded frame. The plastic car weighs a ton, 1,000 pounds lighter than a comparable steel car. Manufacturers are already talking of a low-priced plastic car to test the public's taste by 1943." images and text from 1941 article

It would have to be put forth, in my opinion, from an economic standpoint as a way to save the farmer. A money crop with, so rumor has it, has over 30,000 uses.

Given it's uses to create plastic, fuel, paper, cloth, etc. it would be up against the paper industry, oil companies, the cotton industry and the chemical companies who may have had much to do with its demise in the first place.

I think it's a wonderful idea and I think we should promote it as corporations taking food out of the mouths of farmers. The family farmer, rather than agribusiness conglomerates, could once again support their families while providing, again, for the American people.

How Universal Health Care was Destroyed in the U.S.

Much of the rw (and lw) spin currently floating about our heads came from this debate. Many of the phrases and attacks we hear (and innocently repeat) come from this time. Since many on DU have said 2000 was the year they began to pay attention to politics, I thought some of those same people might want to read about where some of the "common knowledge" which is wafting about in political debate, discourse and attack had its origins. This is a 3 pager, but I believe it is well worth the time to it takes to read it to have a more comprehensive understanding of the political process; and perhaps a scorecard of some of the players.

I've added emphasis for the parts that jumped out at me and also at the beginning of paragraphs for 'readability.' The four paragraph rule made this less impressive than if I'd been able to emphasize more, so please, take the time to read as I had to leave out some excruciatingly amazing information.

Enjoy. (how Freudian of me, I accidentally typed 'endjoy' instead of 'enjoy' before correcting it)

A Detailed Timeline of the Healthcare Debate portrayed in "The System" (From PBS, May, 1996)

Spring 1991 - Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the "next great offensive of the Left," as he puts it, will be "socializing health care." Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.

--snip--

August 30, 1992 - Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller gets wind of Clinton's waning support for "pay-or-play" and fires off a memo arguing against any change of direction. He also tells Clinton that his statement that "Americans deserve or have a right to health care" might present problems for the candidate in the future. "Although many Americans may initially react positively to this statement," he writes, “over time it can make them uneasy. Before long they will be asking: How would we pay for all that care for all those people? Won't it require a huge new government bureaucracy?"

--snip--to Page 2--snip--

November 1, 1993 - Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging "Harry and Louise" ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads' claim that the Clinton plan "limits choice." Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group -- and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA's role and message.

--snip--

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

--snip--Read the full account at the link above

How the Right Wing will Attack Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker

Every "mistake" she makes will be analyzed ad nauseum; every success will be glossed over or framed as a loss.

Every move she makes will be analyzed down to dots on 'i's and crosses on 't's.

Pictures will show her in the worst light. She will look "tired," "angry" or small.

Her choices for office furniture, clothes, hairstyle, makeup and diet will be discussed ad nauseum.

There will be comments about her "looking tired" in order to suggest the job is too much for her.

Anytime she has a disagreement with another woman it will be called a "cat-fight" or words to invoke the image of cat-fight.

Her tone of voice will be frequently described as angry, shrill, hysterical or grating rather than passionate, firm, etc.

If she is persistent on an issue she will be described as being stubborn, pugnacious, unbending, unyielding rather than focused, persistent, determined, etc.

If she does compromise she'll be labeled weak, inefficient, wishy-washy, etc.

And, finally, she will be responsible for single-handedly "feminizing" the Democratic Party and liberals.

Stealth Campaigns in the Democratic Party

"Democrats for Life" uses the same rhetoric as many rabid anti-choice organizations, e.g. pro-life versus pro-abortion, unborn rather than zygote or fetus, pro-choice="radical", stem cells are people, and wrap their message in religious terms.

If all pro-life people shunned the Democratic party, who would then speak up for the unborn?

--snip--

It is too dangerous to allow a group with that much power to be totally under the influence of the pro-abortion mentality....serve as a buffer against the more radical elements in the party.

--snip--

The party has sent out such a strong and pervasive pro-abortion message that many pro-life people have felt silenced or alienated.

link accessed from this page

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

They are anti-stem cell research:

Because embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) doesn't have the starkness of other pro-life issues, some people may not realize what an urgent issue it is. My wife, a former AIDS and cancer-research technician at Johns Hopkins University, put it simply: When it comes to ESCR, "the problem isn't the cells, it's the person you have to kill to get the cells."

--snip--

You have to be able to see and understand that your debate partners really are trying to do what they think is right, and appreciate that they might not have been presented the truth in a way they can understand. You have to love them as Jesus did when He wept for them—to see them with His compassion when He said they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mk 6:34).

link accessed from this page

Supporters of the 95 10 initiative include, wow, a token woman beyond the ED, /sarcasm who'd have guessed? /sarcasm:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet - who stands to profit quite handsomely from "Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program - Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

Through our phone and internet services, we have been able to educate men and women on the risks of abortion as well as provide them with resources and information about abortion alternatives. But more importantly, through the Option Line and the work of affiliate centers, these men and women have been exposed to the message of the Gospel, and by the grace of God, we have seen many make decisions for Christ. Care Net's "Option Line"

CareNet also opposes emergency contraception for women.

The 95 10 initiative also presents, as fact, that abortion (has) adverse side effects to a woman's health in spite of the fact that there is no valid proof of detrimental effects to a woman's health, mental or physical despite years of anti-choice activists who insist on proving otherwise.

Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental (or physical, read the article) health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.

So, to summarize to this point,

- the federally funded "informational" hot-line is bait-and-switch and removes abortion from the choices offered
- women's "right to know" will include false and disproved information
- college women will be given the option (bribed?) to receive help to carry a pregnancy to term but removes abortion from her federally funded choices
- requires women's clinics to provide "adoption referral information" to further complicate a difficult decision during a stressful time and is part of a collection of trap laws which are used "to subject abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals"
- provide additionally confusing and distressing information should a woman choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing; will they cover a second opinion? Is this another trap law?
- federally funding to "collect accurate data on why women choose abortions"?! There are several studies already available; here's one. Why do they need more studies and research? Do they not like the answers they've received to date?


This initiative is a "beard". The more I research the more it looks like the anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti-women people have infiltrated the Democratic Party. /sarcasm Gee, what a surprise. /sarcasm