posted on February 26, 2003 10:28:38 PM new"Public-school teachers in Maine – at least 12 of them – have told children of recently called-up National Guard members that any attack on Iraq would be illegal and immoral, thus insinuating that the students' parents are equally immoral, according to reports by local Guard personnel."
But, REAMOND, this War IS illegal! It is illegal via both International Laws and quite a few UN Resolutions that were are flaunting and breaking! Do you want teachers to tell lies to the kids? How could teachers ever be trusted after that?
posted on February 26, 2003 10:47:24 PM new
junquemama, it's like the point that I keep trying to get made in here at the RT. When Bush get scaught lying, it makes ALL Americans look like liars! When Bush acts like a Bully, it makes all of us look like bullies. What our leaders do reflects upon us -- which is one good reason why we expect so much more out of our leaders than the regular Joe on the street. That by Bush both flaunting and breaking neumourous UN resolutions himself and then goes on world-wide media and tries to bully Saddam for flaunting and breaking UN resolutions, is it any wonder that the rest of the world is calling us all a bunch of stupid hypocrites?
posted on February 26, 2003 10:50:38 PM new
But surely it’s politically incorrect for a teacher to say that to an ‘American’ student.
And just yesterday I read an article by this Joseph Farah character where he ridiculed 'political correctnes'
The real message is that NO teacher should speak to ANY student about the ills of war because one of them may have an uncle over there.
You can accept the actions of these teachers as wrong if you wish, personaly I wouldn't knowingly tell a soldier's child that it's wrong.
But make no mistake this is media propoganda 'hushing' opposition to the war.
Its another case of extreme right US media lending aid to dumyas push for war through propoganda, it's McCarthyism.
This is a far greater crime.
posted on February 26, 2003 11:20:07 PM new
All I saw in the story were broad and vague allegations.
I'm sure the World Net Daily has high journalistic standards, but until I see specifically documented examples of exactly what may have occured, I remain skeptical of the sensationalized tone and presentation of the generalized information in the story.
posted on February 27, 2003 02:02:39 AM new
“WABI also reported that Albanese has sent a letter to the state's teachers, encouraging them to be mindful of the children of military personnel and to be balanced in discussing various views about a potential war.”
12 out of/ who knows how many in a whole state doesn’t sound like WABI need wory about ‘balance’ yet, during school lesons on the morality of war 'potential'.
Balance??? HAhahahahaha
Teachers watch your asses,
make sure you give a 'balanced' view, don't you go being a commie now.
Make sure those kids grow up 'balanced' in discussions of morality.
It's amazing that no matter how transperant propoganda may be, if repeated often enough it works.
How 'intimidating' this must be for some teachers who might be trying to work out tomorrows lesson on morality while maintaining 'balance'.
Surely no 'free regiem' would permit 'imbalance'.
McCARTHY RULES!!!
Het REY', you don't work part time for Mosad or CIA do ya!
Just kiding.
posted on February 27, 2003 05:33:28 AM new
WOW, what a bunch of F#cking loser teachers...
All I know is when I got back from deployment...the article would read.. "Teacher found beaten"...
They can keep their damned opinions to themselves and not say anything. That would not be lying to a student.
Any teacher found saying that to a student should be taken out and horse whipped immediately. No excuse for their lack of compassion for those kids.
Austbounty for someone that doesn't even live here... you can STFU
posted on February 27, 2003 06:26:05 AM new
Maybe coming from The Washington Time's also, may make it more palatable for you and others profe????
In an e-mail sent to the parents of one child who had complained of harassment at school, National Guard officials said they had "over 30 complaints that name schools and individual principals, teachers and guidance counselors."
It was still not clear yesterday whether the state will discipline any of the named teachers or schools over the incidents.
"In Maine, local superintendents make local policy for local schools," said Tammy Morrill, assistant to J. Duke Albanese, state commissioner of education.
A "fact-gathering" process about the incidents is under way, Maj. Rogers said. The incidents involved students in elementary and middle schools, some as young as 7 years old, he said.
"What we're hearing is that some of the educators are talking about the possible war in Iraq being unethical and that those who would fight it are unethical," Maj. Rogers said.
The state commissioner of education has urged school officials to be more "sensitive" to military children.
"Recently it has been brought to our attention that some school personnel ... may have been less than sensitive to children of military families regarding our continued strained relations with Iraq," Mr. Albanese wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to all superintendents and principals in Maine.
posted on February 27, 2003 06:55:16 AM new
I did a little checking ... read the original story on the television station's website, read the follow-up (which is almost so laughably bad, it belongs in The Onion, not a supposedly legitimate news station.) There is ONE teacher identified by name, and he is not one of the teachers accused of insensivity - instead, amazingly, he's treated as the official spokesman for the Maine school system! It appears as if the station didn't even try to contact state education officials.
The National Guard has repeatedly refused to identify any families, teachers, or even specific schools involved. (And at this point, school officials have been quoted in legitimate media saying they don't believe any "harassment" by teachers occured.) They have yet to provide any direct account of what the teachers were saying - only vague third- or fourth-hand descriptions. What I would guess has happened is that a couple of Guard officials heard some rumors, got a little excited, called the local news station and started the ball rolling, and the state Adjutant General - who probably doesn't have much experience dealing the media - shot off his mouth without doing a thorough investigation. Now they're stuck with a story and no proof.
School officials have investigated and according to this story, the only discussion that took place in a classroom resulted from a teacher's aide "taking up the anti-war side" Parents were apparently also upset when children weren't excused from school for "military related activities" - which has never been defined, and which is a far cry from taunting students. The alleged "harassment" incidents were apparently by other students, on the bus.
The hidden thread here is that public school teachers - many of whom are unionized - are seen as Public Enemy No. 1 by many ultra-conservative "news" outlets like WND. That explains why they were so quick to pile on a basically groundless story.
edited to add: I was writing my post at the same time Linda was writing hers, so I didn't see it. But as for the Washington Times....geography does not equal credibility. The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church (the "Moonies" ) and is about as credible as World News Daily. It is important to note that the Times story STILL does not name any specific teachers or provide any further proof. This story's been kicking for almost a week now. If these allegations were true, surely at least ONE parent would have come forward and said "It was my kid." Ain't happened.
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 27, 2003 07:00 AM ]
posted on February 27, 2003 07:17:44 AM new
Sure.....Mr. Albanese, State Commissioner of Education for the state of Maine, would have written a letter to all urging school officials to be more "sensitive"....because it wasn't necessary...it didn't happen...and no people came forward with complaints....sure. That makes sense to me. NOT.
posted on February 27, 2003 09:17:40 AM new
This is how low the Bush and America haters will go. These are the same type of people who will spit on veterans.
Any teacher who would make statements to military dependents that their parent's activity is immoral should be removed immediately from teaching. Those kids are a captive audience and can not speak up.
posted on February 27, 2003 09:36:14 AM new
Just a plea for some sense here....
One of what kids? There have been no kids named or even vaguely identified as harassment victims.
Which teachers should be "drawn and quartered" or "removed immediately from teaching?" There has been absolutely no verifiable allegation made of any specific case of harassment by a teacher. There has not even been any description of any harassment by a teacher.
Think about it. If this story were true, wouldn't there have been at least some details available by now? One parent coming forward saying "This was my kid?" - even under conditions of anonymity?
There was one instance of a teacher's aide supposedly expressing anti-war sentiments in a classroom discussion. That is a far cry from harassing students. There are allegations of some students being harassed on the bus by other students. That's it. The fact that Albanese asked teachers to be "sensitive" was lifted by the Times, out of context, from the Bangor News story I linked above. Albanese's full statement was that he was not able to verify any particular case of harassment but asked teachers to be "sensitive" anyway. It proves nothing.
As I've said, the real question I have is this: Why are people so eager to hate teachers - people who work impossible hours for ridiculous pay to accomplish a miraculous feat - that they'll willingly believe a story that doesn't even pretend to have a basis in fact?
Because this story really doesn't even bother to make that pretense. At best, it's hideously irresponsible journalism fueled by hysteria. At worst, a vicious lie.
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 27, 2003 09:37 AM ]
posted on February 27, 2003 09:52:31 AM new
But did it ever occur to you that it might not be true - especially based on the utterly flimsy "proof" presented in the stories? They hardly even bothered to pretend they were reporting facts.
Why aren't conservatives standing up and saying, "Look, NewsMax, WND, Washington Times, you're making us all look like hate-filled, vicious ignoramuses that will swallow any tall tale that comes along?" Instead, we get a chorus of people yelling "Hang them! Hang the evil educrats high!" and then muttering "if it's true, of course." What reason do you have to think that it was? Just because it was in a supposed "newspaper?" Aren't you the folks who pride yourselves on not believing the "liberal" mainstream media? Shouldn't you treat all news sources with the same sort of skepticism?
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 27, 2003 09:55 AM ]
posted on February 27, 2003 10:04:44 AM new
What I find is unbelieveable is you don't read or want to read what I said. I gave a statement, not whether I believe or disbelieve
I said I f t h i s s t o r y i s t r u e
End of my part of this 'discussion'
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 27, 2003 10:05:29 AM newLook, NewsMax, WND, Washington Times, you're making us all look like hate-filled, vicious ignoramuses that will swallow any tall tale that comes along?"
Isn't this already the conservatives view of liberals? Just look at all the President Bush stories...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 27, 2003 10:08 AM ]
posted on February 27, 2003 11:14:50 AM new
More two-faced liberalism. If the story were about Bush it would be considered gospel. But when it points the finger at these filthy America haters it is less than a "true" news story.
For those of you wondering why there are few names it is because the schools can not give out the names due to student privacy laws.
It is also easy to guess why the military families aren't too willing to come forward and identify themselves. They are in extremely vulnerable positions both financially and emotionally. With all they are facing right now, they probably just want this to go away.
I don't think that anyone has said they "hate" teachers. I think the vast majority of Americans are fed up with those that have lost the elections and whose ideology has lost in the public market place debate now picking on defenceless children of our military heroes. The fact that it is teachers makes it more disturbing, but does not require any slack for the teachers.
posted on February 27, 2003 11:27:39 AM new
msincognito
Don't even try to talk sense. If your not a wanton war-mongering ogre ready to slaughter innocents then your just a "America-Hater" They have already been exposed many times as unwilling to put forth on ounce of effort to reveal any truth. So their "opinion" are uninformed, born of ignorance and suspect.
I became a Nudist not because of the Sun, Fresh Air and Freedom, but because I got tired of people making fun of the way I dressed
posted on February 27, 2003 11:48:59 AM new
OT They are in extremely vulnerable positions both financially and emotionally. You are sooo right. BUT I did hear some VERY positive news this morning. I hope more companies will consider following in these footsteps.
When a reservist is called to duty the law only requires the company they work for to hold their job.
These reservists then usually take a big pay cut...going from the pay they are currently earning to their military pay. That puts another strain on them and their families.
Today I heard that SEARS made an announcement that it is going to pay the reservists [who work for their company] the difference between what the military pays them and what the employees were earning.
YEAH!!! For Sears. We're going to email their corporate headquarters not only to thank them, but to let them know we'll be supporting their decision to do this by making all our future purchases with them. And that we're spreading the word..... encouraging others to do so too.
[please forgive me, Reamond...just had to say that because our Armed Forces, especially the reservists, are making great personal sacrifices for our country.]
posted on February 27, 2003 11:52:33 AM new
"The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies"
So what. Why don't you go down the list of what you may call "legitimate" newspapers and let's look at who owns and runs them.
You think the Washington Post is a bastion of truth telling and has no ideological agenda in their reporting?
It's just another two faced liberal position. If it is a liberal news outlet it must be true, if it is reported by anyone else it must be suspect.
WND doesn't create news, it just reports it off the wires as all other news sources do.The difference is that the liberal news outlets will not report news that reflects badly on their ideology.
posted on February 27, 2003 01:11:11 PM new
Just a little comparison:
The Washington Post, in publication continuously since 1877, is generally regarded as America's second most influental and respected newspaper, with an audited circulation of 1 million on Sundays (subscriber base) and a total distribution of 5 million copies daily. It has a news staff of 850, and has won 33 Pulitzer Prizes - including four Gold Medals for Public Service - since 1938. It is owned by the Washington Post Company. The company also owns Newsweek and six television stations around the country, including our local CBS affiliate.
The Washington Times, established in 1982 with a frankly conservative agenda, hovers around 100,000 audited daily circulation. It has never won a Pulitzer or other significant national award. It has often been criticized for reporters that "float" between editorial and news sections, a practice that is forbidden at mainstream newspapers. It is owned by News World Communications, a subsidiary of the Unification Church, which also owns the nearly defunct news agency UPI.
World News Daily and NewsMax occupy the lowest rungs on the news "ladder," barely qualifying as legitimate news outlets. (Until recently, WND was not even credentialled to cover Congress; their reporter was using an expired credential from another publication until he was caught and it was confiscated.) With the exception of a few original pieces - mostly diatribes against other media outlets - they essentially take other peoples' reporting, strip out the details that don't support their premise, add inflammatory language and re-"publish" it as their own.
Does all this automatically make the Washington Post more credible than the Times, or the Times more credible than WND or NewsMax?
Well, yeah. It does. There's really no comparison.
posted on February 27, 2003 01:23:02 PM new
It sure doesn't make them any more credible.
The Washington Post is a liberal newspaper.
WND actually sued to get there credentials to cover Congress because the liberal reporters running the system refused them a pass.
The Washington Time " ... has often been criticized for reporters that "float" between editorial and news sections"- yeah by who ? The Washington Post and other liberal sources ?
All you have demonstrated is that liberal news sources say that liberal news sources are legitimate and that non-liberal news sources are not legitimate, as well as liberal news sources winning awards from liberal organizations makes them legitimate, or because the corporate charter has been around for over 100 years makes them legitimate. In fact, being in Washington for over a century should make them highly suspect.
I have no doubt WND and the other news sources are just as legitimate as the liberal sources such as the Washington Post, or the liberals wouldn't be complaining about them so much.
posted on February 27, 2003 01:27:09 PM new
Excuse me - but having "credentials" to be allowed to cover congress is just the same as licensing.
It's not the business of congress or any official to decide which news outlet is legitimate.
posted on February 27, 2003 01:34:49 PM new
gravid- the liberal press runs the licensing thing and refused WND credentials. WND had to sue before they would relent.
If WND and the Washington Times were truthless rags, the left wouldn't even say anything about them.
The liberal Washington Post and the liberal media hung the illegitimate and unreliable banner on the Drudge Report when it broke the Clinton sex scandel.
The liberals make the useless circular arguement that because liberal sources say that a liberal news outlet is reliable and unbiased it must be the true.
posted on February 27, 2003 02:02:33 PM new
People believe who they want to believe. I am a voracious reader of news - I regularly skim the New York Times, the London Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner, the Chicago Tribune, several Florida newspapers, Time, Newsweek, several political journals from both sides of the aisle and yes, WND, Drudge and NewsMax as well as CounterPunch and Spinsanity. (I read fast.)
What I look for in a credible news source is this:
Do they make an attempt to draw out both sides of an issue - and does the news staff understand that there are sometimes more than two sides?
Do they provide the depth of detail and backup information that gives the facts they allege credibility?
Do they make an attempt to separate news coverage and opinion?
Do they go beyond simply repeating what official sources say, and depict the human impact?
The first WND article referenced failed all these tests. First, the article was entirely cobbled together from quotes stolen from other media accounts. Following those quotes to their sources (the original stories) it's clear they were taken out of context. There is no attempt to allow a defense of the teachers, and no questioning of the original claim.
The TV station's article is even worse. It never, ever questions the veracity of the story.
NewsMax's story ("Vicious Educrats Taunt... ) has NO new information but loads the same old out-of-context info with vitriolic rhetoric. Here's the intro:
"Here's one reason why America's government school monopolies are such failures: Taxpayer-supported leftist "teachers" are too busy harassing children of military personnel to teach."
How can you claim that NewsMax is "just as credible" as the Bangor News story linked above, where the reporter actually got off her butt and talked to some school officials and National Guard sources instead of repeating rumors?
