posted on February 28, 2003 09:54:25 PM new
Blood Money
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 27 February 2003
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
- President Dwight Eisenhower, January 1961.
George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.
In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.
The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.
PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.
Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.
Who is PNAC? Its members include:
* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;
* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;
* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;
* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;
* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;
* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;
* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;
* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.
The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.
The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.
The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.
Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."
This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.
Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.
At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.
Thus, the payout.
It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.
Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.
More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.
Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.
Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.
Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.
Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.
One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.
In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.
Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.
This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.
There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.
This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.
Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years.
And yes, of course, a great many people will die.
It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.
Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.
Would that we Americans could be so wise.
-------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:10:38 PM new
I'm happy to see that I've not been just hooting up a chimney on Bush's REAL agenda! World Conquest and in the end, everyone under the thumb of Iron Fisted Corporations married to the State! How deluded Bush followers are!
posted on February 28, 2003 10:21:41 PM new
Yes, I've read the PNAC blueprint for the future. It's hardly a secret document and columnists in the NYT and WP refer to it from time to time. But the intentions of the group were clear even without reading it. Hell, most of the world has recognized it. That's why polls show Bush regarded as the most dangerous man in the world.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:30:17 PM new
While I think that it would be GREAT to have a One World government, with One set of Laws for everybody to follow, with One military/police force, with One world currency, and yes - even One world language, such a homogenization should not be built upon strength of arms to press the unwilling into obedient servitude! That is barbaric and it has ALWAYS failed to work, not because the technology wasn't there before, but because it is flawed in concept. If there ever is to a One World government, it will be by the nearly unanimous and hearty approval of every person in the world. What Bush and PNAC are up to is nothing at all like America's Democratic Republic that we have - it is designed to be a dictatorship to be ruled ruthlessly and bloodily with an iron fist!
And this is what Bush supporters want? Evidently! I only wish that they'd STOP pretending to be Americans when they aren't!
posted on February 28, 2003 11:14:21 PM new
They seem to have left the building...what do you bet they'll blame this on a dubious news source, or communists...or Clinton
posted on February 28, 2003 11:46:21 PM new
How come there are so many Jewish sounding names in there, or are they German names.
Is this a Jewish organisation, I think it important to know if these 'neo-conservatives' (try fascists) have an alternate agenda.
posted on March 1, 2003 12:09:18 AM new
>How come there are so many Jewish sounding names in there
In the PNAC? You've got to be joking! Not because Jews can't have a conspiracy of their own, but because they don't allow "hebs, spics, darkies, and other turd-world types" in their elite take-over-the-world power groups like PNAC!
>They seem to have left the building...what do you bet they'll blame this on a dubious news source, or communists...or Clinton
Of course they will! Personally, I'd rather be here in this thread and discuss the issues and what needs to be done about it than listen to their endless side-runs to derail threads like this one. That's their strategy, you know? They *might* pretend to listen to you as you take the time to explain yourself or teach them how not to be ignorant, but really, it's just a game that they play, all the while laughing at how they've managed to manipulate you into helping them to derail the thread.
And why do they do it, do you figure? I mean, if this is simply an out of the way little messageboard, what would it matter? What would it matter to them when KRS finds these little goodies? It shouldn't you know - not as they keep pretending this place to be.
In reality, this board IS on a high profile! Yes! Many outsiders come here to take the pulse of the Internet and auction sites to get a "feel" of how to invest their money. Imagine just how surprised that they are to see articles like KRS, Helen, Antiquary, and so many others provide here routinely. And imagine the fact that we DO make a difference here, that what we bring up here and what we discuss DOES affect much, much more than just a couple of bored small businesspeople on the Internet. I have always felt that this place is being watched by the two parties and what we come up with and how we deal with things seems to echo elsewhere amazingly. Am I the only one to have noticed it? I doubt it, because THEY have!
They can say whatever they like about Clinton, communists, and their other nonsense, because from now on I'm not here to argue with them as a distraction. There is little REAL news out there for Americans to tune into and let's make THIS place as good as we can for them!
Yes, in some ways the idea is attractive to us because it is us, or American entities with which we like to include ourselves, who would helm the resulting dominion. The United States as the essential rulers of the world. There is an assumption that we, as original citizens, would benefit.
It does however sorta' fly in the face of every ideal we hold, doesn't it?
Do we, the people, have any choice but to to trust these few other people whom none elected to allow us any benefit at all? This plan cannot afford the uncertainties of an electoral process for long.
ummm, I had not seen the above by borillar before posting this one, and meant to address his previous post. Although during the Clinton administration Bill never did anything each day until he'd received my morning fax, he and I only talk about saxophones, guns, and dogs these days and send each other off color jokes now and then.
LOL
posted on March 1, 2003 07:17:43 AM new
>he and I only talk about saxophones, guns, and dogs these days and send each other off color jokes now and then.
Tell him from me that I said that I give him two-thumbs up for the job as Secretary General of the United Nations. America would much rather have their favorite ex-President running the show there, than as a variety talk show host. OK?
posted on March 1, 2003 07:54:34 AM new
OK, we can predict where these goose-stepping bastards are going to go after next. Iran, Saudi Arabia, maybe a few others next. But my worry is trying to figure out exactly what it is that they have up their sleeves for the next Presidential election.
Let's look at their situation right now. They have as a near one-hundred percent guaranteed two years left to accomplish their mission. They obviously need much more time than just two years. Can they afford to have all of their efforts derailed by, say, the American population somehow getting wind of their plans and Americans stage a full-scale voter rebellion and send them all out of power in the next several election cycles?
The answer is NO. They MUST have the Presidency AT ALL COSTS. Now we've heard them use this term over and over again and now we all know what they mean by it. They intend to stay in power by any and all means. Strategically speaking, they MUST have the Presidency in the next election in order to stay the course. They absolutely can not allow that office to fall into the hands of another Clinton or a Jeffersonian Democrat.
They intend, at the least, to tamper with voting since our voting system. Since our voting system is largely based upon the Honor System, it is very easy to defraud. To wonder if they would stoop so low as to tamper with election results, stuff ballot boxes, and to deny opposition voters the right to vote, we all know that they did these very things during the last Presidential election to help ensure that they got their man into office. Therefore, we can expect massive voter fraud on the part of the Republican Party in this next election cycle as well.
While several states have upgraded their voting systems, none have yet to really improve absentee voter balloting and the like. There are still so many 'soft spots' in the voting system for the Republican Party to abuse that it makes you want to cry. Look at how much voters WANT the system fixed and their legislatures turned it down. The Congress has only recently begun to take some small steps to fix the process, but until they do, Americans will feel more alienated than ever from participation in our government.
But fixing the elections through voter fraud and using every tactic that they can at their enormous disposal to alienate voters from making their votes - which works in their favor. This is STILL too wide a gap to take to chance. I think that if Americans start to show just how willing that they are to vote out this Fascist government of ours, Bush will have to declare Martial Law and a full suspension of voting "until the War on Terror is over."
I think that this is likely to be a last resort for them to do this. It is still a dangerous game that they are playing an they are still having to behave with their news toys of suppression, the Office of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts I and II. You can expect to see them going into action coming up with the disappearance of opposition parties so that Americans will once again really have no choice but to vote for the Official Fascist Party aka the Republican Party or the other Fascist Party the Democrats. I say that because the Corporations are pulling their purse strings and when that is the case, it isn't you or me doing it and they are no longer under our control but under corporate control.
The Democratic Party nomination will be completely bought out and controlled, so that only by the most unusual set of circumstances will an Honest Man or Jeffersonian Woman come to power. That leaves only outright, open and armed rebellion as a means to stop the Fascists. And that is why we have the Office of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act One and now soon, Two. The purpose of this agency is to make sure that WHEN, not IF Americans rise up to sweep out their Overlords from office by force, they will already have secretly arrested anyone who even looks like they will organize such a revolt. Oh, sure - small groups will form up, but unless you have some great organizational skills to bring them all together into one force to march on Washington, you can forget it happening. And to make it happen, those methods and skills will light up the security boards at the OHS and organizers and opposition leaders will disappear into the night, never to be seen from again.
Well, it seems that they have all of the bases covered. Did I miss anything? I only want to point out that this is the LAST Presidential Election for America coming up in 2004 - if it happens at all! Never again will the American people be allowed such unadulterated political power in their own government. The Fascists can not allow such trivial things as the play toys for the people to hinder them. Therefore, let us plan on making this last Presidential election happen AND to make the most of it!
posted on March 1, 2003 08:09:08 AM new
Did I read somewhere,that a sitting President during time of war will not be removed from office?No elections, Or did I have a nightmare?
posted on March 1, 2003 08:26:03 PM new
Also in Sunday's Observer an article about the PNAC................
Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?
Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda.
Terry Jones
Sunday March 2, 2003
It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have.
Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.
But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? (www.newamericancentury.org)
As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.
PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
They don't split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might.
Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate."
So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.
Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean?
In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.
Does Tony Blair know that?
If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy.
On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he?
Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending. Please.
posted on March 4, 2003 05:12:45 PM new
Just so that we understand what sort of mentality we are seeing emerge here....and the arts and any real forms of creativity will have to be suppressed........
posted on March 4, 2003 05:22:19 PM new
It won't be long before they go to your job and lean on your employer for your political statements either. How VERY MUCH like Nazi Germany America is turning out to be!
posted on March 5, 2003 06:00:20 AM new
last night on Chris Matthews someone from the Heritage Institute or Foundation was trying to make the case that teachers should not engage in anti-war activities outside the classroom as it was modeling "bad behavior". Please note this was NOT a discussion about classroom anti-war speech. It won't be long before school administrators are pressured to control their staffs' political activities OUTSIDE the school environment.
posted on March 6, 2003 12:07:35 AM new
>It won't be long before school administrators are pressured to control their staffs' political activities OUTSIDE the school environment.
I hope that your Teacher's Union is strong. Around here, they wouldn't take any of that guff, neither would the courts. Too much like Nazi Germany.
posted on March 6, 2003 03:42:57 AM new"I will not go to the movies. I will not support their television shows, I will not buy their music. My family and I shall boycott supporting anyone in Hollywood until they decide their job is for entertainment value only," said one writer to the "Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits" online petition. [Taken from Antiquary's SAG article.]
People have a right to boycott things they don't like, including the films and music of those holding different opinions than they do. Just as those 'artists' have the right to their 'free speech'.
Worried it might effect their jobs, cause a loss of income, make their shows/music not get the income/viewership it did before? Well...join the group of 'everyday' folks who have to 'think' about the things they say that might affect their jobs/income too.
posted on March 6, 2003 03:51:10 AM new
What a line of crap. William Rivers Pitt is a fanatic. Next it will be the Alien Forces that walks among us. Besides all that, he's a supported of Scott Ritter, a vocal, self promoting, past UN inspector and very possibly a child predator.
I don't know how these people can be in so many different World Conquest Groups. Where do they get the time?
Some people have too much time on their hands.
Amen,
Conspiracies everywhere,
Reverend Colin
posted on March 6, 2003 11:07:34 AM new
If it is a public school, the administration will have to be careful about how they control the speech of teachers inside the classroom and they can do little about speech outside the classroom.
Any action must be somewhat content neutral, and specifically state that it is not consistent with effective teaching and/or disturbing good order necessary for a learning atmosphere.
If the teacher incorporates an anti-war position into a legitimate learning/teaching exercise and does it in a professional and non-disturbing way, there would be little the school could do about it.
