[Grovenet] "over the top"
krystof_zmudzinski at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 29 12:50:19 PDT 2005
Maybe the recruting problem is caused by this:
(From Jewish World Review June 29, 2005
The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a
generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a
time of war, when young Americans should be educated
about this nation's resilience and steely resolve,
educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-
sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution"
and "promoting constructive dialogues."
Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in
emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of
The latest example of Hand-Holding 101 comes from the
New York City public schools. According to Lauren
Collins of The New Yorker magazine, the school system
is introducing a new curriculum called "Operation
Respect: Don't Laugh at Me" into all of its
elementary and middle schools. The program is now
used in at least 12,000 schools and camps across the
Ostensibly, the program helps kids deal with petty
meanness and name-calling from insensitive
classmates. Not by instructing them in self-defense,
mind you, but by inflating their self-esteem. The
organization's stated mission is "to transform
schools, camps and organizations focused on children
and youth, into more compassionate, safe and
respectful environments." Instead of "put downs,"
teachers encourage "put ups." The Operation Respect
website depicts well-adjusted children holding up
signs with ego-affirming messages: "Ridicule Free
Zone," "No Dissing Here," "U Matter," and "Peace
--- Krystof Zmudzinski <krystof_zmudzinski at yahoo.com>
> Ron, I wonder if there were any recruiting
> during Clinton's wars and how they were covered by
> the press. I also think that if high schools
> recruiters to enter campuses freely the way they
> allow planned parenthood, pflag and others, there
> would not be a problem.
> --- Ron D'Eau Claire <ron at cobi.biz> wrote:
> > David, you have no argument from me, except this:
> > <G> When I speak of
> > majority rule, I speak of decision-making based on
> > democratic process.
> > America is not a "direct democracy". Many of our
> > votes are indirect, such as
> > voting for President. Still, the outcome is
> > by the ballot.
> > I also hope that we discover some day that our
> > beliefs are correct: that the
> > President lied to Congress. But unless it happens,
> > it's only a wish.
> > We had our opportunity for change last November
> > it wasn't good enough.
> > Maybe that was because of corruption in the polls,
> > or not. We can suspect,
> > we can believe, but we don't know.
> > I look to the next election and beyond. Will we
> > repeat the experience of
> > last year once again? Is there a President Cheney
> > a President Jeb Bush in
> > our future?
> > Will we have the military we need to stay safe and
> > secure in the years after
> > President Bush? We see our military sagging under
> > the weight of the Iraq war
> > and all the other commitments around the world.
> > Iraq war may be wrong,
> > wrong, wrong, but it's a fact and it's diminishing
> > our military strength as
> > evidenced by the need for compulsory extensions of
> > service, recalls of
> > veterans and slow enlistments. Other voices here
> > Grovenet have stated the
> > conflict in their hearts very clearly: they do not
> > want to risk their loved
> > ones in this President's war. Yet, I believe that
> > need a strong military
> > to survive.
> > That concerns me greatly.
> > I think the war has shifted the focus of the
> > terrorists from America to
> > Iraq. After all, Iraq is a Muslim state that was
> > invaded by infidels. So the
> > terrorists, insurgents, whatever we want to call
> > them, focus their energy
> > and their hatred on our people there instead of
> > American cities here.
> > Last night the President claimed that success is
> > destroying the
> > terrorists in Iraq so they are powerless
> > That doesn't sound like
> > a very credible goal to me. I think that the
> > terrorists will follow our
> > troops back to the USA.
> > That concerns me greatly too.
> > Ron D'Eau Claire
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Morelli [mailto:jo.david at verizon.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:38 AM
> > To: ron at cobi.biz; Forest Grove local interests
> > Subject: Re: [Grovenet] "over the top"
> > On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Ron D'Eau
> > Claire wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I don't pretend to know. What I am sure of is
> > this. If we support our
> > > troops, we won't limit that support to wishing
> > this war would go away.
> > >
> > > They deserve more than that.
> > >
> > > Ron D'Eau Claire
> > Ron,
> > There are many ways to support the American
> > who are on the
> > front lines in our military. We can be aware of
> > their diligence and
> > devotion to duty. We can honor their commitment
> > preserving our
> > freedom. We can provide them with the means to
> > conduct our foreign
> > policy. We can support their families back home.
> > As we approach the
> > Fourth of July celebration, I am certain that we
> > will have many
> > opportunities to recognize their sacrifices.
> > One way of supporting troops, I believe, is to
> > wasting their
> > courage and valor, by limiting the opportunities
> > them to die for
> > us, to the minimum necessary for our national
> > safety.
> > -----------------
> > You have spoken frequently about how, when the
> > majority speaks, it
> > speaks for all of us. You have made reference to
> > "majority rule" as
> > the principle of our democracy. I invite you to
> > reconsider. If we had
> > majority rule, we would not have a court system
> > is based upon rule
> > of written law and common law, instead we would
> > a legal system
> > where a simple majority of a jury could ignore any
> > existing law or
> > deliver a capital verdict. If we had majority
> > the President
> > would be elected directly by the populace. The
> > upper house of Congress
> > is not apportioned to serve the majority, yet they
> > have the advise and
> > consent powers. We are not a country based upon
> > "majority rule", as
> > much as we are a country where the minority is
> > considered in the
> > decision. Or at least, we have been that way for
> > most of my lifetime.
> > Lately we have an administration that thinks as
> > speak, that the
> > majority "rules". I prefer our prior approach,
> > where political
> > decisions are made through a vote (majority, 2/3,
> > consensus, ...), and
> > the governing was done with the consent of the
> > governed. Emphasis on
> > "consent" rather than "ruled".
> > You are correct that George Bush is our President.
> > That does not make
> > him infallible. One of the principles ascribed to
> > free market is
> > efficiency in meeting people's wants. It supposes
> > that when people
> > actually pay for what they purchase with the fruit
> > of their own labor,
> > they spend more wisely and avoid waste. The
> > suggestion that the
> > supporters of offensive wars provide the troops to
> > fight the war can be
> > viewed in the same vein. When those who ask for
> > are the ones who
> > make the sacrifices to prosecute the war, they
=== message truncated ===
If there must be trouble let it be in my day,
that my child may have peace. --Thomas Paine
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
More information about the GroveNet