SwiftVets.com

[d19thdoc]

The truly remarkable thing about the "Lesson Plan" is that it does not mention - at all - Kerry's anti-war activities.

Talk about fake history!
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"

[Mother]

What'll ya have, fellas?

http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Posted at 2:00 PM, Dallas
Read the front page account of the battle for Fallujah in this morning's New York Times. It is a vivid, inspiring, grief-inducing account of the heroism of the past few days. These are extraordinary men, and the reporting by Dexter Filkins ought to be read on every high school and college campus tomorrow by teachers who want to truly convey to their students what sacrifice, honor and leadership entail. Reading the story below it, on the NBA thuggery, makes me realize that I don't care if I ever see another NBA game again. The cost of the tickets would be much better donated to www.soldiersangels.com, which is embarked on sending these men and their colleagues throughout the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard some Christmas cheer.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/international/middleeast/21battle.html?hp&ex=1101099600&en=bc339766506f30ca&ei=5094&partner=homepage
In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War
By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: November 21, 2004


ALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 18 - Eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot, a pair of marines wound their way up the darkened innards of a minaret, shot through with holes by an American tank.

As the marines inched upward, a burst of gunfire rang down, fired by an insurgent hiding in the top of the tower. The bullets hit the first marine in the face, his blood spattering the marine behind him. The marine in the rear tumbled backward down the stairwell, while Lance Cpl. William Miller, age 22, lay in silence halfway up, mortally wounded.

"Miller!" the marines called from below. "Miller!"

With that, the marines' near mystical commandment against leaving a comrade behind seized the group. One after another, the young marines dashed into the minaret, into darkness and into gunfire, and wound their way up the stairs.

After four attempts, Corporal Miller's lifeless body emerged from the tower, his comrades choking and covered with dust. With more insurgents closing in, the marines ran through volleys of machine-gun fire back to their base.

"I was trying to be careful, but I was trying to get him out, you know what I'm saying?" Lance Cpl. Michael Gogin, 19, said afterward.

So went eight days of combat for this Iraqi city, the most sustained period of street-to-street fighting that Americans have encountered since the Vietnam War. The proximity gave the fighting a hellish intensity, with soldiers often close enough to look their enemies in the eyes.

For a correspondent who has covered a half dozen armed conflicts, including the war in Iraq since its start in March 2003, the fighting seen while traveling with a frontline unit in Falluja was a qualitatively different experience, a leap into a different kind of battle.

From the first rockets vaulting out of the city as the marines moved in, the noise and feel of the battle seemed altogether extraordinary; at other times, hardly real at all. The intimacy of combat, this plunge into urban warfare, was new to this generation of American soldiers, but it is a kind of fighting they will probably see again: a grinding struggle to root out guerrillas entrenched in a city, on streets marked in a language few American soldiers could comprehend.

The price for the Americans so far: 51 dead and 425 wounded, a number that may yet increase but that already exceeds the toll from any battle in the Iraq war.

Marines in Harm's Way

The 150 marines with whom I traveled, Bravo Company of the First Battalion, Eighth Marines, had it as tough as any unit in the fight. They moved through the city almost entirely on foot, into the heart of the resistance, rarely protected by tanks or troop carriers, working their way through Falluja's narrow streets with 75-pound packs on their backs.

In eight days of fighting, Bravo Company took 36 casualties, including 6 dead, meaning that the unit's men had about a one-in-four chance of being wounded or killed in little more than a week.

The sounds, sights and feel of the battle were as old as war itself, and as new as the Pentagon's latest weapons systems. The eerie pop from the cannon of the AC-130 gunship, prowling above the city at night, firing at guerrillas who were often only steps away from Americans on the ground. The weird buzz of the Dragon Eye pilotless airplane, hovering over the battlefield as its video cameras beamed real-time images back to the base.

The glow of the insurgents' flares, throwing daylight over a landscape to help them spot their targets: us.

The nervous shove of a marine scrambling for space along a brick wall as tracer rounds ricocheted above.

The silence between the ping of the shell leaving its mortar tube and the explosion when it strikes.

The screams of the marines when one of their comrades, Cpl. Jake Knospler, lost part of his jaw to a hand grenade.

"No, no, no!" the marines shouted as they dragged Corporal Knospler from the darkened house where the bomb went off. It was 2 a.m., the sky dark without a moon. "No, no, no!"

Nothing in the combat I saw even remotely resembled the scenes regularly flashed across movie screens; even so, they often seemed no more real.

____________________________________________________________

If not me, who?
If not now, when?

[Mother]

www.michaelmoore.com

November 20th, 2004 3:21 am
Wisconsin -- Police arrest 4 sit-in protesters


By James Davison / The Badger Herald

Four University of Wisconsin students were arrested and charged with unlawful trespassing Thursday following a sit-in protest at the U.S. Army Military Recruitment Station in University Square.

The anti-war protest, which drew between 35 and 50 protesters outside the office, sought to bring attention to current recruitment practices and how they “focus on people who have little access to opportunities,” according to UW sophomore and protest participant Joel Feingold.

Associated Students of Madison Academic Affairs Chair Ashok Kumar, one of the four arrested, said he and the other protesters walked in and demanded the office be turned into a financial aid office, symbolizing students who have to join the army to pay for college.

“We said we don’t believe people would have to kill themselves to get an education, [which] is a born right,” Kumar said, adding about 45 minutes passed before the police arrived and arrested them.

The protesters were passive and did not struggle when officers placed them under arrest, according to a Madison Police release.

“We were handcuffed and taken out, but weren’t mistreated by the cops,” Kumar said.

Ald. Austin King, District 8, said he applauds the students for their protest, particularly because they did it nonviolently.

“Nonviolent civil disobedience is definitely one of the most important tools that popular movements have used — it’s a great thing they did it nonviolently,” King said. “I don’t think anyone’s going to pretend that this action will end this ridiculous war.”

King added the symbolic request made by the four students was a valid one.

“For a lot of kids … the only way to pay for college is to put their body on the line,” he said.

The crowd outside the office, mostly comprised of UW students, chanted and sang songs, according to Kumar.

Kumar added he and the other sit-in protesters went in with the expectation of being arrested.

“That was the whole point. We wanted to get in there and … wait it out until we got arrested,” he said. “[We wanted] to make a point we will do whatever it takes to get out of this war or shut down [the recruitment station].”

Each student arrested received a citation of approximately $300, Feingold said.

“[They] were the people who were willing to risk exposing themselves to the law,” he said. “It was a real act of courage on their part.”

[Guest]

[Mother]

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/letters/letter-columbiaeditoriallettertoleebollinger111604.htm
Letter from the National Campus Director
November 16, 2004
Columbia Students Take a Stand for Academic Freedom

Confirmation that the academic freedom movement has truly taken hold was witnessed this past week at Columbia University, where the mainstream student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, published a staff editorial heralding the need for greater intellectual diversity on campus, and citing the lack of conservative professors in the humanities as a particular challenge on that campus.

“In all other areas of campus life, students do not hesitate to call for diversity,” stated the editorial. “There is no reason why these same arguments should not apply to conservative professors in the humanities.”

The Spectator cited many benefits that would result from a broader range of intellectual discourse:

“Right-wing students would be heartened that evangelicals are not the only proponents of conservative beliefs, and left-wing students would be forced to develop their arguments further and not rely on consensus as an intellectual crutch. Promoting faculty diversity is one of Columbia’s greatest challenges, and finding a proper balance will be difficult. But it should be self-evident that a faculty that speaks with unanimity on some of the most divisive issues of the day is not fulfilling its duty. Students across the ideological spectrum must demand that Columbia address this need.”

The full editorial can be read on our website here.

The Spectator’s statement in favor of academic freedom comes at a key juncture for the University. In the last few weeks, allegations have surfaced that Jewish students on campus have been subjected to threats and intimidation by pro-Palestinian professors in Columbia’s Middle East studies department.

Student Ariel Beery quoted Professor Joseph Massad as telling students, “The Palestinian is the new Jew and the Jew is the new Nazi,” and Columbia alumna Lindsay Shrier revealed that she was told by Professor George Saliba that “You have no claim to the land of Israel. You have no voice in this debate. You have green eyes. You’re not a Semite. I have brown eyes. I am a Semite.”

Columbia President Lee Bollinger has spoken out against these abuses, and last spring organized an academic freedom committee on campus to explore the issues surrounding partisan speech on campus, stating that, “Should there be instances when people feel…repeatedly intimidated for political reasons…we should make it known that you can go speak to a dean or an advisor.”
Taking Bollinger at his word, Students for Academic Freedom has written to Columbia’s President to ask him to adopt the Academic Bill of Rights to ensure that all students at the University, regardless of their political and religious views, are treated with dignity and respect on campus.

“Given the scope of the allegations that have surfaced and this outcry from a mainstream student publication, we urge you to adopt an explicit policy statement on intellectual diversity and academic freedom reminding faculty and students alike that intellectual diversity is a primary educational value and the university is not to be used as a partisan political platform,” stated the letter. “The Academic Bill of Rights, written by David Horowitz, our Chairman and your alumnus, succinctly captures the essence of the doctrine of academic freedom and we submit it here for your consideration.”

The letter also refuted Columbia Provost Alan Brinkley’s statement in an article last winter opposing the Academic Bill of Rights on the grounds that it would force a “particular teaching style” on faculty and could be enforced only by legislation and governmental interference.

“We recognize that as a private university, Columbia has only the burden of its own principles to compel its acceptance of a policy on academic freedom,” the letter explained. “We hope you will live up to the high standard you have set for yourself by adopting the Academic Bill of Rights.”

The staff at the Columbia Spectator has set the standard, not only for Columbia but for the rest of the Ivy League, and we are hopeful that President Bollinger will take this opportunity to follow through on his convictions and confirm Columbia’s reputation as one of this nation’s leading academic institutions by adopting the Academic Bill of Rights.

To join the Academic Freedom Movement or for more information on organizing a campus chapter, please contact me in our Washington, DC office at 202-393-0123 or at Sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

Yours in Freedom,

Sara Dogan
National Campus Director
Students for Academic Freedom

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16080
Open Letter to President Corrigan
By Derek Wray
GatorGOP.com | November 23, 2004

President Corrigan,

I believe that I speak on behalf of the majority of the members of the College Republicans at San Francisco State University when I express my outrage and condemnation regarding your open letter titled "Free speech is not free rein".

While you may harbor the best of intentions, your account bares little resemblance to the realities of November 1st and 3rd. You openly disagree with the description of the 150-200 students who were verbally and physically threatening us as a mob. If a large group of individuals, uniting to intimidate, harrass, and harm a smaller group of individuals doesn't constitute a mob, I would like to know what does?

The members of our club who were present during these two incidents also take offense to your insinuation that both sides in the dispute were equally culpable. Eyewitness accounts from unbiased observers refute these claims, as does conventional wisdom. Being as how we were standing behind a table, is it not clear that those who made the choice to approach the table while screaming offensive language are at fault for what ensued?

To hold the members of our club equally responsible is akin to jailing the rape victim. On behalf of the San Francisco State University branch of the California College Republicans, we urge you to issue a press release retracting the statements made in your November 12th address, "Free speech is not free rein".

The members of our club would also like to see that those who attempted to deprive us of our freedom of speech by means of intimidation, slander, and vile race-baiting be disciplined. Last, and perhaps most importantly, we want to know what steps are being taken to prevent such occurrences in the future. An academic institution is supposed to be a "marketplace of ideas", where civil discourse serves to improve the education of all students. No one benefits from attending a university where dissent is squashed and students are terrified of expressing their opinions.

Sincerely,

Derek Wray
President- College Republicans at San Francisco State University

[Mother]

Are 13 year old students old enough to have enough resources to be able to form an opinion such as this?

Do you suppose they know that Delaware is spelled incorrectly by one letter?

Aren't 13 year old supposed to be wreading and rwriting and doing rythmatick? Hope this child isn't left behind.

www.michaelmoore.com
November 23rd, 2004 8:26 pm
Student's Shirt Spurs Review of Rules

By Michele Besso / The News Journal

DELEWARE -- A school's decision to order a student to cover a political statement on a T-shirt has led the Appoquinimink School District to plan a review of its policies to ensure free speech rights are balanced against the educational mission of the district.

Freedom of speech issues will be addressed at the district level on a case-by-case basis while the guidelines are reviewed, officials said Monday.

Once the review is complete, a guide will be developed, and administrators will get training to ensure consistency and legal compliance.

Steven Truszkowski, a student at Everett Meredith Middle School in Middletown, wore a white, short-sleeve T-shirt to school Friday with the words "The Real Terrorist Is In The White House" written in black on the front and "End The Tyranny" written on the back.

School officials told him the shirt was inappropriate, and if he didn't cover it up, he would be suspended.

Truszkowski, 13, covered it up as he had two other times he had worn it to school, but this time he confronted the principal about the school dress code.

The teen felt the school infringed on his First Amendment right to free speech. He said he felt his rights were violated because he wore a shirt expressing his views against the war in Iraq.

After hearing Monday of the district's decision to review its policies, Truszkowski said, "I think it's nice that they are going to review their policies, but I just want to make sure that every student has their freedom of speech, and they can't stop us from expressing it."

He added that he'll probably wear the T-shirt again, "but I'm not going to wear it a bunch of times to rub it in their faces."

Drewry Fennell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware, said she's glad to hear that the district plans to create a policy that will address free speech.

"I think it has long been the law that students do not leave their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door," Fennell said. "Where people are upset about speech, it's because speech is controversial, but controversial topics are what we need to discuss in schools.

"I hope that their policy review results in robust protection and that they train administrators to deal appropriately with issues of free speech."

According to the school dress code, student apparel that is distracting or "contains derogatory phrases, profanity or glorifies violence" is not permitted to be worn. While the dress code does not specifically address clothing with a political message, the shirt is clearly inappropriate, district spokeswoman Lillian Miles said. She said several students have complained about the shirt.

Truszkowski's mother, Karen Piser, said she supports her son.

"I think the district has come to the realization that students do have the right to express their opinions, political or otherwise," she said. "It might have been better if it happened sooner."

[Mother]

Posting these threads to keep these discussions connected.
http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=138921#138921
http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17611

[Mother]

Chuck Muth's News and Views November 30, 2004
www.chuckmuth.com

YER GUMMINT SKOOLS INAXION

“Steven Williams is a fifth grade teacher at Stevens Creek. He has
filed a lawsuit against Stevens Creek principal Patricia Vidmar and other
school officials claiming discrimination. Williams claims that he has
been forbidden to use the Declaration of Independence in his classroom
instruction. And why? Because it contains references to God and to
Christianity, that's why...

“Need I say that this is a government school we're dealing with here?
Is this story going to be enough to convince some of you out there to at
least give some thought to sending your child somewhere other than to
the government for an education? You know in your hearts that government
doesn't do anything real well, few things well and most things
horribly. Why, then, do you continue to entrust the most precious things in
your life to government? Maybe I just heard a few heads being pulled out
of the sand.”

- Talk show host Neal Boortz, 11/29/04

[MSeeger]

If the student in question is allowed to wear a t-shirt insulting President Bush, then other students should be allowed to wear t-shirts in support of President Bush and the war on Iraq.

I'll bet anything that Mama put him up to it, and that Mama is a flaming liberal. Dress codes are nothing new in Texas; and in fact, most school districts in my neck of the wood have a uniform code, where kids can only wear a solid color t-shirt and pants/shorts/skirts.

This was done primarily to prevent gang symbols from being displayed, I think.

That school district should consider enforcing a uniform code instead. It's better all the way around, considering what some kids are wearing these days.

Maria
_________________
Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7

[tony54]

I posted this on another forum:

I think boards of education (teachers) and teachers unions, federal and state employees should start practicing what they preach;
Separation of Church and State! No mentioning the word God even if it's written in the Declaration of Independence.
Well if that’s their true belief then they should:
a: Stop celebrating Christmas altogether, no more 2 week holiday.
b: Stop celebrating Easter too, no more 1 week holiday.
c: Columbus day, Good Friday, even Thanksgiving started out as a Christian Holiday.
d: And even New Years day, 2004 AD, What do they think AD stand for? After Descention of whom? Jesus?

The whole planet bases their days and date on a continuation and anniversary of Jesus rising from death and ascending into Heaven.
Are they going to stop using universally accepted date and year as we have been doing for 2004 years?
That's part of all churches preachings.

[scotty61]

I think the thirteen year old has a point to a degree. They should be allowed political expression, but he needs a lesson that it should be done in good taste. I wonder what he or Mama would say about another kid with a picture of an aborted fetus on a shirt or a kid with a shirt showing a Marine standing on a pile of bodies and saying "Kill 'em all! Let God sort them out!". I bet they would want them expelled and sent to sensitivity training. The kid and Mama need to learn that there is a difference between political speach and offensive political speech. School is great place to teach this lesson.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times.

[Mother]

: )

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/28/academic.freedom.ap/index.html
Latest fight pits teachers against pupils
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Posted: 2:06 PM EST (1906 GMT)

(AP) -- At the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs.
In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicizes student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty get hate mail and are pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college says a teacher received a death threat.
And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel draws the attention of administrators.
The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.
Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.
In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts -- but turns them around. Once, it was liberal campus activists who cited the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for a greater openness to their viewpoints.
Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as American neutrality before World War II and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq.
To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.
"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

'It puts a chill in the air'
Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs -- an essential part of education.
Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.
"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."
Conservatives say a chill is in order.

A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it's as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University.
Many teachers insist personal politics don't affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter.
Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade.
Leading the movement is the group Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a one-time liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its Web site about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors -- often in classes, such as literature, in which it's off-topic.
Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story."
Conservatives claim they are discouraged from expressing their views in class, and are even blackballed from graduate school slots and jobs.
"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.
"A lot of students feel like they're being discriminated against," he said.

Divergent opinions
So far, his and other efforts are having mixed results. At UNC, the students lost their legal case, but the university no longer uses the word "required" in describing the reading program for incoming students (the plaintiffs' main objection).
In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles.
At Ball State, the school's provost sided with Professor George Wolfe after a student published complaints about Wolfe's peace studies course, but the episode has attracted local attention. Horowitz and backers of the academic bill of rights plan to introduce it in the Indiana legislature -- as well as in up to 20 other states.
At Columbia, anguished debate followed the screening of a film by an advocacy group called The David Project that alleges some faculty violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda (one Israeli student claims a professor taunted him by asking, "How many Palestinians did you kill?"). Administrators responded this month by setting up a new committee to investigate students complaints.
In the wider debate, both sides cite the guidelines on academic freedom first set out in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors.
The objecting students emphasize the portion calling on teachers to "set forth justly ... the divergent opinions of other investigators." But many teachers note the guidelines also say instructors need not "hide (their) own opinions under a mountain of equivocal verbiage," and that their job is teaching students "to think for themselves."
Horowitz believes the AAUP, which opposes his bill of rights, and liberals in general are now the establishment and have abandoned their commitment to real diversity and student rights.
But critics say Horowitz is pushing a political agenda, not an academic one.
"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.' "
Horowitz's critics also insist his campaign is getting more attention than it deserves, riling conservative bloggers but attracting little alarm from most students. They insist even most liberal professors give fair grades to conservative students who work hard and support their arguments.
Often, the facts of particular cases are disputed. At Ball State, senior Brett Mock published a detailed account accusing Wolfe of anti-Americanism in a peace studies class and of refusing to tolerate the view that the U.S. invasion of Iraq might have been justified. In a telephone interview, Wolfe vigorously disputed Mock's allegations. He provided copies of a letter of support from other students in the class, and from the provost saying she had found nothing wrong with the course.
Horowitz, who has also criticized Ball State's program, had little sympathy when asked if Wolfe deserved to get hate e-mails from strangers.
"These people are such sissies," he said. "I get hate mail every single day. What can I do about it? It's called the Internet."