After reading all these letters, pushing and pulling about whether the surge was working, and particularly the discussions about the reasons for going into Iraq (and the lies surrounding the public reasons), I thought you might all be interested to know what your children are soon going to be learning.

In a 4th-grade textbook to be pubished in the next couple of years, you'll find the following answers in the teacher's edition: 1) "What event began the war on terrorism? (The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.)" 2) "Why were American troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan? (The leaders of these countries are believed to help terrorists.)"

And so the whitewashing and hiding of motives, lies, secrecy, and scandal has begun its work on the next generation. Millions of children are going to be taught that second answer, and make the link between the two events. Millions of people who will grow up to vote, only a few of whom will have parents who know enough or care enough to question what's taught in schools.

I've worked as a freelance copy editor in the children's textbook field for several years. Having no input in the editorial content, I spend my days simmering as I read overly balanced accounts (read: skewed to favor the winners of either side) of the wars and social conflicts that comprise American history.

Only once have I been able to question what was being taught -- in that case a high school social studies book that gave a glowing bio of Henry Kissinger, when I could point out that his official bio now includes being unable to travel to Europe or most of South America due to being wanted for questioning on war crimes. But I doubt anyone made the change.

Following strict state guidelines set down by politicians, the textbooks balance themselves between making all past decisions seem either right (attacking Iraq), or brought to justice (e.g., Nixon) and corrected. In your children's history, all problems are dealt with justly and leaders eventually see the errors of their ways. Wars are about battles won and battles lost, which always makes chapters on Vietnam a delicate dance in avoidance of discussing military strategy. In the world of textbooks, there is not history where there is no clear victory.

The kids' only hope in escaping regular brainwashing is that all textbooks are now so crashingly boring (due to the aforementioned state standard and regular testing requirements) that I doubt they'll absorb very much at all. Which, of course, only exacerbates the problem of having an uninformed citizenry in the first place.

I'd be happy to let the Democrats be recognized as the centrist party they are and split into the Scoop Jackson (Sen Boeing)/Joe Lieberman fringe wing on the right, and see those with a healthy mistrust of the MIC dominate the party. Let the Greens and the ALP represent the true left and right. That'll work.

I'm convinced that shooter has a persecution complex. It's not enough for him to simply support Bush/Cheney, etc. He has a strong need to be persecuted and victimized for his support, preferably on a daily basis. What other reason would he have for coming here and making a complete ass of himself? Shooter isn't happy unless he's vilified by liberals for his beliefs. Pretty sick, if you ask me.

In a 4th-grade textbook to be pubished in the next couple of years, you'll find the following answers in the teacher's edition: 1) "What event began the war on terrorism? (The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.)" 2) "Why were American troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan? (The leaders of these countries are believed to help terrorists.)"

Do you recall the publisher and do you have any idea where, it will be marketed, such as Texas or California?

If we have that problem in HS level texts I would really be concerned but I am sufficiently concerned as it is.

In the New Presidency, part of the job description will be to make unilateral judgments about national security, dispatch American forces essentially at will and demand and receive funds for those committments. It is at least theoretically possible that this is what Americans could be persuaded is the best course of action for the country, however, taking such a course without a full and open debate would mean that the Constitution is no longer what defines the American experiment.

-- Diana Powe

It seems Ms Powe isn't aware that she's describing policy for the last half century. Every military action since WW2 has been commenced without Congressional approval, except those pursued by the Bush Presidents, I believe. That includes the Korean war, Vietnam War, Clinton's bombing of Bosnia and Iraq, etc. Meanwhile, for all the posturing about what the American people believe, Congress will not attempt a clearcut attempt to cut off funding. Why? Because they know it will fail.

All in all, it was a well written post, but completely irrelevant.

>>Do you recall the publisher and do you have any idea where, it will be marketed, such as Texas or California?<<

I know the publisher--it's a textbook I'm working on right now--although they're frankly pretty much the same as far as that kind of content goes. Email me off-board (nmalchik@hotmail.com) if you really need to know.

I don't have the state standards yet, so am not sure of the state. Texas or California or both is a good bet, as most textbooks write to those two markets (due to how states purchase books).

Don't be too sanguine about high school books. I'm working on one of those, too, which is where the Kissinger bio showed up, and I'm just waiting for the terrorism chapter. The section on the Iran-Contra affair was predictably awful. And I honestly think the boredom factor is almost as important as misinformation.

There is substantial evidence that this is explicitly what his supporters wish to institutionalize. A fundamental premise for their movement is that the world contains "threats" that the American public will not or cannot understand and that a powerful President must therefore be free to to address those threats unchecked by anything other than the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

I was thinking more in terms of the 25th Amendment.

Cheers,

Forgive the long cut-n-paste, please. I got this in a recent mail and do not know what it is excerpted from. It is pertinent to the "small powerful group" topic, isn't it?

Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS

By David Swanson

Thursday 12 April 2007

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting

the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq war to

the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the

charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the

most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9:00 to

10:30 PM on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes will

actually save you time because you'll never watch television news

again - not even on PBS, which comes in for its own share of criticism.

While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look

remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in

"Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding

them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they

facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals

about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media

personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what

the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been

wrong or avoidable.