They found him

On 14 Dec 2003 16:29:17 -0800, (koalamom) wrote:

(Karen C - California) wrote in message ...
Good news!

Now, where's that pesky Osama?

Maybe debriefing of Sadaam will give the answer to that question ? ;-) .....

Julie


Why would you think that Saddam would know the whereabouts of Osama?

Perhaps it was the Bush administration's months of spin, implying (but
not, they now claim, directly *expressing*) that these two baddies
were somehow in cahoots on the 9/11 attacks.

In reality, the ultra-secular dictator and the ultra-religious fanatic
would be more likely to shoot one another in the back than to trade
postcards from their respective hiding places.

If we're going to question Saddam about Osama's location merely
because they're both murderous sociopaths, why not also question
Charles Manson while we're at it?

Not meaning to slam you personally, Julie--it's the government and
media spin that peeves me, not those who may have bought the spin.
Still, more critical thinking on the part of the US citizenry could
only help keep our government on the straight and narrow ...

Cheers,

Cindy Clayton
Houston, Texas, USA

I listen to Wisconsin Public Radio every day. It's on from about 5:30
am until after dishes around 6:30 pm. grin With an occasional "off"
time. The NPR feed comes through. WPR is not like other NPR stations.
It is dawn to midnight news and commentary - delicious programming -
although some of it bores me to tears (If I hear another hour on deer
infected with CWD I'll scream).

Over the past year, several professors and other learned persons have
quoted the figure at 73% to 78%. In fact, I heard it again yesterday
(or was that early this morning?) NPR newsteams have verified the
figures, but please, my brain just doesn't keep these "details" (where
it came from) stored in a file cabinet. grin Since I'm not writing a
paper, I tend to remember the facts, especially those from more than one
organization who confirm them - but not the source (in this case, the
several polling organizations who came up with the figures).

I remember well the day the numbers were released. I was washing lunch
dishes and just about had apoplexy. I was sickened and saddened. They
ran shows on this topic for weeks after that. In the last couple of
weeks, the topic has come up again and again, and those in research are
quick to point out that their research (or best guesses) indicate it
"came from" Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney in their various speeches
juxtaposing "Saddam" with "9/11" and "Bin Laden". Specifically, Bush's
"State of the Union" address wherein he talked about "Weapons of Mass
Destruction" and "Saddam's ties to Bin Laden".

These speeches were carefully crafted to MAKE this veil of connection
that didn't exist. I wish I could remember all I've heard about this,
because everytime there's another guest (or caller) who refers to this
situation, I really get miffed.

Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than
50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of
those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard
a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other
stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man
addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I
am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize
*he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people
around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid
speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind.

I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some
intelligence.
Dianne

Lucille wrote:
Dianne,
I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S.
population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures?
Lucille

"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...

The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes
Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to
destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading these
"beliefs".

Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his
greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies"
on his people, especially the Kurds.

It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart isn't
pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were
other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters get
murkier with time.

Dianne



Lucille wrote:

Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with you,

but

alas--When You're Right, You're Right.
Sadly,
Lucille

"animaux" wrote in message
...


On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI"

opined:


They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI


Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life will go

on without one


single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade Center.

Oh

well.

Cindy Clayton wrote:
Still, more critical thinking on the part of the US citizenry could
only help keep our government on the straight and narrow ...

Oh, don't even get me started on this issue. grin I've been teaching
for about 20 years. I began to notice the difference (not
socio-economic) as new kids began to take lessons and you'd ask them
"What key is this piece?" And they'd give you a blank stare. Not to
mention, the NAME of the piece was "G-Major Etude".

It has continually worsened. They don't know where to look for an
answer. They don't think. They need it spoon-fed. I've talked to a
great many teachers over the past 10 or 12 years, and one admitted the
scores for "critical thinking" were very poor in *my* area. But I saw
this, also, 15 years ago in a highly educated, upwardly mobil,
comfortable class of people.

We are tuned out, turned off, worrying about "self", and far too many
lack the ability to think critically. Whatever "sells" in a 30-second
sound byte.
Dianne

Unfortunately, most public information has to be "dumbed down" to an
elementary school level. I work in the medical field, and surgical consents,
risks/benefits/alternatives of treatment and other information must be
written and verbally discussed on a 2nd or 3rd grade level to satisfy the
court system that everything has been explained in "plain and simple
language" to the patient. I am sure it is the same in pretty much every
field of public conversation. There is too much illiteracy and un-educating
in the school system for intelligent discussion in the overall mainstream
population. Add in all the high school drop-outs, the immigrants and
illegals who cannot understand English (not being judgmental, just stating
plain fact) and those who just don't care to use and understand decent
language, and you have a lot of the reasons why Bush or any politician or
physician or professional must use basic, 2nd grade language. I'm not making
excuses for the idea content or delivery of the speech, but this is the way
things have progressed over the last 10-15 years. I don't like it either,
but having been flabbergasted at how many patients cannot understand simple
medical words (i.e., hypertension being high blood pressure), I very
reluctantly concede its necessity in the public mainstream.

Carolyn


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...
(snip)
Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than
50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of
those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard
a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other
stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man
addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I
am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize
*he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people
around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid
speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind.

I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some
intelligence.
Dianne

Lucille wrote:
Dianne,
I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S.
population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures?
Lucille

"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...

The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes
Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to
destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading these
"beliefs".

Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his
greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies"
on his people, especially the Kurds.

It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart isn't
pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were
other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters get
murkier with time.

Dianne



Lucille wrote:

Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with
you,

but

alas--When You're Right, You're Right.
Sadly,
Lucille

"animaux" wrote in message
...


On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI"

opined:


They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI


Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life will
go

on without one


single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade Center.

Oh

well.

stitcher wrote:
Perhaps it is the 73 % that he is addressing and dumbing it down for
them.
He may be a lot of things but Bush is not stupid. Or if he is he has
fantastic handlers. Someone sure knows how to spin.

You know, you can be adept and adroit at some things and still be
generally "stupid". My mother is exceptionally bright and talented, but
she is "stupid" in that she lacks a vast array of knowledge that would
allow her to talk "intelligently" about any number of concepts and subjects.

I've known a lot of MBA's in my life that had poor grammer skills both
in writing and speech, and were generally rather "narrow" in training.
You can graduate with a "D" after all, and skate through on C's and an
occasional "B". If you have enough money and clout. A liberal
education the likes of Jefferson and his cronies has been lacking for
quite some time in the U.S.

I expect a President representing the US to be able to address the
public intelligently.

But maybe, thinking this over again, you are right: He is addressing
the 73% of the country that is stupid, and he's clever enough to know
it's 73% of the country. (Now, if that doesn't get a few here in a
dander, I don't know what will).

You'd be proud of the Wisconsinite who addressed a Republican Statesman
stumping for Bush on WPR today. He pointed to Canada as an example of
being able to be involved in several global "war" missions, decent
health care for all its citizens, and a balanced budget.

Dianne

While I appreciate your post - and understand all too well and agree
*mostly* with its content, the word "hypertension" is not common
everyday language. Someone who is ill is confused, frightened - maybe
quite sick. Grasping everything at once can be darned hard. I know . .
.. I just went through this the past 15 months. And, after I heard all
the "words", I still had to do a lot of researching. And I have a
husband in the medical field to help sort out the "babble". He's
comfortable with the words. I'm lost. (Yes, I know what hypertension
is grin).

Anyway, that's not Bush's problem in speaking. He literally can't find
words, can't convey a "message". He relies on short phrases that sound
stupid. It's like he can't think. Next time, I'll write it down.

It hasn't just been the last 10 or 15 years . . . . it's been an ongoing
downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that
taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows
(for house)" and "kat". Then there was the "new" math. Then there was
the "open classrooms", then there was the "self-esteem, feel good
education", until all that's left is cursory in far too many school
systems.

Great article in yesterday's paper about the silliness of parents buying
all these "tech" toys and videos for infants to get them stimulated and
become geniuses, when all a kid needs is a cardboard box, a few rhythm
instruments (wooden spoon and metal pan are good), a doll, some blocks,
some pudding for finger paints, etc., so that a child can develop
creativity and problem solving skills!!!!
Dianne

Carolyn Wagner wrote:

Unfortunately, most public information has to be "dumbed down" to an
elementary school level. I work in the medical field, and surgical consents,
risks/benefits/alternatives of treatment and other information must be
written and verbally discussed on a 2nd or 3rd grade level to satisfy the
court system that everything has been explained in "plain and simple
language" to the patient. I am sure it is the same in pretty much every
field of public conversation. There is too much illiteracy and un-educating
in the school system for intelligent discussion in the overall mainstream
population. Add in all the high school drop-outs, the immigrants and
illegals who cannot understand English (not being judgmental, just stating
plain fact) and those who just don't care to use and understand decent
language, and you have a lot of the reasons why Bush or any politician or
physician or professional must use basic, 2nd grade language. I'm not making
excuses for the idea content or delivery of the speech, but this is the way
things have progressed over the last 10-15 years. I don't like it either,
but having been flabbergasted at how many patients cannot understand simple
medical words (i.e., hypertension being high blood pressure), I very
reluctantly concede its necessity in the public mainstream.

Carolyn


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...

(snip)
Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than
50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of
those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard
a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other
stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man
addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I
am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize
*he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people
around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid
speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind.

I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some
intelligence.
Dianne

Lucille wrote:

Dianne,
I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S.
population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures?
Lucille

"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...


The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes
Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to
destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading these
"beliefs".

Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his
greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies"
on his people, especially the Kurds.

It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart isn't
pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were
other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters get
murkier with time.

Dianne



Lucille wrote:


Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with

you,

but


alas--When You're Right, You're Right.
Sadly,
Lucille

"animaux" wrote in message
om...



On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI"

opined:



They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI


Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life will

go

on without one



single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade Center.

Oh


well.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:33:31 GMT, stitcher wrote:

He may be a lot of things but Bush is not stupid. Or if he is he has
fantastic handlers. Someone sure knows how to spin.
Ruby I
He has good handlers. Why do you think they haul him off, stop the
questions, when the spin session is over? He's not even remotely
articulate, and babbles when left to his own devices. This person is
a classic example of the dumbing down of America.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:33:52 -0600, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:

Anyway, that's not Bush's problem in speaking. He literally can't find
words, can't convey a "message". He relies on short phrases that sound
stupid. It's like he can't think. Next time, I'll write it down.
Those of you on AOL, do a keyword search on "Complaints," or
specificaly, on "What's Your Complaint." It's one of the folders in
the Classical Music message boards. One of the regulars there uses
Shrubisms for his sig lines. Shrubya is the picture of the old
frying-egg "This is your brain on drugs" PSA.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:33:52 -0600, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:

it's been an ongoing
downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that
taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows
(for house)" and "kat".
Phonics isn't new. Neither is the "see and say" methodology. If you
went to grade school in the late '50s and early '60s, you had (at
least in California) *both* phonics and "see and say." What do you
think Dick and Jane were?
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

I understand what you mean. My point was, something that is obvious to me or
you is not always obvious to someone else. You would describe needlework
techniques differently to me if I had never picked up a needle and thread
versus if I had 20+ years' experience and was a master stitcher. Same thing
in medicine, same thing in national and world events. And I agree completely
with route our school systems have taken. Can someone explain why a
kindergarten class room has to be wired for the Internet???? Just one of the
things my tax dollars goes for in my school system, and no, I didn't sign
the consent for my children to use the Internet as kindergartners or 1st or
2nd graders, for that matter. I understand the potential for students to use
computers with research, etc., but let's teach our kids to think and figure
things out on their own first. ~ As far as Bush not being able to speak "off
the cuff" intelligently, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent
person, but I sound much more coherent and intelligent if I have a few
minutes to think about what I am trying to say. Otherwise the foot will end
up in the mouth in record time! :-) Maybe that's his problem or maybe he's
trying too hard to talk in "plain and simple language." Is it a good thing
for the leader of our country? No, it isn't a great trait, but I can think
of worse things. All in all, I'd rather have Bush in office than Clinton or
Gore any day.

Carolyn
(as she runs and hides....... ;-) )

"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...
While I appreciate your post - and understand all too well and agree
*mostly* with its content, the word "hypertension" is not common
everyday language. Someone who is ill is confused, frightened - maybe
quite sick. Grasping everything at once can be darned hard. I know . .
. I just went through this the past 15 months. And, after I heard all
the "words", I still had to do a lot of researching. And I have a
husband in the medical field to help sort out the "babble". He's
comfortable with the words. I'm lost. (Yes, I know what hypertension
is grin).

Anyway, that's not Bush's problem in speaking. He literally can't find
words, can't convey a "message". He relies on short phrases that sound
stupid. It's like he can't think. Next time, I'll write it down.

It hasn't just been the last 10 or 15 years . . . . it's been an ongoing
downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that
taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows
(for house)" and "kat". Then there was the "new" math. Then there was
the "open classrooms", then there was the "self-esteem, feel good
education", until all that's left is cursory in far too many school
systems.

Great article in yesterday's paper about the silliness of parents buying
all these "tech" toys and videos for infants to get them stimulated and
become geniuses, when all a kid needs is a cardboard box, a few rhythm
instruments (wooden spoon and metal pan are good), a doll, some blocks,
some pudding for finger paints, etc., so that a child can develop
creativity and problem solving skills!!!!
Dianne

Carolyn Wagner wrote:

Unfortunately, most public information has to be "dumbed down" to an
elementary school level. I work in the medical field, and surgical
consents,
risks/benefits/alternatives of treatment and other information must be
written and verbally discussed on a 2nd or 3rd grade level to satisfy
the
court system that everything has been explained in "plain and simple
language" to the patient. I am sure it is the same in pretty much every
field of public conversation. There is too much illiteracy and
un-educating
in the school system for intelligent discussion in the overall
mainstream
population. Add in all the high school drop-outs, the immigrants and
illegals who cannot understand English (not being judgmental, just
stating
plain fact) and those who just don't care to use and understand decent
language, and you have a lot of the reasons why Bush or any politician
or
physician or professional must use basic, 2nd grade language. I'm not
making
excuses for the idea content or delivery of the speech, but this is the
way
things have progressed over the last 10-15 years. I don't like it
either,
but having been flabbergasted at how many patients cannot understand
simple
medical words (i.e., hypertension being high blood pressure), I very
reluctantly concede its necessity in the public mainstream.

Carolyn


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...

(snip)
Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than
50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of
those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard
a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other
stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man
addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I
am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize
*he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people
around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid
speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind.

I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some
intelligence.
Dianne

Lucille wrote:

Dianne,
I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S.
population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures?
Lucille

"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...


The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes
Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to
destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading
these
"beliefs".

Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his
greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies"
on his people, especially the Kurds.

It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart
isn't
pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were
other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters
get
murkier with time.

Dianne



Lucille wrote:


Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with

you,

but


alas--When You're Right, You're Right.
Sadly,
Lucille

"animaux" wrote in message
om...



On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI"


opined:



They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI


Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life
will

go

on without one



single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade
Center.

Oh


well.