Is the President attempting to indoctrinate children?

[Edwina's Secretary]

On March 16, 1960, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use their elite Special Activities Division to equip, train and lead Cuban exiles in an amphibious invasion of Cuba, to overthrow the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Eisenhower stated it was the policy of the U.S. government to aid anti-Castro guerrilla forces.The CIA was initially confident it was capable of overthrowing the Cuban government, having experience in actions such as the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. The plan (code-named Operation Pluto) was organized by Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., CIA Deputy Director for Plans, under CIA Director Allen Dulles.

The original CIA plan called for a ship-borne invasion at the old colonial city of Trinidad, Cuba, about 270 km (170mi) south-east of Havana, at the foothills of the Escambray Mountains in Sancti Spiritus province. Trinidad had good port facilities, and arguably was close to much existing counter-revolutionary activities. The CIA later proposed alternative plans, and on 11 March 1961 President Kennedy and his cabinet selected the Bay of Pigs option (also known as Operation Zapata), because it had an airfield suitable for B-26 bomber operations and it was less militarily "noisy", so potentially more plausible deniability of US direct involvement. The invasion landing area was changed to beaches bordering the Bay of Pigs in Las Villas Province, 150 km south-east of Havana, and east of the Zapata peninsula. The landings were to take place at Playa Girón (code-named Blue Beach), Playa Larga (code-named Red Beach), and Caleta Buena Inlet (code-named Green Beach).

In March 1961, the CIA helped Cuban exiles in Miami to create the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), chaired by José Miró Cardona, former (Jan 1959) Prime Minister of Cuba. Cardona became the de facto leader-in-waiting of the intended post-invasion Cuban government.

[Cataholic]

I have a near school aged child, and I do not remember 1961, 1962 nor any of the 60's for that matter.

And, I don't care if Obama himself came into my son's classroom to give a lesson. I would prolly call off work that day myself, to attend J's school!

[RICHARD]

I have a near school aged child, and I do not remember 1961, 1962 nor any of the 60's for that matter.

Well there ya go, Since you don't remember the past, you aren't doomed to repeat it.

And some inside advice?

Don't stand up while the ride is in motion and please keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times.

[Cataholic]

^^Keep your advice, I keep my own counsel. ^^

[RICHARD]

bwahahahahahahhahahhahahhahahaha.

meh.

What was the line about representing yourself and counsel?

------------------

See what happens when you do not remember the past?http://www.postchronicle.com/news/st...12255028.shtml

[blue]

On March 16, 1960, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use their elite Special Activities Division to equip, train and lead......

If you're going to cut and paste you should at least link your source.

[Edwina's Secretary]

If you're going to cut and paste you should at least link your source.

Why?

[blue]

Why?

Plagiarism is dishonest. Or did you want people to think you actualy were the original author of post 76?

[lizbud]

I urge everyone reading to look at the last few posts and tell me who
was the first to go negative with snide remarks?

[Cataholic]

^^It is the same way 99% of the time^^.

I never understood this 'thing' about posting links, sources, etc. If someone cites their 'source' to some ridiculous comment, does someone really think that beefs up the credibility of the ridiculous comment? This isn't school, no one needs to link or cite anything they post.

As for plagiarism...that comment is funny. Only claiming yourself as the author, or passing it off as your own thought, makes it plagiarism. There are probably about .002% of the population having original, first, 'virgin' thoughts. Chances are, if you thought it, so did about 500,000 other people, two weeks ago.

[pomtzu]

I urge everyone reading to look at the last few posts and tell me who
was the first to go negative with snide remarks?

So if that poster jumps out of a plane without a parachute, are you going to follow suit?

As I told my kids when they were growing up, and am telling my grandson now:
If you encounter a person or persons harassing you and trying to start trouble by what they say - just ignore them. They want a response back so they can keep it going. If you ignore them, they'll eventually get tired of a one way fight and move on to someone or something else, and leave you alone. I'm sure that many here have told their kids basically the same thing. So why can't the same be applied to what is, or is not, posted here? All that worldly advise just goes out the window, and the war of words begins.

Idiotic!

And I am not calling any person idiotic - only the childish actions of some.

[Edwina's Secretary]

^^It is the same way 99% of the time^^.

I never understood this 'thing' about posting links, sources, etc. If someone cites their 'source' to some ridiculous comment, does someone really think that beefs up the credibility of the ridiculous comment? This isn't school, no one needs to link or cite anything they post.

Gosh Jo...if something is on the internet...it must be true

You are exactly right. I am not writing a college paper or an article for a newspaper. If someone choses not to believe what I posted or that I wrote it or didn't write it ...doesn't mean a hill of beans.

I get tired of these czars who unilaterally establish rules that must be followed. If Karen tells me a rule - it is her website - she gets to make the rules. Other than that...whatever

[Miss Z]

What part of the red scare are you talking about?

The McCarthyism era, mainly. Trying to see 'evil' where there is none. The whole attitude of suspecting every new concept as disturbing and something to be avoided. The idea that those who step out of the ordinary way of things should be ratted on, and that they should withdraw their presence, or have their presence withdrawn, from everyone around them.

Maybe my comparison is extreme. It's just what I was reminded of.

[RICHARD]

The McCarthyism era, mainly. Trying to see 'evil' where there is none. The whole attitude of suspecting every new concept as disturbing and something to be avoided. The idea that those who step out of the ordinary way of things should be ratted on, and that they should withdraw their presence, or have their presence withdrawn, from everyone around them.

Maybe my comparison is extreme. It's just what I was reminded of.

"Mc Carthyism" was a witch hunt.

The "Red Scare" of Communism in places across the planet was a real threat to the countries that were subjected to invasion, coups and Communist influence on the govenerments.

The Mac Red Scare was just a pbunch of paranoid men, with good cause, to try and keep the idea of Communism from infesting our country.

Was it right? Nope. but it's the same freak out mode that most people have had against all polticians and their ideals.


----------------------

HCR is a known evil, we see it, feel it and pay for it. IT's not a cloud of smoke we cannot put our hands around and disappears after a few seconds, like the threat of Communism IN our country at that time was.


The boob in the WH wants to slap a coat of white wash over the shiat he'll use to patch the cracks in the system. It will work until the walls get washed or humid weather shows up. Then you get the experience of having sub-standard work done on your home.

Going back to the M era? That was the start of a more 'refined' view of who the Commies were and why we did need to be scared.

I think you also had a bit of the McCarthy song and dance in your country's history? I guess you can compare it to the Religion vs. Science debates the GB of yore sponsored?

Not too many winners in those days.

(P.S. Check out the Salem witch hunts.)

---------------------------------

I worked a few years in the HC industry and way to 'fix' the system is to reform the insurance/tort/malpractice industries.

Leave the actual 'service providers' alone until you fix the boat underneath them.

For the media and elected officials to portray the people who are against the prez' reform as radicals and working against any changes is a patently stupid and dishonest bunch of horse crap.

We want the reform also, but we want a more well thought out attempt at it.
Not some half hearted and ill formed patch work fix.

I venture to say we, as all good Americans are apt to do, don't care about Canadian or Brit HC, we want our own and we want it to be affordable.


Lastly, one of the members of the Dem Party doesn't want to take on the lawyers, who make money hand over fist taking cases where they want to suck millions out of the hospitals, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, medical supply companies and finally the doctors.

IT's amazing how intelligent the people who are behind the prez and his ideas for reform. It's also amazing that the basics of the HC industry can be overlooked. The reformers only see the surface of the pond.

Any trash, muck or potential 'health hazards' stay underwater away from any prying eyes. If you want to know what's underwater you have to roll up your pant legs and go a wading.

Obama is trying to impress upon people that he and they can walk across the pond and not have to worry about any of the crap under their feet.

[Grace]

Getting back to the President's address to school kids. I just read this -

The Florida Republican party chairman who last week accused the president of trying to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda” now says he’ll let his children watch what he calls a “good speech,” one the president “should give.”

“It’s a good speech,” Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer said Monday. “It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education and I think that’s what a president should do when they’re gonna talk to students across the country.”

In a telephone interview as he headed to Tallahassee for a round of TV interviews ahead of tonight’s FSU-Miami football game, Greer said the White House made “changes” to teacher prep materials – and the speech itself – as a result of the political pressure he applied.

“The speech that’s out today is one that he should give, and I’m pleased to see that the White House has made changes to what was gonna happen.”

and this -

Former first lady Laura Bush is defending President Obama's decision to address the nation's school children, telling CNN Monday that it is "really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States."

"I think that there is a place for the President of the United States to talk to school children and encourage school children, and I think there are a lot of people that should do the same," she told CNN's Zain Verjee, in an interview set to air Monday on The Situation Room. "And that is encourage their own children to stay in school and to study hard and to try to achieve the dream that they have."

The former first lady said she believed criticism of the speech had arisen because of the accompanying lesson plans. If parents are opposed to the address, said Bush, "That's their right. You know that certainly is the right of parents to choose what they want their children to hear in school… (But) I think it's also really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States."