Sep 19, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From FoxNews: Iran Rejects Call to End Uranium Enrichment.Iran on Sunday denounced as "illegal" demands from the U.N. atomic watchdog agency that it freeze all work on uranium enrichment -- technology that can be used for nuclear weapons. Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, also said his country would limit its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency if the watchdog refers Iran to the U.N Security Council for possible sanctions.
And what was Iran's response to the U.N.'s empty threats? CNN reports: Iran 'starts tests on uranium'.Iran says it has started converting raw uranium into gas for enrichment in defiance of demands set by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.
Sep 18, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Saturday, September 18
Global Capitalism Picnic & Lecture
featuring Dr. Andrew Bernstein
Although leftist agitators continue to protest global capitalism, they overlook the key points in the debate. In Europe, North America, and Asia, the capitalist nations are, by a wide margin, the wealthiest societies of history—with per capita incomes in the range of at least $20,000-$30,000 annually.
But capitalism is not merely the system of prosperity; fundamentally, it is the system of individual rights and freedom. The principle of individual rights upon which these countries are based protect their citizens' freedom of speech, of the press, and of intellectual expression. Their citizens have freedom of religion. Similarly, they possess economic freedom, including the right to own property—their own home or farm—to start their own businesses, and to seek profit.
By stark contrast, the pre-capitalist systems of history, and the non-capitalist systems of the present, are politically repressed and economically destitute; their citizens have few or no rights and, consequently, little or no wealth.
What are the deeper principles making possible the freedom and wealth enjoyed under capitalism—and lacking in its political antipodes? How has capitalism already greatly enhanced the lives of millions of human beings in formerly impoverished Third World countries? What can the men of the free world do to further promote the spread of capitalism into the repressed nations of the globe? These are the questions addressed in this talk.
***
A picnic and lecture presentation in Central Park featuring Dr. Andrew Bernstein who will present his lecture Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty. The picnic will be held at Mineral Springs, just northeast of the concession stand—which is at the northern end of Sheep Meadow (nearest entrance is W.67th St, Tavern on the Green). Please bring your own food and beverages.
Dr. Bernstein teaches Philosophy at Pace University, the State University of New York at Purchase and formerly at Marymount College in Tarrytown, New York-which presented him its 'Outstanding Teacher' award in 1995. He has taught at Hunter College, Long Island University, and many other New York-area colleges. He lectures frequently at philosophy conferences all over the United States; additionally in Canada, England, Belgium, Norway, Hong Kong and Bermuda. He is the author of Heart of a Pagan, as well as the forthcoming book, The Capitalist Manifesto.
When: Saturday, September 18, 2-6pm (lecture at 4pm)
Where: Central Park (Mineral Springs)
Admission: $20 per person, open to the public
RSVP: info@nyheroes.org
Rain date: Sunday, September 19Sep 18, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From The Wall Street Journal: The Media Watershed: Dan Rather and the end of the liberal monopoly.Mr. Rather and his CBS bosses are sticking to their story, despite the growing evidence on the other side, leaving unanswered the biggest question of all: Who perpetrated this apparent fraud on CBS and the American voters? As journalists who sometimes go out on a limb ourselves, we'd have thought Mr. Rather's first recourse would not be to get mad but instead to double- and triple-check his sources.
From The Washington Post: Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect."If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.'"
Yet, after a one week of non-stop criticism for pushing fake memos as real, Rather has done nothing but stonewall."This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast. "I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."
Dan Rather used faked memos to bolster a story criticizing a sitting president's military record, all during a hotly contested election and an ongoing war. How could that NOT be about Dan Rather? There may be some truth to criticisms about Bush's Guard service, but in Rather's world, what he believes to be true is more important than what is true. That's not journalism; it's editorializing. Michael Moore has made millions doing the same thing.
Perhaps Dan Rather needs a new sign off line: "I Report. You Accept It."Sep 18, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Fox News reported several weeks ago that the North Korean news agency denounced George W. Bush and called for his defeat in the November election, effectively endorsing John Kerry.
Amazingly, he's not talking about this ringing endorsement, even though he mentioned on the campaign trail months ago that he had talked to foreign leaders who said they wanted him to win. Wouldn't this prove he wasn't lying? Hasn't Kerry made making friends with the rest of the world a cornerstore of his effort to become President? Why leave out the endorsement of a prominent world leader?
Kerry was more that willing to secretly (not so secret now) meet with Le Duc Tho, a leader of the North Vietnamese communist state during the Vietnam War, did Le tell Kerry he wanted him to be President? Of course the great and objective media in the USA isn't covering any of this, even though according to some very good liars (or very stupid idiots) the media is conservative in its bias.
Just remember that when you push the button for John Kerry, you're picking the unanimous choice of the North Korean people as relayed by their free and representative government.Sep 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Gail Withrow's Home Taught:
During the past 40 years or so, there has been a raging debate in education circles over the best method to teach reading to children: whole word (also called "look-say") versus phonics.
Look-say is based on memorization of the shape of the word by focusing on the letters that make it up—not on the individual sounds of those letters. For example, the word "bat" in look-say would be taught by giving the child a picture of a bat with the letters b-a-t written beneath the picture. Then, the teacher prints the word again and hopes that the child remembers what the word "bat" looks like spelled out.
Phonics, by contrast, encourages an association between the letters and the sounds they represent. With "phonics-first" (the term coined by Rudolf Flesch in his book, Why Johnny Can't Read, 1955, Harper and Row: NY) the child is taught the sounds for b—a (short a)—t first, and then is encouraged to blend the sounds from left to right to make the word: bat. The phonics method of teaching reading makes explicit the fact that letters are symbols for sounds.
With phonics the child is taught a method of decoding written sounds, which enables her to use a mental tool for deciphering unfamiliar words. Although not all English words are strictly phonetic, a great many of them are. Once the child can read simple books, words that present exceptions to the rules of phonetics can be dealt with as they come up in context.
Also recommended:
Modern "Educators" vs. Reading by Onkar Ghate (November 20, 2003)
Sep 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Charles Johnson at LGF:
Last night's performance by Dan Rather and 60 Minutes was a pathetic vaudeville. They admitted in the first few minutes that their "Killian memos" were frauds—then, with absolute contempt for the intelligence of their viewers, spent the rest of the segment trying to convince us that it didn't matter, digging up more questionable "experts" (why didn't CBS call Adobe or IBM and interview real experts?) and shamelessly prompting an 87-year old Bush hater to say the things Dan Rather wanted her to say.
I wonder why they didn't interview the secretary before broadcasting the memos?
Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post focuses on an inescapable fact, the only important information from last night's clown show: Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect.
From FoxNews: Iran Rejects Call to End Uranium Enrichment.