brad said:

Let's get things started.

I recommend everybody read this article by Noam Chomsky, one of the best critics of American Foreign Policy. Here is an excerpt:

""This is the only country where Saddam Hussein is not only reviled and despised but also feared, so since September polls have shown that something like 60-70% of the population literally think that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to their survival. "

brian. said:

while i agree with what chomsky says, the point is…he's not saying anything new.

to be honest, i've always thought that chomsky was a bit of a windbag that too many people get behind for no good reason.

javan said:

On the article you posted,Brian… I hope it is obvious that the person is just dissing the Bush administration (This administration…) so as to win the democrats a seat.

I fear most politicians (and lawyers, for that matter) are windbags.

brian. said:

sure javan…there could be absolutely NO ONE in congress with an actual conscience…

(sarcasm definitely intended)

Javan said:

You're probably right.

(Sarcasm not intended)

Javan said:

(and if there actually are people in congress with a conscience, it isn't this guy…)

m@ said:

i think maybe you should read that article again. He's not talking party politics, he's talking common sense politics.

A country that stands alone stands in danger. Even the schoolyard bully can be overcome by a gang of nerds, should they organize their attack.

brian. said:

beaten down nerds of the world…UNITE!

Javan said:

OK, this is going to buh-yah you all. This is straight from HISTORY CLASS and is meant to determine the credibility of an article. It is called the PROP test (an acronym, stands for Primary or Secondary, Reason to distort, Other information cited, Public or Private).

Primary or Secondary (witness to the event): Primary, but this one isn't important in this instance.

Reason to distort: All kinds of them! He is trying to win the democrats a presidential seat in the next election, being the main one. His job is to bash the Republicans with pretty words, it seems. Also, he needs to draw away from the negativity that has been drawn to them from the Clinton administration.

Other sources of information cited (backup for the "facts" he stated): None at all. There is not a single source stated where we can check up on these facts. This is a bad thing on his behalf. There are no places where we can go and see if Bush did actually call a head of state a pygmy and if 5.6 trillion was actually squandered. "Squandered" should mean wasted, but the same could just mean it has been spent for good causes.

Public or Private (audience): Obviously public. This simply means that he is less likley to lie directly on his behalf (e.g. say a lie that might make him more popular) but this also dosn't have much to do with the "facts" he is juggling.

Also, this thing is loaded with connotations! All of them negative, when aimed at Republicans. If this article were (now go to English. I state this in the subjunctive mood, which is used to state something contrary to fact…) actually an article to be believed, it would use neutral words with no connotations. For example, I will restate the title without negative connotation (still like the democrats should have stated it, mind you)

BUSH ADMINISTRATION MAY CAUSE FUTURE HARM

and it could probably be stated even more neutral, but I am tired and need to study.

Matthew, I really loved your metaphor (I can imagine kindergarten nerds drawing up attack plans and then charging their prey from various angles of attack angles during recess), but I don't think we stand alone yet. And I don't consider this article common sense.

kelly said:

Javan,

Your next assignment is to "PROP" the most recent State of the Union Address. I think the idea of this PROP method of analysis is fine, but I'm afraid that viewing it as objective would be a mistake. Sure, it may help you dissect some prose, but keep in mind that whatever opinions or biases you (or anyone) bring to it maintain subjectivity.

*The message sponsored by the US government who urges you to use duct tape and saran wrap to protect yourself in the event of a nuclear attack.