# NEA on Sept. 11 - don't go blaming anybody, but criticizing U.S. or yourself is OK **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 19, 2002, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614 "2002-08-19T17:02:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/41 "2002-08-21T13:16:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\ ***Princhester** – The statement is outrageous because it so blatantly misapplies a correct principle. The facts _are_ in about Osama bin Laden’s leadership and al Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks. There’s all sorts of evidence, including OBL boasting about it on video tape. \*\* So that would be why Milossarian says “before all the facts are in” then would it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/42 "2002-08-21T14:17:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Hey RT - > > I believe I noted in my OP that I agreed with much of what the list had to say. I’ve repeated that two or three times. Therefore, it puzzles me why you are trotting out the things on the list that aren’t unreasonable to make the people critical of the things on the list that are seem unreasonable. Let’s look at your OP, **Milo** : You lead off by quoting one of the Moonie paper’s more egregious misrepresentations, and respond: > [@](#): > > OK, I think this is a ridiculous position, but I can live with it. We’ll just forget about those videotapes of Osama bin Laden, the documents found in Al Qaeda headquarters following the invasion of Afghanistan, the connections drawn between the hijackers and Al Qaeda. > > Nothing matters until a judge and/or jury says it matters. For purposes of convicting someone for a crime, I agree. In any other context, that’s a ridiculous position, especially regarding Sept. 11. But fine; go ahead and have it. Then you quote another Moonie paper misrepresentation, and get all burned again: > [@](#): > > Please make special note of the fact that this “lesson” is part of a suggested lesson plan for September 11 remembrance. > > Maybe our public schools should stick to reading, writing and 'rithmatic, instead of indoctrinating a bunch of little leftists whose mantra is “criticize America early and often, but everybody else gets a pass.” > > That’s the job of our universities, dammit! Sure sounds like you’re dumping on how the NEA comes out, overall. _If there was balance to their overall presentation, they wouldn’t be ‘indoctrinating’ anyone, would they??_ So saying there were parts you agreed with - in passing - still leaves you rather strongly implying that their overall message is screwy. You say: > [@](#): > > I should note that I agree with much of what is listed on the list. But I don’t think the Washington Times is unfairly portraying what’s stated there. Exactly. You don’t think the Moonie paper is unfairly portraying what’s stated _on the list_. Not just in Paragraphs 4 and 10, but _the list as an entity_. That’s what you said. And the Washington Times made it sound like the whole list was one big exercise in America-bashing, and it represented the list as the essence of what the NEA had to say about September 11. So when you said the _Washington Times_ hadn’t unfairly portrayed the list, you said a lot. It also mischaracterized the list as an actual lesson plan, rather than as additional tips for teachers on top of the numerous lesson plans the NEA put on their Web site. I notice that you carried forward that misrepresentation. My main gripe at **you** , if you read my post, was in failing to read the list. Given your commentary on Paragraph 4 in the OP, which is pretty much along the lines of the Moonie Paper’s hatchet job, I’d say the evidence is right there. > [@](#): > > And I like how you took **another, wholly separate unit** to mitigate the goofy link from my OP. Nobody’s saying everything proposed for Remembering September 11 lesson plans is inappropriate and offensive. I’m saying **Portions of Numbers 4 and 10 from the list I linked are.** Believe it or not, **Milo** , my entire post wasn’t about you. The Moonie paper gave the impression that their rewrite of Paragraphs 4 and 10 was the NEA’s entire proposal for what should be taught about September 11. I was responding to that. To the extent that you bought in to the notion that the Moonie paper represented the NEA’s September 11 proposal honestly, you’re welcome to take that as applying to you as well. > [@](#): > > It’s interesting that your pooh-poohing of what some see as terribly wrong about this list was silent on possibly its most offensive passage. Feel free to attempt to extrapolate from what’s written. But I don’t see it noted anywhere that the suggestions aren’t being intended to be taken at their face.: OK, here’s the passage you felt was the most offensive, and my comments: > [@](#): > > Do not suggest any group is responsible. I think I’ve gone over this. When the list used ‘group’, throughout, _it was talking about religious and ethnic groups present in the U.S._ (No really, just _try_ to make a case to the contrary. Be my guest. Later in that same paragraph, it gets specific: “explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership.” Does it need to mention “Arab-Americans” or “American Muslims” every fifth word?) > [@](#): > > Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters. There are conservatives who have a problem with this?? > [@](#): > > Do not encourage or allow random blaming; Can’t see a problem there. > [@](#): > > but understand that self-blame may be a way for students to fell (sic) “in control” (something different they “could have done” or “could do” in the future). I responded to this in my earlier post. So you can’t say I was ‘silent’ about that passage. I spoke to it quite clearly. > [@](#): > > The part bracketed at the end of his passage here indicates to me that this is being considered constructive. And I see it as explanatory. The whole thing, though, is that the Moonie paper had to go way, **way** back into the depths of the **extra tips for teachers** , bypassing the lesson plans and subject matter source materials, to get to this one list. Then they ignored most of the list, focusing on two paragraphs (out of 24). Then by rearrangement and omission, they made one of those paragraphs (#4) say things that it didn’t say in any way, shape, or form, and (as I’ve argued) blatantly mischaracterized the other. > [@](#): > > If he thinks self-blame is bad, this passage is HORRIBLY worded, at _best_. I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest he doesn’t think so. I won’t argue that the wording, in this one place, in this one part of one paragraph in a 24-item list, in one of hundreds of separate components of the NEA’s classroom resources on September 11, is unclear. But if there’s **“evidence”** that he means it the way you say, please link to it. But on to the next thing: I’d somewhat facetiously drawn the analogy > [@](#): > > Y’know, I’ve been getting to work a bit late the past couple of mornings. Maybe I should set my alarm to wake up about ten minutes earlier. > > NO - that would be a ‘blame myself’ approach - I’d be admitting that I set the alarm for the wrong time. Can’t do that!! You responded: > [@](#): > > No, actually the correct analogy would be if you blamed your getting to work late on the internment of Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II. > > It has as much relevance to why you’re getting to work late as it does to September 11. I must say this makes zero sense to me. In responding to X, we made mistake Y. Now we’re responding to X’, and the NEA is saying the best way to avoid mistake Y’ is to remember what happened the last time and respond appropriately. When that happens on an individual level, it’s called “learning from your mistakes”. (The alternative is to “feel good about yourself” by downplaying or ignoring one’s mistakes. I understand that conservatives are against that sort of claptrap. So am I.) Apparently when it’s suggested that we do this on a national level, it’s called “blaming America”. I was taking it back to an individual level to show how stupid that was. > [@](#): > > The message “don’t lash out at neighbors and classmates who are Arab or Muslim because of Sept. 11” is a good one. LEAVE IT AT THAT. > > Turning the remembrance of the worst day in American history into a lesson on things **America** has done wrong in the past, things that are completely out of context of the 2001 attack, is FUCKING OFFENSIVE! OK, where does the NEA say to make a lesson out of it? They’ve got a bunch of lesson plans on their website; go find me something. This strikes me as more along the lines of providing a moment of context to “don’t lash out at Arabs and Muslims”, should it be necessary. Remember, these are ‘tips’, not lesson plans. As a former teacher, I’d interpret that as “things to keep in the back of my mind in case they come into play in the classroom.” To be properly prepared as a teacher, you’ve got to have a lot more tucked away in your head than is actually in your lesson plan, since you don’t know what the kids are going to ask. If you just know what’s in your lecture notes, but can’t explain beyond that, then you’re on thin ice indeed in a classroom. At least, that was the case in the much tamer precincts of mathematics teaching. I would assume that it’s much more true of, say, social-studies classes, and especially true there when they’re dealing with something like 9/11. To take one little bit of the acres of background thoughts the NEA is suggesting a teacher might want to keep in mind, and turning that into the focal point of a class on 9/11, is fucking absurd, idiotic, and moronic. > [@](#): > > You also were silent on the fact that it says not to speculate, and not to repeat what’s in the media, as far as assigning blame, but then makes a declarative statement that no governments were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Yes, that _was_ dumb, and I didn’t mention it specifically. Since one of my main points is that the Moonie paper took one small corner of one background resource out of many, and turned it into the entire fucking NEA response to September 11, I’m not going to be too hard on myself for not responding specifically to that one point. Though I must admit that was one thing I had in mind when I said, > [@](#): > > And even on this issue, I won’t say they’re without their usual share of fuzzy thinking[.] > [@](#): > > And, what december said. Been there. Shredded that. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/43 "2002-08-22T03:29:22Z")
Princhester: > [@](#): > > \*\*So as I understand it, first you put people “on the hook” and then if they are proven innocent you let them off? Is that how it works? I must admit I thought I’d heard of a contrary principle enshrined in US ideas of justice, but who am I to say. \*\* The list-writer wrote: “Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters.” He then also wrote: "we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country. The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation. " That sure strikes me as not using non-speculative terms. I guess that’s only a problem when it comes to blaming the murderers of 3,000 people. When it pushes a far-left spin on Sept. 11, though, it’s OK. What evidence does he have that the terrorists acted independently, without the sanctions of any nation? Indeed; we have a shitload of evidence that they were harbored and supported by the former government of Afghanistan. We have some evidence that [Iraq is an Al Qaeda haven, too](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42094-2002Aug20.html). If you don’t get it now, Princhester, I can’t help you further. xeno: > [@](#): > > \*_And I have no idea why you (and apparently Fenris) seem to think “self blame” is being spoken of approvingly in the Reviled List_. \*\* I think the parenthetical after the statement about self-blame connotes that it could be constructive. If you don’t see that, you don’t see it. RTF: > [@](#): > > \*\*You lead off by quoting one of the Moonie paper’s more egregious misrepresentations \*\* The list, and the first paragraph of the Washington Times story - oh, sorry, “The Moonie Paper” :rolleyes:, is making reference to the following two statements from the list: “Do not suggest any group is responsible.” and, “Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise.” Where’s the egregious misrepresentation? What babelfish are you using? You like to extrapolate from what’s written. You want to put it into context? Put it into the context that he doesn’t want speculation as far as blaming, but he’s willing to speculate when it comes to absolving possibly implicit nations from blame. You yourself admit that was “dumb.” So why, on the other outrageous points, are you saying he doesn’t mean what he directly says? It fits the context of his “dumb” statement. > [@](#): > > \*\*Sure sounds like you’re dumping on how the NEA comes out, overall. _If there was balance to their overall presentation, they wouldn’t be ‘indoctrinating’ anyone, would they??_ So saying there were parts you agreed with - in passing - still leaves you rather strongly implying that their overall message is screwy. \*\* I imply no such thing. And I went out of my way to **not** imply it. And what’s your definition of “balance?” Say several inoffensive things, and a few that are jaw-droppingly offensive, but that’s balanced because of the OK stuff? But, you see it all as OK. > [@](#): > > \*\*You don’t think the Moonie paper is unfairly portraying what’s stated on the list. Not just in Paragraphs 4 and 10, but the list as an entity. That’s what you said. \*\* Incorrect. The Times is not misrepresenting the quotes from that list that it uses in its story. > [@](#): > > \*\*And the Washington Times made it sound like the whole list was one big exercise in America-bashing \*\* Again we’re back to your idea that the ridiculous and offensive things are OK if they are couched in other things that are not ridiculous and offensive. > [@](#): > > \*\*and it represented the list as the essence of what the NEA had to say about September 11. \*\* Re-reading the opening two paragraphs of the newspaper’s story, I think this could be a legitimate criticism of the way they wrote it. I also don’t think it absolves the list-writer, or the NEA that is offering it up, from the ridiculous and offensive parts of what they are holding up as an example of what should be used in classrooms as a part of Remembering Sept. 11. > [@](#): > > \*\*It also mischaracterized the list as an actual lesson plan, rather than as additional tips for teachers on top of the numerous lesson plans the NEA put on their Web site. \*\* Quibble this if you like. It is included in an NEA package under the heading “Remember Sept. 11” and states: > [@](#): > > Designed to be a comprehensive resource site for teachers, educational support professionals and parents, it includes more than 100 age-appropriate lesson plans to commemorate the first anniversary of this tragic day in U.S. history. > [@](#): > > \*\*The whole thing, though, is that the Moonie paper had to go way, way back into the depths of the extra tips for teachers, bypassing the lesson plans and subject matter source materials, to get to this one list. \*\* Who’s doing the misrepresentation now? You make it sound as though the list writer was thinking, “Other people are addressing other aspects of the 9/11 remembrance; I’ll focus on a few ancillary sidenotes.” Where you getting that? His tips seemed to rather thoroughly walk through the whole thing to me. > [@](#): > > \*\*Remember, these are ‘tips’, not lesson plans. As a former teacher, I’d interpret that as “things to keep in the back of my mind in case they come into play in the classroom.” \*\*Here you make it sound as though the list-writer wasn’t intending for his thoughts and ideas to be utilized by teachers and passed on to students. The whole point of his writing, and the whole point of the NEA website where the list is accessible. Or teachers were supposed to filter out the more looney stuff? On self-blame, you said: > [@](#): > > \*\*I won’t argue that the wording, in this one place, in this one part of one paragraph in a 24-item list, in one of hundreds of separate components of the NEA’s classroom resources on September 11, is unclear. But if there’s “evidence” that he means it the way you say, please link to it. \*\* The other ideologies that seem to be presented at certain parts of the list, that I’ve already alluded to throughout this thread and in this post, tend to point to him meaning what he says, as he’s said it. That parenthetical sure sounds like it’s viewed as constructive to me. To you it doesn’t. If you disagree; you disagree. On the mentioning of U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, you said: > [@](#): > > \*\*I must say this makes zero sense to me. In responding to X, we made mistake Y. Now we’re responding to X’, and the NEA is saying the best way to avoid mistake Y’ is to remember what happened the last time and respond appropriately. \*\* December has adequately addressed why the two are incomparable. But I guess you think you “shredded him.” The list-writer would have no discussion of blame for who killed 3,000 people in the U.S. last year, in classrooms this September 11. The list-writer would have no repeating of newscaster speculation. It’s sure going to be hard to fucking talk about Sept. 11, 2001, on Sept. 11, 2002, then, isn’t it? But what you can, by all means, do is, expound at length upon bad things America has done in the past. And jam that square peg into the round hole of a Sept. 11 remembrance in the classroom. And you can note that no other governments were responsible, as fact. How you can, with a straight face, say there is not a particular ideological slant to those particular “tips” astounds me. > [@](#): > > \*\*OK, where does the NEA say to make a lesson out of it? They’ve got a bunch of lesson plans on their website; go find me something. \*\* Yet again, trying to excuse what’s ridiculous, left-wing ideology and offensive for a Sept. 11 remembrance in this list, by talking about all the other reasonable stuff there is. And again seeming to indicate that the writer didn’t intend for this to go from his typing fingers to a teacher’s lesson plan to students’ heads. Which is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/44 "2002-08-22T04:27:35Z")
Well, one of us doesn’t get it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/45 "2002-08-22T06:56:13Z")
Right back atcha, pally. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/46 "2002-08-22T07:52:50Z")
Well I’ll give it one more try Milossarian. The author of the list suggests that teachers should not speculate or suggest anyone is to blame or responsible till all the facts are in. They then state that the terrorists acted independently and were not sanctioned by any nation. You have a problem with that statement because reaches a conclusion of innocence before (according to the author) all the facts are in. An innocent till proven guilty system is not symmetrical. Concluding innocence when all the facts are not in is appropriate until an alternate conclusion is forced. The opposite is not. I suspect you consider all the facts to be in and thus any conclusion that other nations are innocent to be ridiculous. Fine, that’s your opinion. But the author of the list does not think all the facts are in or that conclusions of responsibility or blame are yet appropriate. and against that background their statement is not inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/47 "2002-08-22T09:42:32Z")
Discussing whether the terrorists were “sanctioned by any nation” simply addresses the wrong question. This statement is irritatingly vague. It looks offensive to me, but others can interpret it as sensible. Is al Qaeda a nation? Not in the traditional sense, although they have some characteristics of one. So, it’s sort-of true to say the terrorists weren’t sanctioned by any nation. Or, at least it’s arguably unproved that they were sanctioned by a nation. OTOH the statement could imply that we’re merely dealing with a criminal gang, a POV that’s _uninformativep_, to say the least. We do all know that al Qaeda is an international terrorist organization, with bases in dozens of countries, with a OPV informed by a certain view of the Islam religion, and opposed to modern, liberal western values. The statement seems to encourage teachers not to discuss with their students what we all know is true about our attackers. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/48 "2002-08-22T15:08:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The list, and the first paragraph of the Washington Times story - oh, sorry, “The Moonie Paper” :rolleyes:, is making reference to the following two statements from the list: > “Do not suggest any group is responsible.” and, > “Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise.” > > Where’s the egregious misrepresentation? What babelfish are you using? The one **you** used, retard. Let’s quote the Washington Times, as you did: > [@](#): > > The National Education Association is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to “suggest any group is responsible” for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people. > > Suggested lesson plans compiled by the NEA recommend that teachers “address the issue of blame factually,” noting: “Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise.” Then let’s look at how **you** parsed that: > [@](#): > > OK, I think this is a ridiculous position, but I can live with it. We’ll just forget about those videotapes of Osama bin Laden, the documents found in Al Qaeda headquarters following the invasion of Afghanistan, the connections drawn between the hijackers and Al Qaeda. So in your OP, you (correctly, IMHO) parse the Moonie Paper as making it sound like the NEA’s saying we can’t say what organization was responsible for the hijackings, and we shouldn’t say anything about that until they have their day in court before a judge and jury. Now here’s Dr. Lippincott’s relevant text, one more farkin’ time: > [@](#): > > **4. Address the issue of blame factually.** Explore who and what may be to blame for this event. Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters…Be careful to ensure students (e.g., Arab-American students,) do not assume blame in order to make classmates feel better. Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. However, explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership. Help kids resist the tendency to want to “pin the blame” on someone close by. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise. This paragraph had been _directly preceded_ by such statements as “Children can easily generalize negative statements to students in their classes and community. Focusing on the nationality of the terrorists can create prejudice, anger and mistrust for their group members”, “Make sure that all information is factually true. This is especially important when news reports have negative statements about Arab-Americans or any other ethnic group”, and “Reach out to your neighbors and colleagues who might feel at risk right now because of their ethnicity.” You may think this is airy-fairy, or not, but that’s totally beside the point here. **This is clearly talking about “groups” like “Arab-Americans” and other persons “close by”.** It’s talking about _people living in America_ who look like they might be of Middle Eastern origin. **These** are the people the paragraph is telling the kids to avoid blaming, not al-Queda. And there’s no Babel fish in the world that can change that, not even yours. Dispute that if you can. If you can’t, it means what Lippincott wrote, and what the Washington Times made of it, are in **direct contradiction**. There. That should even get through **your** thick head. And if not, maybe it’s time for you to consider voluntary euthanasia. [sub]Oh yeah, I noticed your :rolleyes: at my use of the phrase “Moonie Paper” to describe the Washington Times. It’s a matter of public record that the Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church, which is the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s pet church. And feel free to read, [from the Unification Church’s web site](http://www.unification.net/2002/20020521_1.html), what Rev. Moon has to say about the Washington Times’ purpose. So I’ll call it “the Moonie paper” anytime I please, thankyewverymuch.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/49 "2002-08-22T15:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > He then also wrote: “we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country. The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation.” > > What evidence does he have that the terrorists acted independently, without the sanctions of any nation? Indeed; we have a shitload of evidence that they were harbored and supported by the former government of Afghanistan. We have some evidence that [Iraq is an Al Qaeda haven, too](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42094-2002Aug20.html). I’ll add here that regardless of who was **harboring** al-Queda, nobody’s saying, even now, that the Taliban, or Iran, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, _helped plan_ the September 11 attack. IOW, “we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country.” If you can’t make simple distinctions between, “Nation X gave aid and comfort to al-Queda”, and “Nation X was involved in the planning of the September 11 attack”, then I continue to scratch my head when I recall your occupation. Of course, you could have a thriving career ahead with the _Washington Times_. Next point: I said > [@](#): > > Sure sounds like you’re dumping on how the NEA comes out, overall. If there was balance to their overall presentation, they wouldn’t be ‘indoctrinating’ anyone, would they?? So saying there were parts you agreed with - in passing - still leaves you rather strongly implying that their overall message is screwy. and you responded: > [@](#): > > I imply no such thing. And I went out of my way to **not** imply it. > > And what’s your definition of “balance?” Say several inoffensive things, and a few that are jaw-droppingly offensive, but that’s balanced because of the OK stuff? But, you see it all as OK. OK, so you _are_ saying that their overall message is screwy. Right after saying you imply no such thing. Whatever, my friend! 🙂 Keeping on keeping on, you said: > [@](#): > > The Times is not misrepresenting the quotes from that list that it uses in its story. That is of course ridiculous, for the reasons set down in my previous post. And: > [@](#): > > Again we’re back to your idea that the ridiculous and offensive things are OK if they are couched in other things that are not ridiculous and offensive. First, you’ve got to show that it’s ridiculous and offensive - and, in the case of the one thing that I described as ‘dumb’, it might also help to show that it’s of sufficient importance to overwhelm everything else they said. However, I believe I was responding to your notion that the NEA was > [@](#): > > indoctrinating a bunch of little leftists[.] For that, you really **do** have to make a case that a couple of bits in some background material _that weren’t even in a lesson plan_ constitute ‘indoctrination’, while the CIA’s page on terrorism, and the Department of Homeland Security homepage, which are much more prominently linked to as resources, don’t. Needless to say, you don’t make **any such case**. That’s because there’s no case to be made. This is about as slam-dunk as it gets: the only way you can make a case for ‘indoctrination’ in the NEA materials is by a very stringent process of cherry-picking, by ignoring the bulk of their materials, and when you find the one document with ‘possibilities’, so to speak, you cherry-pick individual sentences to deprive them of their context. If you’re a reporter, Milo, you should know how completely dishonest such an approach is. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/50 "2002-08-22T15:43:43Z")
Everybody here can read. They don’t need you apologizing or making explanations for what’s self-evident. Your little camp wants to go with what was meant. Another, uh, slightly larger camp goes with what was said. Want to know how my job factors into this? It allows me to know full well that somebody presenting something like that list wouldn’t parse what they had to say in any way. They’d say what they meant to say, exactly the way they meant to say it. And for its expressed purpose. Want to know how my mother, or your personal insults, factor into this? Not at all. But I’d forgotten it’s a typical tactic of yours. It’s been awhile. Go fuck a cheese-grater, RT. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/51 "2002-08-22T16:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Re-reading the opening two paragraphs of the newspaper’s story, I think this_ could be a legitimate criticism of the way [the Moonie paper] wrote it. - “it represented the list as the essence of what the NEA had to say about September 11.” Well, at least _something_ is starting to get through. > [@](#): > > I also don’t think it absolves the list-writer, or the NEA that is offering it up, from the ridiculous and offensive parts of what they are holding up as an example of what should be used in classrooms as a part of Remembering Sept. 11. First you’ve got to demonstrate that there are nontrivial parts of the list that require ‘absolution’. I’ll await your response, in particular, to my second post preceding this one. Now here’s a fun one: I said the Moonie paper > [@](#): > > also mischaracterized the list as an actual lesson plan, rather than as additional tips for teachers on top of the numerous lesson plans the NEA put on their Web site. To which you replied: > [@](#): > > Quibble this if you like. It is included in an NEA package under the heading “Remember Sept. 11” and states: at which point you quoted, not the Reviled List, but the main NEA page, as saying: > [@](#): > > Designed to be a comprehensive resource site for teachers, educational support professionals and parents, it includes more than 100 age-appropriate lesson plans to commemorate the first anniversary of this tragic day in U.S. history. There’s a _direct link_ from that page to their “War on Terrorism” resource page that I keep bringing up - the one with the CIA, Homeland Security, and all that. They obviously regard it as important that users of their site be able to find what the CIA and Tom Ridge have to say about terrorism. Now: how long a chain of links does it take to get to the Reviled List? What does that tell you about its relative importance? As I said: > [@](#): > > The whole thing, though, is that the Moonie paper had to go way, way back into the depths of the extra tips for teachers, bypassing the lesson plans and subject matter source materials, to get to this one list. You responded: > [@](#): > > Who’s doing the misrepresentation now? Since it wasn’t me, I’m figuring it must’ve been you. > [@](#): > > You make it sound as though the list writer was thinking, “Other people are addressing other aspects of the 9/11 remembrance; I’ll focus on a few ancillary sidenotes.” Where you getting that? His tips seemed to rather thoroughly walk through the whole thing to me. He seemed to be walking through _his_ whole thing, to me. The question is, was it the NEA’s ‘whole thing’? This **thread** ’s about the NEA. (Check the title. You wrote it.) I think I’ve conclusively demonstrated that it wasn’t the NEA’s big issue for 9/11. > [@](#): > > Here you make it sound as though the list-writer wasn’t intending for his thoughts and ideas to be utilized by teachers and passed on to students. The whole point of his writing, and the whole point of the NEA website where the list is accessible. Or teachers were supposed to filter out the more looney stuff? Maybe _you_ think that was my implication. I’ll try to use small words this time. **Milo** , think of a teacher who has an hour to do a lesson on 9/11. What the teacher intends to be used in the lesson will be in the lesson plan. That’s why lesson plans are important. That’s why it’s important to note the difference between stuff in a lesson plan, and other materials. It’s possible that a classroom discussion might take off in a variety of directions. Teachers have to be prepared for these. Bad teachers will say, “that’s not on the lesson plan, so we can’t talk about that.” Good teachers will have the background and/or preparation to handle a fair number of tangents from the intended material. Since Lippincott’s list is on his university’s site, it’s a reasonable assumption that he’s responsible for this list on his own, and the NEA thought that it was a useful resource - although less useful (since much less prominently featured) than the CIA’s terrorism website. So it linked to his list. The NEA, being a teachers’ outfit, figured that some kids in some classrooms might take the discussion in the direction of an overall blame-the-Muslims, or blame-the-Arabs, or whatever. (I can find you adult commentators on conservative Websites who are doing exactly that.) They probably figured Lippincott’s list would help teachers be prepared in advance for that. But **it wasn’t meant to be a lesson plan** , because it wasn’t in their hundreds of lesson plans. So the NEA wasn’t telling teachers, “forget about everything else about 9/11 - the main message to get across is about sensitivity to Arab-Americans, and remembering Japanese interment camps.” But if the discussion started taking a nasty turn, a teacher who read Lippincott’s page might have some responses already in mind. That’s Dr. Firefly’s Ed 101 lecture for the day. (And once again, I disagree that there was a nontrivial amount of loony stuff to be filtered out.) On self-blame, I’ll just leave it as: you’ve got your interpretation, and I’ve got mine, and the best you can do is to say that amounts to a push. On the mentioning of U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, you said: > [@](#): > > The list-writer would have no discussion of blame for who killed 3,000 people in the U.S. last year, in classrooms this September 11. First of all, I only care about what Dr. Lippincott said, as it reflects on the NEA, because the thread’s about the NEA. But just to humor you, nowhere does Lippincott say that there should be no such discussion (he does say, “The terrorists caused tremendous harm because they acted violently against innocent people out of blind hate”), and more importantly, the NEA doesn’t use his material in a manner that would suggest that. (I go back to their “War on Terrorism” page with the CIA and Homeland Security links, which opens up directly from their main “Remember September 11” page.) > [@](#): > > The list-writer would have no repeating of newscaster speculation. It’s sure going to be hard to fucking talk about Sept. 11, 2001, on Sept. 11, 2002, then, isn’t it? **Milo, you’re in the fucking _news business_. If you don’t understand the difference between _factual reporting_ and _newscaster speculation_, I feel sorry for your paper.** Not to mention, (one more time!!), the NEA links to U.S. government cites, including the CIA’s terrorism site, CIA Director Tenet’s testimony on the war on terrorism before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Department of Homeland Security. (As well as CNN’s recap of the events of last fall.) I reckon the NEA figured the teachers could find a few facts about 9/11/01 at those sites, ya think? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > But what you can, by all means, do is, expound at length upon bad things America has done in the past. And jam that square peg into the round hole of a Sept. 11 remembrance in the classroom. I think I’ve pounded this one into a bloody pulp already, so I’ll eschew further response now. > [@](#): > > And you can note that no other governments were responsible, as fact. You can’t hang a whole lot on the difference between: 1. We have no evidence to suggest that any governments helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and 2. No governments helped plan the 9/11 attacks. Except that the NEA should have been smart enough to make the distinction themselves, and use (1) which is accurate. But that’s in the ‘stupid mistake’ category, not the ‘indoctrinating our kids’ category. > [@](#): > > How you can, with a straight face, say there is not a particular ideological slant to those particular “tips” astounds me. (1) Did I say that? I don’t think so, bub. (2) What of it? _The Weekly Standard_ has an ideological slant; so does _Mother Jones_. The question is, do they make a good case anyway? If we tossed everyone out of GD who had a particular ideological slant, it would be a _very_ quiet forum, and if one never had to respond to a counterargument from a poster with some sort of ideological slant, one would never have to respond to anyone here. You can’t just wave ‘slant’ as a magic wand. > [@](#): > > Yet again, trying to excuse what’s ridiculous, left-wing ideology and offensive for a Sept. 11 remembrance in this list Feel free to throw all the smoke you want. When it clears, you still don’t have a case against the NEA. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/52 "2002-08-22T18:07:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Everybody here can read. Except you, Milo, as this thread has adequately demonstrated. > [@](#): > > They don’t need you apologizing or making explanations for what’s self-evident. I’ll take your claim that your conclusions are ‘self-evident’ as an admission of defeat. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Want to know how my job factors into this? I already know, thanks. A reporter needs to be able to distinguish between what his sources actually said, amidst the verbiage they threw around, and what they didn’t. You look at Dr. Lippincott’s lengthy repetition that kids shouldn’t blame Arab-Americans for 9/11, and you can’t distinguish between that and the Moonie Paper’s twisting of that message into “we can’t blame al-Queda for 9/11”. No matter how small the words are that we use to explain it to you. So yeah, I’m amazed that you can hold a reporting job. If that’s too personal for you, then that’s life in the big city. But the news business was directly relevant to part of your previous post, so it did kinda remind me of your connection to it. [sub]BTW, you got **yourself** into this one, idjit: I would never have bothered looking at your profile, until the time you threatened to punch me out. (Which, IMO, cuts the ground out from under your feet for complaining about cheap shots.) **Then** I thought I’d better see whether you lived close by or not. **That** ’s when I saw that you were a reporter. [/sub] Speaking of which: > [@](#): > > Want to know how my mother, or your personal insults, factor into this? Not at all. But I’d forgotten it’s a typical tactic of yours. It’s been awhile. Milo, you may remember the school insult, “Did your mother have any children who lived?” I can never remember that being understood as insulting one’s mother: despite the use of “your mother” in the phrase, it’s clearly an insult only of the person being addressed. I deliberately used the same format in my remark. No aspersions on your mother were intended; they’re all for you. The difference between that line and “your mother swims out to troopships” (which I’m sure yours doesn’t, to eliminate the possibility that you would construe my use of that example as an intentional insult of your mother - which you might, otherwise) is hopefully pretty obvious. > [@](#): > > Go fuck a cheese-grater, RT. I’ll regard that, too, as admission of defeat. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/53 "2002-08-22T19:30:13Z")
Respond to posts you _think_ you have a good answer to. Ignore points that you don’t. Ignore points where your own impressions indicate the words from the list should be taken at their face. (i.e., people should be non-speculative about assigning blame for Sept. 11, but should feel free to accept as gospel the SPECULATION that no countries were involved in the terrorist attacks. Speculation that has already been proven wrong with regard to Afghanistan, and is beginning to be proven wrong again with Iraq.) You said that was “dumb” of them. However, on other points that appear to follow a similar ideology of thinking, we’re all supposed to extrapolate from what’s actually said, to what YOU say was intended. Harboring doesn’t equal sanctioning? Perhaps in that fantasy world in your head, where you “win” every debate. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’ll take your claim that your conclusions are ‘self-evident’ as an admission of defeat. \*\* > [@](#): > > understand that self-blame may be a way for students to fell “in control” (something different they “could have done” or “could do” in the future). > [@](#): > > **we have no reason to believe** that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country. \*\*The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation. \*\* (but on assigning blame for Sept. 11) > [@](#): > > Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters. My God! RTFirefly’s right! His position is so clear now! Of course it means what he says it means. I was fooled by Lippincott’s crafty arrangement of letters in manners that appeared to form words and sentences. That almost seemed to convey a thought representative of those words and sentences. > [@](#): > > Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. Those craftily arranged letters in forms that appear to be words that form a sentence that conveys a thought almost tricked me into believing that the author seems uncomfortable about the fact that, unfortunately, those pesky terrorists have to be blamed for murdering the 3,000 people that they murdered. Thank God we have RTFirefly here to disavow us of those “retarded” notions we have in our head when we do irresponsible things such as read what somebody wrote. See, because I was thinking blaming wasn’t “especially difficult.” You know; the photos and information on the hijackers who boarded the airplanes. The Osama videotapes. The information uncovered in Afghanistan. The information that continues to be uncovered there, in Pakistan, in Iraq and other places around the world. But I lost the debate to RT. He said so. So go figure. > [@](#): > > \*\*You look at Dr. Lippincott’s lengthy repetition that kids shouldn’t blame Arab-Americans for 9/11, and you can’t distinguish between that and the Moonie Paper’s twisting of that message into “we can’t blame al-Queda for 9/11”. No matter how small the words are that we use to explain it to you. \*\* I don’t believe the Times said that. I believe the Times said, > [@](#): > > The National Education Association is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to “suggest any group is responsible” for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people. From Lippincott’s list: > [@](#): > > Do not suggest any group is responsible. RTFirefly. The defender of the misrepresented. :rolleyes: You then blather on, examining my personal life at length. You don’t know THING ONE about how I do my job, you piece of shit. How many awards have you won for your work, dick-nose? If I haven’t won at least twice as many, I’ll give you $100. You’d stopped being a detestable, low-road-taking, classless asshole in the months since my last blow-up with you. To the point that I’d given you the benefit of the doubt, and had begun to be civil with you again. Now you’ve done it again. I won’t make the mistake again. I’ll modify what personal information there is about me on my profile (Didn’t think there was much, and never dreamed for a minute someone would do what you’re doing with what’s there), and once again regain control of just what I want to tell a bunch of strangers on a message board, and what I don’t want to tell them. The joy I take in doing this is, when you’re inevitably classless enough to go the low road again, I’ll have your ass banned. Not that I’ll have much interest in what you have to say in the future, anyway. Declare victory. Say you “shredded me.” ---
**Author:** ![Dryga\_Yes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Dryga\_Yes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dryga_Yes)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/54 "2002-08-22T20:35:33Z")
Milo, stop being a dick. You go on and on about how classless RT is, but you’re the one who crams the most insults into your posts. RT’s point all along has been that the Washington Times took the quotes out of context. Then, to prove him wrong, you take **one or two sentences out of Lippincott’s list, completely out context** , then go on to say that “ **LOOK! The newspaper says the same thing! Why do you talk about misrepresenting?** ” If you can’t grasp how monumentally stupid that is, then I don’t really know what to say. > [@](#): > > 1. Discuss historical instances of American intolerance. Internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf War are obvious examples. Teachers can do lessons in class, but parents can also discuss the consequences of these events and encourage their children to suggest better choices that Americans can make this time. You’ve actually claimed that this paragraph _“blames America for 9-11”_ (:rolleyes: ), and then you have the nerve of accusing **RTFirefly** of trying to extrapolate other messages than what the professor actually said. I can’t get any other message out of this other than “don’t blame arab kids by guilt-by-association”. > [@](#): > > 1. Address the issue of blame factually. Explore who and what may be to blame for this event. Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters. \*Do not encourage or allow random blaming; but understand that self-blame may be a way for students to fell “in control” (something different they “could have done” or “could do” in the future). Be careful to ensure students (e.g., Arab-American students,) do not assume blame in order to make classmates feel better. \*Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. However, explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership. Help kids resist the tendency to want to “pin the blame” on someone close by. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise. Further, we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country. The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation. I dare you to tell me that this paragraph is about something else than “not blaming arab-american students”. The way you’ve absolutely mangled this paragraph is your worst offense in this thread. You’ve constantly cut off the second half of the segment I’ve italicized, which changes the tone of that part dramatically. If both the sentences are there, you get the impression that he doesn’t want Arab-american kids to blame themselves for the terrorist attacks – but if you remove the second one, you could get the impression that he talks about just kids in general who’d take on the blame for 9-11, for no reason at all other than that the professor probably thinks America was at fault. That’s really tacky. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/55 "2002-08-22T21:26:55Z")
> [@](#): > > The joy I take in doing this is, when you’re inevitably classless enough to go the low road again, I’ll have your ass banned. OK, I’ll bite. Are you now an admin, or do Tuba and Lynn report to you? :rolleyes: Sorry, Charley, but if you’ve won awards for your work, why don’t you use some of those skills here? I mean, it really _is_ hard for me to believe that the skillset for being a good reporter and for being an intelligent poster are that different. And until your posts show at least some basic skills, I’m gonna have to see those awards to believe them. You clearly evidenced that you can’t tell the difference between factual reportage and newscaster speculation. And that’s in your line of work. More germane to the discussion, you can’t tell the difference between one guy saying, “don’t blame Arab-Americans” and a so-called newspaper twisting that into “don’t blame al-Queda”, when it’s right there in front of you. And a fistful of awards won’t change that comprehension problem. I’m kinda boggled that you quote Lippincott’s “Do not suggest any group is responsible” and “Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault” yet one more time, because it shows that you _still_ don’t see it. > [@](#): > > Those craftily arranged letters in forms that appear to be words that form a sentence that conveys a thought almost tricked me into believing that the author seems uncomfortable about the fact that, unfortunately, those pesky terrorists have to be blamed for murdering the 3,000 people that they murdered. > > Thank God we have RTFirefly here to disavow us of those “retarded” notions we have in our head when we do irresponsible things such as read what somebody wrote. > > See, because I was thinking blaming wasn’t “especially difficult.” You know; the photos and information on the hijackers who boarded the airplanes. The Osama videotapes. The information uncovered in Afghanistan. The information that continues to be uncovered there, in Pakistan, in Iraq and other places around the world. > > But I lost the debate to RT. He said so. So go figure. Well, yes. Of course, it’s like winning a “how many things are wrong with this picture” competition with a blind man. For the last time: > [@](#): > > **4. Address the issue of blame factually.** Explore who and what may be to blame for this event. Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters…Be careful to ensure students (_e.g., Arab-American students_,) do not assume blame in order to make classmates feel better. Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. However, _explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership._ Help kids resist the tendency to want to “pin the blame” on _someone close by_. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise. There, that help on the context? And let me once again add, from surrounding paragraphs: > [@](#): > > Children can easily generalize negative statements to _students in their classes and community_. Focusing on the _nationality of the terrorists can create prejudice, anger and mistrust for their group members._ > [@](#): > > Make sure that all information is factually true. This is especially important when news reports have _negative statements about Arab-Americans or any other ethnic group._ > [@](#): > > Reach out to your _neighbors and colleagues who might feel at risk right now because of their ethnicity._ > [@](#): > > Groups of people should not be judged by the actions of a few. _It is wrong to condemn an entire group of people by association of religion, race, homeland, or even proximity._ > [@](#): > > Protecting against harassment of our Arab American classmates and neighbors is most critical right now. Take my challenge. Take Lippincott’s list, with large enough chunks to include context (as I’ve provided above), and demonstrate how it says, “Don’t blame al-Queda”. I’ve laid out a detailed case to the contrary; surely you can bust it to shreds. Oh yeah - you’re so cute when you outright lie. As you said just now: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (RT) You look at Dr. Lippincott’s lengthy repetition that kids shouldn’t blame Arab-Americans for 9/11, and you can’t distinguish between that and the Moonie Paper’s twisting of that message into “we can’t blame al-Queda for 9/11”. No matter how small the words are that we use to explain it to you. > > (Milo) I don’t believe the Times said that. I believe the Times said, > > > [@](#): > > > > The National Education Association is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to “suggest any group is responsible” for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people. But in the OP, here was your response to the preceding paragraph: > [@](#): > > OK, I think this is a ridiculous position, but I can live with it. We’ll just forget about those videotapes of Osama bin Laden, the documents found in Al Qaeda headquarters following the invasion of Afghanistan, the connections drawn between the hijackers and Al Qaeda. If that isn’t a restatement of what was in the Moonie Paper, in your own words, I’m a monkey’s uncle. > [@](#): > > You then blather on, examining my personal life at length. Actually, Mr. Wordsmith, I was _criticizing_ your _professional skills_ at length, not _examining_ your _personal life_ at all. (Hey, you left yourself wide open for that one. :)) Now, it’s been fun, Milo, but I’ve got to leave. I figure there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that you’ll respond to my substantive points in any way other than stripping individual sentences of Lippincott’s from their context yet again, and I’ve pointed this out, to no avail, as many ways as I can think of. So I’ve got to be rambling on. It’s kind of you to go out of your way to be so entertaining, though. Cheerio! ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/56 "2002-08-22T23:42:51Z")
**RT** I am amused by your suggestion that because Milossarian is a journo, he should know better than to distort the facts to suit some populist campaign etc etc. Get real! What do you think journos _do_ for a living? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/57 "2002-08-23T11:58:48Z")
It seems that you all are assuming that every teacher in America has read this list thoroughly (teachers don’t have time to pore over every bit of ephemera), taken it completely to heart, and, on 9/11/02, will all synchronize their watches to commence the exact same classroom discussion at the same time. Whatever you may think of The List, rest assured that it will ultimately be as helpful as the advice “Look out” is to someone headed down a ski slope for the first time ever. There is no way to regulate these discussions. Look at the disparity in sex-ed experiences, even between people of the same age but different backgrounds. Teachers know their students, and have some idea of where the discussion might go, and what the kids can comprehend. I haven’t perused the list carefully, but I don’t remember any mention of age-appropriate modifications. First graders may have only a dim memory that a year ago, Daddy cried while watching TV, and will have to be brought up to date on the subject before putting it in context. High school kids may have been discussing this all along, and may have to be diverted from spending the whole hour speculating about whether bin Laden is _really_ still alive and playing their downloaded al Quaeda videos. Kids in New York, north Jersey and eastern Connecticut may not be there, out of mourning for a relative who was lost that day, and those who do attend will be prone to cast blame anywhere they feel like it. Kids in Iowa will fervently vow never to prejudge anyone who even appears to be of Middle Eastern descent, which will be easy because they’ve never seen such a person. I assure you, we are not on Camazotz. If you have kids, and have a problem with their teacher’s lesson plan for the 11th, take it up with them. But don’t project that everyone else’s kid in the whole country got a message you find offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/58 "2002-08-23T12:35:03Z")
Here’s [another point of view](http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/news/editorials02/aug02/1440607.html) on the NEA’s suggested lesson plans. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/59 "2002-08-23T13:17:59Z")
You have to be registered. Possible to paraphrase it or pull quotes? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614/60 "2002-08-23T13:54:44Z")
Dang. The link seemed to work, but I guess that was only because I was an Official Registered Person. Some excerpts from the editorial: \*\*"Several of the (NEA lesson) plans have attracted attention and swift condemnation, and rightly so. They are wholly inappropriate to a day of national mourning and show a stunning insensitivity to what the nation will be reliving and feeling that day. For example, one of the lesson plans, called "Tips for Parents and Schools Regarding the Anniversary of September 11, 2001,’’ makes this recommendation: _"Explore who and what may be to blame for this event. Use nonspeculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible.’’_ Do not suggest any group is responsible? If the NEA hasn’t heard, it is well-established that al-Qaida, an international network of terrorists espousing an extremist version of Islam, is responsible. Then comes this declaration: \* "The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation.’’ \* Oh, really? The NEA should stay after school and write Afghanistan on the blackboard 500 times."\*\* The editorial also questions whether focusing on “the dark impulses lurking in the hearts of America’s youngsters (i.e. a supposed temptation to commit intolerant acts)” to the exclusion of the extremists responsible for 9/11 is wise. \*\*"The implication that Americans are naturally prone to knee-jerk ethnic and religious oppression is echoed in another section of the same plan: \* "Some of our country’s darkest moments resulted from prejudice and intolerance for our own people because Americans acted out of fear. We must not repeat terrible mistakes, such as our treatment of Japanese Americans and Arab Americans during times of war.’’ \* It has been nearly a year since the attacks, and no credible American has advocated the internment of any minority group, but the NEA is ever vigilant. Who knows when the internment impulse might break out in America’s schools?" “If anybody needs a refresher course in anger management, tolerance and the evils of prejudice on Sept. 11, it is not American schoolkids. It is the people who carried out the attack and those who cheered afterward.” \*\* I thought there might be interest in what a non-Moonie, middle of the road, Democratic newspaper had to say about this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nea-on-sept-11-dont-go-blaming-anybody-but-criticizing-u-s-or-yourself-is-ok/124614.md?page=4)