-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi
}}}>Begin
Main Entry: 1con.ceit
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from conceiven
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : a result of mental activity : THOUGHT (2) : individual
opinion b : favorable opinion; especially : excessive appreciation of
one's own worth or virtue
2 : a fancy article
3 a : a fanciful idea b : an elaborate or strained metaphor c : use
or presence of such conceits in poetry d : an organizing theme or
concept
End<{{{
From
http://communities.msn.com/RushversusReality/rvrdec18.msnw
http://communities.msn.com/RushversusReality/rvrdec6.msnw
}}}>Begin
December 18, 2001
RUSH: When a dismayed caller accused George W. Bush of "caving in" to
Democrats by offering to compromise on key parts of his economic
stimulus bill and by signing a massive federal education funding bill
into law, Rush felt his pain.
"I’m as frustrated as you are, which is why I am continuing to urge
the President, with as tiny a voice as I’ve got. It’s all I can do is
yell here, behind this little microphone, to get him to do this
speech on the stimulus plan. Now, I’ll tell you what: this education
bill? Not even Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords went along with it! Mr.
Compromise himself—Ha- haaa!—wouldn’t even go for this bill! This
bill is nothing but a bunch of gobbledy—we talked about it earlier:
this is the bill that seeks to level out academic performance between
the haves and the have-nots. It’s a beautiful thing." [Listen to Rush
/ Documents / Dec 18 Jeffords Education Bill Vote]
REALITY: There can be no doubt that Rush’s aversion to the recently
enacted education bill (The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
2001 – H.R.1) lies squarely in his well-known, deep-seated, ingrained
opposition to any federal government role in the funding for or the
overseeing of public education. That is evident in his categorization
of the bill as "nothing but a bunch of gobbledy-(gook)" and his
derisive, mocking tone when saying, "the bill seeks to level out
academic performance…It’s a beautiful thing."
However, by asserting that this legislation didn’t "even" get the
support of "Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords," Rush implied that even the
despised Jeffords, the Vermont Senator who handed control of the US
Senate over to the Democrats, couldn’t stomach the bill’s wasteful,
misguided spending. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Senator Jim Jeffords didn’t vote against this bill because he agreed
with Rush that too much money was being spent on education. The
Senator opposed this bill because, in his opinion, there was not
enough education spending in H.R. 1. When Rush criticized federal
education spending while simultaneously citing (but not explaining)
Jim Jefford’s opposition, he wanted people to believe that Jeffords
did so for reasons similar to his. In other words, Rush committed a
lie of omission.
>From Senator Jim Jeffords’ December 18, 2001 press release explaining
his vote on H.R. 1: With the projection of budget surpluses for as
far as the eye could see, it appeared that we would not only set in
motion innovative reforms, but we would also match those reforms with
new monetary investments….the scenario has dramatically changed.
We are not only facing a very different economic reality, but we also
have an administration in place that does not support the funding
needed to successfully carry out its own education reform
initiative….However, at current funding levels and even with over a
billion dollar increase for Title One in the coming year, we will
still only be funding less than half of the children who qualify for
the Title One program.
Earlier this year, during Senate consideration of the ESEA bill, this
body unanimously passed the Harkin-Hagel amendment that required
Congress to fully fund IDEA through progressive annual increases. I
am extremely disappointed that the final product we are considering
today does not include this critical amendment. Without inclusion of
the Harkin-Hagel amendment and without sufficient funding for the
programs outlined in this bill, I am afraid that this bill may
actually do more harm than good.
http://www.senate.gov/~jeffords/1218education.html
Rush Limbaugh: deceit of knowledge.
December 13, 2001
RUSH: The Bush administration’s decision to abandon the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty brought warnings from critics that this
unilateral action could trigger a new arms race, possibly including
one with China. Rush was livid. After all, who was really to blame if
a US-China arms race developed?
"Doesn’t that just frost ya? When you stop to think about that, when
you stop to think about it, because of the Clinton administration,
the Chinese are twenty-five years ahead of—when Bill Clinton took
office—let me just put this in perspective for ya: and that’s the
only reason we fear an arms race with the Chinese is because of
Clinton. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the Chinese could not
successfully orbit a satellite. They didn’t have the technology yet.
They hadn’t figured out how to insert something in orbit. The could
launch it, but they couldn’t insert it into orbit. It always came
crashing down. Well, because the Clinton administration changed some
export rules, and put the control of exporting such license
agreements and such things under the, ah, Commerce Department, headed
by his buddy Ron Brown, instead of the State Department, where it’s
always been, where there’s such a large bureaucracy nothing ever got
done, American satellite technology and manufacturers, such as Loral
Space, were able to sell that information to the Chinese, or give it
to them, or trade it for campaign contributions, however it happened.
The fact is, the Chinese now can orbit long-range nuclear missiles.
It is now something to be concerned about when you hear that the
Chinese have nuclear missiles aimed at the left coast." [Listen to
Rush / Documents / Dec 13 China in Space]
REALITY: While this wasn’t the first time Rush distorted China’s
accomplishments in space, this time he threw in another fabrication.
First, it is untrue that prior to the Clinton presidency China was
unable to orbit a satellite. China’s first successful satellite
launch occurred in 1970. From the website Space Daily: Thirty years
ago China launched its first satellite Dongfanghong-1…using a
domestic launcher, the Changzheng-1 (CZ-1) rocket. The mission caught
world attention and propelled China to become the fifth country to
achieve independent launch capability….Launch of retrievable
satellite, 26 November 1975. A CZ-2 rocket launched the retrievable
satellite Fanhui Shi Weixing- 01…into orbit with a successful
recovery three days later….Launch of geostationary communications
satellite, 8 April 1984. A CZ-3 rocket launched the experimental
communications satellite DFH-2 enabled China to reach the space
technology application phase in its space program. China became the
fifth nation to have the capability to develop, manufacture and
launch geostationary satellites….Launch of sunsynchronous
meteorological satellite, 7 September 1988. A CZ-4 rocket launched
meteorological satellite Fengyun-1….Launch of heavy-lift rocket, 14
August 1992. A CZ-2E rocket with strap-on boosters launched the
Australian communications satellite Optus B1….the first commercial
launch of Asiasat-1 comsat on 7 April 1990.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ china-00u.html
Second, it was not the Clinton administration that changed the export
licensing rules by moving the authority from the State Department to
the Commerce Department. The rules were changed a month before
Clinton’s November1992 election and three months before he took
office.
The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) is the premier trade
organization representing U.S. space and communications companies in
the commercial satellite arena. Corporate members include Boeing, GE,
Hughes Communications, Lockheed Martin, Loral Space, and TRW. From
the SIA web site’s timeline on US-China space activities: Oct. 1992 -
Federal Regulations published initiating the transfer of selected
commercial satellite technology to the Commerce Department’s
Commodity Control List. http://www.sia.org/Chinatime.htm
Interestingly, the decision to share space technology with China
dates back to the exalted Reagan era. According to the SIA: In 1988,
the Reagan Administration initiated a policy that would eventually
allow U.S. satellite launches on Chinese rockets. Over the next ten
years, each of three successive Administrations – representing both
political parties -- have agreed that the policy of allowing the
export of U.S.-built commercial satellites for launch on foreign
rockets is in the national interest. http://www.sia.org/ChinaQ&A.htm
Rush Limbaugh: satellite deceiver.
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
