A story ...
In 1994, I was teaching U.S. history and American government at Oak Ridge HS in El Dorado Hills, California.
I had three bright students who were my TAs. The 20th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation was a few months away. I decided to have ... 1/
Before long, responses started to show up in my mailbox at school. 3/
"That a mountain can be made of a mole hill if one listens to media with a political agenda." 23/
Because as we've seen these last four years, the wrong person in the presidency can be catastrophic.
I hope we learn the lesson this time.
25/end
More from Government
I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
I couldn't possibly guess why Six Days in Fallujah is being revived at a time when US army recruitment is at an all time low.
— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) February 11, 2021
This reboot is from the same people that worked with the FBI and CIA on training systems and is basing its game on excusing US war crimes. pic.twitter.com/5H8vVqKh9s
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
Parents in cities, please pay attention to the reopening details from the Whitehouse.
Biden says "small classes". What we need to understand is how they plant to accomplish this.
Through "childcare programs in schools". We see this all over states w/ closed schools.
We need to grasp that the AFT, NEA, & local unions are systematically working to decouple education from childcare.
Their vision is your child sitting on a device all day, watched by a childcare worker, being "taught" from a Teacher working from
This isn't a paranoid conspiracy theory - it is already happening in the majority of districts across the US where schools are closed.
"Learning Hubs" open, supervised by childcare workers, sometimes in the same "unsafe" school
There is NO OTHER WAY to get "small classes" without Hybrid + wraparound childcare. Your child will spend 2-3 days per WEEK supervised by low wage workers and sitting on a laptop.
Here's
Fairfax,
Biden says "small classes". What we need to understand is how they plant to accomplish this.
Through "childcare programs in schools". We see this all over states w/ closed schools.
Today, our first working day, @JoeBiden signed an Executive Order on safely reopening childcare programs in schools - @DrBiden pic.twitter.com/J4vZk5ZAaS
— AFT (@AFTunion) January 21, 2021
We need to grasp that the AFT, NEA, & local unions are systematically working to decouple education from childcare.
Their vision is your child sitting on a device all day, watched by a childcare worker, being "taught" from a Teacher working from
This isn't a paranoid conspiracy theory - it is already happening in the majority of districts across the US where schools are closed.
"Learning Hubs" open, supervised by childcare workers, sometimes in the same "unsafe" school
There is NO OTHER WAY to get "small classes" without Hybrid + wraparound childcare. Your child will spend 2-3 days per WEEK supervised by low wage workers and sitting on a laptop.
Here's
Fairfax,
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
