Terrorism Apologist Helped Nix PBS Film

Charles has an item up regarding a member of a panel that reviewed Islam vs. Islamists prior to PBS shutting it down:

LGF reader Paul Green emailed some interesting information about one member of the five-member panel that reviewed the documentary, DePaul University Professor Aminah McCloud. McCloud apparently showed some footage from the film to members of the Nation of Islam, and has very close ties to the extremist group herself.

I came across a two part on line interview with McCLoud. Part two here and Part one here. As you'll see from the extended quote below via the first link, in McCloud's view, 9/11 was our fault. In essence, according to her ... we deserved to be attacked due to our greed and injustice. How wonderfully moderate is that?

Dr. Aminah McCloud: The root cause of terrorism is a combination of injustice and greed. President Bush asserted that the people who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon committed acts of terror because they hate our freedoms. I doubt that but I would say that our freedoms have not driven us to act justly in the world or at home. I have not ever read of a powerful society which acted justly being attacked for anything nor have I read of greed leading to anything other than injustice. Muslims who can escape the injustices in the Muslim world seem to thrive on western freedoms though they do not understand them. Much of what is happening today is in response to continued injustice along with some who take advantage of the atmosphere to create further injustice. We have a history of supporting those who will let us have our way with their countries’ resources. It is important to note that without the assistance of Muslims who are corrupt and those Muslims who benefit from that corruption, we would not be able to do what we do.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

"I have not ever read of a powerful society which acted justly being attacked for anything"

Right. FDR was unjustly dissing the gentle Nanking raping Japanese Empire by denying them oil to drive their baby bayoneting expansion.

"nor have I read of greed leading to anything other than injustice"

Greed frequently leads to ignominious defeat (see point above). Within a single sentence this asshat managed to Fisk themself.

[Fred Beloit]

See defenddemocracy.org or google her for information about Dr.(of Islam) McCloud. De Paul, my old school, what has become of you? You employ extremist Islamic proselytizers and fire those who orally defend America against Islamist extremists. In fact the entire Chicago area seems to have gone politically EU on us.

[BobInStamford]

How can this be, brave patriots??

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/12/iraq.main/index.html

In the GREEN zone?? I thought that the SURGE was WORKING???

Damn ungrateful evil-doers. More hearts and minds must be liberated!!!

[ConserView]

Who you gonna call? NEWSBUSTERS ! (.com) Good one, Dan

[Buzzy]

Fred, I'm also worried as to how the PBS would allow extremist Islamic proselytizers to censor what Americans hear from a publicly owned media outlet.

Seems to me that identifying the Islamofascists in our midst should be no harder than a local cop finding illegal aliens in Bisbee Arizona and yet both groups are allowed to flourish and grow in numbers.

[charles]

what's that got to do with pbs bobby/victor>

see you tomorrow

[Fred Beloit]

BoobinBridgeport, glad you are back safe from London. Have a good trip? Am anxiously awaiting some new slogans cheering America's enemies on and denigrating your fellow Americans. What you lack in patriotism is more than made up for by your brevity, which, believe me, is most appreciated. Thank you. Yours, Fred.

[Fred Beloit]

Buzz, I've believed for a long while that PBS money from the Government (from us) is used by PBS for left-wing propaganda, so I'm not in the least surprised by their actions. But lately I see more and more evidence of the Dhimmitude of my alma mater. How sad.

[charles]

comments are screwy this morning,,,,,,,

bobby/victor

you know they do that especially for the benefit of you and your fellow travelers right?

when will your love affair with the goatfuckers end?

[BobInStamford]

Slogans? I believe that your leader, The DECIDER, has cornered the market on slogans.

Smoke em Out
Bring em On
Mission Accomplished
Stay the Course

He must have learned how to come up with this stuff at cheerleading academy. Such a leader, that DECIDER.

Surge on, patriots. Just stay out of the GREEN zone. It doesn't seem to safe at the moment.

[Fred Beloit]

London doesn't seem very safe either, Boob. Seems like every month or so a new bomb plot is discovered. Your pals the beheaders and indiscriminating murderers are getting better and better at what they do. Perhaps Nancy ought to meet with them to discuss, to discuss...something.

[Fred Beloit]

Nah. That wouldn't help, Boob. There's nothing to discuss. We just need to become more and more aggressive. That's the only language they understand. Surge on with the spirit of the bayonet, and of course you know what that is.

[charles]

Smoke em Out - why, yes - he did

Bring em On - it makes it easier to take them out if they gather in one spot (and a smaller "carbon footprint to boot" - it's a win win

Mission Accomplished - saddam and his two hell spawn will never get their hands on a wmd again right?

Stay the Course - indeed we are - they are being attrited at a fairly steady rate tho i wish there were more "martyrs" in allahs waiting room

you're doing an excellent job cheerleading the mujis - i'm sure they'll thank you before they take your head

well - time to go earn - see you tomorrow

[BobInStamford]

Charles, go earn. Make your leader proud. And sorry to hear that your wife was subjected to goatfucking while living in Fallujah - i mean Astoria. Lets hope she didn't catch anything. SURGE ON!!

[charles]

bob - got a minute before i shut down

you are a vile little prick whos mouth should be washed out with soap

tell you what, not only will i bring a sock with me tomorrow so victor can be there with you, i'll also have a nice bar of irish spring that i just washed my ass with

see you then - wear something nice

[Zifnab]

Just for a quick reality check. Who here on this forum actually watches PBS Frontline or any other PBS documentaries regularly?

*raises hand*

Ok, now who here watched "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" or "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" on FOX News, a week before the elections?

Which, of course, also raises the question that if Scaife wants to fund another "OMG! BROWN PEOPLE!" documentary, why is PBS required to publish it? If I made "A tribute to Islam, my most favoritist religion in the whole world :) :) :)" with a camcorder in my basement, PBS wouldn't include it. If Oliver Stone produced "The 3rd Airplane: Mormons and the fall of the Twin Towers", PBS wouldn't be obligated to include that one either. Why does a documentary suddenly require inclusion simply because it was produced from a right wing outlet?

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Zif PBS belongs to the public. It is financed in part from tax funds. If it were not, I would have no problem with PBS being a flak for the left. But for Christ's sake I don't want to be forced to pay for it, like a union member. PBS has never, as far as I know, aired a documentary critical of the terrorists. Does this help your understanding?

[eliXelx]

uday hussein is reputed to have said of his putative leadership, "my father beat them with whips! I will whip them with scorpions. No matter what else happens in Iraq, they can't take the killing of this demon away from President Bush!

[eliXelx]

uday hussein is reputed to have said of his putative leadership, "my father beat them with whips! I will whip them with scorpions." No matter what else happens in Iraq, they can't take the killing of this demon away from President Bush!

[templar knight]

There are some important points you somehow missed, Zif. One, a documentary on radical Islam is not about brown people, per se, as Islam's radical part is inclusive of brown, black, yellow and white. See how that works, Ziffy. Two, no Mormons have crashed planes into the WTC, unless of course you Leftists have a new conspiracy theory. And third, you leftists seem to have no problem with left-wing documentaries being shown on PBS, so in the course of being consistent you would need to do one of two things, either oppose left-wing documentaries, or not oppose right-wing.

[Zifnab]

"And third, you leftists seem to have no problem with left-wing documentaries being shown on PBS, so in the course of being consistent you would need to do one of two things, either oppose left-wing documentaries, or not oppose right-wing."

See, that's where we break stride. I think PBS has done an excellent job of getting above partisan politics and reporting on actual events. If the company decides not to run a documentary in their series because they believe it is without merit, I suspect it has nothing to do with PBS being a commi-lami-terror-nista front group, and everything to do with the piece they have been handed standing out as a dude.

As for "not producing a single documentary critical of the terrorists", I think you might be speaking with a great deal of inexperience or misinformation. The Richard Dawkins "Root of All Evil" documentary is incredibly critical of the extremist muslim faith. Documentaries detailing the rise and fall of Saddam Hussien never flinch at displaying all of the dictator's most brutal tactics and vile attrocities. Likewise, their documentaries on Al Qaeda, detailing the rise of Bin Laden (you remember him right? the one we still haven't caught?) and the multitude of US dealings with him before 9/11 pull no punches when confronting his stated or implicit mission, when detailing his mentor and his origins, or when labeling various members of the Saudi Royals as continued supporters through their actions.

Ultimately, PBS strives for accuracy and completeness. Scaife's documentaries rarely concern themselves with the whole picture, and typically only serve to pump up the volume of rhetoric. If PBS dropped Scaife's film, I suspect they had a damn good reason.

[Buzzy]

Neither Ziffy nor al Qaeda Bob have any problem with extremist Islamic proselytizers deciding what Americans should watch. Pelosi is best friends with a Syrian terrorist and is probably planning a sleepover with the Iranian President soon. Bill Clinton, AlGored, and Jimmy Carter make millions in loot from their buddies in Dubai every year. One doesn't have to look far to find America's enemies these days.

[templar knight]

Ziffy, I see you dodged my other points, as usual. And only a good Lefty would have so much faith in the fairness of PBS. You are right on the Party line, never question what the Party tells you, Ziffy, just march in goose step with the Party. You'll go a long way. With the Party.

[Kelvin]

Amazing. The failed Iraq campaign is collapsing, the WH is destroying emails pertinent to the AG scandal and you boobs are discussing PBS.

[Purple Avenger]

"In the GREEN zone?"

Same way someone landed a plane on Clinton's lawn.

[Zifnab]

"Bill Clinton, AlGored, and Jimmy Carter make millions in loot from their buddies in Dubai every year. One doesn't have to look far to find America's enemies these days."

Link plz?!

"Ziffy, I see you dodged my other points, as usual."

Oliver Stone is a career conspiracy theorist and "Mormons blowing up the Twin Towers" was a joke intended to highlight how PBS is not obligated to give every wild theory equal merit. And while Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and credos, no one would be able to identify Hicks as an Al Qaeda sympathizer by looking at him. I believe it was Dan who bemoaned the fact that we were checking little old ladies at airports with equal fervor as 6-foot tall tan bearded guys on dialysis. How do you distinguish an "evil muslim" from a "good christian soldier"? Should we give them barcodes or id cards? Do full body cavity searches for the Koran? How many all-white mosques did Scaife report on in his film? Islam is a Middle Eastern religion. You can play the "but I don't see color!" card, and claim all the ignorance in the world, but this is ultimately a race conflict as much as a religion conflict when the two are so intertwined. A documentary on radical Islam will inevitably include a heavy emphasis on people with brown skin. At least have the balls to be honest about that.

[Fred Beloit]

Zif wrote: "I think PBS has done an excellent job of getting above partisan politics and reporting on actual events." Sounds good, but then he wrote: "Likewise their documentaries on Al Qaeda, detailing the rise of Bin Laden (you remember him right, the one we still haven't caught)..." See in Zif's mind throwing in this jab at the President is "above partisan politics and reporting on actual events." This is why what is objective and real to him is biased to us. (And if we forced our way into Pakistan to try to get Bin Laden, Zif would find a way to say we shouldn't have violated Pakistan sovereignty.) Sorry, Zif, your defense of PBS and their claim on my money is just the SOS.

[Fred Beloit]

"At least have the b---s to be honest about that." OK, I admit it. In Viet Nam. same thing. In Korea, same thing, Yes, Japan. But wait, Zif. How do you explain Germany? Could whom we fight have more relationship to who attacks us than what color their skin is? Please cut the crap.

[Zifnab]

"How do you explain Germany?"

"OMG! THE HUNS!"

Go read a god-damn history book. That wasn't even hard. Not that it was even vaguely relevant to the conversation, but our government has done and excellent job when they needed to pigeon-hole an enemy as strange and evil. However, contrary to everything right-wing radio has told you, we are not at war with Eurasia. Iraq didn't attack us. Saudi Arabia didn't attack us. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iran, none of them attacked us. At best, you could say we were attacked by Afganistan. So why are we waging a massive war in across the Middle East with intentions of conquest and pacification? That's the million dollar question.

'See in Zif's mind throwing in this jab at the President is "above partisan politics and reporting on actual events."'

I also appreciate how I'm now, apparently, PBS. The truth is that PBS does a damn good job of reporting the truth, but certain segments of the population prefer to live in fantasy land. Your tax dollars are not going towards reenforcing that fantasy land, so you feel the need to throw a hissy-fit. Kinda like how Dan throws a hissy-fit every time education dollars are spent in a way he doesn't see fit, or James Inhofe has a temper tantrum because government scientists aren't producing the reports on global warming he wants to see, or President Bush fires generals who don't feed him enough "good news" coming out of Iraq. It's a perpetual dreamland for you guys. And if you can't kill reality by shouting it down, you demand the right to kill reality by starving it off. It's a said and pathetic state you put yourselves in. Fortunately, it will all come to an end in a year and nine months, when the trash is flushed from office and reality-based people are back in charge again.

[Purple Avenger]

"The DECIDER, has cornered the market on slogans"

In quantity only. The democrats have focused on quality - "we surrender"

[Purple Avenger]

"Iraq didn't attack us. Saudi Arabia didn't attack us. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iran, none of them attacked us."

Other than the Americans killed in terrorist attacks perpetrated by citizens of those nations, or instigated by those nations themselves of course.

Actually, Iraq was constantly shooting at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. You will recall a several day Clinton bombing campaign to quell some of that.

Good to know that liberals are willing to abandon Americans and out diplomats traveling abroad to their own defenses though. That's a useful data point.

[Fred Beloit]

But we were attacked by Saudis on 9/11 Zif. And your target Bin Laden is a Saudi. Do you think the Nazis weren't strange and evil? "Huns" was much more WWI than WWII. Krauts (from sauerkraut) was the word in WWII. But what you are maintaining is nonsense. You imply that Iraq is about brown people. Now you say that the biggest part of WWII was about a nickname. First came the nickname and then the war. Yeah sure. And we aren't in combat with Egypt, etc. You mean reality-based people like you? Hahahaha. Well OK, there is one thing though. When you and yours are in charge, I want a PBS tax refund. Your reasons why I should pay for your emotional lefties at PBS are just goofy.

[Purple Avenger]

"Do you think the Nazis weren't strange and evil?"

Yea, but they wanted to kill the jooos too, so that's a mitigating factor.

[Fred Beloit]

Somewhere up above Zerodegreeskelvin opines we have no business discussing PBS when Iraq is failing. Iraq is not failing. There are battles going on there. That is warfare. A collection of battles. Our enemy kills indiscriminately. We discriminate and try to kill only them. That's one BIG BIG difference. The MSM has convinced the militarily unenlightened part of our populace that because there are battles, the war is being lost. Not so. And the talk we are having about PBS concerns Military unenlightenment, and we have business to talk about it.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, Purp, how could they be that strange and evil when they were doing Allah's work?

[Phoenix]

Zif,

Without going into past history beyond twenty years, what would you have done after 9/11 if you were Bush? Serious question. I have no intention of making fun of your answer.

As far as the post, PBS has always had a liberal slant. Just like NPR. It does matter that we're all paying for it. I don't see anything changing though. I wouldn't want it going to the right, for sure. What a bust that a nation built on objective reality (to the best the founders could manage it - and it was brilliant) has just given up on the best place to be - in the middle with a strong hold on facts without bias. We have so many choices for our particular leanings that you'd think the few organizations that take our money to pay for 'our' productions would strive to meet in the middle at all costs. I think I'm dreaming....

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[nowinger]

YOu cannot possibly rationally believe that after FOUR YEARS of occupation, the fact that Baghdad is still not safe, is anything but a total failure: strategic, political and military. How many years of battles do you want to fight before admitting the truth? Would you counsel that we should keep 150,000 troops in Iraq for 10 more years, 20 more years, 75 more years? But, I guess, the truth is war without end is exactly what the wingers want, its the only way they can maintain the appropriate level of hysteria and hate, they NEED a hot war just like they NEED another terrorist attack to justify their world view, though they may not consciously admit this.

[Kelvin]

The war in Iraq is not being lost??? We've been in there for more than 4 years have squandered hundreds of billions of $$ and still cant secure the place. As an added bonus, we are unable to even realistically threaten any other nation (read Iran/Syria etc) with military action because resources are stretched so thin in Iraq. Oh it's lost all right - the question is how quickly can we cut the cord and let it go.

[Buzzy]

Ziffy you were wanting links on how our political leaders are bought and paid for by Islamic interests.. well here they are. If you want more you can get someone to show you how to google them all for yourself.

To be fair and balanced I've thrown in some info on some of our CINO Republicans who are bought and paid for by UAE and Saudi money. The problem isn't only with your side or my side of the political aisle.

Wall Street insiders are abuzz over estimates that Bill Clinton alone may have roped in more than $200 million in funds from the Emir of Dubai and other individuals based in the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11190

It is an open secret that Arab money greases the wheels of Washington politics. How many US politicians are in the pockets of the Arabs? Hard to say, the media, the supposed ‘watchdog’ of politicians has never roused itself to investigate the trail of Arab money in Washington. But some things are certain. Carter, Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and others have received millions of dollars in Arab money for speeches, campaigns, libraries and support of family business.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton raise millions in capital from Dubai speaking engagements to fund political campaigns, political advocacy groups, and environmental initiatives. Clinton, Carter aides, former Bush I appointees and other former top political and bureaucrat operatives receive million dollar consultancy contracts from Arab firms to lobby for contracts in the US and Europe. Bush II and Clinton libraries were built of course with Saudi money.

Even Jimmy Carter’s peanut farm was saved from bankruptcy by Arab money: ‘There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But according to... the bank files, [the Arabs] renegotiated the repayment terms...[giving a] savings of $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary.’

Apparently Carter ran his peanut farm like his presidency – very badly. So it is no surprise to hear Carter vent anti-Semitic racism in badly written books, and rant on about the Jews. The Arabs saved him from a pre-Presidency bankruptcy – something that would not look good on the resume while you are running for the highest office in the country. Of course the leading Arab financier in saving the peanut farm was a Saudi named ‘Pharaon’ who later, rather unsurprisingly, contributed generously to Carter’s library and centre. Plus ca change….

Then we have the hundreds of billions in Saudi money washing around US business. As a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia stated; ‘There is perhaps $800 billion in private Gulf-Arab money outside the Gulf, the vast majority of it in the United States, $600 billion or so from Saudi Arabia alone…. the possibility of a financial panic and the sudden withdrawal of large amounts of money is something to be considered.’

Much of this money is invested in US holdings, corporations and entities with strong political ties ranging from Jeb Bush’s Internet software company to large resource based firms with huge lobby power in Washington. There is no accurate list of how many US politicians are tied to Arab money. Instead of crying about climate change maybe some in the media might want to take this on as a more worthy and immediately necessary project. We need to know how many members of the US congress and Senate have ties through business, family or political donations to Saudi money. My guess based on anecdotal evidence, would be that probably 50% of US politicians are in some way linked to Arab money.

http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Arab-money-in-the-US-and-a-vibrant-5th-column/456

[bloodrage bob]

glad to hear you watch PBS, ziffster. (not at all surprised, BTW) so! didja catch the PBS special last night on the shroud of turin? you know: the one strongly implying that the shroud is
A) authentic
B) not a fake
C) dating from the 1st century; the famous carbon-dating tests proclaiming it 'medieval' were wrong
D) actual physical proof of the existence of ol' jesus?
E) actual physical documentation/confirmation of at least part of the gospels?

hmmm. well, all that would tend to make any sensible person think that secular humanism, the basis for all liberalism.....is wrong. incorrect. *A LIE*. it would also tend to lend credence to those who say that christianity is superior, both morally and intellectually, to that gutter pseudoreligion, "islam". wouldn't it?

care to comment? care to stand up for PBS again?

[Cthulu]

Nowinger and Kelvin want the US to firebomb Iraq

[Zifnab]

"care to comment? care to stand up for PBS again?"

What on god's green earth are you babbling about BB? Yeah, they did some testing on the Shroud of Turin and it dated back to the time of Jesus, even going so far as to claim it was actually a shroud that actually covered a dead guy. How that disproves secular humanism (or, for that matter, proves that Jesus is the son of God) still escapes me. Apparently "Jesus was a dude that was alive 2000 years ago" proves something deeper and more profound than that he existed. How any of this relates to "that gutter pseudoreligion, islam" also escapes me, as Islam acknowledges Jesus as a living prophet and supports a great deal of Christian Gospel.

Some people also claim they found the tomb of Jesus and archeological evidence backs them up. And PBS did a skillful job at reporting on each of these "unveilings" (pun totally intended). Other than PBS being incredibly factual and unbiased, prepared to tackle a subject secular humanists would allegely blanche at or attempt to undercut, I don't know what you've managed to confirm.

[bloodrage bob]

interesting, ziffy, interesting that a allegedly busy "college student" such as you claim to be has so much free time to post here so regularly. and passionately defend islam. and post amazingly ready-to-hand hyperlinks supporting your "let's lose!" arguments. and watch PBS specials rather than doing...you know....schoolwork. instead of being in...you know...class.

how do you manage that again? you still denying you're one of those $5.50-an-hour DNC 'chatroom disinformation' cadets? ("hey, it's more dignified than my last job! telemarketing SUCKS, dude!")

[Zifnab]

Lecture is slow and I can bring my laptop to class.

Yesh, think outside the box.

[templar knight]

Buzzy, we all sit here arguing about the merits of Democrats and Republicans when the facts show both parties are selling us out. To the Middle East. To the Chinese. To others, as well. I'm 42 years old, and I sometimes wonder if I might just see the end of the US. Perhaps so.

[nowinger]

It took the Roman empire a couple of centuries to fall, and when it fell it wasn't replaced by another super power, but by a 1000 year void. By my calculation we have been in decline since the 1960's, with some sectors declining more rapidly than others. First to go was the culture and moral center, by that I don't mean the evangelicals idea of morality, but the idea of civility, discretion and modesty. We are seeing the beginning of the decline of our economic dominance, having loosened many of the regs put in place after the crash and having sold a good portion of our country to foreigners. Last will come the military decline. The new American century of dominance so beloved by the neocons is never going to come about, instead, they've accelerated our decline by several decades. I don't believe we have the collective will to shake ourselves out of it, the transformative potential of the 9/11 tragedy to bring about a new American golden age was lost.

[bloodrage bob]

an interesting analysis, there, nowinger. for a liberal, it's almost semi-intelligent, even.

a quick couple of questions, ok? most historians assign the fall of rome to 2 factors: social rot from within - a soft, effette, suicidal populace led by an elite that could be described as "toxic"; and external forces exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration. ("exacerbated" means "made worse".)

since i equate the fall of rome with the rise of *modern* liberalism - characterized by statism, self-hatred, and a keen desire to see this country brought down by any means - i agree with your contention that the country's decline began in the 1960's.

since the 1960's were the onset of the rise to power of....MODERN LIBERALISM. and modern liberalism, paralleling ancient rome, stands for....suicidally effette behavior and promoting uncontrolled immigration. right?

so! how's it feel knowing that you pretty much just proved MY contention that "america will fall just as rome did, and the liberals are the ones bringing this about"?

[nowinger]

My definition of social rot is different from yours. Romes leaders, like our own today of all stripes, stopped caring or believing in their institutions. They became selfish, corrupt and greedy. They refused to spend money on critical areas: infrastructure, the military, education. They were interested only in short term gains and staying in power themselves.

The decline and fall of Rome also coincides relatively closely with the rise of Christianity which ENDED the previous centuries of Roman tolerance and heralded a preoccupation with fighting heresy instead of focusing on reality..a characteristic I would equate with the rightwing and the onset of the so called culture wars. The liberals are doubtless responsible for much of the cultural decline, being for the most part in charge of all forms of media, which are racing toward the gutter faster every day.

[bloodrage bob]

i might argue your contention that "rome's fall coincided fairly closely with the onset of christianity, and it's attendant intolerance, etc etc"., nowinger. let's review the dates:

baby jesus crucified: 33 a.d.

christianity as a formalized religion begins: 34 a.d., say.

rome falls: 476 a.d.

using that math, i could just as easily assign rome's fall to the decision to allow non-landowners into the legions; followed by allowing immigrant barbarians to serve. or the gracchi brothers failing to get land reform. those things *also* happened roughly 400-500 years before the fall, too.

it IS unusual that you'd ascribe rome's fall to the romans taking their eyes off the ball; and shifting to "bread-and-circuses" mode from "attain peace through constant war preparation" mode. i'm surprised you'd admit that. the emperors bought votes and support from the mob by giving them free stuff, yes? lower taxes on the poor; free bread/grain at prices below cost; plenty of reality shows to keep them preoccupied.

that's pretty much SOP for the modern democrat party, is it not? "vote for me and i'll raise taxes on the rich; and (in michigan, anyway) i'll give you a free ipod!!" how's that differ from bread & circuses?

lastly: your statement that rome "quit spending money on education" is laughable, and indicative of paying a little too much attention to teacher's dogma. rome didn't spend public money on public education. education was a *private* matter: you were on your own.