By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made - across town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop - without warrants - on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.

Carriers uniquely positioned

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services - primarily long-distance and wireless - to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."

In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.

Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.

Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" - sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.

Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" - such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses - can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.

The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell's bedrock principle - protection of the customer - guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information - period. That's how it was for decades," he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

Companies approached

The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.

AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."

In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."

Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."

Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."

In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.

Similarities in programs

The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.

One company differs

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order - or approval under FISA - to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information - known as "product" in intelligence circles - with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.

Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.

Here's a related article dating back to  May 1999.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html 

Here's the first paragraph: "An international surveillance network established by the National Security Agency and British intelligence services has come under scrutiny in recent weeks, as lawmakers in the United States question whether the network, known as Echelon, could be used to monitor American citizens.

Jordan .

Is there an emoticon that stands quivering with its hands over its mouth? How about a Neo-emoti-Con?

Until such time, will have to suffice to describe my feelings on this latest outrage by the fascist theocrats. Did I mention that I'm shared scitless? No, I guess I didn't.

When people with direct knowledge, anonymous sources and one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation are so eager to discuss with the press, why, I'm certain they are looking out for the country's well being and they should be trusted implicitly.

If only there were more lawyers in Washington, they could look into this. Maybe even some lawyers in the White House or the CIA could decide if it's lawful and stuff.

Well, I for one am going to sit tight but be very very careful with my phone calls. Just this morning, before reading this news bulletin, my neighbor called asking me what you call a specific antique table that has extending leaves on either end. I told her I'd call it an "extending table." She wants to list it on ebay and wasn't sure of the proper term. Heaven only knows what the CIA made of that phone call!

Like Tim Robbins always says, it's a chill wind blowin'!

Brrrrrrrrrrrr, 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Nope, it's something else.  You pull out a leaf from each side and then you pull up so that the leaf is not under the table but level with the table.  It then has something underneath that braces it in place.  But the leaves on this particular table do not drop -- they stay perpendicular to the floor in the extended position or the closed position.

 (Of course that was all in code that the NSA has no chance of translating!)

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Aw, Dave, I thought you and I would be in agreeance on this one!

Nah, I don't have a blissful existence. It's pretty wonderful, that much is true. But I refuse to get all prickly over what I consider a non-threatening action by the federal government. And I know with all my heart that should there be no telephone monitoring, and another attack came, and it came to pass in the next Commission Report of the next Terrorist Attack that there had been hundreds of unmonitored calls from Karachi or Kabul to San Diego, that "some people" (I love that expression) would be screaming about dereliction of duty and the president's sworn oath to protect the people.

Seriously, you know I'm not overly fond of the profession of Law, but I recognize that there's no shortage of such practitioners in Washington DC and it is their task to quibble back and forth on the legalities. They don't get paid just over minimum wage for doing nothin'!  These programs do not occur in a vacuum with only the readers of USA Today and its "anonymous sources" knowing the Full Truth.  I guess I'm just a trusting soul.  (Which may explain why I had someone come onto my property and steal half a tank of gas out of my gas guzzling SUV on Monday shortly after I bought $50 worth of petrol from my Pakistani venders.)

Anyway, NSA monitoring -- I'll not lose a wink of sleep over it.

Not to change the subject, but over the course of 500+ years of European colonization followed by the ultimate development of the Union, what is it that you, Dave, would have done differently in terms of your dealinngs with the indigenous populations had you been in charge?  Pick an era from 1490s to 1890s.  A big chunk of those time spans took place during times where the conquering of lands always spelled out dominion over the conquered and a confiscation of land. Frankly, I can't think of a civilization that ever did otherwise, can you? 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I really don't think there's much danger in any American school child of the past several decades being unaware of the shortcomings of their country's forefathers, do you? It seems to me the opposite is more true. 

But I do love Trey and Matt.

And I don't think that routinely defining the US as worse than the Nazis would serve any positive function.  And I think is it demonstrably false. I guess we look at the balance book in a different way. 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I have no idea how the school curriculum of the Japanese cover their own shortcomings (of which there were many) during the 20th century. I'm pretty sure they do.  They recently apologized to the Chinese for enslaving women during WWII, as I recall.  That shows a willingness to openly accepting their culpability.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"It's funny that CCC mentioned the Japanese, I in all honesty never had any knowledge of the internment camps during WW2 until I was out of high school, as it was plain never taught, without a doubt because it is so shameful."

Maybe the reason why it wasn't taught was because history class is about getting as much in as possible - not discussing every single aspect of history. Your conclusion as to why it wasn't taught isn't even a logical conclusion unless the teacher told you that he/she was skipping over because it was shameful. it's the perrogative of teh teacher to decide for the most part what to cover, and if your teacher(s) decided to skip over certain aspects of history doesn't necessarily mean it was because it was "shameful."

We covered both issues from what I reemmber in high school history so as you can see it's going to vary from state to state, school to school, teacher to teacher.

Jordan .

Susan, I didn't say that we are worse than the Nazi's, it's not a damned contest. All I was saying is that we need to realize that what was done to the Native Americans was and should be considered as within the same realm and level of terrible genocide as what what was done in Nazi Germany.

BUT...

You'll get no argument from me that the education of the basic American student is sub-par and sinking daily.

You might get an argument from me if you think the focus on the US as a genocide committing, Japanese interring, self-righteous ____________fill in the blank with the negative adjective of your choice, is insufficient in today's American schools.

Deciding what is the most important to cover within each grade's curriculum is a difficult balance as always. And teaching history from the earliest years through high school means a different approach each year. Did I ever tell you I collect American History textbooks from the 1840s on to the 1950s? Interesting.

I'm certain you see the appropriate balance in a different way than I do. Maybe that has something to do with too much focus on the US in a vacuum to the exclusion of the very human developement of every previous society. Too little empahsis on comparing and contrasting existing countries while we magnify every negativity within our own. I see it as somewhat similar to the Democratic party today -- or maybe even Iraq today -- too much desire to focus on the oprression of my group with far less empshasis on what unites the whole.

Example. At one time I would have agreed with much that you say. We could have sat around your local "Deliverance" pub (I've never forgotten your description!) and talked into the wee hours of the morning about each and every imperfection, crime, and wrong step of the country from its earliest days well, up until I left this chain of thinking behind. So maybe around the 1980s. And I would have been in agreeance with you.

But a couple things pushed me into a different realm and one of them was studying the history of Mexico -- 3000 years of Mexican History -- for a massive exhibition at the LA Art Museum. I went into it with my preset notions about imperialism, colonialism, and the destruction of the indigenous peoples. I was gung ho to find all the facts about the abuses of the Catholic Church and the dirty dog Spaniard conquistadors.

Then I started reading the primary sources like the disputes between different church leaders -- those who claimed the Natives were NOT human and those who claimed that YES, of course they were human -- as human as the Spanish. Some of this is covered in the film "The Mission" which does a good job covering a real life South American story. As things really go when you have any two people together, even if there is an assumption of BASIC agreement, there will be differences. And that is always the case when you read primary works from the movers and shakers of any era and any country. That means there is a lot to factor in before making a conclusion.

Another thing that got me thinking was the rapid conversion of the remaining Native population with the appearance of the Virgin of Guadelupe within a little more than a decade after the arrival of the Spanish. Okay, hundreds of books have been written on that subject alone so I'm not trying to argue that the Juan Diego (I think that was his name) was not in fantasy land when he saw the vision. But the idea took hold pretty fast and and held fast until today when it is more than a little common to find a Virgin of Guadalupe candle in your local Ralph's market. I asked myself why? Were the remaining natives, many of whom were not amongst the hierarchy, just worn down by the human sacrifice of the "ball games?" and the constant blood-letting of the Maya? Was a new cosmology more appealing to them -- one where they did not have to regularly spill blood, sacrifice young men and women to the gods, and blood let from their own bodies in order to make the sun rise and the crops grow? Maybe the idea of ONE god who allowed his own sacrifice was more appealing. After all, the sun still continued to rise once the human sacrifice ended. The crops still grew.

Anyway, I started to think a little differently about the very broad subject of the "vanquished."

So, I guess what I'm trying to convey is that ONE nation is millions of people. ONE nation's leadership over centuries is thousands of people. Some good, some bad, many neutral. Historically some nations have had more extraordinary leaders -- politically and otherwise-- than some others and the US has been blessed with a lion's share of intellectual wealth since the founding of this country. The US is not the only country to have reached a civilization peak, but it is the most recent and by all standards the most successful nation in the history of the world. IF that spells self-righteousness on occasion, well, I still think there are worse things. And one of those worse things, imo, is losing perspective while delving ever deeper and deeper into the abyss of "My Nation's Negativities." Back to square one and my sense that the public schools from my Southern California experience have done grave damage to the development of a committed future citizenry with their over-emphasis on the "Crimes of Our Forefathers" or whatever they may want to call it.  I don't disagree with a fair and complete teaching of history warts and all.  But I just have a feeling we'd have a difficult time sitting in a room and deciding which is which.

But education is a big subject too and I'm only sorry that so much of what falls under that heading is conveyed by teachers.

Now I need my delayed morning cup of coffee! Damn and now the phone is ringing!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

RE NSA Monitoring - Washinton Post did a quick survey, and lo and behold, much like the other evil NSA program, a large majority of Americans....get ready....found that the program was acceptable. A whole 63%, including 44% (that would probably consist mostly of Conservatives) who STRONGLY endorsed it. 35% said it was bad, and 24% found it STRONGLY unacceptable.

Frankly, if we allow ECHELON which actually scans through conversations, emails, FAXes, etc, then I'm not sure  why we wouldn't allow data-mining of phone numbers (again, not actual conversations) from a 3rd party (AT&T, etc). The govt getting info from third parties is legal as long as the company says ok because that info doesn't actually belong to you and me - it belongs to the company - it ain't covered under our privacy right.

An aside - in the same poll - 56% said that it was appropriate for the media to disclose this top secret program - too bad no one asked that about Plame....

Jordan .

Jordan and I are working on our stand-up comedy routine as we speak, Dave! Guess who's the straight man?  We haven't announced it yet but it's going to be this year's TP Fest entertainment!  Way to let the cat out of the bag.

Just to simplify things, maybe, and to see how far apart we all may be, let's try this.  Let's assign a number from 1 to 10 in the most general sense of which nation, civilization, society you think is a "10" and which one might rank a "1."  You know, dating it also, such as Sudan 2000 = "0" Third Reich = somewhere just a tad above whatever we rank the USA.  Canada 1970 = "10."  France 1789 = "5."  I don't know. It's up to you.  Choose a couple/few good representatives of those societies you feel have done a great job and dismal job and where the US fits into the scale.  You can pick any time period in the US to do this too.  

Will you play?  I think it would be helpful if anyone else would like to be, dare I use such a word -- judgmental, if only for a short time for the purpose of clarifying where we stand.  Hey we do it with movies.  Why not civilizations?  I'll play if anyone else wants to.  We could actually draw up a group of them if you want, so that we are all placing them in order.  You know, like those tests in public school where you're given say 10 different historical events and you have you number them from 1-10 in the order they occurred. It'll be just like being back in school! No running out for recess!  Save me a seat in the cafeteria! 

Stop me before it's too late -- I'm having a North Farmington High School flashback. 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

All schools are set to certain standards from a state to state basis, but they aren't THAT locked down, Dave. Granted, maybe thigns have cahnged in 15-20 years, but from my experience, it doesn't change that much. They are told to cover these specific aspects of any class and to emphasize certain aspects, but the state does not, I repeat does not, write their classroom lessons (they suggest some), and that my friend, is what I am referring to. A teacher is told for example in American history to teach the expansion west. That's usually all the standard is with focus on certain things. Of cuorse, to discuss the western expansion, you gotta discuss Native Americans and reservations. If the teacher glosses over something, that is often his/her decision, and has nothing to do with some institutional "let's not talk about that" type stuff. But that of course is my opinion, so let's look at some facts.

So I decided to see what the most liberal state in the US says that teachers are supposed to teach in History, and I found this PDF (maybe I should've done TX but considering that I reemmber Japanese camps and knew about our conflict with Native Americans, it's safe to assume that at least in my school, it was tuaght):

http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/hist-social-sci-frame.pdf

And lo and behold (my new phrase), right there on page 144 is....wait for it...get ready....Susan, you should now say something funny....

"The relocation and internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans during the war on grounds of national security was a governmental decision that should be analyzed as a violation of their human rights."

check out the rest of 144 to see what they are supposed to touch upon. And check out page 102 (grade 8) concerning our expansion West.

These are prime examples of the guidelines teachers teach on teh state level. A school district can add on to this if they desire, but for the most part, a teacher is not held down too much and has plenty of space to talk about the evils of the US.

So for the record, Dave, at least in California, negative aspects of our history are NOT supposed to be left out or glossed over. 

For fun - how about Texas - probably the second most conservative state in the Union (just behind Utah).

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/ch113c.html and
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/ch113b.html

Quick search for the word "Japanse" brings up "analyze major issues and events of World War II such as fighting the war on multiple fronts, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Holocaust, the battle of Midway, the invasion of Normandy, and the development of and Harry Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb;" and in 8th Grade, we have "analyze federal and state Indian policies and the removal and resettlement of Cherokee Indians during the Jacksonian era."

Jordan .

And lo and behold (my new phrase), right there on page 144 is....wait for it...get ready....Susan, you should now say something funny....

"The relocation and internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans during the war on grounds of national security was a governmental decision that should be analyzed as a violation of their human rights."

Oh I do like that option, Jordan! Then we teachers can have a "dialogue" with our students! You know, open it up for "interesting questions" just like Michael Moore does with his documentary films or David Lynch did with his hyping of that other fine documentary bit of work "Loose Change." Yes, yes. Questions are good! And after a day's worth of "interesting questions," we teachers can blithely claim we weren't making accusations -- just asking questions. Who could object?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AMERICAN HISTORY 101 - John Q Public School

Today's subject: American Genocide -- Which of THIS* country's many, many horrific genocides was the worst?

Tomorrow's subject: Oppression of Minorities -- Which of THIS* country's minorities have been the most maltreated and why?

Day after Tomorrow's subject (minimum day 15 minute lecture): the barbaric founding of the 13 original colonies through WWII.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*We don't call it "OUR" country for that may make certain students uncomfortable since they may be from immigrant backgrounds. Such as everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another example: At UCLA where my son was a history major, we used to laugh about his classes. Dave, you may have loved it there! But let's say there was a class on the History of California, which there was. Guess what topic over a quarter's worth of twice a week classes got the most coverage? The shooting of San Francisco's first openly gay mayor (there were all those closet gay mayors before). This merited two weeks of class time including an additional time allotted for the airing of the documentary film on the subject. Oh and heaven help us all from the seething rage coming from Professor Corey three centuries later over the slave labor involved in the building of the missions and painting all those murals!

Another example: History of the US had a paragraph on the JFK assassination but two books assigned on the Stonewall episode in gay history. This was not a LGBT history of the US either. Pullllll ease!

I could go on and on.

Okay -- how about the survey class on the history of Rock 'N' Roll taken with the intent of it being an easy senior class credit. Did you know that Motown was racist? Yup. They made their artists take elocution classes to learn to speak "white" for their radio and tv appearances. Did you know Eric Burden was racist? I can't remember why this was, but take my word, he's a racist too. All southern rockers like the Allman Brothers = racist.

Strangely enough, this made writing exams a piece of cake because all you had to do was detail the racism, homophobism, heterosexism, etc. of any group heretofore seen as being prominent, important or historically positive and instant "A."

I could go on. I won't. You probably think I'm exaggerating or culling the most egregious examples. I'm not. The public education in the state of California was one of the most significant reasons I switched political parties.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin