Found in children's textbook

polaris_x wrote:

been sitting on this for a bit ...

this book definitely pushes an ideology ... especially with the text accompanying it ... basically saying that we should all be grateful for all the security measures the gov't has put in place ... if she were simply abiding by the procedure - it would be one thing but the insinuation that it should make people happy is troubling to me ...

this kind of stuff works very well on children ... you only have to see the mass amounts of marketing dollars spent convincing kids that high fructose corn syrup laden synthetic shit is all they need in life to be happy ... and now you have a populace where 1/3 are diabetic or at risk ... civil liberties and the constitution have been slowly eroding for a long time now ...

i'm not sure unsung doesn't have a point here ...

The kids book is centered on travel and perhaps it was the author's attempt to point out the normalcy a child might expect when proceeding through an airport- easing the anxiety they might feel as they go through the sometimes invasive security measures.

I don't think this author is on a government payroll to indoctrinate children and have them become indebted to the government's role in their life. I think this is a simple children's book that tells a story.

If conspiracists ever did actually have a point... it would likely be lost upon most given the fact that filters are rarely used before introducing items as evidence to support their beliefs. It's tough to take anything too serious when they are amid a stream of nonsensical items that invoke laughter, but very little concern. They would help themselves and their cause more by exercising even the modest of discretion.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

The kids book is centered on travel and perhaps it was the author's attempt to point out the normalcy a child might expect when proceeding through an airport- easing the anxiety they might feel as they go through the sometimes invasive security measures.

I don't think this author is on a government payroll to indoctrinate children and have them become indebted to the government's role in their life. I think this is a simple children's book that tells a story.

If conspiracists ever did actually have a point... it would likely be lost upon most given the fact that filters are rarely used before introducing items as evidence to support their beliefs. It's tough to take anything too serious when they are amid a stream of nonsensical items that invoke laughter, but very little concern. They would help themselves and their cause more by exercising even the modest of discretion.

well ... i didn't necessarily say it was a gov't conspiracy nor do i think this is a plot by the gov't ...

just simply that there is an ideology here being presented ... it may seem benign to most but these things typically are subtle ...

polaris_x wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

The kids book is centered on travel and perhaps it was the author's attempt to point out the normalcy a child might expect when proceeding through an airport- easing the anxiety they might feel as they go through the sometimes invasive security measures.

I don't think this author is on a government payroll to indoctrinate children and have them become indebted to the government's role in their life. I think this is a simple children's book that tells a story.

If conspiracists ever did actually have a point... it would likely be lost upon most given the fact that filters are rarely used before introducing items as evidence to support their beliefs. It's tough to take anything too serious when they are amid a stream of nonsensical items that invoke laughter, but very little concern. They would help themselves and their cause more by exercising even the modest of discretion.

well ... i didn't necessarily say it was a gov't conspiracy nor do i think this is a plot by the gov't ...

just simply that there is an ideology here being presented ... it may seem benign to most but these things typically are subtle ...

You did say that perhaps Unsung had a point. I'm saying that the likelihood of this book serving as early methodology to indoctrinate children is extremely low and is a reach to suggest so. One could dissect virtually anything and spin it to serve themselves if they wished. And, to what I said earlier... some here do this with great frequency and it really diminishes their credibility. If they ever did have something important to offer... it would likely be poorly received given the other material it rests with.

unsung wrote:

Thank you. My original "textbook" comment may have been jumping the gun but I mentioned in a following post that I too was awaiting the full story. I could edit the title but really what's the point. I'm good with it.

Children should not be de-sensitized to wrongs. We must remain vigilant in the battle for our liberty and our overall well-being.

Again, what's the problem you're trying to address here? What are you arguing? That the image of Olivia the Pig being searched and being "pleased" with it is actually an insidious attempt to convince kids...what?

If you want to argue that media in all it's forms is subtle, pervasive, persuasive and thus, potentially very dangerous, that's fine. I think everyone will agree with you. I certainly do.

But that's not really your point is it. You didn't pick out a story about the subliminal messaging about body image for young women or the hyper-capitalism of Christmas. You picked one that had to do with a very specific type of search.

So I'll ask it directly: what is wrong with kids being taught that searches before flying is a good thing? Is your implication with this thread that kids should actually fear searches at the airport? Should Olivia the Pig have actually said "fuck off pigs , this is an unacceptable form of government tyranny! This isn't about safety - this is cops run amok!" Are you trying to claim that kids being convinced that "airport searches are acceptable" means they will also accept warrantless searches in the rest of their lives? If so, where's your proof? What's the rest of the story about?

The internet is killing intelligent discourse. Unvetted image or statement --> instantly transmitted --> impulsive response --> commentary that's baseless, irrational or not thought out --> instantly transmitted. Sadly, that's kind of the common theme in these threads.

I haven't read the book, but I'll wager that it's not about random sobriety checkpoints, mass electronic wiretaps, or whistleblower trials. So what's it all about this time? I appreciate your second post, in which you confess that you too need to see what the rest of the story is about. Maybe you should do that next time before you fire off a baseless thread.

polaris_x wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You did say that perhaps Unsung had a point. I'm saying that the likelihood of this book serving as early methodology to indoctrinate children is extremely low and is a reach to suggest so. One could dissect virtually anything and spin it to serve themselves if they wished. And, to what I said earlier... some here do this with great frequency and it really diminishes their credibility. If they ever did have something important to offer... it would likely be poorly received given the other material it rests with.

but his initial post was particularly vague ... if you want to pin him strictly as an anti-gov't crusader and interpret everything in a particular vain ... that is your choice ... if my objective is to interact and learn on a forum such as this ... the more i can separate agendas and assumptions the better off i will be ...

edit: also i said i'm not unsure he doesn't have a point ... double negative for sure but it clearly says that i don't see it as black and white ...

all i'm saying here is that i do see an ideology in this particular example ... and that simply kids are very influential ...

Your point about being open to learning and ideas is fair enough, but let's get serious here... how is one left to separate agendas and assumptions when the history of several posters is marked by the same ideology simply presented in a different context?

In this case... the 'ideology' that our liberties have been trampled upon was supported by a portion of a children's 'textbook' that seemed to insinuate that airport security is Big Brother flexing his muscles.

Tomorrow... we will likely see a link to a video of a policeman handcuffing a thug. The next day... a story of a government purchase that seems likely to support the impending takeover. The following day... we will read of how Eddie Vedder pm's someone to tell them how he's been impressed with these posts and that he wishes he could come out and support them publically... but cannot because of the repercussions.

Don't get me wrong... I'm pretty sure that I could saddle up beside anyone paying their 10C fees at a concert and enjoy a beer with them; but I find it alarming at some people's mentalities. To be fair... some people are likely alarmed at mine.

unsung wrote:

You claim to be a lawyer and I'm an electrician having to tell you about a Constitution?

You don't know why government security is different compared to private?

Wow, simply wow.


On edit: directed at vant. I'm sick of sorting quotes on my phone.

I don't claim to be anything. I'm challenging your views in this thread as an average person.

You posted a picture from a children's book, called it a textbook, and decried it as evidence of government propaganda, despite the fact that there was no reference to anything about the government in the picture.

I'm challenging you to articulate how that is (a) propaganda ("propaganda" meaning there has to be some ulterior message), (b) how it is "government" propaganda, given that the picture doesn't say who is doing the searching, (c) what "message" you think is being sent to children who read this book, and (d) if that message is: "airport security done by the government is bad," then why you believe that's the case.

If you're going to level charge after charge against some unspecified government evil, and if you're going to use a children's book that's vague in it's imagery at best, you'd better be prepared to do the heavy lifting. The internet is a real easy place to post links, make broad unsupported claims and then deflect or ignore challenges to your viewpoint, but in the words of the posting guidelines, I think we can be better here. Can you?

Swing away.

unsung wrote:

You claim to be a lawyer and I'm an electrician having to tell you about a Constitution?

You know that Italy isn't run by American "government goons" and that the US constitution doesn't really... apply there, right?


And after all the children molested by private contractors in the middle east (that we paid about 10 times as much as we would have paid the military to do the same job and would have been subject to American laws that would have made molesting kids punishable), aren't you a bit worried about... maybe a "private security" might not have your best interests at heart when searching your wife for weapons?

Also, I'm sure little piglet, Olivia, would have a different view of the TSA if her name was placed on the 'No-Fly List'.