OT Harmful Books

Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

My guess is "harmful books" would be the ones you've been reading. Just
look at the harm they've done. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

In article ,
says...
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

A book that happens to disagree with your beliefs.

Looking at the list I wasn't exactly surprised. Sex, feminism,
socialism, communism, evolution all the things the rabid right
likes to fear.
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

A book that happens to disagree with your beliefs.

Looking at the list I wasn't exactly surprised. Sex, feminism,
socialism, communism, evolution all the things the rabid right
likes to fear.

Not quite all. Um......not even close.

Wolfgang
that's the nice thing about "top 1000" lists.

In article ,
says...
And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?


The Fly Tier's Benchside Reference, if it slides off your
flytying bench, and lands on your foot.

Kevin


--
reply to:
kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

"POTUS For Dummies."

Apparently read by one recently elected POTUS.

Mark

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:29:56 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

My guess is "harmful books" would be the ones you've been reading. Just
look at the harm they've done. ;-)

Actually, you're not far off, given some of the ideas seemingly
contained in Ken's postings. What these books seem to have in common is
the promotion is the promotion of an unrealistic world view in that some
man-desired force is substituted for natural outcome, such as socialism,
communism, etc. Animals, including man, are simply not geared to have
complete "equality" among all members (for example, the biological
differences between males and females or the physical size and strength
differences between males). Just as with other animals, nature dictates
not only survival of the fittest, but the rule of the strongest - there
are those "destined" to be leaders, those "destined" to be followers,
and those "destined" not to survive, and no amount of wishing it were
different or hand-wringing over that fact will change it. Essentially,
these books convince those who are simply not destined for being
"leaders" that they can be more and/or convince them that they would be
"leaders," but for those who would "keep them down." The problem is
that it isn't a "who," but a "what" that has kept, and in the end will
"keep them down."

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:29:56 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

OK, Marx, Hitler and Mao are the "usual suspects" but
Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Rachel Carson ??!!?? And
just what in the hell is a "harmful book" anyway ?

My guess is "harmful books" would be the ones you've been reading. Just
look at the harm they've done. ;-)

Actually, you're not far off, given some of the ideas seemingly
contained in Ken's postings. What these books seem to have in common is
the promotion is the promotion of an unrealistic world view in that some
man-desired force is substituted for natural outcome, such as socialism,
communism, etc. Animals, including man, are simply not geared to have
complete "equality" among all members (for example, the biological
differences between males and females or the physical size and strength
differences between males). Just as with other animals, nature dictates
not only survival of the fittest, but the rule of the strongest - there
are those "destined" to be leaders, those "destined" to be followers,
and those "destined" not to survive, and no amount of wishing it were
different or hand-wringing over that fact will change it. Essentially,
these books convince those who are simply not destined for being
"leaders" that they can be more and/or convince them that they would be
"leaders," but for those who would "keep them down." The problem is
that it isn't a "who," but a "what" that has kept, and in the end will
"keep them down."

Welcome to the late nineteenth century.

Wolfgang
hoo boy!

wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just when you think the right wing whack jobs couldn't
possibly get any scarier something like this comes along.

My guess is "harmful books" would be the ones you've been reading. Just
look at the harm they've done. ;-)

Actually, you're not far off, given some of the ideas seemingly
contained in Ken's postings. What these books seem to have in common is
the promotion is the promotion of an unrealistic world view in that some
man-desired force is substituted for natural outcome, such as socialism,
communism, etc. Animals, including man, are simply not geared to have
complete "equality" among all members (for example, the biological
differences between males and females or the physical size and strength
differences between males). Just as with other animals, nature dictates
not only survival of the fittest, but the rule of the strongest - there
are those "destined" to be leaders, those "destined" to be followers,
and those "destined" not to survive, and no amount of wishing it were
different or hand-wringing over that fact will change it. Essentially,
these books convince those who are simply not destined for being
"leaders" that they can be more and/or convince them that they would be
"leaders," but for those who would "keep them down." The problem is
that it isn't a "who," but a "what" that has kept, and in the end will
"keep them down."

See what I mean about scary, right-wing whack jobs ?
And such a hypocrite too, I mean how can you call
"Mein Kampf" harmful while at the same time posting
the condensed, executive summary of it to roff ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

The book they forgot to put on the list: The Pet Goat.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.