OT Harmful Books

The scary part is that most of the so-called scholars who
compiled the list are actually employed at institutions of
higher learning

Yes, I understand what you're saying.....

and presumably have some sort of influence
on young minds.

I'm not sure we should worry about that. If you believe in democracy,
then you must believe that ordinary people, in the main, and in the
long run, are able to determine what is true and what is not.
Otherwise, democracy is a farce, because all our institutions are
based on that belief.

As John Milton said in the Areopagitica, 1644, "We do Truth an
injustice to seek to protect her, for Truth is powerful, second only
to the Almighty. Whoever heard of Truth being put to the worse, in a
free and open encounter?"

So it doesn't matter how many lunatics are in the academy, so long as
they don't have a monopoly.

vince

Yeah - those freakin' conservatives are taking over academia. Or are you
saying it's okay for the far left to have influence, just not the far right?

Let all flowers bloom, as Chairman Mao said.

I can speak only from my own experience at one university, but I can
say that although "liberals" may be in the majority in liberal arts
fields (the word "liberal" has two different even though related
meanings in that phrase), "conservatives" far outnumber them in
engineering, business, and agriculture; and in the typical public
university, there are many more faculty in those disciplines than in
liberal arts.

vince

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:49:24 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:07:23 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"daytripper" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:29:39 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Gonzo! Fraternally gonzo!

Wolfgang

More like Low Tide...

Don't discourage the boy. He's hell bent on becoming a mediocre dead
writer......and we wish him Godspeed.

Wolfgang

Ah, yes, what would this thread be without a couple of opinions from
products of cut-rate "public" schools who, regardless of the evidence,
just SO want to believe that they really are as good as,

I'm good enough fer who I'm fer.

well, you know...

Hm........what is it they say about flattery?

Wolfgang
often imitated.......

Gonzo! Servilely Gonzo!

Eleven-and-a-half Eagles....Raoul

When all is said and done, there are few things in life as deeply satisfying
as allowing an absolute idiot to have the last word.

Wolfgang
place your bets, boys and girls.......which way will it jump?

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:53:26 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Actually, that'd would be the Kennedys...

I recall that both Joe and Jack Kennedy voluntarily put themselves in
harm's way for their country, when as an ambassador's kids, they could
easily have avoided military service had they so chosen.

vince

Yes, as did George Bush (actually, both of them), but none of that
really has much to do with this topic, good, bad, or otherwise. There
has been no better example than the Kennedys of a family and most of its
members having not only coasted on "Daddy's money," and a large part of
that being illegal or illicit money, but acted personally as though
they were "better" than others, and yet, they remain the darling of
people who tend to superficially dismiss that type of people.

TC,
R

Someone wrote:

Yes, as did George Bush

When I was 19, in 1967, I looked into the National Guard.
Everybody knew the guard was the easiest way to avoid combat duty
in Viet Nam (was then, anyway). But I was told it was essentially
impossible to get into the guard. You had to know somebody.

It's also worth remembering the National Guard secretary who
said she didn't write the famous Dan Rather document did also
say "everything in that letter is essentially the truth, it's
just that I didn't write it."

Anybody who thinks George Bush's intermittant tenure in
the Texas National Guard was the same as Kennedy's duty
has a few cognitive wires crossed somewhere.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:53:26 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Actually, that'd would be the Kennedys...

I recall that both Joe and Jack Kennedy voluntarily put themselves in
harm's way for their country, when as an ambassador's kids, they could
easily have avoided military service had they so chosen.

vince

Yes, as did George Bush (actually, both of them), but none of that
really has much to do with this topic, good, bad, or otherwise. There
has been no better example than the Kennedys of a family and most of its
members having not only coasted on "Daddy's money," and a large part of
that being illegal or illicit money, but acted personally as though
they were "better" than others, and yet, they remain the darling of
people who tend to superficially dismiss that type of people.

Darlings or demons, the Kennedys would appear to loom larger in some minds
than others. One could almost wonder why someone would evoke the specters
of a family he evidently loathes in defending himself against the same
charge for which he takes them to task.

Wolfgang

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:28:01 -0600, sandy
wrote:

Someone wrote:

Yes, as did George Bush

When I was 19, in 1967, I looked into the National Guard.
Everybody knew the guard was the easiest way to avoid combat duty
in Viet Nam (was then, anyway). But I was told it was essentially
impossible to get into the guard. You had to know somebody.

It's also worth remembering the National Guard secretary who
said she didn't write the famous Dan Rather document did also
say "everything in that letter is essentially the truth, it's
just that I didn't write it."

Anybody who thinks George Bush's intermittant tenure in
the Texas National Guard was the same as Kennedy's duty
has a few cognitive wires crossed somewhere.

Interesting edit. The quote in context was "as did George Bush
(actually, both of them)," referring primarily to GHW Bush, a WWII vet
with Jack and Joe (who was killed). He did enlist and was "in harm's
way." And as to GW, while the Guard was pretty much a way to try to
avoid Vietnam, it was by no means a sure way, and signing up exposed one
to the potential to see combat. A number of members of GW Bush's unit
were sent over (IIRC, all voluntary) and some were killed in Vietnam.
Bush, with others, inquired about going under the volunteer program and
were told they didn't have enough flight time. By the time Bush had
enough hours, the 102 was withdrawn from the area. Would he have still
gone "but for"? Who knows, probably including GW himself, but I'd not
argue that his choosing the Guard was pretty good evidence that he, at
least, wasn't chomping at the bit to get to Vietnam any way he could.
And as a sidenote, at the time of their respective signups, GW's unit
was a more risky choice than Kerry's as far as potential for personal
risk. Regardless, military service, in and of itself, is not germane
to this particular topic.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:28:01 -0600, sandy
wrote:

Someone wrote:

Yes, as did George Bush

When I was 19, in 1967, I looked into the National Guard.
Everybody knew the guard was the easiest way to avoid combat duty
in Viet Nam (was then, anyway). But I was told it was essentially
impossible to get into the guard. You had to know somebody.

It's also worth remembering the National Guard secretary who
said she didn't write the famous Dan Rather document did also
say "everything in that letter is essentially the truth, it's
just that I didn't write it."

Anybody who thinks George Bush's intermittant tenure in
the Texas National Guard was the same as Kennedy's duty
has a few cognitive wires crossed somewhere.

Interesting edit. The quote in context was "as did George Bush
(actually, both of them)," referring primarily to GHW Bush, a WWII vet
with Jack and Joe (who was killed). He did enlist and was "in harm's
way." And as to GW, while the Guard was pretty much a way to try to
avoid Vietnam, it was by no means a sure way, and signing up exposed one
to the potential to see combat. A number of members of GW Bush's unit
were sent over (IIRC, all voluntary) and some were killed in Vietnam.
Bush, with others, inquired about going under the volunteer program and
were told they didn't have enough flight time. By the time Bush had
enough hours, the 102 was withdrawn from the area. Would he have still
gone "but for"? Who knows, probably including GW himself, but I'd not
argue that his choosing the Guard was pretty good evidence that he, at
least, wasn't chomping at the bit to get to Vietnam any way he could.
And as a sidenote, at the time of their respective signups, GW's unit
was a more risky choice than Kerry's as far as potential for personal
risk. Regardless, military service, in and of itself, is not germane
to this particular topic.

Well, that's a whole lot of "not germane".

Wolfgang
who believes he could come up with SOME better way of closing an argument
than telling the audience that it should be disregarded.

Interesting edit. The quote in context was "as did George Bush
(actually, both of them)," referring primarily to GHW Bush, a WWII vet
with Jack and Joe (who was killed).

....Ah, I forgot about GW senior. Cognitive impairment rebounds again.

Regardless, military service, in and of itself, is not germane
to this particular topic.

What is this topic anyway?
Didn't this OT thread start off with a reference to right wing
wack jobs who lumped Racheal Carson into the same category with
Mao and Hitler?

Speaking of right wing wack jobs, it's interesting how the right
continues to admire a president who was, among other things, the first
guy to snort cocaine at Camp David, dodged the draft by joining
the guard, and now sends the same guard he used to dodge combat, into
combat. If this guy was a democrat the right wing would bust a
blood vessel.

"sandy" wrote in message


Speaking of right wing wack jobs, it's interesting how the right
continues to admire a president who was, among other things, the first
guy to snort cocaine at Camp David, dodged the draft by joining
the guard, and now sends the same guard he used to dodge combat, into
combat. If this guy was a democrat the right wing would bust a
blood vessel.


Of course, you are right, on most counts. A correction is in order: I
believe that Herbert Hoover was the first to snort cocaine at Camp David.
Prior to that, mescaline was the Presidential inebrient of choice.....
Tom