[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Your argument here is full of holes. This is in no way an indictment of professors personally believing what they teach. This is affirmation that Barrett's controversial views will not become the focal point for the class, as everyone from you to Macrobat have been screaming in this thread.

First of all, you're the only one SCREAMING IN HERE! The problem is, Barrett's personal views not only became the focal point of the class, they became the focal point of the school. A predictable manifestation of this type of clumsily crafted political activism. In fact, the Provost also had to warn Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views according to the CNN article posted earlier. This is nothing more than the exploitation of the University as a vehicle for a captive audience, for personal attention, gain, and political activism.

It's hilarious: you scream "OMG HE'S JUST INDOCTRONATING MALLEABLE LITTLE MINDS" and then when the university comes forward and responds, "Nope, his own personal views will not be imposed on the students" you say "AH-HAH! PROFESSORS SHOULDN'T TRULY BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE TEACHING!"

I never suggested any of the above. Let's try to be a little more disciplined in our rhetoric here as it is wholly inefficient to continue countering straw-men. The context of the discussion went as follows;

ebuddy; personal expertise has educational value in the classroom environment. Personal convictions do not.

midwinter; So professors should not fervently believe the ideas they espouse? *notice how my view was twisted into an absolute. A predictable tactic, but fortunately easy to catch and counter.

ebuddy; (not needing to correct midwinter's twist of verbiage) linked to an article of the University explaining the conditions under which Barrett would be allowed to continue teaching in which you find the very verbiage I used in the first place; "Barrett's insistence that he intends to separate his personal convictions from his professional responsibilities and not seek to impose his views on students."

Again, this was discussed probably on the first page of the thread. He's not "requiring students to learn his...theories as gospel truth in order not to get an F".

I never said he was requiring students to learn his theory as gospel truth in order to pass the class. In fact, I stated that the theory itself, while bothersome; has educational value because it can be debated in the classroom environment. Who are you arguing with???

I'm surprised that you would make this statement: you're usually quite reasonable, and this is simply a blatant mis-representation of the facts that were presented and discussed earlier.

You believe I'm a reasonable person so I can understand your surprise. After all, I never actually made the statements you claim I did. None of them. You're right about one thing however, I'm nothing if not a reasonable person so I'll give you one opportunity, that is one reply to prove to me you're both qualified to speak with me and able to engage an honest discussion. One.

Make it good.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by midwinter

So professors should not fervently believe the ideas they espouse?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

According to UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell, no.

Following a 10-day review, Farrell agreed to allow Barrett to teach, based on the course's merits, evaluations of his teaching, and Barrett's insistence that he intends to separate his personal convictions from his professional responsibilities and not seek to impose his views on students.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

ebuddy; (not needing to correct midwinter's twist of verbiage) linked to an article of the University explaining the conditions under which Barrett would be allowed to continue teaching in which you find the very verbiage I used in the first place; "Barrett's insistence that he intends to separate his personal convictions from his professional responsibilities and not seek to impose his views on students."

midwinter's supposed "twisting of verbiage" aside, this shows precisely how you do the exact same thing here. This clearly shows that you merely did not "link to an article" which supported your original point, as you claim in the last quote; rather, you clearly responded with "According to UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell, no" when asked if professors should not fervently believe the ideas they espouse, and then provided the quote you focus on.

Nice job in trying to worm out of that one, though. "Twisting of verbiage," omitting your own quotes, stuff like that...good call.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I never said he was requiring students to learn his theory as gospel truth in order to pass the class. In fact, I stated that the theory itself, while bothersome; has educational value because it can be debated in the classroom environment. Who are you arguing with???

I'm surprised that you would make this statement: you're usually quite reasonable, and this is simply a blatant mis-representation of the facts that were presented and discussed earlier.
You believe I'm a reasonable person so I can understand your surprise. After all, I never actually made the statements you claim I did. None of them. You're right about one thing however, I'm nothing if not a reasonable person so I'll give you one opportunity, that is one reply to prove to me you're both qualified to speak with me and able to engage an honest discussion. One.

Make it good.

This makes me laugh even more. I wasn't talking to you. In fact, I was clearly responding to Chuckit, whom I had quoted. One might think if you have to ask the question "who are you arguing with?" one might actually check my post first, hmmmm? But of course, perhaps you are too busy debating the minute details of everyone else's supposed twisting of your verbiage.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

IIRC, I was trying to sus out what the definition of "total bullshit" was. It would seem that it means either "demonstrably false" (e.g. the moon is made of cheese) or "I don't like it." Academia has been under attack now for 30 years (from people like David Horowitz) on a variety of fronts, some of which are legitimate and some of which are foolish. The attacks these days seem to be reaching their zenith—students filming professors on phones and uploading it to watchdog groups, Horowitz's book of the most dangerous professors—in boldness. But the more I listen to these attacks (and I hear them all the time), the more I'm convinced that this is not about liberal indoctrination or whacko professors (and there are of course both in academia); it's about I don't like it. It's about difference. It's about I don't want to listen to those ideas.

Well then you're equally familiar with minutemen getting beat to a pulp at a University in Chicago and issues like these. I believe freedom of speech works both ways. It's not enough to cite examples of conservative phone-cams, there are enough examples indicating a distaste for free speech on both sides. I believe the scale is beginning to turn in the University environment, from squelching the use of "in Jesus' name" while protecting the rights of those who want to dress like a bloodied Jesus engaging in sex acts under the guise of free speech. You're of course not surprised when conservatives decide they're going to plead their case. They'll use phone-cams if necessary and frankly; more power to them. The actions captured in that lens should be defensible, but all too often the act of recording it is debated.

If a professor makes a case for something that is questionable—say, that all the zombie movies after 9/11 are a cultural expression of anxiety over the inability to bury the dead from the WTC—the nature of the university is that students can disagree. They may have to make that argument on an exam later, but no one is saying that they have to believe it any more that a die hard communist who is also a business major has to believe what he/she is being taught.

True, because in one instance expertise on a particular subject matter is debatable on its merits, personal convictions on the other hand, are simply self-indulgent and are not debatable. For example, the difference between;

A. all zombie movies after 9/11 are a cultural expression of anxiety over the inability to bury the dead from the WTC

B. all zombie movies after 9/11 are the cultural expression of leftist Hollywood reacting to 9/11 as it relates to promoting their culture of death.

What is your complaint?

The notion that flame-baiting, anti-Bush rhetoric is somehow necessary in learning the culture and religion of Islam. As stated in the required reading; "Bush and his neocons..." (which we all know is University code for "anyone on the right who supports action in Iraq") I wonder if this includes neocons like Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, and all other (D)s that have helped facilitate foreign policy in the past 100 years.

Furthermore, If the Islamic religion as it relates to culture and the education of it necessitate likening the US president with Hitler; this not only lacks educational merit, but places those interested in Islam directly at odds with a significant majority of Americans in all political arenas. You in fact, are doing the culture of Islam injustice by parroting the talking points of its most extreme element exacerbating American ignorance as it relates to the "religion of hate".

Well then, there you go. Barrett has said he does "not seek to impose his views on students."

... as a condition of maintaining his capacity at the University. I believe this is important.

Except it's not, because the issue is that these ideas are out there and some people don't like that fact, nor do they believe Barrett will keep his word. Otherwise, why is anyone talking about this?

Because it had to be brought to light in order for the conditions to be applied. Do you really believe the Provost would've addressed this professor had it not gained public scrutiny?

The facticity of fact. The Intelligent Design crowd was very clever in their use of this postmodern/poststructuralist interrogation of fact-ness. I was suggesting that "fact" as a category of "Truth" (note the capital "T") is mutable and always already in a state of flux.

While this may be so, the woeful lacking of empirical evidences for the claims of both have caused public scrutiny which at best, has governed its dissemination. You may recall I've called for more formal standards and I believe those standards should favor expertise over conviction in an educational environment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

midwinter's supposed "twisting of verbiage" aside, this shows precisely how you do the exact same thing here. This clearly shows that you merely did not "link to an article" which supported your original point, as you claim in the last quote; rather, you clearly responded with "According to UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell, no" when asked if professors should not fervently believe the ideas they espouse, and then provided the quote you focus on.

Nice job in trying to worm out of that one, though. "Twisting of verbiage," omitting your own quotes, stuff like that...good call.



This makes me laugh even more. I wasn't talking to you. In fact, I was clearly responding to Chuckit, whom I had quoted. One might think if you have to ask the question "who are you arguing with?" one might actually check my post first, hmmmm? But of course, perhaps you are too busy debating the minute details of everyone else's supposed twisting of your verbiage.

greg

This was the unfortunate product of not being able to reply at the time. My apologies.

The intention of my having linked to the article was to indicate that if this is how midwinter in fact interpreted my statement; "expertise over conviction" then yes, the Provost of UW-Madison also disagrees. By addressing the twist as opposed to my actual statement you have established that you are neither qualified nor reasonable enough to talk to. Thanx for saving me time.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Or law schools, or engineering departments, or many science departments...



Well? Isn't that specifically your issue - that it's a required reading for the course? And that you don't agree with it? And that it will - in your own words - indoctrinate - young minds? Notice specifically what I said: the readings will indocrinate the minds; after all, we've already discussed and made clear that the professor himself won't be espousing his own views, correct? Your argument is constructed entirely on the back of the readings which the professor wants the students to do.

Thus. You are against this horrible, "liberal" indocrination of young minds, which is occuring because of the material they are reading which you do not agree with. And, you feel that this should not be allowed in universities - in fact, I believe the argument goes as far to say the State should be involved in stopping this!

What do you call that, if not "censorship of the press?" Please. Enlighten me. Inform me.

Lie to me. You're going to have to, to explain yourself otherwise.

greg

First off, the "professor" is patently NOT a member of the press. No one is advocating censorship of his publication, just stridently questioning whether it should be a REQUIRED reading in a course of study that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

Thanks for the strawman.


And you two THINK you're being funny, but that is PRECISELY what has been happening on university campuses across the country. You want to pretend this is an isolated incident (a common liberal "debate tactic") but there are NUMEROUS news stories about instructors (even at the high school level) across the country using the captive audience of their English, French, Spanish, Latin, Business, Engineering, ad nauseum classrooms to foist their moronic political viewpoints upon impressionable students. But the VERY same crowd will get all up in arms if the very same instructor even utters the phrase "Intelligent Design" does that double standard hurt your heads?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then you're equally familiar with minutemen getting beat to a pulp at a University in Chicago and issues like these.

I hadn't heard about that. I guess the minutemen in Chicago are protecting Lakeside Dr from the hoards of illegal Canadians?

I believe freedom of speech works both ways. It's not enough to cite examples of conservative phone-cams, there are enough examples indicating a distaste for free speech on both sides.

Where are the liberal-constructed watchdog groups of conservative professors? Where is the outcry against the blatant capitalism taught in business and economics departments? Where are the books detailing the 100 most dangerous conservative professors in America? Where are the tons of threads on discussion forums where people descry the blatant conservativism of some of their professors and then paint the entire university with the brush of conservative indoctrination?

I believe the scale is beginning to turn in the University environment, from squelching the use of "in Jesus' name" while protecting the rights of those who want to dress like a bloodied Jesus engaging in sex acts under the guise of free speech. You're of course not surprised when conservatives decide they're going to plead their case. They'll use phone-cams if necessary and frankly; more power to them. The actions captured in that lens should be defensible, but all too often the act of recording it is debated.

Well, the legalty of surreptitiously recording a professor is a copyright issue. Not many profs make a deal of out it, but most University PPMs will say something like "Students must gain the instructor's permission before recording."

But the larger issue is this: if the kids don't like these liberal profs who can't help but mouth off, then don't take them. But no. That's not what it is. It's that these people must be exposed to the world and revealed to be the liberals that they are, and then the university must be pressured into firing them.

True, because in one instance expertise on a particular subject matter is debatable on its merits, personal convictions on the other hand, are simply self-indulgent and are not debatable. For example, the difference between;

A. all zombie movies after 9/11 are a cultural expression of anxiety over the inability to bury the dead from the WTC

B. all zombie movies after 9/11 are the cultural expression of leftist Hollywood reacting to 9/11 as it relates to promoting their culture of death.

So what's the difference between the two? I'm not following this hair-splitting about personal convictions versus expertise. Seriously. What's the difference between the two statements?

The notion that flame-baiting, anti-Bush rhetoric is somehow necessary in learning the culture and religion of Islam.

I agree. But to try to discuss the ME over the last 50 years without discussing American policy in the region is just insane.

As stated in the required reading; "Bush and his neocons..." (which we all know is University code for "anyone on the right who supports action in Iraq") I wonder if this includes neocons like Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, and all other (D)s that have helped facilitate foreign policy in the past 100 years.

Well, "Neo-Con" isn't code for that at all, although it's funny the way that some people think it's an insult (or anti-semitic, since lots of the current crop of Neo-Conservatives are Jewish). The neo-cons are largely the followers of Leo Strauss at the U of Chicago, and they are/were largely in charge of US foreign policy under Bush 43 in ways that they were not under Bush 41 or Reagan (although Rice got her start under 41). Their political philosophy (just pull any political science professor aside and ask them about Straussians) is very, very specific, and emerges out of a radical reading of Plato's Republic by Strauss. This group is almost completely uninterested in anything other than foreign policy—and in this case, the ME, about which they advanced a specific domino-theory about demoncratizing.

But you're right, as was Hannah Arendt (and later Ward Churchill) that the Dems who have facilitated US foreign policy in the region are implicated in all of this, as well. But then, so is everyone who buys gasoline or uses a product made from petroleum by-products (which means, of course, everyone in the industrialized world).

Furthermore, If the Islamic religion as it relates to culture and the education of it necessitate likening the US president with Hitler; this not only lacks educational merit, but places those interested in Islam directly at odds with a significant majority of Americans in all political arenas. You in fact, are doing the culture of Islam injustice by parroting the talking points of its most extreme element exacerbating American ignorance as it relates to the "religion of hate".

Again: why can students not discuss this very issue? It's certainly polemical. Why is this any different that an poli sci class reading an Ann Coulter op-ed?

... as a condition of maintaining his capacity at the University. I believe this is important.

And I think what is important is that he said he's going to teach the class he says he's going to teach and not a class about his kooky theories about 9/11. Why is this even an issue? Case closed.

Because it had to be brought to light in order for the conditions to be applied. Do you really believe the Provost would've addressed this professor had it not gained public scrutiny?

You never know. Most likely, complaints about his teaching would've gone to his Chair, and then to the Dean, and then to the Provost, as I'm sure they did. Just because the provost addressed it doesn't mean that it hadn't been vetted at every other level. But here you have the chief academic office of the university saying everything's kosher and basically saying that this is an institution of higher education and would everyone please STFU about this because it's been dealt with. And here we are still talking about. The provost speaking about it, politically, doesn't mean that this issue has caught his attention; it means that the university has no louder voice with which to say that it's dealt with it.

While this may be so, the woeful lacking of empirical evidences for the claims of both have caused public scrutiny which at best, has governed its dissemination. You may recall I've called for more formal standards and I believe those standards should favor expertise over conviction in an educational environment.

I'm still not sure I understand the difference between expertise and conviction.

[Macrobat]

A person may be convinced (therefore having conviction) that the moon is made of green cheese, but the expertise rests in the hands of the people who have either actually been there, or the scientists who have examined the rocks and such with which they returned. (Unless of course, you buy into the conspiracy theory that was all faked, as well.)

Speak up Greg, you brought Intelligent Design into this - a theory I can remember you arguing vociferously against the inclusion in educational syllibi - yet you feel that this fruitbar has the right to require the reading of his hare-brained screed which would require the belief that not only was the Bush Administration behind 9/11, but that they somehow supposedly obtained the cooperation and silence of thousands of victims of the attacks and minion to carry them out.

What happened? Did the Administration round them all up and herd them off to Cheyenne Mountain where General Hammond and Colonet O'Neal got Teal'c to shepherd them offworld through the Stargate?

[BRussell]

The theory that Bush was behind 9/11 has the same level and quality of evidence as creationism.

There are a number of professors who do ID in colleges in the US, and I can't recall anyone saying they should be fired or not allowed to teach their classes. Whether their research is high quality enough to retain their job is another question - I can't imagine either a creationist or a proponent of missiles/demolition on 9/11 having high-quality enough research to get approval from their fellow faculty, but I'll say I think it's possible.

But creationism has mostly been an issue in primary and secondary schools, not colleges and universities, and things are very different there. School boards set the curriculum in those cases, not teachers like in universities.

I would be just as opposed to a school board requiring that "Bush is behind 9/11" be taught (which has never happened) as I am opposed to a school board requiring the teaching of creationism (which has happened).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The intention of my having linked to the article was to indicate that if this is how midwinter in fact interpreted my statement; "expertise over conviction" then yes, the Provost of UW-Madison also disagrees.

But, you didn't mention this intention, right? I mean, you didn't say anything at all about ther legitimacy of how he interpreted your statement; this has all come afterwards, when I pointed out the fatal flaw in your argument. In fact, all you did was make an Appeal to Authority by implicitly agreeing with his quote via the article.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

By addressing the twist as opposed to my actual statement you have established that you are neither qualified nor reasonable enough to talk to. Thanx for saving me time.

Ahh yes, when "qualified nor reasonable" means "you're not willing to debate the semantics of what I really meant instead of what I actually wrote when replying."

Sorry. You can go back and revise what you meant to address and how it was meant to be in a different context all you want. The fact of the matter is, you made a clear statement and it is only with your repeated backtrackings and after-the-fact claims of "twisting" that this statement is valid.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

First off, the "professor" is patently NOT a member of the press. No one is advocating censorship of his publication, just stridently questioning whether it should be a REQUIRED reading in a course of study that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

"Censorship of the press" was not meant in this case to mean newsmen. It referred to publications in general. Of course, from your attitude I have no doubt that if his ideas were to be published as an article in your local newspaper, you would be just as enraged with it.

My point was, your argument against it being a required reading is that you don't agree with the article. You think it's false. You don't want these students to read this article. Let me help you along: what is it called when you don't want people to read something because you don't agree with it? That's what I thought.

And I still can't understand how you think 9/11 has nothing to do with the course. The course seems to be on the history of Islam, and its relationship with the West, does it not?? How can this not have anything to do with it? FYI, conspiracy theories on 9/11 abounded all across the world, and still are found in many places today. People's perception - on both sides of the issue - of such a momentous event most certainly shapes the relationship between Islam and the West.

Thanks for the strawman.

There wasn't one, as I've clearly pointed out above.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Speak up Greg, you brought Intelligent Design into this - a theory I can remember you arguing vociferously against the inclusion in educational syllibi - yet you feel that this fruitbar has the right to require the reading of his hare-brained screed which would require the belief that not only was the Bush Administration behind 9/11, but that they somehow supposedly obtained the cooperation and silence of thousands of victims of the attacks and minion to carry them out.

I don't think it was me arguing "vociferously" against ID in the classrooms. I think the theory does have some good points, although there's really not much "science" behind it.

Nevertheless, as has been already mentioned, you're equating two entirely different situations: required education (ie. primary/secondary) and higher education, ie. university. I think there's a seminary on my campus; I know there's lots of theology courses. I would certainly not support seminary-type public schools, however. See, you get to choose in university.

Thanks for coming out, though.

greg

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

A person may be convinced (therefore having conviction) that the moon is made of green cheese, but the expertise rests in the hands of the people who have either actually been there, or the scientists who have examined the rocks and such with which they returned.

Well damn. There went all of human thought derived from Plato.

[itai195]

I'm pretty sure you have to have some 'expertise' to teach a college course.

[Macrobat]

Another absolute - imagine that. It was simply an example of the two, feel free to check your peachpit at the door, Chicken Little.

Greg, can you possibly split that hair any thinner? lmao

A more elequent pile of bovine scatology to support a non-argument is rarely seen.

And it is the PROFESSOR HIMSELF who claims that 9/11 has nothing to do with Islam, you cannot possibly be this obtuse, without pretending.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

There's no point calling my arguments "splitting hairs" or "bovine scatology" or a "non-argument" without actually pointing out some sort of flaw. Since you're resorting to the usual name-calling and/or defensive maneuvres instead of logically showing where I've gone wrong, then I'll assume yet again that you don't have anything concrete to offer.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And it is the PROFESSOR HIMSELF who claims that 9/11 has nothing to do with Islam

My point precisely. Heh heh heh...thank you for doing as I knew you probably would, and walking right into my open door. Consider: if the course is about Islam's history and relationship with the West, and if 9/11 is currently a (if not the) most crucial modern event shaping that history...then what does it mean if 9/11 actually had nothing to do with Islam?

You can see the argumentand/or discussion forming, right there.

Do I believe it? No. Is he crazy and probably out for attention? More than likely. The point is, I can see where his conspiracy theory could fit into the course, and I can see where he'd want to challenge the students' preconceived notions of what's to be expected from the "9/11 event." I don't see anything wrong with making them read an alternative viewpoint, and expanding their minds a little.

In my opinion, your quote pretty much sums up your logic in this thread. Hint: of Islamic fascism and carbon dioxide emissions, only one threatens the world. I don't think it takes a genius to guess that it isn't the one mentioned by Mr. Prager.

greg

[Kevin]

How can ANYONE Justify what this guy is doing, WITHOUT coming off as a total nutball?

I mean come on.

[Macrobat]

So, Greggie, since you now "triumphantly" agree with me that the professor claims 9/11 has NOTHING to do with islam - exactly WHAT does it have to do with his course ON ISLAM?

It is NOT within the purview of his course to "challenge the students' preconceived notions about 9/11." He is SUPPOSED to be giving them a basic GROUNDING in Islam's history and culture.

Did that point leave a mark when it struck?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I hadn't heard about that. I guess the minutemen in Chicago are protecting Lakeside Dr from the hoards of illegal Canadians?

No, actually the minutemen were protesting outside the Bank of Calumet for offering loans to illegals. One of the peaceful protesters, a 63 year old man who had his flag yanked from him was beat up. I guess the more important question here is; Why would those from the Progressive Labor Party of Chicago, others from Purdue University Calumet use violence to squelch freedom of speech?

Where are the liberal-constructed watchdog groups of conservative professors?

Perhaps the conservative professors teach their class in a disciplined enough way to avoid similar scrutiny. Perhaps the liberal-construct believe they have adequate enough representation in the University environment. Perhaps, more reprehensible than a phone-cam, they've decided to go ahead and let violence and rioting speak for them. Makes perfect sense to me.

Where is the outcry against the blatant capitalism taught in business and economics departments?

You're certainly not arguing the merits of teaching capitalism as it relates to business and economics in a... capitalist society are you?

Where are the books detailing the 100 most dangerous conservative professors in America?

I'm sure you'd agree that most people are selective in their battles. The liberal-construct (as you say) has focused its attention on where they believe the neo-con agenda is evident and prevalent and it is not in the Universities, but in government. There are a host of books relating to the proposed dangers of the Bush Administration, the neo-con military complex, and conservative ideology in general. You might know that in the US, the liberal-construct has had a difficult time appealing to the American people at the polling places. I believe too often they've decided to take their cause to the Institutions of higher education, exploiting the University for political activism.

Where are the tons of threads on discussion forums where people descry the blatant conservativism of some of their professors and then paint the entire university with the brush of conservative indoctrination?

I give the collective discernment a little more credit than you seem willing. I believe it is entirely possible that the "Conservative Professor" may simply be a little more disciplined in method. I believe it is entirely possible that the Conservative professor in general is more comfortable with the merits of his/her ideology and does not feel it necessary to use his/her capacity as educator for a bully pulpit of political activism. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the most effective professors are the ones that leave you wondering which ideal they personally subscribe. In short, people will flock to where the threat seems most evident. For the liberal construct, this would be indictments against the Bush Administration and the actions of a Republican-dominant house and senate. The Conservative construct views the threat most evident at the campus.

Well, the legalty of surreptitiously recording a professor is a copyright issue. Not many profs make a deal of out it, but most University PPMs will say something like "Students must gain the instructor's permission before recording."

It is entirely commonplace to use recording devices in lieu of notebooks and pen. The intellectual properties given to you verbally in the classroom for consideration (i.e. for which you paid) are generally those of the Universities', and subject to their respective boards, not the professor's.

But the larger issue is this: if the kids don't like these liberal profs who can't help but mouth off, then don't take them. But no. That's not what it is. It's that these people must be exposed to the world and revealed to be the liberals that they are, and then the university must be pressured into firing them.

Tell me how a student is to know that a study on the history and culture of Islam would include indictments against "Bush and the neocons", and likening their president with Hitler? It's not enough to say; don't take the class. If the class were entitled; "The evils of conservative, neocon military complex ideology 101", it would be easier to make an educated decision whether or not this class holds your interest and deserves your consideration.

So what's the difference between the two? I'm not following this hair-splitting about personal convictions versus expertise. Seriously. What's the difference between the two statements?

In example A, you're merely debating the merits of a theory. In example B, you must first wade through a host of biased suppositions before addressing the merits of the theory.

I agree. But to try to discuss the ME over the last 50 years without discussing American policy in the region is just insane.

So you'd agree that the last 50 years of foreign policy cannot be adequately summed up by "Bush and his neocons", yet that was the central theme of the indictments lodged in that segment of the essay. Unnecessary, self-indulgent, and insane indeed.

Well, "Neo-Con" isn't code for that at all, although it's funny the way that some people think it's an insult (or anti-semitic, since lots of the current crop of Neo-Conservatives are Jewish).

Digression excused here.

The neo-cons are largely the followers of Leo Strauss at the U of Chicago, and they are/were largely in charge of US foreign policy under Bush 43 in ways that they were not under Bush 41 or Reagan (although Rice got her start under 41). Their political philosophy (just pull any political science professor aside and ask them about Straussians) is very, very specific, and emerges out of a radical reading of Plato's Republic by Strauss. This group is almost completely uninterested in anything other than foreign policy—and in this case, the ME, about which they advanced a specific domino-theory about demoncratizing.

... as it relates to protecting the interests of Israel perhaps? Okay, groovy.

But you're right, as was Hannah Arendt (and later Ward Churchill) that the Dems who have facilitated US foreign policy in the region are implicated in all of this, as well. But then, so is everyone who buys gasoline or uses a product made from petroleum by-products (which means, of course, everyone in the industrialized world).

okay?

Again: why can students not discuss this very issue? It's certainly polemical. Why is this any different that an poli sci class reading an Ann Coulter op-ed?

Ann Coulter is arguably one of the most polarizing figures among those espousing conservative ideology. Why would Ann Coulter op-eds be included in a political science course? If politics employ any scientific methodology, you might be able to argue that Coulter is quite the specimen for examination. It makes sense to me.

And I think what is important is that he said he's going to teach the class he says he's going to teach and not a class about his kooky theories about 9/11. Why is this even an issue? Case closed.

What was it that gained Barrett public scrutiny again?

You never know. Most likely, complaints about his teaching would've gone to his Chair, and then to the Dean, and then to the Provost, as I'm sure they did. Just because the provost addressed it doesn't mean that it hadn't been vetted at every other level. But here you have the chief academic office of the university saying everything's kosher and basically saying that this is an institution of higher education and would everyone please STFU about this because it's been dealt with. And here we are still talking about. The provost speaking about it, politically, doesn't mean that this issue has caught his attention; it means that the university has no louder voice with which to say that it's dealt with it.

If the case is in fact closed, it's because those who've given the University consideration, demanding more integrity, have helped open the case in need of closing. *Aside from your speculation on the series of events that led to the conditions under which Barrett would maintain capacity; I'm confident public scrutiny sparked the chain of events. Rightfully so IMO.

I'm still not sure I understand the difference between expertise and conviction.

expert; exceptional skill or knowledge

conviction; a fixed or firm belief.

One uses the classroom to teach and to develop skills among future experts. The other uses the classroom as a platform to espouse personal beliefs and to develop future political activists.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

So, Greggie, since you now "triumphantly" agree with me that the professor claims 9/11 has NOTHING to do with islam - exactly WHAT does it have to do with his course ON ISLAM?

It is NOT within the purview of his course to "challenge the students' preconceived notions about 9/11." He is SUPPOSED to be giving them a basic GROUNDING in Islam's history and culture.

Did that point leave a mark when it struck?

Uhhh...I answered this in my reply. Two posts above yours. Answering this question was the entire point of that post.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How can ANYONE Justify what this guy is doing, WITHOUT coming off as a total nutball?

I mean come on.

People have been doing it the entire thread. Your response(s) are composed of your typical loose change such as this which add absolutely nothing to the discussion. I guess this is just another example of you saying "this is dumb" without having a reason for why it's dumb.

Articulate: it's great.

greg

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, actually the minutemen were protesting outside the Bank of Calumet for offering loans to illegals. One of the peaceful protesters, a 63 year old man who had his flag yanked from him was beat up. I guess the more important question here is; Why would those from the Progressive Labor Party of Chicago, others from Purdue University Calumet use violence to squelch freedom of speech?

Dunno. Maybe they're a bunch of assholes. Maybe they were drunk. I'm not sure I follow this analogy you've set up. The PLP are straight-up communists. You seem to be implying that their actions represent a massive movement of liberal (they're not liberals) violence sweeping the nation and are somehow analogous to David Horowitz publishing a book, going on talk shows. . . and doesn't he even have a syndicated radio show? Or Ann Coulter. Or Limbaugh. All of them publishing books about godless liberals indoctrinating kids and selling millions of copies. All of them writing newspaper columns. All of them with loyal followings.

Perhaps the conservative professors teach their class in a disciplined enough way to avoid similar scrutiny. Perhaps the liberal-construct believe they have adequate enough representation in the University environment. Perhaps, more reprehensible than a phone-cam, they've decided to go ahead and let violence and rioting speak for them. Makes perfect sense to me.

Again, you're suggesting that liberals are somehow analogous to the PLP, which is a wing of the American Communist party. But that's another matter.

It is true that, perhaps, those awful conservative professors just don't flap their lips as much as the good, honest liberal professors. It's funny, this little bit of the debate, since it assumes that liberals are organized enough to actually "decide" anything, which is, of course, patently insane. Everyone knows that liberals can't even decide whether they're able to decide on anything.

But anyway. You say that conservatives are more disciplined and that liberals feel they're adequately represented at the university level; I say it's bitchy conservatives who fervently believe that liberalism is a blight on the nation and must be stamped out. You say tomato; I say tomato. Except I'm right.

You're certainly not arguing the merits of teaching capitalism as it relates to business and economics in a... capitalist society are you?

I most certainly am. I say it's time to take these business departments back from the godless capitalists who have indoctrinated countless millions of students over the decades! So many generations of students brought into the fold by them, believing that the division of labor is good, that identity and work are the same, and that it is OK to live in a system that necessitates a certain amount of "surplus labor." What are these cowards afraid about communist or socialist ideologies? I say we force them to teach Trotsky alongside Smith! And some of these professors even require students to buy textbooks they wrote!

I'm sure you'd agree that most people are selective in their battles. The liberal-construct (as you say) has focused its attention on where they believe the neo-con agenda is evident and prevalent and it is not in the Universities, but in government.

Well, as I said, that differs from department to department. Straussians are alive and well in political science departments, and their hiring is often contentious and in a mixed environment they can polarize matters. They dominated English from about 1920 to 1950 before they were displaced, although a few still pop up now and then, and when they do, there are hardcore fights. Hell, there was a Northern Exposure episode about this (the aging New Critic vs the younger post-structuralist...the show sided conservatively with the New Critic).

There are a host of books relating to the proposed dangers of the Bush Administration, the neo-con military complex, and conservative ideology in general.

Yes. And how many of them suggest using a bat to talk to conservatives? The difference here is that in these books, liberals think conservatives are wrong and are doing harm to the nation; conservatives think liberals need to be wiped out.

You might know that in the US, the liberal-construct has had a difficult time appealing to the American people at the polling places. I believe too often they've decided to take their cause to the Institutions of higher education, exploiting the University for political activism.

If you think that several million liberals can get together and decide anything, you're seriously deluded. Liberals have had a hard time convincing voters for 30 years because for 30 years the Democrats have sucked. For 4 years of Carter they sucked. For 8 years of Clinton they were Republican Lite. For 6 years of Bush they've been a pile of sycophants, cowards, and mealy-mouthed asses who have deserved to have had their heads handed to them by a party that is disciplined and ruthless in its execution of its ideas.

The fact of the matter is that some disciplines tend to be liberal (English); some disciplines tend to be conservative (business, economics, law). And right now, it is only conservatives who want to purge the university of liberals.

I give the collective discernment a little more credit than you seem willing. I believe it is entirely possible that the "Conservative Professor" may simply be a little more disciplined in method. I believe it is entirely possible that the Conservative professor in general is more comfortable with the merits of his/her ideology and does not feel it necessary to use his/her capacity as educator for a bully pulpit of political activism.

It could also be that there aren't nationally syndicated talk shows, television networks, and publishing houses devoted to outing and destroying conservative professors and then purging people with their ideologies from the university. But wait. Are you suggesting that political evangelizing is a sign of insecurity with ideology? Thank God Air America Radio failed! Surely the presence of FOX News, Town Hall, all the AM conservative talk radio and Regnery Press signal the utter lack of faith in conservative values!

In fact, I'd be willing to bet the most effective professors are the ones that leave you wondering which ideal they personally subscribe.

I agree. But that does not mean that professors should be "objective." It's an interesting pedagogical question, I think, whether professors should hide their political beliefs.

In short, people will flock to where the threat seems most evident. For the liberal construct, this would be indictments against the Bush Administration and the actions of a Republican-dominant house and senate. The Conservative construct views the threat most evident at the campus.

Yes. But again, if this isn't about purging an entire line of political thought, the conservatives need to get better PR people, because that's what the message sounds like to me.

It is entirely commonplace to use recording devices in lieu of notebooks and pen.

Yes. But I have seen policies in university PPMs that specify that students must obtain instructor permission before recording. Sure, most people don't care, but there you have it.

The intellectual properties given to you verbally in the classroom for consideration (i.e. for which you paid) are generally those of the Universities', and subject to their respective boards, not the professor's.

IP considerations depend on the university.

Tell me how a student is to know that a study on the history and culture of Islam would include indictments against "Bush and the neocons", and likening their president with Hitler?

The syllabus?

It's not enough to say; don't take the class. If the class were entitled; "The evils of conservative, neocon military complex ideology 101", it would be easier to make an educated decision whether or not this class holds your interest and deserves your consideration.

Gotcha. I know. Those poor students. They have no way to exchange information about professors or classes. If only they would set up websites where they could share their ratings. Maybe call it something like "Rate My Professor" or something. Nah. It'll never work. If only the students were allowed to talk about classes outside the classroom. That would be nice, because then professors could get reputations as nice, mean, hard, easy, lunatic, etc and the students could share that information in a kind of decentralized way. That would be awesome. What would be even cooler would be if there were some interconnected "network" of computers that would allow students to share information "online." They could even keep something like a "web log" about their experiences with professors. If this were to work, the university might even provide "space" on their computers for these "web logs." At the very least, I think that universities ought to provide some kind of advisement for students, and it's a shame that universities like this don't.

In example A, you're merely debating the merits of a theory. In example B, you must first wade through a host of biased suppositions before addressing the merits of the theory.

OK. If I'm an expert in 19th century British literature and I teach Darwin's Origin of Species in my class, can I talk about it as a cultural expression of the Victorian deification of progress and, interestingly, as a way of orienting humanity's place in the world and in history in the wake of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology? Is that expertise? Or conviction?

So you'd agree that the last 50 years of foreign policy cannot be adequately summed up by "Bush and his neocons", yet that was the central theme of the indictments lodged in that segment of the essay. Unnecessary, self-indulgent, and insane indeed.

Yup. I agree. Listen. Don't get me wrong. The guy sounds like a nutjob and why they keep him around as a contract employee I don't understand. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't employed much longer simply because he's a PR nightmare (which means alums withholding funds).

... as it relates to protecting the interests of Israel perhaps? Okay, groovy.

That's a part of it, but my sense is that the ME policy is really more about communication—both economic and social. If we can get Iraq to play nice, maybe Syria will play nice and Lebanon and Yemen and, god help us, Iran.

Ann Coulter is arguably one of the most polarizing figures among those espousing conservative ideology. Why would Ann Coulter op-eds be included in a political science course? If politics employ any scientific methodology, you might be able to argue that Coulter is quite the specimen for examination. It makes sense to me.

OK. Then why can this guy not couch his discussion in terms of Ward Churchill's riff on Hannah Arendt and then launch into a brief discussion of the arguments about the banality of evil in Eichmann in Jerusalem?

What was it that gained Barrett public scrutiny again?

A massive and highly-networked group of conservatives who want to purge the university of ideas they don't like and the people who espouse them.

If the case is in fact closed, it's because those who've given the University consideration, demanding more integrity, have helped open the case in need of closing. *Aside from your speculation on the series of events that led to the conditions under which Barrett would maintain capacity; I'm confident public scrutiny sparked the chain of events. Rightfully so IMO.

You should also factor into this that Barrett is a term-contract employee, which suggests that the larger academic community has decided that they don't want him all that much.

expert; exceptional skill or knowledge

conviction; a fixed or firm belief.

One uses the classroom to teach and to develop skills among future experts. The other uses the classroom as a platform to espouse personal beliefs and to develop future political activists.

I'm going to read "political activists" as "like-minded students," since it broadens this discussion a bit. But I'd like to hear how this distinction you've made applies to my question about Darwin above.

Cheers

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is entirely commonplace to use recording devices in lieu of notebooks and pen. The intellectual properties given to you verbally in the classroom for consideration (i.e. for which you paid) are generally those of the Universities', and subject to their respective boards, not the professor's.

AFAIK here in Canada, you have to ask the professor and get his permission before you record his lecture. I've been in several classes where the professors have said straight out that they will not allow any recordings, or that they must be consulted beforehand if anyone wishes to.

Where did you go to university?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Dunno. Maybe they're a bunch of assholes. Maybe they were drunk. I'm not sure I follow this analogy you've set up. The PLP are straight-up communists.

Again, you're suggesting that liberals are somehow analogous to the PLP, which is a wing of the American Communist party. But that's another matter.

What are these cowards afraid about communist or socialist ideologies?

I'm having difficulty finding continuity in your thought process.

But anyway. You say that conservatives are more disciplined and that liberals feel they're adequately represented at the university level; I say it's bitchy conservatives who fervently believe that liberalism is a blight on the nation and must be stamped out. You say tomato; I say tomato. Except I'm right.

You may be right about conservatives being bitchy, but you're most certainly mistaken in your characterization of at least one of them. I've often said that it is not a dominantly Republican Hill that makes this country great, but the exchange of ideals and balance of power. While it is obvious what the left is against, it is not apparent what they are for. As long as this distinction remains ambiguous, their voices will remain silent. This is most unfortunate and calls for disciplined and sober rhetoric.

I most certainly am. I say it's time to take these business departments back from the godless capitalists who have indoctrinated countless millions of students over the decades!

"Take these business departments back" you say? Shall we be using a baseball bat for this coercion?

I say we force them to teach Trotsky alongside Smith! And some of these professors even require students to buy textbooks they wrote!

"Force them to teach Trotsky alongside Smith!" you say? Are you a closet conservative?

Well, as I said, that differs from department to department. Straussians are alive and well in political science departments, and their hiring is often contentious and in a mixed environment they can polarize matters. They dominated English from about 1920 to 1950 before they were displaced, although a few still pop up now and then, and when they do, there are hardcore fights. Hell, there was a Northern Exposure episode about this (the aging New Critic vs the younger post-structuralist...the show sided conservatively with the New Critic).

Okay? So... liberals will generally flock to where they find the conservative threat most evident and Conservatives will flock to where they find the liberal threat most evident.

Yes. And how many of them suggest using a bat to talk to conservatives?

I guess the real question is; how many of them have a sense of humor at all?

The difference here is that in these books, liberals think conservatives are wrong and are doing harm to the nation; conservatives think liberals need to be wiped out.

I believe your perception is founded upon distaste for conservative ideology. I believe if you look hard enough you'll see a movement afoot to eliminate any religious icons on public property and the like. This is not to indicate the harm they believe religion plays in society as much as it is in fact an attempt to eliminate it. I believe in our discussion you will find terms such as "force" and "take back" and they are not coming from the right, but the left. It should be no surprise to you that there are unreasonable people on both sides of the aisle who are so mule-headed, they will find no common ground, no concession, no peace, and will not appreciate the open exchange of ideals.

The fact of the matter is that some disciplines tend to be liberal (English); some disciplines tend to be conservative (business, economics, law). And right now, it is only conservatives who want to purge the university of liberals.

I disagree and believe your perception is tainted by a distaste for conservative ideology. Another such example is the vandalization of a pro-life display of crosses. There was no open exchange of ideals, there was no argument of merits, there was only boisterous reaction to unappreciated freedoms of speech.

It could also be that there aren't nationally syndicated talk shows

... a recent anomaly to counter the increasingly loud voices of the left, prevalent among media such as;

television networks, and publishing houses

Are you suggesting that political evangelizing is a sign of insecurity with ideology? Thank God Air America Radio failed!

If not for their potentially contentious, Straussian hiring practice; a few fiscal conservatives may have been able to help them through this financial blunder. Tell me, was Air America using the Trotskian model?

Surely the presence of FOX News, Town Hall, all the AM conservative talk radio and Regnery Press signal the utter lack of faith in conservative values!

No. In fact the presence of the aforementioned and the incredible success each and every one of them have enjoyed affirms how intensely necessary this balance was.

I'm suggesting that the leftist theatre of choice indicates a lack of security in the merits of their ideals. You might know there's a vast difference in world view between the one who drives his mother's car and the one driving his own. Statistically among conservatives, most do not identify themselves as socially and fiscally conservative until well into their 30's or after having birthed their first child. This illustrates to me an evolution of thought into maturity. Having failed in the battle of ideals among the dominantly college-educated and mature voter, the
left has opted for the path of least resistance into the more impressionable and well-intentioned environment of the college campus. I believe this is consistent with your characterization of liberals prior.

I agree. But that does not mean that professors should be "objective." It's an interesting pedagogical question, I think, whether professors should hide their political beliefs.

It depends upon whether they've prioritized their own self-interests above educating the populace.

Yes. But again, if this isn't about purging an entire line of political thought, the conservatives need to get better PR people, because that's what the message sounds like to me.

Perception is reality as filtered through presupposition. Your perception stems from an apparent distaste for conservative ideology and as such there is likely little the Conservative PR machine could do to win your heart and mind.

Yes. But I have seen policies in university PPMs that specify that students must obtain instructor permission before recording. Sure, most people don't care, but there you have it.

You'll recall I used the word "generally".

The syllabus?

I'd love to see where on the syllabus you'll find; "Evils of the Bush Administration and the dangers of the neocon military complex agenda".

Gotcha. I know. Those poor students. They have no way to exchange information about professors or classes. If only they would set up websites where they could share their ratings. Maybe call it something like "Rate My Professor" or something. Nah. It'll never work. If only the students were allowed to talk about classes outside the classroom. That would be nice, because then professors could get reputations as nice, mean, hard, easy, lunatic, etc and the students could share that information in a kind of decentralized way. That would be awesome. What would be even cooler would be if there were some interconnected "network" of computers that would allow students to share information "online." They could even keep something like a "web log" about their experiences with professors. If this were to work, the university might even provide "space" on their computers for these "web logs." At the very least, I think that universities ought to provide some kind of advisement for students, and it's a shame that universities like this don't.

Of course they're welcome to share ideals with one another as long as they're content being rendered nazi quacks interested in squelching freedom of speech. As long as they don't attempt to espouse their rhetoric in public on campus or thank Jesus at their commencement, they may even graduate without needing an ambulance.

OK. If I'm an expert in 19th century British literature and I teach Darwin's Origin of Species in my class, can I talk about it as a cultural expression of the Victorian deification of progress and, interestingly, as a way of orienting humanity's place in the world and in history in the wake of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology? Is that expertise? Or conviction?

I would say yes and side with expertise in this example. However. if I were an expert on 19th century British literature and taught the fallacies of Darwinian principle followed by an excerpt on how effective these principles were in serving as the foundation for Hitler's master race and the devaluation of life in general, in an essay co-authored by George Will, Pat Robertson, and Michael Behe; it could be argued that I'm acting on conviction.

A massive and highly-networked group of conservatives who want to purge the university of ideas they don't like and the people who espouse them.

Again, using our own discussion as a template, you'll find the terms "force" and "take back", but they're not coming from me. As an aside, I'm personally thankful for the religious zealots who founded the first 25 Universities in the US allowing for and encouraging the open expression of ideals.

You should also factor into this that Barrett is a term-contract employee, which suggests that the larger academic community has decided that they don't want him all that much.

... and some want him an awful lot.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm having difficulty finding continuity in your thought process.

You were trying to suggest that the Communist Party in Chicago is representative of mainstream liberals.

You may be right about conservatives being bitchy, but you're most certainly mistaken in your characterization of at least one of them. I've often said that it is not a dominantly Republican Hill that makes this country great, but the exchange of ideals and balance of power. While it is obvious what the left is against, it is not apparent what they are for. As long as this distinction remains ambiguous, their voices will remain silent. This is most unfortunate and calls for disciplined and sober rhetoric.

I agree. The current political climate bothers me greatly, and I hope that I'm right in reading the mid-terms as anti-incumbent, not anti-Republican.

"Take these business departments back" you say? Shall we be using a baseball bat for this coercion?

Yes! We shall be joking like Ann Coulter, too!

"Force them to teach Trotsky alongside Smith!" you say? Are you a closet conservative?

Yes. I'll come out of the closet from time to time and tell you a joke.

Okay? So... liberals will generally flock to where they find the conservative threat most evident and Conservatives will flock to where they find the liberal threat most evident.

Where are the liberals flocking? Washington? Isn't that sort of like saying "Those crazy liberals. Always pointing to the government!"?

I guess the real question is; how many of them have a sense of humor at all?

Subject for another discussion, but yeah. Coulter's a total comedian. She's just like Jonathan Swift!

I believe your perception is founded upon distaste for conservative ideology.

Well, you know what happens when you assume.

I believe if you look hard enough you'll see a movement afoot to eliminate any religious icons on public property and the like.

OK. Why is it wrong that public buildings shouldn't be allowed to paint a giant picture of Jesus on the side?

This is not to indicate the harm they believe religion plays in society as much as it is in fact an attempt to eliminate it.

An attempt to eliminate religion? You can't possibly be serious. Seriously. You're suggesting that the ACLU's efforts to keep our public buildings and institutions non-sectarian are tantamount to eliminating religion from America entirely? Let me know when they start going after some private individual hanging up Xmas lights on his house.

I believe in our discussion you will find terms such as "force" and "take back" and they are not coming from the right, but the left.

Is there a sarcasm tag that I should use from now on so that when I say something completely batshit crazy you'll know I'm not serious?

It should be no surprise to you that there are unreasonable people on both sides of the aisle who are so mule-headed, they will find no common ground, no concession, no peace, and will not appreciate the open exchange of ideals.

The world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

I disagree and believe your perception is tainted by a distaste for conservative ideology.

Where have I said anything about my distaste for conservative ideology? At any rate, that's irrelevant.

Another such example is the vandalization of a pro-life display of crosses. There was no open exchange of ideals, there was no argument of merits, there was only boisterous reaction to unappreciated freedoms of speech.

OK. You're again implying that this is representative of mainstream liberalism, which it is of course not. I'm working hard to refrain from trotting out the Klan as representative of mainstream Conservative values here.

... a recent anomaly to counter the increasingly loud voices of the left, prevalent among media such as;

Recent? Conservatives have been working on this media project for 30 years.

[qute]If not for their potentially contentious, Straussian hiring practice; a few fiscal conservatives may have been able to help them through this financial blunder. Tell me, was Air America using the Trotskian model?[/quote]

Well, there is a lot of interplay between Trotskyism and neo-conservatism, so you never know. I tend to think that AAR failed because Al Franken whining for several hours a day does not a radio station make, and it strikes me that these attempts to establish a liberal talk radio network reveal the degree to which liberals suck at this particular kind of business.

No. In fact the presence of the aforementioned and the incredible success each and every one of them have enjoyed affirms how intensely necessary this balance was.

You sure they're not just insecure about their political ideology and are evangelizing to cover it up?

I'm suggesting that the leftist theatre of choice indicates a lack of security in the merits of their ideals. You might know there's a vast difference in world view between the one who drives his mother's car and the one driving his own. Statistically among conservatives, most do not identify themselves as socially and fiscally conservative until well into their 30's or after having birthed their first child. This illustrates to me an evolution of thought into maturity.

Hm. I can't decide how to respond. [thinking out loud]Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? That's just result in a debate about whether or not it's really post hoc, ergo propter hoc. How about sarcasm? Maybe a crack about how "well, if everyone's going to turn conservative eventually, who cares what they get taught in the university?" No. He'll (?) think you're serious.[/thinking out loud]

And "theatre" suggests to me that you're one of those conservative Canadians. Am I right?

Having failed in the battle of ideals among the dominantly college-educated and mature voter, the left has opted for the path of least resistance into the more impressionable and well-intentioned environment of the college campus. I believe this is consistent with your characterization of liberals prior.

So liberalism is the pedophile of political ideologies? Or is it just the dorky college freshman who can't get a date and has to date juniors in high school? And that, of course, makes Conservatism the strapping young man with good principles and straight teeth with the letterman's sweater who gets the cute girl!

My characterization of Democrats is that they don't know how to fight anymore and are, in effect, effete, mealy-mouthed pansies. Across the board, for 6 full years they've behaved like scared little children and I say vote'em all out.

Perception is reality as filtered through presupposition. Your perception stems from an apparent distaste for conservative ideology and as such there is likely little the Conservative PR machine could do to win your heart and mind.

You keep talking about my distaste, and yet I don't think I've actually mentioned it.

I'd love to see where on the syllabus you'll find; "Evils of the Bush Administration and the dangers of the neocon military complex agenda".

Lots of times there's a sequence of events on a syllabus and that will sometimes include reading assignments listed by title.

Of course they're welcome to share ideals with one another as long as they're content being rendered nazi quacks interested in squelching freedom of speech. As long as they don't attempt to espouse their rhetoric in public on campus or thank Jesus at their commencement, they may even graduate without needing an ambulance.

Heh. That's funny. All those private, religious institutions not being allowed to pray anymore. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

I would say yes and side with expertise in this example. However. if I were an expert on 19th century British literature and taught the fallacies of Darwinian principle followed by an excerpt on how effective these principles were in serving as the foundation for Hitler's master race and the devaluation of life in general, in an essay co-authored by George Will, Pat Robertson, and Michael Behe; it could be argued that I'm acting on conviction.

Well, that depends on what the class is. If it's a class about Social Darwminism, then that's fine. If it's a class about politicial appropriations of science, that's fine. If it's a course about Islam, not really so fine.

Again, using our own discussion as a template, you'll find the terms "force" and "take back", but they're not coming from me.

If you'd like to post your mailing address, I'll be happy to mail you a sarcasm detection meter. They really work great.

As an aside, I'm personally thankful for the religious zealots who founded the first 25 Universities in the US allowing for and encouraging the open expression of ideals.

Um. Ok.

... and some want him an awful lot.

Who? No one's given him a tenure-track job or tenure. He's a contract employee, which suggests that no one wants to keep him around for 30 years. And after all of this, what little career he has will be effectively over until people forget his name.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

You were trying to suggest that the Communist Party in Chicago is representative of mainstream liberals.

No, I'm suggesting that there are many on the left (or if you prefer, have aligned themselves with the left) who are equally intolerant as well. *as an interesting aside, why would communists be in favor of open borders?

My point is that there are extremists on both sides. Really, a point that's not arguable.

Yes! We shall be joking like Ann Coulter, too!

Why not? She's a lot funnier than Barret in my personal opinion and as long as she's not espousing her partisanship under the guise of educator, her affect is certainly more tempered.

Where are the liberals flocking? Washington? Isn't that sort of like saying "Those crazy liberals. Always pointing to the government!"?

In context of the conversation, we're talking about degrees of vitriol here. There's certainly no shortage of absolutes here. I mean it would be one thing for me to suggest it's crazy for liberals to always point at government, but it is in itself; certifiable to outright claim Conservatives want to eliminate liberals.

Well, you know what happens when you assume.

I nail it. Usually. You know what happens when you generalize.

OK. Why is it wrong that public buildings shouldn't be allowed to paint a giant picture of Jesus on the side?

That's funny. Has this happened? What if the business owner is a Christian who wants to honor Jesus as having given him the opportunities he has by painting a large picture of Jesus on the side of his building, what's wrong with that? The separation clause is not the suppression clause you understand. For someone who opened our conversation with distaste for analogies, I believe this is your fifth.

An attempt to eliminate religion? You can't possibly be serious. Seriously. You're suggesting that the ACLU's efforts to keep our public buildings and institutions non-sectarian are tantamount to eliminating religion from America entirely? Let me know when they start going after some private individual hanging up Xmas lights on his house.

Intolerance comes in many forms. The Los Angeles county flag for example, has a large picture of a greek goddess in the center, followed by other relevant historical references on the flag. Is the ACLU attempting the removal of the goddess in the center? No. It is the one tiny cross in the corner they're seeking to remove. Why? I don't know. After all, unless you lobby to change the city name, there's not a lot more you can do to suppress religion.

Is there a sarcasm tag that I should use from now on so that when I say something completely batshit crazy you'll know I'm not serious?

No need. I stopped taking you seriously at "Conservatives want to eliminate liberal thought."

OK. You're again implying that this is representative of mainstream liberalism, which it is of course not. I'm working hard to refrain from trotting out the Klan as representative of mainstream Conservative values here.

You're free to bring up any intolerant organization of yesterday that enjoyed the membership of elected Democrat representatives serving today. That said, I think you'd be hard-pressed in claiming that the right is today aligning themselves with the KKK as I have suggested the left has aligned themselves with communists.

Recent? Conservatives have been working on this media project for 30 years.

*looking for sarcasm tag.

Well, there is a lot of interplay between Trotskyism and neo-conservatism, so you never know. I tend to think that AAR failed because Al Franken whining for several hours a day does not a radio station make, and it strikes me that these attempts to establish a liberal talk radio network reveal the degree to which liberals suck at this particular kind of business.

I can certainly agree to that.

You sure they're not just insecure about their political ideology and are evangelizing to cover it up?

I don't know any of these personalities intimately so I could never be certain on such a thing. What is apparent however, is that conservative radio is lucrative business. I can only assume its explosion is not an orchestrated effort or "project" so much as a lucrative industry that will attract many a personality. You'll have to crawl inside the minds of the listener to know what it is they appreciate so much about conservative radio. I have a hunch it has something to do with a like-minded opinion in an otherwise hostile media environment.

Hm. I can't decide how to respond. [thinking out loud]Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? That's just result in a debate about whether or not it's really post hoc, ergo propter hoc. How about sarcasm? Maybe a crack about how "well, if everyone's going to turn conservative eventually, who cares what they get taught in the university?" No. He'll (?) think you're serious.[/thinking out loud]

With all due respect, I can't tell if you're just babbling or if you're reacting predictably to having misread my statement.

And "theatre" suggests to me that you're one of those conservative Canadians. Am I right?

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

So liberalism is the pedophile of political ideologies?

*looking for sarcasm tag.

Or is it just the dorky college freshman who can't get a date and has to date juniors in high school? And that, of course, makes Conservatism the strapping young man with good principles and straight teeth with the letterman's sweater who gets the cute girl!

What are you talking about?

My characterization of Democrats is that they don't know how to fight anymore and are, in effect, effete, mealy-mouthed pansies. Across the board, for 6 full years they've behaved like scared little children and I say vote'em all out.

I won't be helping your cause in my local election this November. A democrat is getting my vote.

You keep talking about my distaste, and yet I don't think I've actually mentioned it.

So, you have no distaste for Conservative ideology then. This is excellent. I don't think I've ever seen a forum conversion before.

Lots of times there's a sequence of events on a syllabus and that will sometimes include reading assignments listed by title.

Again, I'd like to see where on the syllabus you'll find references to the "evils of Bush et al"

Heh. That's funny. All those private, religious institutions not being allowed to pray anymore. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Whew. I was glad to see "oh, wait. Nevermind". I was beginning to think we were having a significant reading comprehension issue.

If you'd like to post your mailing address, I'll be happy to mail you a sarcasm detection meter. They really work great.

That's funny. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Who? No one's given him a tenure-track job or tenure. He's a contract employee, which suggests that no one wants to keep him around for 30 years. And after all of this, what little career he has will be effectively over until people forget his name.

um, okay.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by midwinter

OK. Why is it wrong that public buildings shouldn't be allowed to paint a giant picture of Jesus on the side?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's funny. Has this happened? What if the business owner is a Christian who wants to honor Jesus as having given him the opportunities he has by painting a large picture of Jesus on the side of his building, what's wrong with that? The separation clause is not the suppression clause you understand. For someone who opened our conversation with distaste for analogies, I believe this is your fifth.

You know, I could be wrong, but I thought the difference between public buildings and business owners was what's being discussed here. You know, the whole thing about public buildings not having business owners? Yeah, that. From what I could gather, the point was that individuals could affiliate with any religion they wanted; if you want to put a cross up on the door of your business, then you might lose some business from some people, but all the power to you; if you put one up over top of your judge's pulpit, then there might be more trouble. "Separation of church and state" I believe they call it nowadays.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Intolerance comes in many forms. The Los Angeles county flag for example, has a large picture of a greek goddess in the center, followed by other relevant historical references on the flag. Is the ACLU attempting the removal of the goddess in the center? No. It is the one tiny cross in the corner they're seeking to remove. Why? I don't know. After all, unless you lobby to change the city name, there's not a lot more you can do to suppress religion.

Have you even thought about what you're writing? Hmmmmm, geeee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that Greek goddesses are not - and have not been for hundreds if not thousands of years - associated with religion? I mean, I agree with you on this one - it's a dumb idea - but if you can't see where this is coming from, you've got some serious problems. A cross means Christianity, or more strongly Roman Catholicism. On a flag that is meant to represent the people, this is a clear association with a religion. A Greek goddess, on the other hand, has no such religious connotations.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're free to bring up any intolerant organization of yesterday that enjoyed the membership of elected Democrat representatives serving today. That said, I think you'd be hard-pressed in claiming that the right is today aligning themselves with the KKK as I have suggested the left has aligned themselves with communists.

I'm almost completely certain I can give you 15 examples of members of this board advocating the destruction of the Muslim race, a loss of freedoms on people of Middle Eastern descent, or even the inferiority of the Muslim race, merely from a quick Search. If that's not the modern equivalent of the KKK, then nothing is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

With all due respect, I can't tell if you're just babbling or if you're reacting predictably to having misread my statement.

I don't think your history of misreading in this thread gives you a whole lot of basis for making fun of others on this subject.

greg

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You know, I could be wrong, but I thought the difference between public buildings and business owners was what's being discussed here.

Yup. That was exactly my point. And I say this as a religious minority living in a state where the overwhelmingly dominant religion is not mainstream Christianity. Moving from just a regular old Baptist state to a place like Utah has really opened my eyes about issues of church and state.

Anyway.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

My point is that there are extremists on both sides. Really, a point that's not arguable.

Then we're not having the same conversation. My point was that yes, there are extremists on both sides but that the conservative eliminationist rhetoric is mainstream, not fringe.

*looking for sarcasm tag.

You don't think that, starting in the 1960s and 70s, there was a massive push by conservatives to employ direct mail as a means of targeting voters? And that as a result they created their own, unabashedly conservative, media? You don't think that the 80s saw a massive rise in AM conservative talk radio? Or that the 90s saw the rise to dominance of FOX news?

The amazing thing is that liberals sat there and watched it happen and did nothing to counter it. And then when '94 happened, and then 2000 and '04, they act all surprised that they've been hit by the train they'd been watching come at them for 30 years.

With all due respect, I can't tell if you're just babbling or if you're reacting predictably to having misread my statement.

You said that people get more conservative because they've gotten older and have "matured." I suggested that this is both a logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) and asked if it is true, why do we care what politics kids get exposed to, since in the natural process of maturation, they will eventually come to the right conclusion.

What are you talking about?

This statement:

Having failed in the battle of ideals among the dominantly college-educated and mature voter, the left has opted for the path of least resistance into the more impressionable and well-intentioned environment of the college campus.

You're arguing here that because liberals can't get mature voters, they have to go after immature ones, i.e. the children, which, in terms of the metaphor you've established, makes liberalism either a pedophile hunting down children to corrupt or the dorky college guy who dates high school girls.

And that gets us back to the topic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You know, I could be wrong, but I thought the difference between public buildings and business owners was what's being discussed here. You know, the whole thing about public buildings not having business owners?

That's why I offered another example. I asked for an instance of his statement.

Yeah, that. From what I could gather, the point was that individuals could affiliate with any religion they wanted; if you want to put a cross up on the door of your business, then you might lose some business from some people, but all the power to you; if you put one up over top of your judge's pulpit, then there might be more trouble. "Separation of church and state" I believe they call it nowadays.

It should be readily apparent to anyone familiar with US history that freedom of religion is the cornerstone of American culture, not freedom from religion. I suppose I would refer to the gigantic 10 Commandment plaques that adorn the walls of the Supreme Court as evidence of your ignorance to the founding fathers' intent. Yeah, that highest Court in the country thing I think they call that.

Have you even thought about what you're writing? Hmmmmm, geeee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that Greek goddesses are not - and have not been for hundreds if not thousands of years - associated with religion?

Actually, Dodekatheon is still practiced in some cultures. It doesn't matter if it's an officially recognized religion.

I mean, I agree with you on this one - it's a dumb idea - but if you can't see where this is coming from, you've got some serious problems. A cross means Christianity, or more strongly Roman Catholicism. On a flag that is meant to represent the people, this is a clear association with a religion. A Greek goddess, on the other hand, has no such religious connotations.

What I can see is that you have a propensity for defending what you consider "dumb". What I can see is that there is a movement afoot to remove symbols of Christianity using a bastardized interpretation of the establishment clause, not because they believe that particular cross (in my example) is dangerous or harmful to the country (as midwinter mentioned), but because they're seeking to eliminate symbols of Christianity.

I'm almost completely certain I can give you 15 examples of members of this board advocating the destruction of the Muslim race, a loss of freedoms on people of Middle Eastern descent, or even the inferiority of the Muslim race, merely from a quick Search. If that's not the modern equivalent of the KKK, then nothing is.

Forget finding 15, cite 3.

* ATTENTION ALL MACNN READERS; You are about to witness the most flagrant twisting of others' statements out of context in an attempt to compare them with the acts of an organization that hung black men from tree limbs. As you read greg's reply, consider the inherent racism behind the act of belittling the black man's plight for an argument on an internet forum.

I don't think your history of misreading in this thread gives you a whole lot of basis for making fun of others on this subject.

I suspect midwinter is not impressed by your inept defenses. He's proven exponentially more capable than you at making an argument.

Goodbye greg.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then you're equally familiar with minutemen getting beat to a pulp at a University in Chicago and issues like these.

This wasn't at a university in chicago, it was at a bank in indiana. They also didn't get "beat to a pulp," a scuffle broke out between three protesters and one got a small cut and then returned to the protest.

And midwinter, why wouldn't you verify the facts of the story before discussing it? It's pretty careless on your part.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by dialo 

This wasn't at a university in chicago, it was at a bank in indiana. They also didn't get "beat to a pulp," a scuffle broke out between three protesters and one got a small cut and then returned to the protest.

And midwinter, why wouldn't you verify the facts of the story before discussing it? It's pretty careless on your part.

Yes, it was. But the reason I didn't bother to check his story is that it doesn't matter. If I shift the discussion to whether or not someone was injured or how much or whatever, it means that I accept the comparison, which I don't.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suppose I would refer to the gigantic 10 Commandment plaques that adorn the walls of the Supreme Court as evidence of your ignorance to the founding fathers' intent. Yeah, that highest Court in the country thing I think they call that.

The architecture of a building built in 1932 is evidence of the founders' intentions? How does that work? There's also a big frieze of Napoleon. And Mohammed. Does that tell us anything about the founders' intentions?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

The architecture of a building built in 1932 is evidence of the founders' intentions?

Smackity-down!

[ebuddy]

Then we're not having the same conversation. My point was that yes, there are extremists on both sides but that the conservative eliminationist rhetoric is mainstream, not fringe.

... and I'm telling you that your evidences of "elimination rhetoric among the mainstream right" are no more compelling than the eliminationist rhetoric of the mainstream left.

You don't think that, starting in the 1960s and 70s, there was a massive push by conservatives to employ direct mail as a means of targeting voters?

Here I thought I was getting a substantive article to back your claims. I get a book purchase link? I was able to gleen something of redeeming value however;

Book Description
Liberal media activists beware! Richard A. Viguerie, venture capitalist of the conservative movement (described as funding father of the right) and David Franke, a founder of the conservative movement, detail how conservatives-shut out by the liberal mass media of the 1950s and '60s-came to power by utilizing new and alternative media, and then created their own mass media.

Sounds exactly like what I said. it was a recent anomaly to counter the preceding movements of their ideological opposition. Either way, what is so reprehensible about this? You think Mtv knew nothing of its demographics prior to the ROCK THE VOTE campaign?

You said that people get more conservative because they've gotten older and have "matured." I suggested that this is both a logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) and asked if it is true, why do we care what politics kids get exposed to, since in the natural process of maturation, they will eventually come to the right conclusion.

Certainly, opinions can be logically fallacious just as the opinion that mainstream Conservatives want to eliminate liberals. I prefaced my statement with; "this illustrates to me" indicating an opinion and/or perception.

You're arguing here that because liberals can't get mature voters, they have to go after immature ones, i.e. the children, which, in terms of the metaphor you've established, makes liberalism either a pedophile hunting down children to corrupt or the dorky college guy who dates high school girls.

Call it what you will. When you have folks like State Sen. John Vasconcellos, (D) in California proposing a bill that would allow 16-year-olds a half-vote and 14-year-olds a quarter-vote in state elections, I think my point becomes a little clearer. Statistically, it is beyond question that the significant majority of voters are 30 years of age or older. It is beyond argument that the Democrat has had an increasingly difficult time appealing to the statistically, more mature voter.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and I'm telling you that your evidences of "elimination rhetoric among the mainstream right" are no more compelling than the eliminationist rhetoric of the mainstream left.

Yes. And when you tried to provide evidence for this rhetoric from the mainstream left, it was a fringe group and you got all of the facts wrong, as Dialo pointed out.

Here I thought I was getting a substantive article to back your claims. I get a book purchase link? I was able to gleen something of redeeming value however;

You're cracking me up! If you'd start saying "thee" and "thou" when you make these little snarky comments about the intellectual merits it would be perfect.

Book Description
Liberal media activists beware! Richard A. Viguerie, venture capitalist of the conservative movement (described as funding father of the right) and David Franke, a founder of the conservative movement, detail how conservatives-shut out by the liberal mass media of the 1950s and '60s-came to power by utilizing new and alternative media, and then created their own mass media.

Yeah. I apologize for, instead of providing you a "substantive article" backing up my claims that conservatives spent 30 years building a massive media infrastructure, I provided a link to a book written by the key players in that effort. I'll try to do better next time.

Sounds exactly like what I said. it was a recent anomaly to counter the preceding movements of their ideological opposition. Either way, what is so reprehensible about this? You think Mtv knew nothing of its demographics prior to the ROCK THE VOTE campaign?

Well, we're just going to have to disagree about what "recent" means.

Call it what you will. When you have folks like State Sen. John Vasconcellos, (D) in California proposing a bill that would allow 16-year-olds a half-vote and 14-year-olds a quarter-vote in state elections, I think my point becomes a little clearer.

While I like the idea of getting children civic-ly engaged, that's a stupid proposal.

Statistically, it is beyond question that the significant majority of voters are 30 years of age or older.

OK.

It is beyond argument that the Democrat has had an increasingly difficult time appealing to the statistically, more mature voter.

Yes. And now we're back to post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It should be readily apparent to anyone familiar with US history that freedom of religion is the cornerstone of American culture, not freedom from religion. I suppose I would refer to the gigantic 10 Commandment plaques that adorn the walls of the Supreme Court as evidence of your ignorance to the founding fathers' intent. Yeah, that highest Court in the country thing I think they call that.

Well, I guess midwinter already made this statement look exceedingly stupid, so I won't bother beating up on it too much more. Suffice to say that freedom of religion is inherently limited when the state officially endorses one religion over all others; suffice to say as well that I've been to your Supreme Court, while you obviously have not – or you wouldn't've even tried to make such a laughable argument about the "founding fathers' intent" and a Supreme Court building built in the mid-thirties that also has a statue of Confucius hanging around by Moses. I mean, the "founding fathers"?!?! How pathetic on your part. Many of the founding fathers thought it was perfectly okay to have a black man or 50 to own and order around. Other "great men" like Andrew Jackson did their racist best to murder and starve and backstab the Native Americans at all cost. Don't point to the "founding fathers' intent" when I'm around, buddy. I'll shove it right up your ass.

Owch. That's painful on your part, though. So...weak.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Actually, Dodekatheon is still practiced in some cultures. It doesn't matter if it's an officially recognized religion.

*snort*

Now you're just being insulting. Are you really arguing that Greek gods still hold any religious value in North America? Hell, I can use the world as an example if I want – I'd still be right. Don't give me that "there's still dodekatheon in some cultures" BS – remember, I pay money to study history as a living. This isn't even worth to be called an argument. It's pretty damn funny, but not an argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What I can see is that you have a propensity for defending what you consider "dumb".

So? I think companies being able to avoid paying 40% Canadian taxes by setting up offshore trusts in Barbados that are only 2.5% taxable is dumb too, but it's still perfectly legal and a valid business practice. I think wasting taxpayers' money trying to get a little cross taken off a flag is dumb, but as I explained there seems to be a logical and valid reason behind it. You manage to avoid all logical and valid reasons by going off on semi-paranoid "Christian enemy movement" theories.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What I can see is that there is a movement afoot to remove symbols of Christianity using a bastardized interpretation of the establishment clause, not because they believe that particular cross (in my example) is dangerous or harmful to the country (as midwinter mentioned), but because they're seeking to eliminate symbols of Christianity.

Now we're back to "separation of church and state." I don't personally care what's on my flag, and I don't personally think taking a tiny cross off a flag or building matters that much. But I think separation of church and state is probably a good thing, so there's nothing wrong with making things neutral. Again, as has been emphasized: you're absolutely free to worship whatever you want in your own time.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Forget finding 15, cite 3.

* ATTENTION ALL MACNN READERS; You are about to witness the most flagrant twisting of others' statements out of context in an attempt to compare them with the acts of an organization that hung black men from tree limbs. As you read greg's reply, consider the inherent racism behind the act of belittling the black man's plight for an argument on an internet forum.

Ahhhhh, now I'm racist and belittling the black man. It's too bad I'm not a raging conservative, or kevin might help me out with a "logical fallacy" comment directed at you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I suspect midwinter is not impressed by your inept defenses. He's proven exponentially more capable than you at making an argument.

Goodbye greg.

And yet, you still can't mount a defense that isn't full of holes and/or easibly rebuttable points. Nice try, old-timer.

greg

[finboy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

What he's doing isn't uncommon. I've had to do it in math courses for example when a teacher publishes their own workbook.

I used to put together my own reading packets, but I would PAY FOR my bound copy and just have students pay for copies and binding. Just to be sure that nobody could point a finger.

When I published a textbook, I stipulated that my royalties would be zero. Why? To eliminate the conflict of interest potential. What did I get out of it? My students had some excellent stuff to work with, and I got a textbook published (on my CV).

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

It's too bad I'm not a raging conservative,
greg

Are you sure you aren't? Introspection can be a very healthy thing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Yes. And when you tried to provide evidence for this rhetoric from the mainstream left, it was a fringe group and you got all of the facts wrong, as Dialo pointed out.

We were talking about intolerance from both sides and we're having a discussion about the University environment. I offered a relevant example of intolerance from the left. You simply stated that the mainstream right is "eliminationist" without trying to qualify the sweeping generalization.

One poster mentioned that I had the facts wrong. i.e. wrong state and the man was able to return to the protest having not been beaten to a pulp. I apologize though I think the picture above does a sufficient job of illustrating my point that there are those on the left who are intolerant. Your point was that these are not aligned with the left, they are socialists and communists. I asked you when communists began fighting for open borders. You never responded. I think anyone could agree that the socialists in this country have most certainly aligned themselves with the left.

You're cracking me up! If you'd start saying "thee" and "thou" when you make these little snarky comments about the intellectual merits it would be perfect.

teeheehee.

snarky? Who says that? Folks don't usually scream like this when they're being walked off a cliff around here, but hey it's fun to hear.

Yeah. I apologize for, instead of providing you a "substantive article" backing up my claims that conservatives spent 30 years building a massive media infrastructure, I provided a link to a book written by the key players in that effort. I'll try to do better next time.

You're welcome to post anything you like that affirms my argument. I'm not sure why you did I mean, the article was pretty clear what sparked the "evil" movement.

Yes. And now we're back to post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Your use of the logical fallacy page at Wikipedia is impressive. Hopefully you'll be able to recognize the inductive fallacies littered throughout your posts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, I guess midwinter already made this statement look exceedingly stupid, so I won't bother beating up on it too much more. Suffice to say that freedom of religion is inherently limited when the state officially endorses one religion over all others;

So, by having a 10 Commandment plaque on the walls of the Supreme Court they are endorcing Lutheranism? Catholicism? Baptists? Methodists? What religion? The Church of England? Scotland?

suffice to say as well that I've been to your Supreme Court, while you obviously have not – or you wouldn't've even tried to make such a laughable argument about the "founding fathers' intent" and a Supreme Court building built in the mid-thirties that also has a statue of Confucius hanging around by Moses. I mean, the "founding fathers"?!?! How pathetic on your part.

You're pretty good at vitriol, got anything else?

Many of the founding fathers thought it was perfectly okay to have a black man or 50 to own and order around. Other "great men" like Andrew Jackson did their racist best to murder and starve and backstab the Native Americans at all cost.

Human nature is capable of all kinds of horrific acts. This is not exclusive to the "founding fathers" of the US. You need only look to the attrocities committed against aboriginals in your own country to know that Canada has had it's share of mishaps as well. The "Founding Fathers", in spite of their own potential bias and their own particular agendas, were able to draft a document of governance that would see the end of these brutal behaviors to a time when we'd argue the stupidity you've been vomiting here.

Don't point to the "founding fathers' intent" when I'm around, buddy. I'll shove it right up your ass.

While you might be able to fit your pin-head up my ass, I'd rather you pull it from your own first. Your farts are beginning to smell bad.

*snort*

... one line of coc down, one to go.

Now you're just being insulting.

Is there a better way to establish rapport with you?

Are you really arguing that Greek gods still hold any religious value in North America?

Are you really arguing that a cross on a city flag named after Angels is a violation of the establishment clause?

remember, I pay money to study history as a living.

You pay money to study history as a living? Hell of a living. I'm appreciated for what I do, they actually pay me. Crazy huh? If I were you, I'd ask for a full refund. Yesterday.

Ahhhhh, now I'm racist and belittling the black man. It's too bad I'm not a raging conservative, or kevin might help me out with a "logical fallacy" comment directed at you.

I've seen little twits come and go in this forum, but none pound their chest quite like you and even fewer cower like you to a challenge. Still working on the three examples? I'm interested in giving MacNN the benefit of watching someone completely implode though I must admit, it seems you already have.

And yet, you still can't mount a defense that isn't full of holes and/or easibly rebuttable points. Nice try, old-timer.

I'm 36 Einstein. Should I tell your mom you're done with the 'puter now?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We were talking about intolerance from both sides and we're having a discussion about the University environment. I offered a relevant example of intolerance from the left. You simply stated that the mainstream right is "eliminationist" without trying to qualify the sweeping generalization.

Here.

One poster mentioned that I had the facts wrong. i.e. wrong state and the man was able to return to the protest having not been beaten to a pulp. I apologize though I think the picture above does a sufficient job of illustrating my point that there are those on the left who are intolerant.

No one said that there weren't people on the left who were violent or nastily intolerant. If that's the point you're fighting so hard for, congratulations. You have done it. You have proven that there are assholes on the left AND the right.

Your point was that these are not aligned with the left, they are socialists and communists. I asked you when communists began fighting for open borders. You never responded. I think anyone could agree that the socialists in this country have most certainly aligned themselves with the left.

No. That was not my point. You have misquoted me. I said "You were trying to suggest that the Communist Party in Chicago is representative of mainstream liberals." "The left" and "liberals" are not the same thing.

teeheehee.

snarky? Who says that? Folks don't usually scream like this when they're being walked off a cliff around here, but hey it's fun to hear.

Oh come on! Get a thee or thou in there when you make some kind of statement about your intellectual superiority! Pretty please? And extra points for suggesting that I'm being walked off a cliff! Priceless!

You're welcome to post anything you like that affirms my argument. I'm not sure why you did I mean, the article was pretty clear what sparked the "evil" movement.

Um. I claimed that there was a 30 year project on the right designed to establish a right wing media. You called that into question. I supplied a source. You made fun of the source because it was a book. Or something.

Your use of the logical fallacy page at Wikipedia is impressive. Hopefully you'll be able to recognize the inductive fallacies littered throughout your posts.

Oooh! ooh! A logical fallacy fight! Please see my earlier post about post hoc, ergo propter hoc and why I didn't make a huge deal out of it. But my point is that your assumption boils down to this: "people often get conservative as they get older. Clearly this is because they are maturing" assumes that because one thing happens after another thing, it is because of the other thing.

Anyway. Have a good day. I'm off the grid until tomorrow.

[Spliffdaddy]

give it up. You've been pwned twice already.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

give it up. You've been pwned twice already.

Libs like being pwned - it gives them a sense of belonging.

[Dakar²]

Like cheerleading for conservatives.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Like cheerleading for conservatives.

Yes. Conservatives like cheerleading.

Libs can keep their Andrea Dworkin, Cindy Sheehan and other such delights... ...and conservatives will stick with the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. Deal?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. Conservatives like cheerleading.

Libs can keep their Andrea Dworkin, Cindy Sheehan and other such delights... ...and conservatives will stick with the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. Deal?

You guys don't want the Cowboys cheerleaders. You want to have their jobs -- if these forums are any indication.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

You guys don't want the Cowboys cheerleaders.

I assure you, we do. No more than four at a time though - that'd be hard work.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I assure you, we do. No more than four at a time though - that'd be hard work.

You tire easy in your dreams?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You tire easy in your dreams?

Trust me on this... ...any more than four at a time and you'll want to kill yourself by the end of the night.

[Shaddim]

I required one of my books for a course I taught this semester. However, I told the students that if they felt irritated over having to purchase a book that "lined my pockets", they could meet me after class and I'd give them the $4.48 that I made from the sale. Only one person took me up on it.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Trust me on this... ...any more than four at a time and you'll want to kill yourself by the end of the night.

...so people find my condition and its wildly publicized.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Here.

You're killing me man, killing me. Here's a much more credible source of info for you. Absolute truth on the left and mainstream liberalism

No one said that there weren't people on the left who were violent or nastily intolerant. If that's the point you're fighting so hard for, congratulations. You have done it. You have proven that there are assholes on the left AND the right.

You seem to be having difficulty following the flow from one post to the next. i.e. Thou hath lost a wheel. Of course you realize I never stated there weren't eliminationistic tactics from the right, but challenged you on why your evidences were somehow more compelling an indictment against the mainstream right, than mine were of the mainstream left. Keep trying if you want midwinter, but I'm starting to think you should probably try the iPod forum.

No. That was not my point. You have misquoted me. I said "You were trying to suggest that the Communist Party in Chicago is representative of mainstream liberals." "The left" and "liberals" are not the same thing.

Actually, there were two groups of anti-protesters involved in beating up the poor 63 year old minuteman. One of them was a socialist group. Groups like these often fostered by politically active liberal and yes, leftist professors. This is becoming an increasing phenomena throughout the US and evidences abound. Google liberal activism at the University, then google leftist intolerance at the University and you'll find pretty much anything you're looking for. Certainly, one could split hairs on just about anything one wants, but yeah "the left" and "liberals" are pretty much the same thing for all intents and purposes.

Oh come on! Get a thee or thou in there when you make some kind of statement about your intellectual superiority! Pretty please? And extra points for suggesting that I'm being walked off a cliff! Priceless!

You said "pretty please"! Priceless!

Um. I claimed that there was a 30 year project on the right designed to establish a right wing media. You called that into question. I supplied a source. You made fun of the source because it was a book. Or something.

Um, no. As another reminder, you asked if the 30 year, right-wing media project was also an example of an insecurity in ideological merit. I said no; that it was more likely an attempt to counter the pervasive leftist occupation of all media outlets prior. Your book link was funny to me because I wasn't sure what you expected me to get from a book title. So, it was a movement. Big deal right? I mean, they felt they were shut out by leftist intolerance and their answer was to start a movement of their own. Certainly doesn't sound insecure to me. Their immense success means their confidence and resolve paid off. Huge dividends.

Oooh! ooh! A logical fallacy fight! Please see my earlier post about post hoc, ergo propter hoc and why I didn't make a huge deal out of it. But my point is that your assumption boils down to this: "people often get conservative as they get older.

I started with a funny little hypothesis to keep things light. In hindsight, I should probably avoid using humor on someone who's got the logical fallacy page of Wikipedia tabbed for quick reference. I stated that there is a difference in world view between the one who drives his mother's car and the one who drives his own. To affirm my little hypothesis, I did mention that those identifying themselves as conservative generally don't do so until they are into their 30's or have had their first child. Most voters are in their 30s and Democrats haven't had a lot of luck at the polling place. We'll see what they can do when the elections this November have been handed them by an Administration that couldn't communicate what they had for lunch without sounding defensive.

Clearly this is because they are maturing" assumes that because one thing happens after another thing, it is because of the other thing.

Make of it what you will. I think I nailed it. Poc post-hockey ergo pseudo-intellectual gobbledyglock stock and barrel baby.

Anyway. Have a good day. I'm off the grid until tomorrow.

I hope you have a good day too. I know I will. I just got back home from having my gall bladder removed last night.