Why Are You Reading the Little Red Book?

Absolutely right! This entire story reeks of B.S.! In the original article that came out, the reporter said in the story that the incident took place TWO MONTHS AGO. Did the paper wait on purpose for two months before reporting this? Did the professors wait two months on purpose? Why did it take TWO MONTHS (coincidently right when the Patriot Act was about to be renewed) for this story to get out?

Leftist liberal professors are (in my humble opinion) extremely self righteous and self serving hypocrites. A liberal professor would ABSOLUTELY LOVE the chance to play act the martyr at the hands of the big bad right wing conspiracy. It would inflate their already over inflated egos to the size of the Goodyear blimp.

I certainly hope this story gets lots of publicity. Because it would make the exposure of these weenies all that much more fun.

The entire pretense for getting a copy of the "official Peking version" of the little red book is all B.S.

There is no "official Peking version" ( this is how the first article called it, now they're calling it the "official Beijing version"). The little red book is the little red book. The covers may vary, the translation may vary, but there is no such thing as the "original Peking version". It would be like looking for the "official West Berlin version" of Mein Kampf. There are three editions, but the subsequent two editions only added two chapters to Mao's book of quotations. The little red book was derived from the "Selected writings of Mao" of which there are five volumes. If you were going to write a paper about Communism under Mao, these five volumes would be the primary source to go to.

Check out my post number 54.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543019/posts

I do not believe that there was ever ANY NEED to use the inter library loan system for this book in the first place. I think that the professors and/or the student were looking for an excuse in order to fabricate a story.

I bought and read the "little red book" in the 1970s. There's nothing in it but a bad rendering of Chinese poetry mixed with an equally poor understanding of Marx and Lenin.

As Communists go, Mao was the dumbest of the lot and that is monumental achievement.

BTW, PC is not Cultural Marxism it is Cultural Maoism.

Think the Cultural Revolution and political reeducation and you get the idea.

I feel sorry for Marx. His theories had been perverted more by his friends than his enemies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546276/posts
"The UMass Dartmouth Library has not been visited by agents of any type seeking information about the borrowing patterns or habits of any of its patrons.” Chancellor Jean F. MacCormack stated,

...Kirk Whitworth, a spokesman for the DHS—the U.S. cabinet department that oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the Secret Service, and Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others—said in the December 21 Standard-Times that the story seemed unlikely. “We’re aware of the claims,” he said. “However, the scenario sounds unlikely because investigations are based on violation of law, not on the books and individual[s who] might check [them] out from the library.”

An earlier report that the incident occurred at the University of California at Santa Cruz has proven false.

LOL!

1)UMass Dartmouth does not use SSN's for student ID's. An interlibrary loan request by SSN would seem to violate the University's own privacy policies (Link). http://www.umassd.edu/studenthandbook/academicregs/studentrecords.cfm 2)The reporter has not talked to the student. He has talked to the professors, who told him what the student claimed happened. The professors have no first hand knowledge of the incident.
3) The professors only "went public" with the story in response to a query about domestic wiretapping.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.