Posted on 06/09/2005 2:40:26 PM PDT by hinterlander
Los Angeles Times and New York Magazine blast conservative values.
Some on the Left continue to believe conservatives want to burn books.
When Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford, guest-hosting MSNBC’s “Countdown,” June 3, suggested that the May 30 Human Events list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries” might somehow be a first step toward banning books, Don Devine—a professor at Bellevue University and one of the “judges” who voted on creating the Human Events list—pleasantly pointed out that far from trying to ban the listed books, he actually taught many of them in his own classes.
Crawford’s confusion, however, was representative of one liberal stream of “thought” in the flood of commentary on the Human Events list that last week swept across the Internet. A recent Google check of “Ten Most Harmful Books” cross-referenced with “Human Events” turned up 18,500 web citations.
Beyond the blogosphere, representatives of both the Los Angeles and New York liberal establishments felt compelled to register their outrage at the list. Vexed that works such as those of sexologist Alfred Kinsey and anti-traditional-family feminist Betty Friedan would be included on a list that also included Marx, Hitler and Mao, New Republic senior editor Jonathan Chait said in a column in the Los Angeles Times that the list “offers a fair window into the dementia of contemporary conservative thinking.”
Kinsey and Friedan, presumably, offer a fair window into the wholesomeness of contemporary liberal thinking.
New York Magazine placed the Human Events list in the “highbrow” but “despicable” quadrant of its “Approval Matrix”—just below a Turkish official’s act of detaining a teenage boy for reading a banned poet.
Liberals beware! The book list was merely a warm up. Next month Human Events will publish our list of the “Ten Most Harmful Government Programs.”
These we really do want to ban.
>>Yes, I sneer.<<
Thanks for sharing that visual of your cold heart, joyless soul, closed mind and sneering face.
Have a nice day.
Good bye.
Is that a scientifically verified statement? What exactly do you mean by "most"? "Most" of what? And who did the research? How do you know what "Most" object to?>
I think here you reasoned past your data. What's good for the supernaturalist is good for the empiricist, seems to me. There seems to be rather a lot of pontificating going on here, and just as the supernaturalists seem often to take unjustifiable excursions in to the field of empirical science, the heirs of Bacon seem a mite hasty in making not only the kind of judgment that COULD, theoretically be verified ("..most object to ...) but also into fields outside of that sort of thing.
If you have a moment, I'd recommend C.S. Lewis on evolution, NOT as a science but as a weltanschaaung.
Oh, and if you meant to dazzle me with the list of things that wouldn't make sense without Darwin, it didn't work. I have my rhetorical sunglasses on.
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.