Posted on 12/03/2004 12:55:13 PM PST by Ramonan
In his column, "Campuses remain Democratic havens," George Will certainly tries hard to explain why faculty members at our prominent universities are overwhelmingly liberal. But as is often the case with Will, he fails to mention the obvious. These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated. They know something of labor and social history and realize that for most people a return to conditions of the early 20th century would not be in their interest. Finally, they are unpersuaded by slogans like "compassionate conservative" and "ownership society," which are primarily a cover for the transfer of society's wealth into the pockets of the rich.
THOMAS ALDEN Borrego Springs
Demonstrating once again that you can be articulate, educated, powerful and connected yet still have no clue to what is actually going on, Will bemoans the lack of "conservative" thought on college campuses. The first thing that comes to my mind is thank God. If most professors' ideological rudders represented those of the current Republican Party, institutions of higher learning would be teaching creationism as the explanation of man's existence on Earth, ignoring more than a century of anthropological discoveries because they conflicted with biblical teachings. Government studies would renounce labor unions as pseudocommunist fronts, since businesses always do what is best for workers. Law schools would concern themselves primarily with property law, since only owners of property have rights.
CLIFF HANNA San Diego
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Yeah, and you know how Einstein got lousy grades in math? Well, mine were even worse!
Had a buddy who was a smoke jumper. He gave it up when his wife got pregnant. (and after a very sorrowful tragedy.)
This letter is precisely why more conservatives are needed in academia. This dork actually believes this is what conservatives advocate?
Good one! I'm not familiar with the book you posted above. Is it worth checking out?
The title looked interesting. I might check it out.
This above is the on line bookshop I prefer.
Thanks. I'll save that link.
Well, it's getting late and I have to be up.
Good night, Alessandro. Have a good one.
superskunk
Thanks and Good night, friend! In Italy it's half past 9 (a.m.). See you.
"Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach phys ed."
Lots of ideas (Communism sounds great in theory!), very little sense of reality.
The political left always PREACHES they'll do more for education. People tend to act in best self interest.
Those who teach are left bias to begin with. Just as people who join the Army tend to be right to begin with. The political left allows for a lot of wiggle room in morals and interpretation of laws etc when it comes to drugs, sex and everything that many young and dumb experimenting kids want (Their teachers too).
Red6
No, I don't see that. He states that his complaint is specifically with people who ignore/reject 140+ years of evidence just because the evidence raises questions about the interpretation of some biblical passages. And though I have no problem with anyone's belief in a creator/designer (and the author of the letter may not either), I do agree that the hardcore, "don't confuse me with the facts", young-earth creationists do tend to scare away a lot of people (like the author of this letter, apparently) who might otherwise have been willing to take a closer look at conservative ideas. But just as the way-out leftists turn off a lot of people from liberalism, there are some varieties of conservatives that can make the public wonder whether *all* conservatives might be like that.
He either hasn't read Behe and other top scientists of our age who see that there is a scientific basis for hypothesizing there was a designer.
I don't know if the author of the letter has read Behe, but *I* have, and while there may be good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design, Behe's is not among them. Nor is it accurate to describe him as a "top scientist". Behe's ID arguments are fatally flawed. Most qualified reviewers had little trouble spotting the holes in Behe's book nearly as soon as it appeared, and upon reading Behe's work I can't help but agree with them.
For a few of my own posts about the problems with Behe's work, see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003273/posts?page=297#297http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047185/posts?page=164#164 (the portion relevant to Behe starts about halfway in)
As Western civilization continues to decline and stagnate in Vegas-like circus-culture decadence, please, all you liberals, let us know when the promised social "progress" is on the way!
I have someone who's walking me through some new techniques for our industry, I'm taking over some material he's been working with. Darn if the guy can't pull down from memory details from 6 months ago and remember 9,000 lines of detailed work. I work in different subject matter and can keep up, but it's wonderful to see a mind at work like that.
Anyway, wonderful to see God's handiwork in some people.
But college professor? This guy ain't the type. I can see him strangling someone asking him about some obscure fact that he could have picked up had he memorized the first 30 chapters of some tech manual.
Bye, Thornman!He's dead, Jim!
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.
