Thanks for this information, and prayers for your continued good health. I went through Hodgkins 20 years ago. Keep up the good spirits.
It’s not surprising. All these photo-ops are staged, and Obama is a congenital liar.
It’s his agenda that matters, not the welfare of the people he was elected to lead.
What he said earlier about tax-funded fetal stem cell research was also filled with lies. There was nothing “scientific” about his reversal of Bush’s policy, as he claimed. It was done purely to please the abortion lovers and the Culture of Death. But it will misdirect funds away from adult stem cells, where they might actually do some good for people.
“Translated to me, the underlined part that highlights the difference sounds like he was not hired on as a professor because of his knowledge or any other ‘scholarly’ designation or knowledge that would happen with a professor, he was just granted a job. It seems to me they are saying here he wouldn’t qualify as a professor.”
No, translated, the underlined part means that he was in a category of active professionals teaching in a professional school because the presence of such teachers is considered important to the professional training.
His was not an academic track and published academic journal articles were not part of the requirements. But in his case they did try to persuade him to make that transition and he chose not to. He probably knew he wouldn’t be any good at it; certainly didn’t want to expend the energy toward it.
He was not a professor but neither was he glorified TA. I agree that people exaggerate when they call him a professor of law. But you undermine your case when you compare him to the sessional lecturers employed to teach undergrads at slave wages.
Sorry, my reply was to another thread.
They had rights and appealed to them and their cases were heard. They were not slaughtered by the millions. If you would actually read some history, you would discover that the late medieval peasant revolts were largely the result of a rising standard of living for peasants due to the labor shortages caused by the great Plague, combined with the lords, who were being squeezed by inflation (obligations of peasants had to some degree been converted into money but at fixed rates because no one understood or expected inflation), so the lords were losing ground and tried oppressive means to squeeze the peasaznts IN NEW WAYS. The peasant revolts did not challenge the notion of serfdom itself (most peasants had actually been granted personal freedom by the later Middle Ages) but claimed that the Lords were violating ancient rights and customary laws. They were simply asking for their due under the law, largely because they were better off than their ancestors a few centuries earlier and they knew it.
Sure, being personally free they could run off to the cities, but most of them did not want to. In the cities they were on their own and had fewer rights. Having a piece of land that was yours by long tradition that you could farm to earn a living was not a bad thing for everyone. Entrepreneurial types wanted the city with its risk and freedoms, but not everyone did. And not all peasants reolted. And the ones who revolted were, for the most part, not serfs but free men—their expectations had been raised. But they thought, rightly or wrongly, that the lords were not upholding their end of the bargain.
But if it makes you feel better to use the Middle Ages as your bogeyman so you don’t have to confront the truly horrific conditions of the early modern and modern era,
be my guest.
It’s just bad history. That’s all.