Posted on 05/16/2002 9:08:28 AM PDT by The Raven
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a large event, much commented on, the Justice Department last week told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment (
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
We all know why. The news rooms in this country, ink and electronic, are patently and overwhelmingly against the second amendment and in favor of severe gun control.
BWAHAHAHA!! Where have we heard this line of defense before?
And that's absolutely that last thing that Mr. Bellesiles ever expected. My own astonishment is no less than his.
I'm curious as to why you said this, I take it you think it's more widespread (rewriting history).
They ain't talking now though.
You certainly won't hear much about in TIME magazine. Here's the form letter they sent out in response to people who wrote in complaining about their "Death by Gun" cover story, which was heavily slanted -- note that the letter admits this and describes it as a *good* thing:
August 1, 1989 The July 17 cover story is the most recent in a growing number of attempts on the part of TIME editors to keep the gun-availability issue resolutely in view. Such an editorial closing of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting, as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance if issues and events as they arise. But the time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public safety. As we see it--and as we indicated in the report--our responsibility now is to confront indifference about the escalating violence and the unwillingness to do something about it. Our appeal is for consideration of reasonable control over gun ownership--not, as some have charged, for an outright ban--as a means of making it more difficult for individuals to become targets of their own or of others' deadly violent impulses. Not a panacea, to be sure. And indeed, we are not asking for a cure for all of society's ills, only for relief from one of its most needlessly destructive symptoms. Certainly, readers are entitled to challenge our approach or our position on this matter, and we appreciate your taking the time to share your sentiments with the editors. Thank you for writing, and best wishes. Sincerely, Gloria Hammond, TIME Editorial Offices
History departments are famous for having become extremely and radically leftist in recent years. Many of them have become severely intolerant of anything even hinting at a conservative perspective, or challenging any facet of left-wing extremist ideology.
I wonder if it is a company policy formally approved by the Board of Directors or if as in so many of the Board of Director lawsuits that are occuring these days if it is through lack of oversight an error of omission on the part of the officers of the company??? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe a Freeper or two should ask some of them?
i) Principal Executive Officer Director and Chief Executive Officer
Gerald M. Levin
(ii) Principal Financial Officer
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Wayne H. Pace
(iii) Principal Accounting Officer Vice President and Controller
James W. Barge
(iv) Directors:
Daniel F. Akerson
James L. Barksdale
Stephen F. Bollenbach
Stephen M. Case
Frank J. Caufield
Miles R. Gilburne
Carla A. Hills
Reuben Mark
Michael A. Miles
Kenneth J. Novack
Richard D. Parsons
Robert W. Pittman
Franklin D. Raines
R.E. Turner
Francis T. Vincent Jr.
Well, hardly. The scholarly community of historians is doing everything it can to downplay this fiasco. The Newberry Library of Chicago awarded Belisle a second NEH grant, well after the details of the scandal over his first book had started to come out. And it's still not certain that Bellisles will be punished for his misdeeds.
Moreover, many of the most prominent scholars in such fields as history and literature publish lies like this all the time. They seldom get caught, and even if caught they seldom are punished. The academic profession is full of liars and political hacks at the highest levels. This is so because political correctness gets you a lot further in your career than good scholarship.
If a conservative scholar were to commit Bellisles' scholarly sins, he would be out of a job by now. But it's by no means sure, even now, that Bellisles will be punished as he deserves.
..even the flip-flopper David Brock?
Did you see the PBS series "Commanding Heights" ?? Seems as though left wing policies have failed everywhere. Behind every economic failure, purge, war, famine or enslavement - is a government policy or worse.
That figures.....If at first you can't perjury ---lie, lie, again
I believe I read that the S.F. Superior Court survived the 1906 earthquake.
What history departments? History is no longer a required curriculum in most Universities, and it is sorely lacking in reality in lower school levels. It is pick and choose by the instructor, developing an army of little leftists.
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.