| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"BroJack" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2004 04:13:08 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
On 8 Jun 2004 14:05:45 -0700, (RH) wrote:
Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore
The short preview is very good / worth watching!
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/
Thank goodness we still have freedom of speech and triple
shaaaaaaammmmeee on those who tried to stop Mr. Moore's great
documentary from being seen and his exercise of that dear freedom!
More about the film etc...
http://www.michaelmoore.com
Michael Moore lives inf antasy land.
He wouldn't know truth if it bit him in the *****.
BroJack
.
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
08 Jun 2004 08:29:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:13:08 GMT, (BroJack) wrote:
Michael Moore lives inf antasy land.
I guess that's as fitting a description of the United States as I've
ever heard.
He wouldn't know truth if it bit him in the *****.
Michael Moore may be an opportunist and a liberal pony, but he's not
as far off the track as the 50.5 million american voters who placed
the fate of the world in the hands of a recovering alcoholic bought
and paid for by corporate interests and white christian nationalists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BroJack" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
09 Jun 2004 09:03:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:29:39 +0200, Rune Børsjø <stupid@spammers.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:13:08 GMT, (BroJack) wrote:
Michael Moore lives inf antasy land.
I guess that's as fitting a description of the United States as I've
ever heard.
He wouldn't know truth if it bit him in the *****.
Michael Moore may be an opportunist and a liberal pony, but he's not
as far off the track as the 50.5 million american voters who placed
the fate of the world in the hands of a recovering alcoholic bought
and paid for by corporate interests and white christian nationalists.
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement. Boosh was the
lesser of two evils. He's too liberal for my blood: supporting set
asides in the Adarand case; sucking-up to illegals; fawning over
Chirac...
BroJack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noel" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
10 Jun 2004 02:30:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:03:40 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement. Boosh was the
lesser of two evils. He's too liberal for my blood: supporting set
asides in the Adarand case; sucking-up to illegals; fawning over
Chirac...
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BroJack" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
10 Jun 2004 04:33:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:30:43 +0100, Noel
<no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:03:40 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement. Boosh was the
lesser of two evils. He's too liberal for my blood: supporting set
asides in the Adarand case; sucking-up to illegals; fawning over
Chirac...
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
BroJack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noel" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
10 Jun 2004 04:18:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:33:48 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
You and your dad are obviously different people.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
So much for the much vaunted 'freedom' people in your country have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bro Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
10 Jun 2004 05:35:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:18:39 +0100, Noel
<no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:33:48 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
You and your dad are obviously different people.
I'm 23 years younger.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
So much for the much vaunted 'freedom' people in your country have.
Freedom, you want freedom? If you're not a trendy leftist, you won't
find freedom on America's campuses.
In Defense of Intellectual Diversity
By David Horowitz
The Chronicle of Higher Education | February 10, 2004
This article by David Horowitz and the two following (Sarah Habel's
"Students for Academic Freedom: A New Campus Movement" and Stanley
Fish's "Voice of the Opposition") all appeared in The Chronicle of
Higher Education. They represent the ongoing debate over Horowitz's
Academic Bill of Rights and fight for intellectual freedom in our
institutions of higher learning - The Editors.
*
I am the author of the Academic Bill of Rights, which many student
governments, colleges and universities, education commissions, and
legislatures are considering adopting. Already, the U.S. House of
Representatives has introduced a version as legislation, and the
Senate should soon follow suit.
State governments are also starting to rally around efforts to protect
student rights and intellectual diversity on campuses: In Colorado,
the State Senate president, John K. Andrews Jr., has been very
concerned about the issue, and State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just
introduced legislation requiring public institutions to create and
publicize processes for protecting students against political bias.
Lawmakers in four other states have also expressed a strong interest
in legislation of their own, based on some version of the Academic
Bill of Rights. Students for Academic Freedom is working to secure the
measure's adoption by student governments and university
administrations on 105 member campuses across the country.
The Academic Bill of Rights is based squarely on the almost
100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American
Association of University Professors has established. The bill's
purposes are to codify that tradition; to emphasize the value of
"intellectual diversity," already implicit in the concept of academic
freedom; and, most important, to enumerate the rights of students to
not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists
in the classroom or any educational setting.
Although the AAUP has recognized student rights since its inception,
however, most campuses have rarely given them the attention or support
they deserve. In fact, it is safe to say that no college or university
now adequately defends them. Especially recently, with the growing
partisan activities of some faculty members and the consequent
politicization of some aspects of the curriculum, that lack of support
has become one of the most pressing issues in the academy.
Moreover, because I am a well-known conservative and have published
studies of political bias in the hiring of college and university
professors, critics have suggested that the Academic Bill of Rights is
really a "right-wing plot" to stack faculties with political
conservatives by imposing hiring quotas. Indeed, opponents of
legislation in Colorado have exploited that fear, writing numerous
op-ed pieces about alleged right-wing plans to create
affirmative-action programs for conservative professors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent of the
Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics from the
classroom. The bill that I'm proposing explicitly forbids political
hiring or firing: "No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied
promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious
beliefs." The bill thus protects all faculty members -- left-leaning
critics of the war in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it,
for example -- from being penalized for their political beliefs.
Academic liberals should be as eager to support that principle as
conservatives.
Some liberal faculty members have expressed concern about a phrase in
the bill of rights that singles out the social sciences and humanities
and says hiring in those areas should be based on competence and
expertise and with a view toward "fostering a plurality of
methodologies and perspectives." In fact, the view that there should
be a diversity of methodologies is already accepted practice.
Considering that truth is unsettled in these discipline areas, why
should there not be an attempt to nurture a diversity of perspectives
as well?
Perhaps the concern is that "fostering" would be equivalent to
"mandating." The Academic Bill of Rights contains no intention,
implicit or otherwise, to mandate or produce an artificial "balance"
of intellectual perspectives. That would be impossible to achieve and
would create more mischief than it would remedy. On the other hand. a
lack of diversity is not all that difficult to detect or correct.
By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution would
recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an appropriate academic
enterprise. It would strengthen educational values that have been
eroded by the unwarranted intrusion of faculty members' political
views into the classroom. That corrosive trend has caused some
academics to focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon
their responsibilities as professional educators with obligations to
students of all political persuasions. Such professors have lost sight
of the vital distinction between education and indoctrination, which
-- as the AAUP recognized in its first report on academic freedom, in
1915 -- is not a legitimate educational function.
Because the intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to restore
academic values, I deliberately submitted it in draft form to
potential critics who did not share my political views. They included
Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the
University of Illinois at Chicago; Michael Bérubé, a professor of
English at Pennsylvania State University at University Park; Todd
Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia
University; and Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at Hamilton
College. While their responses differed, I tried to accommodate the
criticisms I got, for example deleting a clause in the original that
would have required the deliberations of all committees in charge of
hiring and promotion to be recorded and made available to a "duly
constituted authority."
I even lifted wholesale one of the bill's chief tenets -- that
colleges and professional academic associations should remain
institutionally neutral on controversial political issues -- from an
article that Dean Fish wrote for The Chronicle ("Save the World on
Your Own Time," January 23, 2003). He has also written an admirable
book, Professional Correctness (Clarendon Press, 1995), which explores
the inherent conflict between ideological thinking and scholarship.
Since the Academic Bill of Rights is designed to clarify and extend
existing principles of academic freedom, its opponents have generally
been unable to identify specific provisions that they find
objectionable. Instead, they have tried to distort the plain meaning
of the text. The AAUP itself has been part of that effort, suggesting
in a formal statement that the bill's intent is to introduce political
criteria for judging intellectual diversity and, thus, to subvert
scholarly standards. It contends that the bill of rights "proclaims
that all opinions are equally valid," which "negates an essential
function of university education." The AAUP singles out for attack a
phrase that refers to "the uncertainty and unsettled character of all
human knowledge" as the rationale for respecting diverse viewpoints in
curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences. The
AAUP claims that "this premise ... is anti-thetical to the basic
scholarly enterprise of the university, which is to establish and
transmit knowledge."
The association's statements are incomprehensible. After all, major
schools of thought in the contemporary academy -- pragmatism,
postmodernism, and deconstructionism, to name three -- operate on the
premise that knowledge is uncertain and, at times, relative. Even the
hard sciences, which do not share such relativistic assumptions, are
inspired to continue their research efforts by the incomplete state of
received knowledge. The university's mission is not only to transmit
knowledge but to pursue it -- and from all vantage points. What could
be controversial about acknowledging that? Further, the AAUP's
contention that the Academic Bill of Rights threatens true academic
standards by suggesting that all opinions are equally valid is a red
herring, as the bill's statement on intellectual diversity makes
clear: "Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly
viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major
responsibility of faculty." (Emphasis added.)
As the Academic Bill of Rights states, "Academic disciplines should
welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions." That is
common sense. Why not make it university policy?
The only serious opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights is raised
by those who claim that, although its principles are valid, it
duplicates academic-freedom guidelines that already exist. Elizabeth
Hoffman, president of the University of Colorado System, for example,
has personally told me that she takes that position.
But with all due respect, such critics are also mistaken. Most
universities' academic-freedom policies generally fail to make
explicit, let alone codify, the institutions' commitment to
intellectual diversity or the academic rights of students. The
institutions also do not make their policies readily available to
students -- who, therefore, are generally not even aware that such
policies exist.
For example, when I met with Elizabeth Hoffman, she directed me to the
University of Colorado's Web site, where its academic-freedom
guidelines are posted. Even if those guidelines were adequate, posting
them on an Internet site does not provide sufficient protection for
students, who are unlikely to visit it. Contrast the way that
institutions aggressively promote other types of diversity guidelines
-- often establishing special offices to organize and enforce all
sorts of special diversity-related programs -- to such a passive
approach to intellectual diversity.
At Colorado's Web site, for example, one can read the following:
"Sections of the AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic
Freedom and Tenure have been adopted as a statement of policy by the
Board of Regents." Few people reading that article or visiting the
site would suspect that the following protection for students is
contained in the AAUP's 1940 statement: "Teachers are entitled to
freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should
be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter
which has no relation to their subject."
Is there a college or university in America -- including the
University of Colorado -- where at least one professor has not
introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the Bush White
House in a class whose subject matter is not the war in Iraq, or
international relations, or presidential administrations? Yet
intrusion of such subject matter, in which the professor has no
academic expertise, is a breach of professional responsibility and a
violation of a student's academic rights.
We do not go to our doctors' offices and expect to see partisan
propaganda posted on the doors, or go to hospital operating rooms and
expect to hear political lectures from our surgeons. The same should
be true of our classrooms and professors, yet it is not. When I
visited the political-science department at the University of Colorado
at Denver this year, the office doors and bulletin boards were
plastered with cartoons and statements ridiculing Republicans, and
only Republicans. When I asked President Hoffman about that, she
assured me that she would request that such partisan materials be
removed and an appropriate educational environment restored. To the
best of my knowledge, that has yet to happen.
Not everyone would agree about the need for such restraint, and it
should be said that the Academic Bill of Rights makes no mention of
postings and cartoons -- although that does not mean that they are
appropriate. I refer to them only to illustrate the problem that
exists in the academic culture when it comes to fulfilling
professional obligations that professors owe to all students. I would
ask liberal professors who are comfortable with such partisan
expressions how they would have felt as students seeking guidance from
their own professors if they had to walk a gantlet of cartoons
portraying Bill Clinton as a lecher, or attacking antiwar protesters
as traitors.
The politicized culture of the university is the heart of the problem.
At Duke University this year, a history professor welcomed his class
with the warning that he had strong "liberal" opinions, and that
Republican students should probably drop his course. One student did.
Aided by Duke Students for Academic Freedom, the young man then
complained. To his credit, the professor apologized. Although some
people on the campus said the professor had been joking, the student
clearly felt he faced a hostile environment. Why should the professor
have thought that partisanship in the classroom was professionally
acceptable in the first place?
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a required
summer-reading program for entering freshmen stirred a controversy in
the state legislature last fall. The required text was Barbara
Ehrenreich's socialist tract on poverty in America, Nickel and Dimed:
On (Not) Getting By in America (Metropolitan Books, 2001). Other
universities have required the identical text in similar programs, and
several have invited Ehrenreich to campus to present her views under
the imprimatur of the institution and without rebuttal.
That reflects an academic culture unhinged. When a university requires
a single partisan text of all its students, it is a form of
indoctrination, entirely inappropriate for an academic institution. If
many universities had required Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education:
The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Vintage Books, 1992) or Ann
Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003) as their lone freshman-reading text,
there would have been a collective howl from liberal faculties, who
would have immediately recognized the inappropriateness of such
institutional endorsement of controversial views. Why not require two
texts, or four? (My stepson, who is a high-school senior, was required
to read seven texts during his summer vacation.)
The remedy is so simple. Requiring readings on more than one side of a
political controversy would be appropriate educational policy and
would strengthen, not weaken, the democracy that supports our
educational system. Why is that not obvious to the administrators at
Chapel Hill and the other universities that have instituted such
required-reading programs? It's the academic culture, stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bro Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
10 Jun 2004 05:34:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:18:39 +0100, Noel
<no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:33:48 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
You and your dad are obviously different people.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
So much for the much vaunted 'freedom' people in your country have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DevilHandsome" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
12 Jul 2004 09:27:40 PM |
|
|
The Leftists don't create any problems. It's the Hillbillies, Racists, and
Rednecks, especially from Texas,
who need to be disposed of first.
Tell Your Wife she left her undies in My car.
I hear Your Neighborhood is being integrated Blowjack.
"BroJack" <> wrote in message
news:40c82b3d.2704311@news.prodigy.net...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:30:43 +0100, Noel
<no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:03:40 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement. Boosh was the
lesser of two evils. He's too liberal for my blood: supporting set
asides in the Adarand case; sucking-up to illegals; fawning over
Chirac...
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
BroJack
.
|
|
|
| User: "WayBackJack" |
|
| Title: Re: Fahreneheit 911 by Michael Moore |
13 Jul 2004 05:34:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:27:40 GMT, "DevilHandsome"
<Devilhandsome@Why.net> wrote:
The Leftists don't create any problems. It's the Hillbillies, Racists, and
Rednecks, especially from Texas,
who need to be disposed of first.
Actually, it's the leftists because they excuse this type of behavior.
Black/White Street Crime Ratios:
Murder/neg. msltr.: 5.39/1
Forcible Rape: 2.89/1
Robbery: 6.55/1
Aggravated assault: 2.88/1
Burglary: 2.45/1
The white crime data include Hispanic crime. If Hispanic crime were
removed from white data, the black/white ratio would be even more
extreme.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime4.pdf
Tell Your Wife she left her undies in My car.
Another "muh dikk" post
BroJack
___________
I hear Your Neighborhood is being integrated Blowjack.
"BroJack" < > wrote in message
news:40c82b3d.2704311@news.prodigy.net...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:30:43 +0100, Noel
<no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:03:40 GMT, (BroJack)
wrote:
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement. Boosh was the
lesser of two evils. He's too liberal for my blood: supporting set
asides in the Adarand case; sucking-up to illegals; fawning over
Chirac...
Which I guess puts you slightly to the right of the fascists.
My dad helped wipe out the fascists in the 1940s.
I wish someone would wipe out America's leftists.
BroJack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
