| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Barry Worthington" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2005 11:48:04 AM |
| Object: |
Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
Steven Canyon (Stevencanyon@yahooooo
Date: 2005-03-07 05:37:48 PST
On 7 Mar 2005 02:45:24 -0800, (Barry Worthington)
wrote:
Steven Canyon <Stevencanyon@yahoooooo.com> wrote in message news:<so0m21dsle9fo3d7d2a7v709844iehvob2@4ax.com>...
On 6 Mar 2005 03:04:13 -0800, (Barry
Worthington)
wrote:
Steven Canyon <Stevencanyon@yahoooooo.com> wrote in message news:<3olh2156b4rcvg8cqo9cai0vlqkqkeqdmr@4ax.com>...
On 4 Mar 2005 08:41:06 -0800, (Barry
Worthington)
wrote:
Steven Canyon <Stevencanyon@yahoooooo.com> wrote in message news:<j5hg215frnrnl188lh2pneiligb244qtdf@4ax.com>...
On 4 Mar 2005 03:09:23 -0800, (Barry
Worthington)
wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<1109883564.667785.96270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
Ah, the arrogance of the left. Any idea you disagree
with is beneath
serious discussion.
Note that intelligence is not being directly discussed
by the article, just advancement into the loftier
reaches of academia. Once you get past a certain
point in education, education can become an end
in itself - it may well be that the "neocons" who
get their BA's or MA's go on to build skyscrapers
and personal fortunes instead of pursue doctorates
and university postings.
And you clearly think that that is not a useful occupation
(i.e.
adding to the total some of human knowledge). Clearly not as
important
as, say, the activities of a Wall Street trader. Why?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Some folks simply don't have what it takes to compete in the
real
world.
Although you have elected to jump in with both feet and answer
for
'firelock' (whoever he or she is), I will condescend to answer
you.
I don't answer for anyone but me, buttwipe. If you want a
private
conversation, use the phone.
My.....I really have rattled your cage.....
Not the least little bit. Just explaining some things to you that
you
seem not to understand.
Using the word 'buttwipe'. Yes, I see....
Yes, yes, it seemed an appropriate name for someone that seemed to
believe he should be able to carry on private conversations on the
usenet.
Really. And who appointed you its guardian?
There are some societies and some people that purport to value
learning, sometimes for its own sake (which is indeed the mark
of true
civilisation), but more usually for the profit (in every sense
of the
word) that can be derived from it. I rather suspect that you do
not
belong to this happy band, but subscribe to the long
established
strain of anti-intellectualism that American society is
sometimes
noted for.
Learning for the sake of advancing the knowledge base is one
thing,
learning because one is afraid to venture out beyond the walls
of
academia to use the knowledge is quite another.
Yes, but you have nothing upon which to base
this....er.....assertion.....nothing save your own prejudice....
Oh yes I do....
What, exactly? Be specific.
Well, obviously, my experience was watching some incompetent
professors that I could clearly see didn't have the ability to use
the
knowledge.
So you base your entire view of academics upon your unfortunate
experience at an American college? And, though you know nothing about
me (save the fact that I'm a British academic working in a Scottish
university, this means that you can disregard anything that I say?
Don't you find that a little.....well, odd?
Now, advancing the
knowledge base goes beyond simply soaking up what somebody made
available, so unless a lifelong students are actually breaking
new
ground, he's less of an intellectual and more of the cowardly
type I
described above.
My dear sir, all intellectual enquiry attempts to 'break new
ground'.
LOL.. no not at all, most, nearly all, is an attempt to simply trod
over ground others have broken..
But that is not necessarily incompatible with the idea of 'breaking
new ground'. You could be challenging a hypothesis, following up
questions raised in previous work, and.....but why not find out for
yourself? Then, at least, you might know something of what you are
talking about....
So you define "finding out for yourself" as breaking new ground..
and using somebody else's money as well. That figures...
Please read my comments again. You appear to have a comprehension
problem.
That is the nature of this pursuit. As to the concept of a
'lifefelong
student' does that not describe us all? (Excepting, of course, the
morons in our midst, who think that they cannot learn
anything....)
I will not presume to debate the wellspring of this sad
phenomenon,
but I will advert to two of its aspects. The first is that
remarked by
'firelock', that a career of academic scholarship is less
important
than making money. Perhaps the same might be said of Mr. Adam
Smith,
who did not (as far as I am aware) operate a business in
Kirkaldy;
nevertheless, I doubt that the practice of capitalism would
have
developed in the same way without the benefit of his theories.
The second presumption is that of your own. It is a delusion
that most
academics do not have the abilities to compete 'in the real
world'.
Perhaps you should do that remedial reading course again. See
where I
said "some" not "most?"
Then perhaps you should make yourself clearer.
Errrr, the word "some" is not clear to you?
You did not say 'some
academics' but 'some folks', thus implying that you were talking
about
academics in general.
Get thee to a dictionary, fool.
Why? How would that help in the case of your mangled comprehension?
I think it was you that mangled the comprehension. Why would you
assume the term "some folks" to mean "most academics?"
Because that was the subject of the posting....and the thread...
I think it
was simply because of what I said about "some folks." In your mind,
it seemed perfectly logical to assume that when I spoke of people not
being able to make it in the real world, I had to be talking about
"most academics."
But this is disingenuous. You clearly subscribe
to this view, otherwise the tone of your posting would be
different....
Oh yes indeed, I have a rather dim view of many academics. I found
them to be somewhat of a hindrance to my education.
What...all of them? Your arrogance is astounding. But then, "a little
learning is a dangerous thing" (I'm sure that you can complete the
quotation and relate it to your good self).
Yeah, it was my arrogance that pissed *them* off too. College
professors don't like being challenged
Actually, most academics are perfectly happy when this happens, for it
shows that the student is paying attention. Of course, a lot depends
upon whether the 'challenge' is a serious one...
and *really* don't like being
challenged by *students* that are already successful in the real
world....
How would he/she know that...unless you volunteered the information
yourself?
In fact, they simply have a lot of disdain for successful
people, much like you've expressed here.
Oh! I suppose that it depends upon your measure of success....
It must really burn you to
see people achieve that which you cannot.
Well, no! You see, most people do not take up teaching to make money.
You may not understand this, but many teachers think that there are
more important things in life than a fat pay packet.
Well sir, leaving aside a discussion of the nature of reality
(and any
associated metaphysical considerations), I can assure you that
my
world is very real to me...probably as real as yours might be
to you.
I'm sure that it is... to you... <LOL>
And I must thank you for immediately demonstrating my point......
LOL Your crazy aunt's world is very real to her too.
Is that meant to mean anything? Please enlighten us all....
Errrrr, OK... I thought that was self explanatory.. You see,
even
the voices in the heads of psychotics is real to them, much as your
academic environment seems like the real world to you.
I take it that you are not going to discuss the metaphysical
dimension...
It's not, of
course, it's a never-neverland where well over 95% of the people you
have to deal with are totally non-threatening students
Of course not...you just want to question the utility of what I do in
Benthamite way...
who are
pre-assigned as having less knowledge than you in the field where you
relate. That's why you're there...
Er...yes, I think that you have grasped the nature of the teacher
student relationship. I have greater knowkedge and experience of a
subject area, and have undertaken original research in this field.
That's why I'm a teacher.
so you don't have to deal, read
that as compete, with people who are already educated in your field.
I do that when I defend a paper at a conference, of course.
It is every bit as real to the students that I happen to teach,
the
very students that I assist to obtain a degree, indeed, the
same
students who proceed to obtain employment on the very basis of
that
degree.
...and for the most part, a degree and a level of knowledge that
they
could probably achieve without your assistance.
And how could you possibly know that? I am usually a modest man,
but
you appear to be an arrogant, self-opinionated, idiot.
College professors don't like it when people point out their
inadequacies.
And which of my supposed inadequacies have you so far demonstrated?
The whole thing spilled out when you "dissed" the people actually in
the industrial and business fields. I heard that before.
I "dissed" them? In the manner that you wish to put me down? I see....
The whole academia experience is geared to making sure
that all of you build each other up and cover for each others
failings... However very time you poke your head out into the real
world you rediscover them.
The more you repeat this mantra, the more that I get the feeling
that...well, work it out for yourself....
I've already "worked" out my appraisal of you. Now I'm just watching
you confirm it.
Do share it with us...
After all, you
professors really do nothing more than supervise the passing on
of
what is already in the "real" knowledge base. That information
is all
nicely contained in books so the professors real function is
just to
force the students to read the books...
Which part of my posting about academic papers, articles, and
research
grants did you not understand?
LOL Bluster and blather and money spent to produce nothing of
value..
Since you clearly know nothing of my research field, how can you know
that I produce nothing of value? Is this some form of discussion by
telepathy? Ouija board?
It's fairly clear that you're mostly bluster and hot air... ...and
very insecure, as well.
Presumably, your ouja board told you that?
My own research, along with my friend and later, my business partner
led to an invention and line of products that two college professors
in related fields told us were "too complex." Most of the R&D on
this
occurred when I was actually in their courses, but since I was
working
on ideas that were "too complex" for them, I worked with my friend,
who, at the time, was my employee.
This is no doubt interesting, but what has it to do with me?
Money spent to write crap that nobody of any importance will
bother to read.
Actually, I do get cited, but I doubt that you will know what that
means.
I'm sure you get cited, but I'm also sure that it's mostly done by
other of your kind doing more worthless writing.... You guys have to
stick together to keep up each other's image.
But you still don't know what my research area is. How on earth can
you assume that it's worthless?
As you clearly know nothing of academic
life, I am curious as to why you wish to parade this ignorance
across
the internet....
I've seen it in action...
So you say. Now kindly provide details of your academic experience,
and I will provide mine.
I don't do interviews. I related some of my experiences above, you
can believe them or not. I don't really care...
Actually, you haven't. Just a vague passage that might mean anything.
But, to revert to my original complaint. How can you presume to
criticise me when you know nothing of me?
As for me, I always found the college professors' knowledge to
be
well behind the business/industry standards,
My experience tends to be the other way round.
LOL Your "experience? Your "experience" consists of nothing more
than babysitting kids.
Debating with bankers at an international conference can sometimes
seem like that, but, again, you clearly know nothing of academic
life....
lol.. Again, you put down the people who actually take the
knowledge
and put it to useful work....
I've seen something of this 'work' in the former Soviet Union, and it
is not a pretty sight....
Something that you can't do.
How do you know?
O>h, and
debating bankers isn't any kind of work.
Isn't it?
ith some notable
exceptions, I have experienced business elites as groups of narrow
minded, timid, and (sometimes) rather ignorant and stupid people.
All of whom have the ability to take the knowledge and do something
useful with it...
Or not, as the case might be.....
Th simple fact is that people actually working in the real world in
the specified field are, by the very definition of the term, doing
something useful with it.
Are you suggesting that they never make a mess of things?
Again, something you cannot do.
How do you know?
as opposed to college professors who have little
real ability at all.
Oh...college professors. Well, I can't speak for American colleges. I
work in a British university. But I'm sure that a college professor
will undertake research and publish from time to time.
blah, blah, blah... you probably think that such demonstrates real
ability, con't you?
it was a statement of fact.....
This
(for some odd reason) particularly applies to bankers.....
Typical reaction for a guy like yourself who is pretty obviously a
walking, talking example of "those that can do, those that can't
teach."
Since you don't know me from Adam, you are a presumptious little
bugger, aren't you?
I can read between the lines, professor... I know you well enough
and you know it.
No, I don't. The 'pop psychology' doesn't become you. You are starting
to become very tiresome, though...
which I was heavily
involved in through most of my formal education. Generally, I
found
the entire university to be sort of a necessary evil, which I
had to
put up with in order to get the degree.
Well, I suspect that they all thought just as highly of you...
They hated me... Probably had to do with how often I was able to
show
them up.
Really?
Might have been because I was already running a business and
making more money than them.
I can imagine the scene.
"Mr. Canyon, would you care to elaborate upon the significance of the
Turner Thesis in American history?"
HUh? Oh, I see,
"Nah...."
"Haven't you done the reading?"
"Listen buttwipe, I've no time for useless reading. I'm running a
business.....and I earn more money than you do, so there!"
No, not at all, it was more like, "how come you skipped over chapter
12 through 16? I found [....] to be extremely interesting and Id
like
discuss it."
I'm a voracious reader and would often read the entire textbook in
the
first few weeks of class if it interested me. As a result, I'd be
way
ahead of the rest of the class and very often, the dimwitted
instructor as well.
You used textbooks as the basis for a degree course? Sorry, but no-one
does that in my experience.
It is also a reality that thrives upon competition. I must
compete to
give papers at conferences, to obtain the publication of
articles in
learned journals, and (increasingly the case) to obtain funding
for
research projects.
<LOL> wasting money has become another of the evils of the
modern
education system
You do have a strange compulsion to keep on digging, don't you?
I enjoy telling clowns like yourself how totally inadequate you
are.
Deep down, you know it's true..
Actually, I don't.
LOL, actually, you do and that's what burns at you...
Its been that way for you for a long
time hasn't it?
Nope (as you quaint colonials say).
Still burning about how us "colonials" kicked your butts way back
then
too, huh?
Someone else with an irony by-pass, I see....
You felt uncomfortable about going out into the
world and competing so you opted to stay behind and deal with the
kiddies who, for the most part, wouldn't press you too much.
Before I obtained my Phd, I spent five years teaching kids in a rough
inner city school. I was physically assaulted a number of times, but
had to put up with it, as you do in that kind of job. But you
wouldn't
know that, would you?
Well, there you go.. I wouldn't have guessed that you'd interpret
the concept of being 'pressed by the kiddies' as having to do with
physical confrontation, but you just insist on telling me about your
many inadequacies...
Why is that construed as an indequacy? In some jobs, it's an
occupational hazard. But you wouldn't know that, I suppose.
So you're sort of a girly-man too, eh?
Oddly enough, you are trained not to retaliate (though you can
restrain) against a disturbed young boy. It is what us 'girly men' do,
you see, since we have to be professional in our work.
By the way, I'm competent in railway operation, and have worked with
trains....not that you might be interested....
"Railway operation," eh? That could mean anything from playing with
toy trains to "gandy dancing" to advertising.....
I have no idea what "gandy dancing" is. If I say I have worked with
trains, it means that I have been in control of the full size ones, up
to 300 tons tare weight with both vacuum and air braking....and
shunted (switched) them too. I have the scars to prove it, as
well......
I always wonder why college professors are always saying things that
don't really say anything... If I had to guess, I'd have to say that
it's because they don't really have anything to say.
Like your good self?
God, you are getting very tedious. Interesting at times, but
tedious.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
.
|
|
| User: "Hü©klëßë®®ÿ Hö§hïmötö" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
08 Mar 2005 04:42:36 PM |
|
|
I have no idea what "gandy dancing" is. If I say I have worked with
trains, it means that I have been in control of the full size ones, up
to 300 tons tare weight with both vacuum and air braking....and
shunted (switched) them too. I have the scars to prove it, as
well......
Under that calm, cool exterior; he one big mass of hickies.
Unfortunately, they are all self-induced!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Worthington" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
09 Mar 2005 04:47:52 AM |
|
|
"Hü©klëßë®®ÿ Hö§hïmötö" <huckhosh@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<wTpXd.4883$cN6.2444@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
I have no idea what "gandy dancing" is. If I say I have worked with
trains, it means that I have been in control of the full size ones, up
to 300 tons tare weight with both vacuum and air braking....and
shunted (switched) them too. I have the scars to prove it, as
well......
Under that calm, cool exterior; he one big mass of hickies.
Unfortunately, they are all self-induced!
Who, exactly, are you talking about?
Dr. Barry Worthington
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
08 Mar 2005 07:02:08 PM |
|
|
So you base your entire view of academics upon your unfortunate
experience at an American college?>>>
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
What...all of them? Your arrogance is astounding. But then, "a little
learning is a dangerous thing" (I'm sure that you can complete the
quotation and relate it to your good self). Yeah, it was my arrogance
that pissed *them* off too. College professors don't like being
challenged>>>>
Actually, most academics are perfectly happy when this happens, for
it
shows that the student is paying attention.>>>>
No, they do not. Academics love having softball questions lobbed
underhand while the student yells "wheeeeeeeeeee". The professors then
love to share their wisdom, while heads full of mush scribble furiously
their words. They REALLY hate it student's point out their errors.
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics. It appeared that I had to take some
electives, so I signed up for American History, after the Civil War.
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farmlife was a paradice (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclution of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people volunteerily moved from the farms to the factories, so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that during
WWII, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my cell
phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regail Professor Leggs about
her years running a gas station and factory work. She would say at
least three really stupid things a session.
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed that
American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religon? Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes? Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Of course, a lot depends upon whether the 'challenge' is a serious
one...>>>
A lot more depends of whether the "challenged" can accpet a serious
question when it's presented.
and *really* don't like being
challenged by *students* that are already successful in the real
world....
How would he/she know that...unless you volunteered the information
yourself?>>>
Of course I did. For a person who demands to be called "doctor", you
sure do demand others keep their light under a bushel.
In fact, they simply have a lot of disdain for successful people, much
like you've expressed here.>>>>
Oh! I suppose that it depends upon your measure of success....>>>
Oh, yes, yes, yes. It's so much more important to be published in
journals that nobody will ever read than it is so keep the lights on in
a mid-sized city.
It must really burn you to see people achieve that which you
cannot.>>>
Well, no! You see, most people do not take up teaching to make
money.
You may not understand this, but many teachers think that there are
more important things in life than a fat pay packet.>>>
I must admire you moving to an African village, and working with the
poor in a diseased soaked area of the ... oh, you have a very
comfortable office in Scotland, and eat well, and don't have to worry
about being fired?
Oh, how ... giving of you.
Ben Stein has solid credentials in the three glamor professions:
Entertainment, academia and politics. He holds a full professiorship
at Pepperdine University. He was Richard Nixon's speechwriter, and has
worked behind the scenes nationally for decades. He's also starred on
the Comedy Channel's quiz show "Win Ben Stein's Money." He's been
featured in hundreds of films and television programs.
Mr. Stein has stated that of all the three professions, entertainment
is by far the most professional, while academia is by far the most
childish. "The reason is obvious. In Hollywood, you never know if the
guy who's parking your car today won't be your boss tomorrow. In
academia, a person can be a total ***** without fear of retibution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Worthington" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
09 Mar 2005 04:46:46 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1110330128.447208.308580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
So you base your entire view of academics upon your unfortunate
experience at an American college?>>>
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
Another cryptic remark. Which British scholars? What research field?
What...all of them? Your arrogance is astounding. But then, "a little
learning is a dangerous thing" (I'm sure that you can complete the
quotation and relate it to your good self). Yeah, it was my arrogance
that pissed *them* off too. College professors don't like being
challenged>>>>
Actually, most academics are perfectly happy when this happens, for
it
shows that the student is paying attention.>>>>
No, they do not. Academics love having softball questions lobbed
underhand while the student yells "wheeeeeeeeeee". The professors then
love to share their wisdom, while heads full of mush scribble furiously
their words. They REALLY hate it student's point out their errors.
Errors? Academics ought not to make factual errors. As far as
interpretation is concerned, do you seriously think that there is a
'right' and a 'wrong' answer for everything. If so, you are an
idiot.....
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics.
That happens to be technical education, I think. It isn't degree level
work unless you were actually involved in programming. Were you?
It appeared that I had to take some
electives, so I signed up for American History, after the Civil War.
That's rather strange....unless there was a general studies
requirement. But I don't think that American colleges do that....
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farmlife was a paradice (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclution of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people volunteerily moved from the farms to the factories,
Voluntarily? Are you sure? Or was it to do with long-term economic
developments? Did they really have a free choice?
so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that during
WWII, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my cell
phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regail Professor Leggs about
her years running a gas station and factory work. She would say at
least three really stupid things a session.
Was that strictly necessary? I mean it seems that you really go in for
showy expansive gestures. Did you have a personal agenda? Did you want
to prove something?
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed that
American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religon? Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes? Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
Presumably, Boss Tweed's method of holding on to power didn't sit well
with the notion of democracy.
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Why do you have to mention lawyers? Do you have some basic insecurity?
Of course, a lot depends upon whether the 'challenge' is a serious
one...>>>
A lot more depends of whether the "challenged" can accpet a serious
question when it's presented.
I can. I'm not so sure about you.....
and *really* don't like being
challenged by *students* that are already successful in the real
world....
How would he/she know that...unless you volunteered the information
yourself?>>>
Of course I did.
I had no doubt....
For a person who demands to be called "doctor", you
sure do demand others keep their light under a bushel.
Oddly enough, there are are some things that ought not to have any
bearing upon the learning situation (unless they directly affect it,
as in the case of people like yourself with a particular axe to
grind). I don't want to know what my students politics are or details
of their personal life. They are none of my business.
In fact, they simply have a lot of disdain for successful people, much
like you've expressed here.>>>>
Oh! I suppose that it depends upon your measure of success....>>>
Oh, yes, yes, yes. It's so much more important to be published in
journals that nobody will ever read than it is so keep the lights on in
a mid-sized city.
Do you have to be a neo-conservative to do that? I suppose that you
might engineer a power shortage.....
It must really burn you to see people achieve that which you
cannot.>>>
Well, no! You see, most people do not take up teaching to make
money.
You may not understand this, but many teachers think that there are
more important things in life than a fat pay packet.>>>
I must admire you moving to an African village, and working with the
poor in a diseased soaked area of the ... oh, you have a very
comfortable office in Scotland, and eat well, and don't have to worry
about being fired?
Actually I do. I don't have tenure yet. The comparison is related to a
Western developed society, since that is what we both live in. But,
there is another issue. Why do you give the impression of being such a
mean spirited embittered individual?
Oh, how ... giving of you.
It's a matter of choice. Some might say vocation. Many people work at
jobs that are not well paid because they want to. They possibly have
another kind of reward. But you appear to be one of those people "who
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Ben Stein has solid credentials in the three glamor professions:
Entertainment, academia and politics. He holds a full professiorship
at Pepperdine University. He was Richard Nixon's speechwriter, and has
worked behind the scenes nationally for decades. He's also starred on
the Comedy Channel's quiz show "Win Ben Stein's Money." He's been
featured in hundreds of films and television programs.
Well bully for him!
Mr. Stein has stated that of all the three professions, entertainment
is by far the most professional, while academia is by far the most
childish. "The reason is obvious. In Hollywood, you never know if the
guy who's parking your car today won't be your boss tomorrow. In
academia, a person can be a total ***** without fear of retibution.
And he wrote speeches for a crook? Well, well, well.... And Pepperdine
University? No sign of him on their website....
Dr. Barry Worthington
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
09 Mar 2005 09:02:30 PM |
|
|
So you base your entire view of academics upon your unfortunate
experience at an American college?>>>
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
Another cryptic remark.>>>
Cryptic in a "Clearly Stating What I Mean" kind of way.
Which British scholars? What research field?>>>
I don't trash people by name on the Internet. They can't fight back,
so it's not fair.
No, they do not. Academics love having softball questions lobbed
underhand while the student yells "wheeeeeeeeeee". The professors then
love to share their wisdom, while heads full of mush scribble furiously
their words. They REALLY hate it student's point out their errors.
Errors? Academics ought not to make factual errors.>>>
Academics also should avoid being pompus asses, but what are you going
to do?
As far as interpretation is concerned, do you seriously think that
there is 'right' and a 'wrong' answer for everything. If so, you are
an idiot.....>>>
No, I don't believe there's an objective answer to every question.
There are many (most) professors who believe that their beliefs should
not be questioned.
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics.
That happens to be technical education, I think. It isn't degree
level work unless you were actually involved in programming. Were
you?>>>
Oh, my stars and garters. I actually studied something useful.
Eeeeiiiiii - I have no reason to live.
It appeared that I had to take some electives, so I signed up for
American History, after the Civil War.>>>
That's rather strange....unless there was a general studies
requirement. But I don't think that American colleges do that....>>>
Do you honestly believe that American colleges have no general studies
requirements at all? Or is this a particularly lame attempt at humor?
Have you never spoken to an American who had a degree? Ever? How can
you teach college, and have so little understanding of American
academia?
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farm life was a paradise (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclusion of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people voluntarily moved from the farms to the factories,
Voluntarily? >>>
Yes.
Are you sure? >>>
Very certain, thank you.
Or was it to do with long-term economic developments? Did they really
have a free choice?>>
That's still a voluntary choice. "Gee, the farm biz is getting harsher
every year. I can more money, doing easier work, working fewer hours
in the big city. It's less dangerous, too. I'm outta here. E-I-E-I
Go!"
For industrialization to be non-voluntary, that would imply Henry Ford
hired a private army, kidnapped the able bodied men, and impressed them
into slavery. We left that sort of behavior to 20th Century Saddam and
the 19th century English Navy.
so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that
during W.W.II, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my
cell phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regal Professor Leggs
about her years running a gas station and factory work. She would say
at least three really stupid things a session.
Was that strictly necessary? >>>
Doing three stupid things a class? Professor Leggs seemed to think so.
I mean it seems that you really go in for showy expansive
gestures.>>>
Guilty.
Did you have a personal agenda? >>>
Yes. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being shined on. I
don't like well-paid people doing a half-assed job. I don't like
being told to sit down and shut up when people, (who I'm paying,) lie
to me, shine me on, and do a half-assed job. You got a problem with
that?
Did you want to prove something?>>>
Yes, that questioning authority is good. Go ask your queen about it.
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed
that American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
Presumably, Boss Tweed's method of holding on to power didn't sit
well
with the notion of democracy.
Quite true. If you want to say that Boss Tweed played hardball, that's
true as far as it goes. But what rights did he take away from people?
The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion? Were
their guns conficasted? Did the military live in their homes? Exactly
what rights did they lose?
The source of power of Tweed was the "Thanksgiving basket". The
New Yorkers were paid off, fair and square, thank you.
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have
your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Why do you have to mention lawyers? >>>
She used the nuclear option on me, so I returned the favor. Professor
Leggs called me a racist for no other reason than to shout down a fair
question which she didn't know the answer. I saw no reason to let
her get away with it.
People with reputations of being racists experience reduced job
options. It's a very easy charge to make, impossible to disprove, and
can easily destroy a career. After I threatened legal action, she
never called anyone a racist to their face again - at least not in my
earshot. Hopefully, I scared her out of the vile practice forever..
I don't want to know what my students politics are or details
of their personal life. They are none of my business.>>>
I understand, you're content to maintain the "Esteemed
Doctor/Peasant-Peon" power balance.
Oh, yes, yes, yes. It's so much more important to be published in
journals that nobody will ever read than it is so keep the lights on
in a mid-sized city.
Do you have to be a neo-conservative to do that? >>
When did I ever said you did?
It must really burn you to see people achieve that which you
cannot.>>>
Well, no! You see, most people do not take up teaching to make
money. You may not understand this, but many teachers think that there
are more important things in life than a fat pay packet.>>>
I must admire you moving to an African village, and working with the
poor in a diseased soaked area of the ... oh, you have a very
comfortable office in Scotland, and eat well, and don't have to worry
about being fired?
Actually I do. I don't have tenure yet.>>>
OK, so you live an extremely comfortable, well paid, life burdened with
a faint possibility that you could be fired if you screw up royally
between now and tenure. Your Sainthood has been assured.
The comparison is related to a
Western developed society, since that is what we both live in. >>>
Excuse me, old Bean, but you don't HAVE to live in a developed society.
If you want to dedicate your life to the betterment of man, just call
Bono and say "point me to the nearest urine ditch to dig." Until you
choose to do so, kindly spare me the balloon juice about answering a
higher calling.
But, there is another issue. Why do you give the impression of being
such a
mean spirited embittered individual?>>>
Does the word "transference" mean anything to you?
Oh, how ... giving of you.
It's a matter of choice. Some might say vocation. Many people work
at
jobs that are not well paid because they want to. They possibly have
another kind of reward.>>>>
And then there's fellows who strut in an air conditioned classroom with
full belly, lecturing to buxom doe-eyed coed. Blokes who cool their
sweaty brow with a pint of ale at the end of the day while chatting up
buxom doe-eyed coed about their pursuit of "another kind of reward."
But you appear to be one of those people "who
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.">>>
I see. People who question you must be shallow. Must have some basic
insecurity. Must be a mean spirited embittered individual. Must
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. After all, it
couldn't be that you're wrong, could it? Nah.
Mr. Stein has stated that of all the three professions, entertainment
is by far the most professional, while academia is by far the most
childish. "The reason is obvious. In Hollywood, you never know if the
guy who's parking your car today won't be your boss tomorrow. In
academia, a person can be a total ***** without fear of retribution.>>>
And he wrote speeches for a crook?>>>
No. He wrote for Richard Nixon.
Well, well, well.... And Pepperdine
University? No sign of him on their website....>>
Please forward any articles you've had published in the Wall Street
Journal.
What If Nixon Had No Shame?
By Benjamin J. Stein
(as printed in The Wall Street Journal, October 30, 1996).
What I keep thinking is, "What if Richard Nixon had known what a
president can get away with?"
Richard Nixon, for whom I worked as a speechwriter, had a historic
record of accomplishment. He liquidated the last vestiges of racial
segregation in the public schools of the deep South. He made equal
opportunity the hallmark of his administration. He prepared the endgame
of the Cold War by opening up relations with China and stalemating the
USSR In 1973, he stood up for Israel against Soviet threats and thus
began the Mideast peace process by showing that Israel was there for
keeps. He ended the Vietnam War in a way that would have left some
semblance of dignity had he not been undercut by Congress after he
left.
Nixon was driven from office and kept from finishing his work by public
outcry and congressional fury over his cover-up efforts after the
Watergate break-in. Yet Nixon's cover-up was a ramshackle, paste-up,
poorly conceived job at best. What if he had been as bold as Bill
Clinton, as far-seeing and as thorough?
What if Nixon had fired all the federal prosecutors on the first day of
his administration and replaced them with officials who were totally
and uncompromisingly loyal to him? There would have been no hounding of
the Watergate burglars by prosecutors to start the whole skein
unraveling. What if Nixon had made sure that Watergate cases were
steered by his prosecutors to judges friendly to him? No "Maximum John"
Sirica terrorizing the defendants into confession.
Suppose Nixon had raised money from his pal Ferdinand Marcos or other
foreign sources to pay off the Cubans, E. Howard Hunt or G. Gordon
Liddy? Say, $1 million for each of the boys on Jan. 21, 1973, if they
kept their mouths shut.
Then, most beautiful of all, suppose Nixon told everyone connected with
Watergate, from the Cubans to H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, that
they should stonewall permanently in front of investigating committees.
"No matter what they do," he could have said, "on Jan. 21, I will
pardon you. I'll start laying the groundwork by telling the world what
a partisan Archibald Cox is--we have plenty of evidence on that--and
then when I've won the election, you'll get your payoff."
There would have been no need for a "Saturday Night Massacre." Nixon
would have served the same purpose by using the pardoning power. Oh,
and of course, Nixon would have burned the tapes and simply said they
were lost.
What if the Republicans in Congress were as 100% disciplined as the
Democrats now, with a solid stonewall of defense for Richard Nixon and
no lawmaker like William Cohen or Howard Baker willing to act
impartially? What if Nixon had told them, "Boys, if we stick together,
we can get away with it. There's nothing there to stop us, except our
own sense of shame."
The New York Times and the Washington Post would have roared. So would
have Walter Cronkite. But after all, how many divisions has the media?
The reason Nixon could not do it is that he was filled with shame and
turmoil. He really did feel tortured and divided about Watergate and
his own role in the drama. He could not organize a successful defense
partly because of his loyalty to the Constitution, partly because he
did not know how far the scandal would reach, but (I am convinced)
mostly because he was crippled by his own sense of embarrassment. It
was this vestigial, old-fashioned, quaint sense of shame that paralyzed
him, as Arthur Miller wrote at the time, and kept him from acting most
effectively to save himself.
Bill Clinton is modern man. Narcissistic, shameless, devoted only to
self- aggrandizement. Shame never enters into the calculus because,
after all, what good would it do him? Shame would diminish the memory
and speed of the Clinton Central Processing Unit. Shame is a virus that
eventually could disable the entire machine. Without it, you can
organize a defense that laughs at court orders, sneers at congressional
requests, and treats the Constitution as window dressing. Without it,
you get a Watergate/Whitewater defense that actually defends.
But once the sense of shame is gone, what boundaries are left to a
nation's ruler? Once the sense of shame has gone and the bionic
president has shown how weak the Constitution is without his voluntary
submission, then where does he stop, if anywhere? Just for example,
what if in 2000 he decides he does not want to leave?
Mr. Stein is an actor, lawyer and adjunct professor of securities law
at Pepperdine Law School.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Worthington" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
10 Mar 2005 09:51:24 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1110423750.008444.149980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
So you base your entire view of academics upon your unfortunate
experience at an American college?>>>
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
Another cryptic remark.>>>
Cryptic in a "Clearly Stating What I Mean" kind of way.
Cryptic in the sense that it is an unsupported assertion...
Which British scholars? What research field?>>>
I don't trash people by name on the Internet. They can't fight back,
so it's not fair.
Er....my irony meter just went off scale....
No, they do not. Academics love having softball questions lobbed
underhand while the student yells "wheeeeeeeeeee". The professors then
love to share their wisdom, while heads full of mush scribble furiously
their words. They REALLY hate it student's point out their errors.
Errors? Academics ought not to make factual errors.>>>
Academics also should avoid being pompus asses, but what are you going
to do?
Remain impossibly smug, dear boy.....
As far as interpretation is concerned, do you seriously think that
there is 'right' and a 'wrong' answer for everything. If so, you are
an idiot.....>>>
No, I don't believe there's an objective answer to every question.
There are many (most) professors who believe that their beliefs should
not be questioned.
I've never met anyone like that.
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics.
That happens to be technical education, I think. It isn't degree
level work unless you were actually involved in programming. Were
you?>>>
Oh, my stars and garters. I actually studied something useful.
Eeeeiiiiii - I have no reason to live.
Whether it had utility is neither here nor there. If it was taught at
a technical level, it involves the direct transmission of knowledge,
without any analytical questioning or discourse. You might use a text
book for that. If it was at degree level, it would definitely involve
analysis of information and problem solving at an abstract level. You
wouldn't use a text book for that.
It appeared that I had to take some electives, so I signed up for
American History, after the Civil War.>>>
That's rather strange....unless there was a general studies
requirement. But I don't think that American colleges do that....>>>
Do you honestly believe that American colleges have no general studies
requirements at all? Or is this a particularly lame attempt at humor?
Have you never spoken to an American who had a degree? Ever? How can
you teach college, and have so little understanding of American
academia?
I don't teach college. I have some knowledge of the American academic
system, but not at college level.
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farm life was a paradise (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclusion of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people voluntarily moved from the farms to the factories,
Voluntarily? >>>
Yes.
Are you sure? >>>
Very certain, thank you.
Or was it to do with long-term economic developments? Did they really
have a free choice?>>
That's still a voluntary choice. "Gee, the farm biz is getting harsher
every year. I can more money, doing easier work, working fewer hours
in the big city. It's less dangerous, too. I'm outta here. E-I-E-I
Go!"
Easier work? Less dangerous? Are you sure?
For industrialization to be non-voluntary, that would imply Henry Ford
hired a private army,
He actually had one, you know.
kidnapped the able bodied men, and impressed them
into slavery. We left that sort of behavior to 20th Century Saddam and
the 19th century English Navy.
Henry Ford was a control freak of the first order. This extended to
his workers' private lives....
so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that
during W.W.II, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my
cell phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regal Professor Leggs
about her years running a gas station and factory work. She would say
at least three really stupid things a session.
Was that strictly necessary? >>>
Doing three stupid things a class? Professor Leggs seemed to think so.
Not her doing stupid things, silly. I meant you!
I mean it seems that you really go in for showy expansive
gestures.>>>
Guilty.
Did you have a personal agenda? >>>
Yes. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being shined on. I
don't like well-paid people doing a half-assed job. I don't like
being told to sit down and shut up when people, (who I'm paying,) lie
to me, shine me on, and do a half-assed job. You got a problem with
that?
You clearly have...
Did you want to prove something?>>>
Yes, that questioning authority is good. Go ask your queen about it.
My Queen isn't the government. She's non-political.
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed
that American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
Presumably, Boss Tweed's method of holding on to power didn't sit
well
with the notion of democracy.
Quite true. If you want to say that Boss Tweed played hardball, that's
true as far as it goes. But what rights did he take away from people?
The right to have a decent government that wasn't corrupt and picking
their pockets, presumably.
The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion? Were
their guns conficasted? Did the military live in their homes? Exactly
what rights did they lose?
The source of power of Tweed was the "Thanksgiving basket". The
New Yorkers were paid off, fair and square, thank you.
Some of them were....
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have
your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Why do you have to mention lawyers? >>>
She used the nuclear option on me, so I returned the favor. Professor
Leggs called me a racist for no other reason than to shout down a fair
question which she didn't know the answer. I saw no reason to let
her get away with it.
But most people don't threaten others with lawyers because they think
that they have been insulted!
People with reputations of being racists experience reduced job
options.
Don't be silly! It was said (if said at all) in a class. Who would
take any notice, apart from yourself?
It's a very easy charge to make, impossible to disprove, and
can easily destroy a career. After I threatened legal action, she
never called anyone a racist to their face again - at least not in my
earshot. Hopefully, I scared her out of the vile practice forever..
You think so?
I don't want to know what my students politics are or details
of their personal life. They are none of my business.>>>
I understand, you're content to maintain the "Esteemed
Doctor/Peasant-Peon" power balance.
What on earth does that mean?
Oh, yes, yes, yes. It's so much more important to be published in
journals that nobody will ever read than it is so keep the lights on
in a mid-sized city.
Do you have to be a neo-conservative to do that? >>
When did I ever said you did?
It must really burn you to see people achieve that which you
cannot.>>>
Well, no! You see, most people do not take up teaching to make
money. You may not understand this, but many teachers think that there
are more important things in life than a fat pay packet.>>>
I must admire you moving to an African village, and working with the
poor in a diseased soaked area of the ... oh, you have a very
comfortable office in Scotland, and eat well, and don't have to worry
about being fired?
Actually I do. I don't have tenure yet.>>>
OK, so you live an extremely comfortable, well paid, life burdened with
a faint possibility that you could be fired if you screw up royally
between now and tenure. Your Sainthood has been assured.
Why are you so mean minded about people? What is this large chip on
your shoulder?
The comparison is related to a
Western developed society, since that is what we both live in. >>>
Excuse me, old Bean, but you don't HAVE to live in a developed society.
If you want to dedicate your life to the betterment of man, just call
Bono and say "point me to the nearest urine ditch to dig." Until you
choose to do so, kindly spare me the balloon juice about answering a
higher calling.
So no-one should teach in their own society?
But, there is another issue. Why do you give the impression of being
such a
mean spirited embittered individual?>>>
Does the word "transference" mean anything to you?
Yes. It describes your mind-set very accurately...
Oh, how ... giving of you.
It's a matter of choice. Some might say vocation. Many people work
at
jobs that are not well paid because they want to. They possibly have
another kind of reward.>>>>
And then there's fellows who strut in an air conditioned classroom with
full belly, lecturing to buxom doe-eyed coed. Blokes who cool their
sweaty brow with a pint of ale at the end of the day while chatting up
buxom doe-eyed coed about their pursuit of "another kind of reward."
What a sad and nasty-minded individual you are! Please do not
insinuate anything more of this nature....it demeans you...
But you appear to be one of those people "who
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.">>>
I see. People who question you must be shallow. Must have some basic
insecurity. Must be a mean spirited embittered individual. Must
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I think that is a pretty accurate description oh how you seem to be...
After all, it
couldn't be that you're wrong, could it? Nah.
Of couse not, you silly boy!
Mr. Stein has stated that of all the three professions, entertainment
is by far the most professional, while academia is by far the most
childish. "The reason is obvious. In Hollywood, you never know if the
guy who's parking your car today won't be your boss tomorrow. In
academia, a person can be a total ***** without fear of retribution.>>>
And he wrote speeches for a crook?>>>
No. He wrote for Richard Nixon.
Yes, he wrote speeches for a crook.
Well, well, well.... And Pepperdine
University? No sign of him on their website....>>
Please forward any articles you've had published in the Wall Street
Journal.
The Wall Street Journal? Would any repectable person wish to appear in
those pages?
What If Nixon Had No Shame?
By Benjamin J. Stein
(as printed in The Wall Street Journal, October 30, 1996).
What I keep thinking is, "What if Richard Nixon had known what a
president can get away with?"
Richard Nixon, for whom I worked as a speechwriter, had a historic
record of accomplishment. He liquidated the last vestiges of racial
segregation in the public schools of the deep South. He made equal
opportunity the hallmark of his administration. He prepared the endgame
of the Cold War by opening up relations with China and stalemating the
USSR In 1973, he stood up for Israel against Soviet threats and thus
began the Mideast peace process by showing that Israel was there for
keeps. He ended the Vietnam War in a way that would have left some
semblance of dignity had he not been undercut by Congress after he
left.
But he was still a crook. Pity.
Nixon was driven from office and kept from finishing his work by public
outcry and congressional fury over his cover-up efforts after the
Watergate break-in. Yet Nixon's cover-up was a ramshackle, paste-up,
poorly conceived job at best.
All right. An incompetent crook.
What if he had been as bold as Bill
Clinton, as far-seeing and as thorough?
What if Nixon had fired all the federal prosecutors on the first day of
his administration and replaced them with officials who were totally
and uncompromisingly loyal to him? There would have been no hounding of
the Watergate burglars by prosecutors to start the whole skein
unraveling. What if Nixon had made sure that Watergate cases were
steered by his prosecutors to judges friendly to him? No "Maximum John"
Sirica terrorizing the defendants into confession.
Suppose Nixon had raised money from his pal Ferdinand Marcos or other
foreign sources to pay off the Cubans, E. Howard Hunt or G. Gordon
Liddy? Say, $1 million for each of the boys on Jan. 21, 1973, if they
kept their mouths shut.
He would still be a crook.
Then, most beautiful of all, suppose Nixon told everyone connected with
Watergate, from the Cubans to H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, that
they should stonewall permanently in front of investigating committees.
"No matter what they do," he could have said, "on Jan. 21, I will
pardon you. I'll start laying the groundwork by telling the world what
a partisan Archibald Cox is--we have plenty of evidence on that--and
then when I've won the election, you'll get your payoff."
There would have been no need for a "Saturday Night Massacre." Nixon
would have served the same purpose by using the pardoning power. Oh,
and of course, Nixon would have burned the tapes and simply said they
were lost.
But most people would still know that he was a crook.
What if the Republicans in Congress were as 100% disciplined as the
Democrats now, with a solid stonewall of defense for Richard Nixon and
no lawmaker like William Cohen or Howard Baker willing to act
impartially? What if Nixon had told them, "Boys, if we stick together,
we can get away with it. There's nothing there to stop us, except our
own sense of shame."
The New York Times and the Washington Post would have roared. So would
have Walter Cronkite. But after all, how many divisions has the media?
And he would still have gone down in history as a crook.
The reason Nixon could not do it is that he was filled with shame and
turmoil. He really did feel tortured and divided about Watergate and
his own role in the drama. He could not organize a successful defense
partly because of his loyalty to the Constitution, partly because he
did not know how far the scandal would reach, but (I am convinced)
mostly because he was crippled by his own sense of embarrassment. It
was this vestigial, old-fashioned, quaint sense of shame that paralyzed
him, as Arthur Miller wrote at the time, and kept him from acting most
effectively to save himself.
So he was a guilty crook?
Bill Clinton is modern man. Narcissistic, shameless, devoted only to
self- aggrandizement. Shame never enters into the calculus because,
after all, what good would it do him? Shame would diminish the memory
and speed of the Clinton Central Processing Unit. Shame is a virus that
eventually could disable the entire machine. Without it, you can
organize a defense that laughs at court orders, sneers at congressional
requests, and treats the Constitution as window dressing. Without it,
you get a Watergate/Whitewater defense that actually defends.
And that makes Nixon less of a crook?
But once the sense of shame is gone, what boundaries are left to a
nation's ruler? Once the sense of shame has gone and the bionic
president has shown how weak the Constitution is without his voluntary
submission, then where does he stop, if anywhere? Just for example,
what if in 2000 he decides he does not want to leave?
Mr. Stein is an actor, lawyer and adjunct professor of securities law
at Pepperdine Law School.
Not according to their website.
Dr. Barry Worthington
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
10 Mar 2005 10:20:44 PM |
|
|
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
Another cryptic remark.>>>
Cryptic in a "Clearly Stating What I Mean" kind of way.
Cryptic in the sense that it is an unsupported assertion...>>>
You want proof that I've worked with British scholars?
Which British scholars? What research field?>>>
I don't trash people by name on the Internet. They can't fight back,
so it's not fair.
Er....my irony meter just went off scale....>>>>
I'm not sure why. I've never attacked a person online who wasn't a
public figure or in the middle of the on-line fight.
No, I don't believe there's an objective answer to every question.
There are many (most) professors who believe that their beliefs
should
not be questioned.>>>>
I've never met anyone like that.>>>
You once said that there were no British Christian hypocrites. Now you
imply that you've never met an arrogant British professor?
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics.
That happens to be technical education, I think. It isn't degree
level work unless you were actually involved in programming. Were
you?>>>
Oh, my stars and garters. I actually studied something useful.
Eeeeiiiiii - I have no reason to live.
Whether it had utility is neither here nor there. If it was taught
at
a technical level, it involves the direct transmission of knowledge,
without any analytical questioning or discourse. You might use a text
book for that. If it was at degree level, it would definitely involve
analysis of information and problem solving at an abstract level. You
wouldn't use a text book for that.>>>
Ah. And being an artist doesn't involve anyalytical questioning? Art
does not involve problem solving at an abstract level? Are you under
the impression that creating 3D images in Maya, Carara and Lightwave is
roughly the same as figuring out which is the blunt end of a hammer?
It appeared that I had to take some electives, so I signed up for
American History, after the Civil War.>>>
That's rather strange....unless there was a general studies
requirement. But I don't think that American colleges do that....>>>
Do you honestly believe that American colleges have no general
studies
requirements at all? Or is this a particularly lame attempt at
humor?
Have you never spoken to an American who had a degree? Ever? How
can
you teach college, and have so little understanding of American
academia?
I don't teach college. I have some knowledge of the American
academic
system, but not at college level.>>>>
And yet you feel comfortable mouthing off about the American academic
system.
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and
that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farm life was a paradise (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclusion of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people voluntarily moved from the farms to the factories,
Voluntarily? >>>
Yes.
Are you sure? >>>
Very certain, thank you.
Or was it to do with long-term economic developments? Did they
really
have a free choice?>>
That's still a voluntary choice. "Gee, the farm biz is getting
harsher
every year. I can more money, doing easier work, working fewer hours
in the big city. It's less dangerous, too. I'm outta here. E-I-E-I
Go!"
Easier work?>>>>
Yes.
Less dangerous?>>>>
Yup.
Are you sure?>>>
Quite certain.
For industrialization to be non-voluntary, that would imply Henry
Ford
hired a private army,
He actually had one, you know.>>>
Which was perfectly legal at the time.
kidnapped the able bodied men, and impressed them
into slavery. We left that sort of behavior to 20th Century Saddam
and
the 19th century English Navy.
Henry Ford was a control freak of the first order. This extended to
his workers' private lives....>>>
But they weren't slaves. They were free to leave any time they wanted.
They didn't leave because Ford paid insanely high wages. Was he an
anti-semite *****? You bet. But he was not a slave owner, and anyone
who implies that he was is a liar.
so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that
during W.W.II, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my
cell phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regal Professor Leggs
about her years running a gas station and factory work. She would
say
at least three really stupid things a session.
Was that strictly necessary? >>>
Doing three stupid things a class? Professor Leggs seemed to think
so.
Not her doing stupid things, silly. I meant you!>>>
I'm not sure how it applies. I didn't say silly things that were
obviously false in that class.
I mean it seems that you really go in for showy expansive
gestures.>>>
Guilty.
Did you have a personal agenda? >>>
Yes. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being shined on. I
don't like well-paid people doing a half-assed job. I don't like
being told to sit down and shut up when people, (who I'm paying,) lie
to me, shine me on, and do a half-assed job. You got a problem with
that?
You clearly have...>>>
I didn't have a problem after I was done reaming her out. She, the
head of the History Department and I had a long conversation.
Did you want to prove something?>>>
Yes, that questioning authority is good. Go ask your queen about it.
My Queen isn't the government. She's non-political.>>>
So, she's simply for show? Gee, you'd think that if the only point of
having a Queen is to be your country's mascot, you could at least pick
a good looking one. I mean, you had a great looking Princess until the
Queen had her wacked for boffing an Arab. What is the British racial
slur of choice for Arabs? Moggies, muggles, boggies? (BTW, that's for
calling Richard Nixon a crook.)
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed
that American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded
Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
Presumably, Boss Tweed's method of holding on to power didn't sit
well
with the notion of democracy.
Quite true. If you want to say that Boss Tweed played hardball,
that's
true as far as it goes. But what rights did he take away from
people?
The right to have a decent government that wasn't corrupt and
picking
their pockets, presumably.>>>
And where in the Contitution do we find that right?
The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?
The source of power of Tweed was the "Thanksgiving basket". The
New Yorkers were paid off, fair and square, thank you.
Some of them were....
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have
your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Why do you have to mention lawyers? >>>
She used the nuclear option on me, so I returned the favor.
Professor
Leggs called me a racist for no other reason than to shout down a
fair
question which she didn't know the answer. I saw no reason to let
her get away with it.
But most people don't threaten others with lawyers because they
think
that they have been insulted!>>>
I had been insulted. She implied that, because of my race and gender,
I was rather dense.
People with reputations of being racists experience reduced job
options.
Don't be silly! It was said (if said at all) in a class. Who would
take any notice, apart from yourself?>>>>
Suppose that I had been teaching the class, and she had been the
student. Suppose I claimed that England had been invaded by the Soviet
Union in the 1930, and fought with Hitler against the Allies, and is
now a satlite nation of the Soviet Union. Suppose my student then
pointed out that what I had said was simply not true, and I responded
"I wouldn't expect a Asian chick to know about these things." What
would have happened, do you suppose?
It's a very easy charge to make, impossible to disprove, and
can easily destroy a career. After I threatened legal action, she
never called anyone a racist to their face again - at least not in my
earshot. Hopefully, I scared her out of the vile practice forever..
You think so?>>>
Oh, yeah. Her boss was really pissed.
I don't want to know what my students politics are or details
of their personal life. They are none of my business.>>>
I understand, you're content to maintain the "Esteemed
Doctor/Peasant-Peon" power balance.
What on earth does that mean?>>>
It means that you choose not to learn about your students, because
knowing what they've acomplished would deminish your power.
Actually I do. I don't have tenure yet.>>>
OK, so you live an extremely comfortable, well paid, life burdened
with
a faint possibility that you could be fired if you screw up royally
between now and tenure. Your Sainthood has been assured.
Why are you so mean minded about people? >>>
Not all people, just pompus asses.
The comparison is related to a
Western developed society, since that is what we both live in. >>>
Excuse me, old Bean, but you don't HAVE to live in a developed
society.
If you want to dedicate your life to the betterment of man, just
call
Bono and say "point me to the nearest urine ditch to dig." Until you
choose to do so, kindly spare me the balloon juice about answering a
higher calling.
So no-one should teach in their own society?>>>>
When did I say that? My problem isn't that you teach, but that you
talk about your "higher callling". When you say things like that, the
implication is that everyone else has a "lower callling." And when you
make assine statement like that, you richly deserve every bit of grief
that you get. What would you think of a Latin Professor, who looked
down his nose at you and said that he was following a "higher calling"?
But, there is another issue. Why do you give the impression of
being
such a mean spirited embittered individual?>>>
Does the word "transference" mean anything to you?
Yes. It describes your mind-set very accurately...>>>
Really? I'm walking around telling people that I'm following a higher
calling? When did I do that?
Oh, how ... giving of you.<<<
It's a matter of choice. Some might say vocation. Many people work
at
jobs that are not well paid because they want to. They possibly have
another kind of reward.>>>>
And then there's fellows who strut in an air conditioned classroom
with
full belly, lecturing to buxom doe-eyed coed. Blokes who cool their
sweaty brow with a pint of ale at the end of the day while chatting
up
buxom doe-eyed coed about their pursuit of "another kind of reward."
<<<<What a sad and nasty-minded individual you are! Please do not
insinuate anything more of this nature....it demeans you...>>>
I can't help but notice that you didn't deny it.
But you appear to be one of those people "who
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.">>>
After all, it
couldn't be that you're wrong, could it? Nah.
Of couse not, you silly boy!
Mr. Stein has stated that of all the three professions,
entertainment
is by far the most professional, while academia is by far the most
childish. "The reason is obvious. In Hollywood, you never know if
the
guy who's parking your car today won't be your boss tomorrow. In
academia, a person can be a total ***** without fear of retribution.>>>
And he wrote speeches for a crook?>>>
No. He wrote for Richard Nixon.
Yes, he wrote speeches for a crook.>>>
You repeated the false charge that Richard Nixon was a crook seven
times, without once explaining what he stole. If you had stated what
he had stolen, once would have been enough.
Mr. Stein is an actor, lawyer and adjunct professor of securities law
at Pepperdine Law School.>>>
Not according to their website.>>>
The article was written ten years about, before Mr. Stein decided to
leave his position.. Mr. Stein has found better things to do with his
life than dealing with small-minded, self-satified, academics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Worthington" |
|
| Title: Re: Why NeoCons Are Too Dumb For Acad |
11 Mar 2005 05:09:24 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1110514844.239559.217960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
That, and my work experience with British scholars.
Another cryptic remark.>>>
Cryptic in a "Clearly Stating What I Mean" kind of way.
Cryptic in the sense that it is an unsupported assertion...>>>
You want proof that I've worked with British scholars?
Why not?
Which British scholars? What research field?>>>
I don't trash people by name on the Internet. They can't fight back,
so it's not fair.
Er....my irony meter just went off scale....>>>>
I'm not sure why. I've never attacked a person online who wasn't a
public figure or in the middle of the on-line fight.
That more or less includes everyone....
No, I don't believe there's an objective answer to every question.
There are many (most) professors who believe that their beliefs
should
not be questioned.>>>>
I've never met anyone like that.>>>
You once said that there were no British Christian hypocrites.
Not in the American context. We don't tend to equate church attendance
with spirituality.
Now you
imply that you've never met an arrogant British professor?
Not within your meaning of the word.
A few years back, I enrolled in Santa Monica College to take some
classes in computer graphics.
That happens to be technical education, I think. It isn't degree
level work unless you were actually involved in programming. Were
you?>>>
Oh, my stars and garters. I actually studied something useful.
Eeeeiiiiii - I have no reason to live.
Whether it had utility is neither here nor there. If it was taught
at
a technical level, it involves the direct transmission of knowledge,
without any analytical questioning or discourse. You might use a text
book for that. If it was at degree level, it would definitely involve
analysis of information and problem solving at an abstract level. You
wouldn't use a text book for that.>>>
Ah. And being an artist doesn't involve anyalytical questioning?
You are not an artist if you are functioning at a technical level. Not
that there's anything wrong with that, of course. We all do it from
time to time.
Art
does not involve problem solving at an abstract level? Are you under
the impression that creating 3D images in Maya, Carara and Lightwave is
roughly the same as figuring out which is the blunt end of a hammer?
In a sense, it may be so.
It appeared that I had to take some electives, so I signed up for
American History, after the Civil War.>>>
That's rather strange....unless there was a general studies
requirement. But I don't think that American colleges do that....>>>
Do you honestly believe that American colleges have no general
studies
requirements at all? Or is this a particularly lame attempt at
humor?
Have you never spoken to an American who had a degree? Ever? How
can
you teach college, and have so little understanding of American
academia?
I don't teach college. I have some knowledge of the American
academic
system, but not at college level.>>>>
And yet you feel comfortable mouthing off about the American academic
system.
Of course I do. I can speak of American degrees.
The Professor had great legs, and wore very short shirts - and
that's
where her virtues ended. She would make the most insane statements.
She claimed that 19th Century farm life was a paradise (her reference
seemed to be pictures on the side of butter packages) while factories
were the logical conclusion of Dante's Inferno. I pointed out that
people voluntarily moved from the farms to the factories,
Voluntarily? >>>
Yes.
Are you sure? >>>
Very certain, thank you.
Or was it to do with long-term economic developments? Did they
really
have a free choice?>>
That's still a voluntary choice. "Gee, the farm biz is getting
harsher
every year. I can more money, doing easier work, working fewer hours
in the big city. It's less dangerous, too. I'm outta here. E-I-E-I
Go!"
Easier work?>>>>
Yes.
Less dangerous?>>>>
Yup.
Are you sure?>>>
Quite certain.
Well, I know something of labour conditions in factories, both
historically and personally. I wouldn't agree.
For industrialization to be non-voluntary, that would imply Henry
Ford
hired a private army,
He actually had one, you know.>>>
Which was perfectly legal at the time.
That isn't the point. Stop flying off at tangents!
kidnapped the able bodied men, and impressed them
into slavery. We left that sort of behavior to 20th Century Saddam
and
the 19th century English Navy.
Henry Ford was a control freak of the first order. This extended to
his workers' private lives....>>>
But they weren't slaves. They were free to leave any time they wanted.
They didn't leave because Ford paid insanely high wages. Was he an
anti-semite *****? You bet. But he was not a slave owner, and anyone
who implies that he was is a liar.
No, he was a control freak.
so the
Industrial Age must have offered SOME benefit. She claimed that
during W.W.II, women workers were strictly clerical. I pulled out my
cell phone, called up my mother, and had Mom regal Professor Leggs
about her years running a gas station and factory work. She would
say
at least three really stupid things a session.
Was that strictly necessary? >>>
Doing three stupid things a class? Professor Leggs seemed to think
so.
Not her doing stupid things, silly. I meant you!>>>
I'm not sure how it applies. I didn't say silly things that were
obviously false in that class.
I wouldn't expect a student to ring his mum in class to prove a
point....
I mean it seems that you really go in for showy expansive
gestures.>>>
Guilty.
Did you have a personal agenda? >>>
Yes. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being shined on. I
don't like well-paid people doing a half-assed job. I don't like
being told to sit down and shut up when people, (who I'm paying,) lie
to me, shine me on, and do a half-assed job. You got a problem with
that?
You clearly have...>>>
I didn't have a problem after I was done reaming her out.
Reaming her out? This is getting too freudian. Nurse...the screens!!!
She, the
head of the History Department and I had a long conversation.
Did you want to prove something?>>>
Yes, that questioning authority is good. Go ask your queen about it.
My Queen isn't the government. She's non-political.>>>
So, she's simply for show?
No. She functions as a kind of constitutional referee and a
non-political head of state. It makes life easier, since we can tell
Tony exactly what we think of him. We can get rid of a government with
a simple vote of no confidence in parliament. You don't have such
facilities.
Gee, you'd think that if the only point of
having a Queen is to be your country's mascot, you could at least pick
a good looking one. I mean, you had a great looking Princess until the
Queen had her wacked for boffing an Arab. What is the British racial
slur of choice for Arabs? Moggies, muggles, boggies? (BTW, that's for
calling Richard Nixon a crook.)
Why? Your crudities don't make him any less of a crook. It's just the
same as having a current President who happens to be a moron. Half of
America knows it. The rest of the world knows it. Just live with it!
The high water mark of her stupidity was reached when she claimed
that American workers lost their rights during the Gilded Age. "What
rights?" I ask.
"What?"
"You said 'American workers lost their rights during the Gilded
Age'.
What rights did they lose?"
"They lost their rights!"
"The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the Military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?"
Presumably, Boss Tweed's method of holding on to power didn't sit
well
with the notion of democracy.
Quite true. If you want to say that Boss Tweed played hardball,
that's
true as far as it goes. But what rights did he take away from
people?
The right to have a decent government that wasn't corrupt and
picking
their pockets, presumably.>>>
And where in the Contitution do we find that right?
You really are a nutter, aren't you?
The freedom of speech? Right to petition? Freedom of Religion?
Were
their guns conficasted? Did the military live in their homes?
Exactly
what rights did they lose?
The source of power of Tweed was the "Thanksgiving basket". The
New Yorkers were paid off, fair and square, thank you.
Some of them were....
"I wouldn't expect a white male to understand."
"Are you telling me that you can just a person's intelligence and
compassion by their race and gender? Because if you are, you have
your
lawyers, and I have mine. Well, I have mine, anyway."
Why do you have to mention lawyers? >>>
She used the nuclear option on me, so I returned the favor.
Professor
Leggs called me a racist for no other reason than to shout down a
fair
question which she didn't know the answer. I saw no reason to let
her get away with it.
But most people don't threaten others with lawyers because they
think
that they have been insulted!>>>
I had been insulted. She implied that, because of my race and gender,
I was rather dense.
And your first reaction was to threaten her with a lawyer? Because of
a remark in a class? Are you usually this touchy?
People with reputations of being racists experience reduced job
options.
Don't be silly! It was said (if said at all) in a class. Who would
take any notice, apart from yourself?>>>>
Suppose that I had been teaching the class, and she had been the
student. Suppose I claimed that England had been invaded by the Soviet
Union in the 1930, and fought with Hitler against the Allies, and is
now a satlite nation of the Soviet Union. Suppose my student then
pointed out that what I had said was simply not true, and I responded
"I wouldn't expect a Asian chick to know about these things." What
would have happened, do you suppose?
It sounds like you are compasring apples with oranges.
It's a very easy charge to make, impossible to disprove, and
can easily destroy a career. After I threatened legal action, she
never called anyone a racist to their face again - at least not in my
earshot. Hopefully, I scared her out of the vile practice forever..
You think so?>>>
Oh, yeah. Her boss was really pissed.
I don't want to know what my students politics are or details
of their personal life. They are none of my business.>>>
I understand, you're content to maintain the "Esteemed
Doctor/Peasant-Peon" power balance.
What on earth does that mean?>>>
It means that you choose not to learn about your students, because
knowing what they've acomplished would deminish your power.
No. Why would I want to know all about them? It's none of my business.
But if you really must know, if I find a student with greater
experience of something than I have (and it can happen), I try and
make use of it. Most teachers would,
Actually I do. I don't have tenure yet.>>>
OK, so you live an extremely comfortable, well paid, life burdened
with
a faint possibility that you could be fired if you screw up royally
between now and tenure. Your Sainthood has been assured.
Why are you so mean minded about people? >>>
Not all people, just pompus asses.
In your case, I'm telling you....not pompous but smug....
The comparison is related to a
Western developed society, since that is what we both live in. >>>
Excuse me, old Bean, but you don't HAVE to live in a developed
society.
If you want to dedicate your life to the betterment of man, just
call
Bono and say "point me to the nearest urine ditch to dig." Until you
choose to do so, kindly spare me the balloon juice about answering a
higher calling.
So no-one should teach in their own society?>>>>
When did I say that? My problem isn't that you teach, but that you
talk about your "higher callling".
When did I say that? Oh, I said that some people mught call it a
vocation. I see.....
When you say things like that, the
implication is that everyone else has a "lower callling."
No, because I've never used that phrase.
And when you
make assine statement like that, you richly deserve every bit of grief
that you get. What would you think of a Latin Professor, who looked
down his nose at you and said that he was following a "higher calling"?
I've never met anyone likely to. Nor would I expect to. Most of us are
sensible, tolerant people. We wouldn't be in education if we weren't.
But, there is another issue. Why do you give the impression of
being
such a mean spirited embittered individual?>>>
Does the word "transference" mean anything to you?
Yes. It describes your mind-set very accurately...>>>
Really? I'm walking around telling people that I'm following a higher
calling? When did I do that?
No, you have some internal problem that you are projecting on to other
people.
Oh, how ... giving of you.<<<
It's a matter of choice. Some might say vocation. Many people work
at
jobs that are not well paid because they want to. They possibly have
another kind of reward.>>>>
< | | | | | | |
