KaskadskyjKozak

In any policy debate, Dems and the willing media put all republican congressman and the executive in the same bucket ("extreme right"). Protestors and lobbyists for the given issue under debate are thrown in for good measure. There is no differentiation.

the left prefers "radical right" and "neocon" as their way of applying broad-brush strokes to anyone who is to the right of Karl Marx.

I call bullshit. Democrats and the left-leaning media spout similarly loaded terms like mantras to demonize the right with just as much vitriol and contempt.

if you feed enough of any substance to a rat it will develop cancer

"WA driver" is an oxymoron

My baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo, I want to sink her with my pink torpedo

it's people

the bigger the cushion...

I believe I read somewhere that in Europe climbers can buy insurance for rescues, and that the price was pretty reasonable.

My elderly Japanese-American neighbor, who spent time in a relocation center with her parents, probably sees things differently. How ironic that FDR has now become such a liberal icon. I liked how he tried to stack the supreme court by inflating the number of justices ... with his nominees.

Note this, troll:

Oh, but that would be just "anedoctal evidence". I'm well aware of your rhetorical modus operandi. Get lost.

yes

I think it does work. Most people agree that history repeats itself with minor riffs. As such, the lessons that have been taught throughout history are still apt today. You argue against the value of the great thinkers if you cannot apply their thinking to modern issues. Academics, politicians, and artists apply ancient philosophy to modern problems all the time. And the radical right can't help but apply their interpretations of the Bible to everything they see... It is arrogant to do this...but that fact doesn't make it any less true that people do this. Culture is all about arrogance. Modern Americans are as arrogant as ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire or Nazi Germans. We live in a culture where we have been told that we are better than other people. The problem is not that we're told that, but that we believe it. Sure there is arrogance on the part of an academic because he or she believes that a given artist would have similar feelings as he or she does were the artist alive today. But there's also arrogance in the belief that Jesus Christ would support a war in Iraq. Education is about learning how to think outside the box. And as you've pointed out, there is even arrogance to the belief that we can do that. People who have spent their lives studying art, philosophy and history tend to be on the liberal side. My point is still apt. The people who have changed the world for the better throughout history have been liberals in their given societies. Academics who see this trend try very hard to think progressivly and to see outside the box. I'll state it again, I believe that academics want to be the kinds of liberals that they see as heros. Like it or not, this is likely why there is a liberal bent to the humanities in higher education. Jason When I read the writings of a great thinker I tend to marvel at the differences, the things that surprise me, the incongruencies w/r/t to modern culture - that which is utterly "foreign". I don't try to make the thinker/writer fit into a box that conforms to modern American characterizations. And this is more easily done by reading a work in the original - something fewer and fewer Americans are capable of. I also note that intellectuals tend to put blinders on when discussing their field of interest. How many historians do you think are radical left-wingers who utterly oppose the war in Iraq, and yet lionize and glorify those who lived in empires and regimes that enslaved, killed, and dominated thousands. Why is Bush an evil imperialist, but Alexander 'the Great', someone who 'enlightened' and 'Hellenized'? How many feminist intellectuals overlook the misogyny or male chauvinism of their favorite artist, philosopher, or writer, while rabidly attacking the slightest hint of an offensive statement by those whose political affiliation is counter to theirs.

As I said previously: heard, understood, acknowledged - and opposed.

I'm libertarian

I think it is a mistake to jump across cultures and centuries of history and apply modern American political standards. It just doesn't work. It's also a bit arrogant (ethno-culturo-politico-centric chauvinism of sorts).

Hmm, I'm ambivalent on this one. High school campuses are a different matter...

This exemplifies why I oppose big government. It should be the other way around - that is *illegal* for military recruiters to be allowed on public school campuses period. Tying this to NCLB really makes me

It seems to me that this is a good thing. If we are committed to a volunteer army, and can not raise enough support for our military campaigns, then we will have to scale them back.

Are you saying that schools get kickbacks from the military/US gov't for how many students enlist? If that is happening, I oppose that as well. I've never heard of it before. It should be illegal I never said they got kickbacks, but they can (and do) refer students to their services gratis. No judgement there, just establishing that a linkage exists.

I object to military recruiters on high school campuses as well. I did not think that that was the issue we were discussing. Abortion practictioners (and clinics) are referred to by high school counselors, and they do benefit monetarily from their practice.

You grant a child (under age 18) the right to make life and death decision in one case - a decision they can not fully understand - both morally and in terms of possible negative health affects. And this decision can be made without a parent's knowledge or advice. In the other you posit that 18-year old "children" are not capable of deciding whether to serve in the military - a possible life and death decision. They need their parent's wisdom and guidance. The military has only bad intentions; the abortion clinic has only the best of intentions. I just love liberal "logic".

"Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution "to each according to his merit or value." Orwell put it best: some animals are more equal than others...

18 is the cutoff that society has determined makes a person an adult. Either you are old enough to make decisions for yourself and take responsibility - or you are not. Of course you support parental consent for abortions under age 18, I suppose? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought you had to be 18 to "sign-up". If you are underage, your parents have to sign the papers as well...