Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:sg8Td.47724$tl3.44323@attbi_s02...
This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his
role
in D-Day.

Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing
to
post here once in a while.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

Brainwashing? The only one who could remotely be accused of trying to
brainwash anyone might be Churchill himself -- but I don't think so. As
you point out, his arguments are so absurd that most intelligent people
can
see right through them.

Most, as in 51.5%?


Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?

That's a fundamental problem with the public education system; it's a _no
win_ situation all around.

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=4135

And this linked article from Thomas Sowell:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4136

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:sg8Td.47724$tl3.44323@attbi_s02...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.

This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his
role in D-Day.

Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing
to post here once in a while.

One might argue that "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" is the result of
allowing debate and, even more so, academic debate. As I've stated earlier,
I think Churchills comments are idiotic - but they have raised a huge level
of debate here in Colorado (and, to a much lesser extent, here on this
newsgroup) , both on and off campus.


Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?

I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in those
debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions based
on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow"

There are plenty of profs who are controversial.

Controversial, sure; psychotic, is a whole different story. The braindead
nature of many propfs, now with tax funded tenure, is evident all through
our society.

How has the frequency of psychosis been determined? And, although I don't
doubt that the dumbing down of the educational system in general (every
child left behind), I haven't seen a decent alternative to tenure that would
allowed the truly gifted (and productive) a way to continue creating and
pass on knowledge. Up the tuition?

Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
that this guys students are going to be unable to think their way through
anything he says?

Some do, many do. It's the nature of learning. While his spew generated
attention THIS time, it's not unusual in any sense.
He's not a commentator, he's ostensibly a _teacher_.

And students are _learners_. So they must learn what their teachers say.
Right? Look, in anything but hard sciences, and even then some, much of
teaching is commentary. Otherwise, why have teachers at all?

Or just the outrageous stuff?

As before, this isn't his only instance and it sure as hell isn't the only
instance, by far, in that loony bin they call _academia_.

And who do you suggest should draw the line? You clearly think there should
be one.


Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both
whackos.

And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.

Are these guys teachers/professors?

Yes. Scharwtz at Arizona, Josephson at Cambridge.

Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
grad students?

So, let's just let the status quo run?

To criticize is to volunteer. Suggest something.

moo

I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions
based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.

Of course, using that parameter as an educational yard stick, ANY
controversial figure might be considered a good educator, from the worst
racist Nazi sympathizer, to a wild-eyed PETA supporter who burns research
facilities. The debates on these topics could be VERY educational, indeed,
but would we really want an avowed Nazi on the payroll? How about an
arsonist?

I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a college
professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and claims
that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise. The guy
is a dolt.

Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
support of the nut cases.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

And, although I don't doubt that the dumbing down of the educational
system in general (every child left behind), I haven't seen a decent
alternative to tenure that would allowed the truly gifted (and productive)
a way to continue creating and pass on knowledge. Up the tuition?

Tenure is a joke.

I live in a city with a major, world-class university. The top three
employers in the county are the University of Iowa, the University Hospitals
and Clinics, and the School District, in that order. As a result, we
reportedly have some of the best schools in the nation.

These fine folks -- all well-meaning and earnest -- are lavished with every
known benefit, from health care, to paid vacations (3 months long, plus
winter breaks, plus spring breaks!) to "sabbaticals" (more vacation) to
tenure (guaranteed-to-the-grave employment) to university-owned vehicles, to
week-long "wellness seminars" (more vacation), to six-figure salaries. The
list goes on and one, and is quite sickening.

What do we get for all this? Teacher's assistants and grad students are now
doing the lion's share of the actual teaching, while our esteemed professors
do their "research" (more vacation) -- and cannot be fired for incompetence,
laziness, or (as in Churchill's case) lunacy. It's criminal. (In fact,
the TAs and grad students have now unionized, in protest of the "slave
wages" they were paid to do all the professor's work. For once, I totally
agree with a unionizing effort, although I'd rather have seen the professors
forced to do their jobs.)

Then, just to really break your heart, tuition costs have skyrocketed each
year, far higher than the annual inflation rate, to the point where only
rich kids can attend what was once known as a "public" university.

Meanwhile, the football coach is the highest paid public employee in the
state, at well over a million (plus all of his Nike endorsements, which
brings his ANNUAL pay to well over $2 million) -- and the graduation rate
among athletes is astoundingly low.

No, the system is badly broken. Those who say we have the finest
universities in the world clearly have not observed the way they operate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions
based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.

When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with professors.
Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with professors.
Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.

True enough. I made the mistake of arguing vociferously with my philosophy
professor. I simply wouldn't let him have an easy point, and thoroughly
enjoyed participating in (what I thought was the essential element of the
course) lively debate with him all semester.

For my efforts, I got a C, one of the worst grades I received in college.
Those who toed the line and shut the hell up did much better.

(You'd think I'd learn, sooner or later!? :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0imTd.22145$zH6.134@attbi_s53...

I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a
college professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and
claims that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise.
The guy is a dolt.

Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
support of the nut cases.

Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the difference between us
is that I am much more hesitant to draw the line, and more likely to be
tolerant of views that I personally find repulsive, such as Churchill's. I'd
look at the fact that he is tenured, the groundspring of support he is
receiving from students and faculty peers, as well as the caution against
precipitous action expressed by the university president and weigh that into
my decision.

From the Boulder Daily Camera, a few days ago:

"University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman warned lawmakers Tuesday
against rushing to punish a professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to
Nazis, saying a misstep could land the university in court and make the
embattled teacher "a very wealthy man at our expense.""

Bottom line: As a taxpayer, I am willing to allow my small contribution to
CU's budget to support controversial professors who espouse, probably
purposefully, radical views in unpopular terms.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0imTd.22145$zH6.134@attbi_s53...
I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table
discussions
based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.

Of course, using that parameter as an educational yard stick, ANY
controversial figure might be considered a good educator, from the worst
racist Nazi sympathizer, to a wild-eyed PETA supporter who burns research
facilities. The debates on these topics could be VERY educational,
indeed,
but would we really want an avowed Nazi on the payroll? How about an
arsonist?

Oddly, most of those prof's ("Churchill" types) don't court debate.

Voice of experience here, BTW


I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a
college
professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and claims
that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise. The
guy
is a dolt.

I've asked my kids (22 and 20...both draining their college funds, one at
CU) and they note that for every kids that thinks Churchill ought to be in a
rubber room, probably two or three or more eat his demented drivel up.


Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
support of the nut cases.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wMmTd.1017$r55.242@attbi_s52...
When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with
professors.
Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.

True enough. I made the mistake of arguing vociferously with my
philosophy
professor. I simply wouldn't let him have an easy point, and thoroughly
enjoyed participating in (what I thought was the essential element of the
course) lively debate with him all semester.

For my efforts, I got a C, one of the worst grades I received in college.
Those who toed the line and shut the hell up did much better.

(You'd think I'd learn, sooner or later!? :-)
--

I had one prof that loved to debate. I finagled ways to take his classes in
seven out of eight semesters during undergrad years.