When I was in school I had run-ins with the Black Studies dep't, since I was a Classics major and they mistreated ancient history, esp. that of Egypt, for very political purposes, ignoring established history, archaeology, and just generally inventing facts. But a course on W.E.B. Du Bois makes a lot of sense. Sure, he's controversial (mostly to white conservatives), but the man had a huge legacy and a far longer career as an activist than MLK, so the course makes sense.
The complaint that schools don't teach courses on the teachings of Christ in religious studies departments is absurd. There are plenty of courses on Christianity in religious studies departments where one can learn about the teachings of the religion including the parts Jesus said, and the various interpretations of those teachings over time. They study the topic academically, so they don't proselytize, but they certainly exist in the typical religious studies department.
The author seems to be one of those people who is very attached to his economic, political, and religious dogmas and is upset that universities have the academic freedom to teach other views. These kind of articles make the rounds pretty often, but they are usually a bit more veiled in their bias. If you want to do a better job of hiding your bias all you need to do is list off the more absurd things that go down in the Lit. Crit world - touch on some classes that delve into weirder corners of Marxist Critical Theory, Queer-Theory, and find one of the zanier courses on a Postmodernist theory of science, then list off a few salacious courses in Human Sexuality, and you've got it covered without wearing your politics on your sleeve.
Transit is never free, you pay for the benefits it brings. Overall rail transit adds value (even if there a places it could be more efficient). Besides that, the amount of money wasted in spending related to roads and highways make $800 mil over ten years look like chickenfeed.
Something like that, yes. Except that I don't need to play tribal games of the partisans, so I don't need anyone to claim me, nor do I want to take sides by fame-dropping/name-dropping. I was talking trash about Mamet, though I'm not really embarrassed by it. I'm only embarrassed for people who would admire a lightweight like Mamet or those who'd want turn this story into taking sides like it's political team sports.
The U.S. is very wealthy in resources. Human capital is very valuable, but raw materials are valuable too, and many nations that are rich in resources have managed to use them well, while many that haven't got hosed by imperialist exploitation.
Also, Friedman is a deeply confused person, which comes out in his writing.
These are fun shots, and the LoC flick photo stream is a real treasure.
With respect to these, if you look carefully at the photo you can see that it's a staged shot. On the right car there's a visible strut on the driver side that looks like its propping up the rear axle. On the left hand car the it looks like they doctored the photo under the lifted tire. Also the people have motion blur but the cars are very clearly focused.
Given the state of the art in photography at the time action shots weren't really possible, so maybe they really were playing auto polo like complete lunatics, but this photo isn't really a way to know.
The author of the paper asked a confusing question (incomplete data) with distractors (biases about Clapton and Dylan could come in - I'd pay to *escape* a Dylan concert), and then used that setup to hand-wring about his hobby horse.
The complaint that schools don't teach courses on the teachings of Christ in religious studies departments is absurd. There are plenty of courses on Christianity in religious studies departments where one can learn about the teachings of the religion including the parts Jesus said, and the various interpretations of those teachings over time. They study the topic academically, so they don't proselytize, but they certainly exist in the typical religious studies department.
The author seems to be one of those people who is very attached to his economic, political, and religious dogmas and is upset that universities have the academic freedom to teach other views. These kind of articles make the rounds pretty often, but they are usually a bit more veiled in their bias. If you want to do a better job of hiding your bias all you need to do is list off the more absurd things that go down in the Lit. Crit world - touch on some classes that delve into weirder corners of Marxist Critical Theory, Queer-Theory, and find one of the zanier courses on a Postmodernist theory of science, then list off a few salacious courses in Human Sexuality, and you've got it covered without wearing your politics on your sleeve.
Something like that, yes. Except that I don't need to play tribal games of the partisans, so I don't need anyone to claim me, nor do I want to take sides by fame-dropping/name-dropping. I was talking trash about Mamet, though I'm not really embarrassed by it. I'm only embarrassed for people who would admire a lightweight like Mamet or those who'd want turn this story into taking sides like it's political team sports.
http://www.reddit.com/r/theeternalwar
Some people posting there have already beaten the Vikings and Americans.
Also, Friedman is a deeply confused person, which comes out in his writing.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B05E4DB1E3AE633A2575BC0A9649D946396D6CF
Cool.
With respect to these, if you look carefully at the photo you can see that it's a staged shot. On the right car there's a visible strut on the driver side that looks like its propping up the rear axle. On the left hand car the it looks like they doctored the photo under the lifted tire. Also the people have motion blur but the cars are very clearly focused.
Given the state of the art in photography at the time action shots weren't really possible, so maybe they really were playing auto polo like complete lunatics, but this photo isn't really a way to know.