Is one of my former professors a lunatic nutjob?

[dazzleman]

As for what the video had to do with the class, well nothing. But Swingers and The Breakfast Club don't have anything to do with Speech either, and we got to watch those movies in that class.

As for using the class to bash Bush and push political views, I can't think of many professors who DON'T do that. Take my Geography professor this year. He used the Kashmiri earthquake as an opportunity to talk about how Bush only lent them 8 hour helicopters to deal with relief out of the hundreds we have in the region, and how the Bush administration has screwed up on just about every disaster relief case so far.

Oh, and the Ethnic Studies guy is never being fired. He is very very popular among students, and the university is so liberal it distributed "voter guides" that were published by an openly communist organization.

Wow, your university sucks ass.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[dazzleman]

Well like I said, the Rate My Professors scores show that the students sure like them.

Well then, that means these professors must be right.  What else could it mean? 

Often, the best teachers are the ones that you don't like so much because they tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.  It doesn't sound as if there are too many of them at Minnesota State.

[dazzleman]

Yep.

Thing I really hate about these arguements is that they give Bush's supporters a handy strawman to attack so they can ignore more legitimate critisisms (that he failed to take terrorism very seriously until 9/11, that he exploited it ruthlessly for political gain, that he implied - though never directly claimed, nonetheless intentionally misled - the public into linking the attacks with Iraq, etc).

Please don't lump all Bush supporters into one pile.  I have never posted here (nor do I feel) that Saddam Hussein had known about al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11 prior to the attack. 

I have also criticized the prior administration for it emphasis and response to prior terrorist attacks.  If you want to say that there was no major anti-terror effort in the first 8 months of the Bush administration, I'll agree (though they were in the planning stage).  I'll add that there was no effective anti-terror policy in the prior 8 years of the Clinton administration.  The difference was that Bush, prior to 9/11, was moving more quickly in that direction.

I've also tried to draw a distinction between the Democrats and the Loony Left on this site.  You'll note that I've not referred to you as the latter.

It's good to see a balanced view of the issue every once in a while.  Thanks, J.J.

[dazzleman]

I voted No


You shouldn't tell people about this, Left of the Dial, it'll only vindicate the whole notion of colleges as "Ivory Towers" of liberalism.

Yes, he should keep his mouth shut.  God forbid that people should know the truth.  We can't let the people who say that colleges are "ivory towers" of liberalism know that they're right.

[dazzleman]

Theres obviously a reason why conservatives are absent at universities and it largely stems from academic failure at the high school level.

No, it's because most conservatives actually go out and do something productive and positive, rather than sit around a university and tell lies to their foolish young charges.  You live in a dream world.

[dazzleman]

I voted No


You shouldn't tell people about this, Left of the Dial, it'll only vindicate the whole notion of colleges as "Ivory Towers" of liberalism.

Yes, he should keep his mouth shut.  God forbid that people should know the truth.  We can't let the people who say that colleges are "ivory towers" of liberalism know that they're right.

I had you in mind when I wrote that

In any case, BRTD's little story about his nutjob teacher is not news to me, or a surprise to me.  It only confirms my worst suspicions about some colleges, but those suspicions were already there to begin with.  It's a shame that there are weak-minded people who actually fall for this nonsense.

[dazzleman]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

[dazzleman]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

Terrorism is not much of a problem. The deaths due to terrorism are tiny compared to deaths by car, guns, alcohol, tobacco, hunger, etc.

Terrorists have the intent and ability to kill many more people in one shot than any of these other things.  This will be especially true if they acquire a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.

[dazzleman]

True. Going after the countries they most relate to at considerable cost in money and human life makes them angrier and waste our resources. I'm not saying no to military action. I'm just saying that some diplomacy is needed as well. It will help us be percieved as being somewhat nice, and therefore deter terrorism.

We can't be complete assholes, but we can't be pushovers either. I'm seeing that we're overdoing the asshole bit at this point.

Maybe that's a correction for what came before.

I don't buy that going after terrorists makes them madder.  If they were mad enough to launch unprovoked attacks before we went after them, clearly not going after them isn't going to assauge their anger, which is irrational in any case.  These are people that respond to force only.

I agree that diplomacy plays a role, but it can't be counted on to get the job done totally.