Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am not, emphatically not, arguing that Humanities should go away. My point is that a humanities degree is very difficult to translate into a well-paid job. I still do and always have believed that the liberal arts are part and parcel of a four year degree and should remain so. I have never argued otherwise. I just think most kids should be getting degrees that will not only help them but also allow them to get meaningful employment once they graduate. If nothing else, such degrees would help them pay for their college debt so I and my tax dollars don't have to. That is all.
It seems to fit the MO of an Islamist type plot but I will wait before I explicitly blame anybody. I have no doubt that we will eventually figure out who did it.
The article does not blame the universities for student's choice of major. It is mainly talking about a bunch of humanities professors who are upset because the Governor of Florida wants the land grant schools in FL to lower tuition for students seeking technical, scientific, and engineering degrees. That is a pretty good idea in my book and it is similar to Rick Perry's $10,000 science and engineering degree proposal in TX.I blame the universities and our public schools for convincing them that so many humanities/philosophy/non-scientific degrees will make for a prosperous career. We cannot all write best-selling history or poli-sci books and that is about the only way to get rich absent a science based degree.
Not while the dems refer to the atrocity as an event or tragedy instead of a terror attack. Weasal words for weasels.
There is the rub. I am very curious to see if the Saudi guy is the one responsible and if so, if the Admin will call it terrorism. My gut tells me they will not. They still don't call the Ft Hood shootings terrorism, instead calling it Workplace Violence. I have no confidence that the US or West at large will ever actually do anything effective about terrorism. The weasel Words will run strong after this one. I bet they even use this incident as foster to tighten gun control even though no guns were used.
The NYPost is reporting 12 dead and 50 injured and additionally that a Saudi national is being detained as the suspected bomber. It appears to be an act of Islamic terrorism at first reports but we will certainly know more in the days to come. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the dead and that the wounded have a speedy recovery.
I agree that Lee was more hamstrung or constrained, if you will, in his strategic decisions than Washington was. But I also think that regardless of what the correct thing to do strategically was, Lee would have never voluntarily surrendered or abandoned Richmond. In some ways I think Lee wanted to force a negotiated settlement whereas Washington's focus was driving the British off the continent. Washington had a more straightforward goal than did Lee. These factors complicate comparisons of the two generals.I still think Washington was the better general though.
I saw a couple of pieces where the left was being “unkind” to put it mildly. I find it disgusting and yet another example of the left's failure as an ideology and world-view. They had “Death Parties” in London yesterday with images of her crowned with horns. Contrast that with how devastated many on the left were when the alleged child molester Michael Jackson died. Despicable is the only word I can think of to describe it.
At the end of the day, confusion about the terms has led to problems in the way the issues are framed.
You can say that again LOUD!
I simply cannot agree with what you're saying. Armies cannot win wars without civilian support. It's just not possible.
History shows otherwise. You may not like it but it is true. Heck, even I don't like it. It is what it is though.
One side, however, would probably not admit that it is doing this, but blames the other side for doing it.
Both ends of the political spectrum are doing this. I think conservatives tend to be a little more open about wanting to legislate morals with regards to such things as abortion and contraception on demand but they still do it nonetheless. There are two sides to every moral argument and like every other political issue both sides of the aisle are so busy making noise they cannot and do not hear the other side. This lack of communication is just a symptom of what is wrong and not the cause though.
I really can't make hide or hair or what you're saying to be honest.
That is why we cannot have an intelligible discussion about this. Our points of view are so divergent they are not even on the same continent. But then, that is our right as free people. Just think, I would say that we both on the conservative side of the political scale. We are pretty far apart but still conservative. If we can not have a productive discussion between the two of us how are we ever going to have one with liberals who have some really strange notions about society and government and governments role in society? That inability to converse constructively is what will eventually doom the country to either ruin or Civil War. I am still not sure which is more likely.
And putting down a rebellion of armed peasants is not war? What is it then, playing croquet?Come on, you just don't want to admit that armies do not depend on the people except in democracies and even then only to a certain degree depending on the strength of democratic institutions. Armies have almost always been separate institutions within the state or realm. It is an uncomfortable fact that people in the US tend to not want to believe. An army emphatically does not depend on the support of the people, they are generally instruments of repression. I would hazard to guess that in the modern era armies have been used more to crush internal dissent than they have been employed in foreign ventures, the Western democracies are the exception, not the rule. To borrow a phrase from the post-modernists, don't let your cultural bias blind you to reality.
