Prof. resigns over Rice Address...

[fastpat]

Jeff Higgins wrote
I'm relatively sure that the college was inviting a "leader", rather than a "politician". It is indeed a very sad comment on our times that those ranks are mutually exclusive, and that even our colleges are unable to distinguish the two.

Originally posted by artplumber
Is Rice a politician? AFAIK she is an appointee (to several positions), and prior to that, was herself, a prof at Stanford. I don't believe she's been elected to anything.

As to the resigning prof-BFD, they'll find someone better.

To address the professor's quals; since I don't know, and most of you don't know, this professor except by a couple of published items, I don't think we can say what kind of quality he brings to the class room.

Second, and more to the point, political appointees are at least as much politician as those elected officials that appoint them if not more so, they want the "glory" without the difficulty involved in campaigning for votes.

In Sec. Rice's case, she didn't lie about her driving skill or how many men she's slept with (if any), she lied about the rationale for going to war that has resulted in the deaths of almost 3000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi's; that means she's lied in order to assist in the commission of mass murder. That fact, which cannot be disputed, elevates her lie to much higher plane than those pols who say they'll vote one program and against another and then don't do either.

[onewhippedpuppy]

He's resigning because of his convictions, and yet he sent the letter to a media outlet to be published on the internet? Riiiiight. Grandstanding in it's finest form, and yet he preaches about lying. His motivations aren't quite as they appear. Don't let the door hit you in the ass, because last time I checked, freedom of speech is still allowed in this country.

[techweenie]

Integrity seems to be a foreign concept to the neocons here...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Noah
I know it is for me -- when they handed out the secret decoder rings at Neocon summer camp, we had to take an oath swearing to never act with integrity.

So far, it's not working out well for you Bush'ists. People are way past noticing you're not wearing any clothes.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Noah
Pat, it's time you got some new cliches. The "not wearing any clothes" line has appeared more times in your posts than it has in the Penthouse Forum.

Well let's see, Noah. I have more than 2900 posts, and how many times has that phrase shown in my post total do you think, maybe 5, or maybe a couple more?

I think I haven't used it nearly enough, and since it's so apropos concerning you, that it's quite likely I'll use it again, pushing my total up to, maybe 9 or 10 uses of it.

Yes, I think you're onto something.

[speeder]

That passage from Orwell is excellent, Noah, and many of us here would do well to study it from time to time. But not my friend Mulholland, who has ascended to quite another level of the written word. An example of his work to confirm:

"I spit on Democrats, then a piss on them, then I go #2 on them."

As we all know, true artists and great thinkers are rarely understood or appreciated in their own time. Jack the snowman and Ann Coultier also come to mind as misunderstood, profoundly even.

Thanks for the caffeine.

[911skb]

So now this thread is turning into how the conservatives or neocons don't understand integrity? And how it's not working out for the "Bush'ists" and how the emperor isn't wearing clothes?

Interesting. I thought this thread was about restricting and censoring who speaks at college campuses.

I'm not talking about liking or dis-liking a particular speaker. Or agreeing with a speakers views.

Fastpat thinks that Rice lied in order to assist in the commision of mass murder. He even thinks that that is a fact that cannot be disputed. I didn't see that she was accused or convicted in the courts that rule the U.S. of that.

Tech, I'm assuming you have a more liberal view towards politics. You think it is ok that since you don't agree with Rice's actions that we should censor her and shield the ears of the graduating seniors at BC? Since when did a liberal take the stance of defending censorship based on whether you like or dislike an individual?

[artplumber]

Originally posted by fastpat
To address the professor's quals; since I don't know, and most of you don't know, this professor except by a couple of published items, I don't think we can say what kind of quality he brings to the class room.

The point is no one is indispensable. There are more capable people now than in the past IMO, and the same applies to profs/prof level educated individuals.

Second, and more to the point, political appointees are at least as much politician as those elected officials that appoint them if not more so, they want the "glory" without the difficulty involved in campaigning for votes.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/politician?view=uk

Appointees don't need to be the smarmy baby kissers that true politicians must learn to cultivate to be elected by the people. You think that Cap Weinberger, Alexander Haig, James Carville, the frump who was the UN Ambassador could get elected?

[Jim Richards]

political appointees should have sufficient credentials and be smarmy enough to survive their confirmation hearings.

[PorschePilot]

I would like to ask this guy if he would have quit if Bill Clinton addressed the student body? After all, a liar is a liar and he based his decision on Condi being a liar.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
political appointees should have sufficient credentials and be smarmy enough to survive their confirmation hearings.

Semi touche Jim. Going through confirmation is a lot different than telling everyone they can have everything, sometimes the proletariat doesn't even know they want something until the politico tells them it will solve everything "win-win" - one must be able to do that if one hopes to be elected.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by artplumber
Ssometimes the proletariat doesn't even know they want something until the politico tells them it will solve everything "win-win"

I won something? Oh goodie! What is it? Is it shiny?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
I won something? Oh goodie! What is it? Is it shiny?

Yes! Go to Jeff's (Porsche-o-phile) house on Saturday around noon. Bring your chaps.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 911skb
Tech, I'm assuming you have a more liberal view towards politics. You think it is ok that since you don't agree with Rice's actions that we should censor her and shield the ears of the graduating seniors at BC? Since when did a liberal take the stance of defending censorship based on whether you like or dislike an individual?

I think it's safe to say I'm 'more liberal.'

:-)

Where did censorship come into it? I didn't bring it up. All I implied was that it's an act of integrity to resign your job on principle.

[911skb]

Tech, I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were implying that you agreed that Rice should not have been allowed to speak at BC.

My bad.

Resigning from a job on principle alone? I'm not sure I interpret the prof's motive in the same light.

If any of us were to resign on principle alone at work, we'd all be starving. No employer is that perfect. If you aren't indepently wealthy, then sometimes you have to set aside your personal principles in return for continued employment. IMO.