|
Super, I do enjoy reading your posts for your unwavering sense of literary style and general wordsmithing.
However, I believe your points are made by lawyerly debating tactics rather than on substantive merit. Successful liberals must have this quality to offset their flawed positions.
History studies differ from hard science in that they are open to interpretation since people do not act in a demonstrably reliable manner. Interpretation leads to indoctrination. While renting a car last week, the counter clerk told another customer "I have a history degree and this is where I work." What's the point of formal history studies for the average history undergrad? To produce more history professors? I'm an independent student of history. The body of knowledge is not limited to the classroom.
The U.N. is relevant to the extent that we must all strive to find jobs for folks skilled at artfully debating untenable positions to the ultimate result of innaction. Seriously, the U.N. is useful for providing innoculations, condoms, and similar humanitarian auspices.
Cheers,
Bob
__________________
Bob S.
'87 911 ("Hardtop" per neighbor)
|