Posted on 02/04/2002 9:52:14 PM PST by ouroboros
It is interesting and curious despite its frequency. It is merely another manifestation of denying responsibility for one's own actions (choices).
BTW, have you stoppped beating your wife yet?
They just think that only PC friendly types like them with their open-border policies can say these sorts of things.
And it's so stupid! Yes, they and the racial socialists are both open borders types. Big, bloody deal! Their reasons are diametrically opposed. And the racial socialists barely tolerate the existence of neocons. Whenever the racial socialists have the opportunity (e.g., academia, the schools), they do away with anyone right of Clinton. But he got his New York Times credit, so now he can die happy. Hey, I wouldn't mind getting published on the Times' op-ed page either, but I wouldn't stoop to Caldwell's level to do it.
First of all, within the guidelines of the forum, I can can do whatever the hell I want. Second, I do not call everyone who disagrees with Pat a neocon. While I might cast a wider net than some in calling folks "neocons", I do not throw the term around willy-nilly. The term is very specific.
Do you even know the meaning of the word ? Do YOU even have the faintest idea, who this author is , and his background ?
Yes, I do. Do you? I know exactly who the author is. I have seen him on CNN and I have read him in the New York Press and the Weakly Standard. I think any objective observer would classify him as neocon. In fact, I doubt very seriously that Caldwell himself would reject the label.
How does one best-seller prove that "clearly universities are doing something right"? Does Caldwell know the ages of the people buying this book? Does he know whether they went to "top universities"? Does he know why they're buying the book? How does Caldwell extrapolate his conclusion?
You don't have to be a fan of Pat Buchanan to agree with him on the American history requirement, and also think Christopher Caldwell's argument here is incredibly weak.
Re the logically fallacious connection between the quality of our universities, and the success of a non-academic biography: You could, with equal logical validity, claim that the bestseller status of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, 15 years ago, was a vindication of the very universities Bloom attacked.
(Caldwell's style also apes that of racial socialists. A few years ago, I read a piece by a bean-counting, tenured feminist, who was complaining about the number of times an 'obscure, 18th century white male biographer' showed up in syllabi. She was referring to James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson.)
I think it is too considering some of the bestsellers a century or more ago and the fact that some of those reading them were self taught(read uneducated by the left) farmers and thier families. He assumes that it is college graduates who have read the biography of John Adams. Of course, I'm no stranger to the reactions of teachers and the elite when they meet an articulate and thoughtful drop out. It's unimaginable to them that anyone can be self taught. Look at the railing against homeschooling.
Here's a great essay by Gatto regarding how his mother taught him to read and the sheer number of books that were sold amongst the "illiterate" and home educated farmers that even today's college professors couldn't read with interest.
http://www.primenet.com/~afhe/gatto3.htm
This is a good catch-all. Though I'm no Protestant, I think we lost more "good" in its decline than we lost that was "bad" (or maybe I should have said "gained good.")
But, as you say, that doesn't explain all of it either, and I don't claim to understand it. I would be surprised to find that the nature of the public school curriculum for the last 20+ years hasn't played a large role.
When you overuse / misuse a word, it fails to have any meaning. You did do this with your use of " neo-con."
I too have heard and read Mr. Caldwell, and I highly doubt that he would take on the mantle, of neoconism.
Items like VCRs and multiple electronic gadgets around the home are additional costs by choice. But frequently these are one time purchases, not reoccuring. Cell phones and car payments are.
With two incomes being needed to support the family, a second car frequently becomes necessary. The cell phone, which might look like a extra people could do without, is frequently needed since the adults are having to react to a more harried pace that parents a generation ago did. Mom or dad leaves work heading to pick up the kids when the other spouse lets them know of a change in arrangements. Or perhaps there's a need to pick up something on the way home.
I realize that this is still somewhat of a avoidable service, but at the same time it's hard to dismiss it as purely an option.
I am willing to buy off on some of the extras that we chose to purchase. Cable seems a service we could do without. But then children almost have to have access to cable if they are going to avoid being that one kid that doesn't know what the heck other kids are refering to at school. Without this exposure, the kid can be judged to be a wierdo. Of course that can be prevented by home schooling, but sometimes that isn't an option.
Perhaps I'm going overboard to make the case for some of the expenses we pass off as option choices, but I do think some of these items are not as optional as one might suspect.
Still, I'm not willing to dimiss your comments because I do think there is some merit to your arguement as well.
Wake me when it's over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.