Maddening deeds at US universities - Two Faced Intellectuals exposed again

THESE ARE NOT times that should try our minds. But, sadly, in some of our nation's most esteemed redoubts, they are. Once upon a time, our college campuses and universities were serious places, founded to inform the intellect and nurture the soul. In the wake of the mass slaughter America suffered on Sept. 11, most Americans understood the enormity of the attack and supported a strong national response. But in our colleges and universities, our national convictions are less clear.

The total moral confusion prevailing in our universities is due to a variety of causes: the affectation of a "critical" attitude, or fashionable careerist leftism; and the fact that in the Vietnam era many people wholly unsuited for the academic profession holed up in universities to dodge service and went on to teaching careers, and felt a need to somehow justify what was nothing more than their own ducking out. The philosophical contortions required are severe. So you get theories that every opinion is purely relative, every value as good as some other, there is no objective truth, etc.

"Meanwhile, a student participating in a war protest wanted ribbons for their vigil. When it was suggested that the protesters get red, white, and blue ribbons, the student stated that would be too nationalistic."

Well, I don't fly a flag or flags from my car. My reason is difficult to put into words.

Firstly, I feel like I do not have to advertise my patriotism. Patriotism is in the heart and in the mind. I don't put a flag on my car because it seems to easy--to cheap. Yeah. It sort of--I don't know--cheapens the flag and what it stands for.

Part of me says, "I don't need to prove my patriotism by putting little flags on my car."

And I dislike seeing Old Glory become frayed and tattered--which happens to the car flags in a day or two--or even worse, fall off the car onto the road and become a piece of trash.

Yeah, I know the lady was talking about red, white, and blue being "too nationalistic". But it sort of set me off on this topic.

--Boris

P.S. But I AM looking for a Jolly Roger--or Don't Tread On Me--flag of the size and sort you see on cars these days. Can't find 'em. Anybody know a source?

"As American voters, when we see candidates who highlight their Harvard or other pseudo-intellecutual backgrounds, let us remember such facts when we go to the polls."

You recall, of course, that our current President received his undergraduate degree from Yale and earned an MBA at Harvard.

Of course, this President also ostentatiously wore his ANG flight jacket to class while attending Harvard.

It can be said that the Ivy League changes some men. But other men are made of sterner stuff -- and try to change the Ivy League.

Don't tread on me was sold out everywhere I looked.
Jolly Roger might not have same message.
There is a Naval jack using stripes and an uncoiled rattler that might do the job and it was available.

Another point that has been nagging at me regarding higher education today -
It is entirely possible that we don't NEED all those low performing BA degreed people anyway.
Education is an industry, not a calling, we've sold four year and advanced degrees to a lot of people without the brains to make it to the educated part.

Harvard has been willing to make distinctions and defend the bin Laden family's money, citing their disowning of the terrorist mastermind. Harvard has not, however, seen fit to make any distinctions to defend ROTC.

According to the article, Harvard has officially condemned bin Laden. Despite this, accepting and keeping endowment money from someone in bin Laden's extended family (obviously not Usama himself) is being considered by the author and others to be morally questionable. The reasoning here is very weak.

Had McVeigh's sister given an endowment to Harvard would the author be condemning Harvard for not rejecting it?

That Harvard doesn't allow ROTC can be directly linked to a philosophy of "anti-military", but the original premise of the article is faulty.

The solution is simple. Harvard (or any university) receiving U.S. government funds (without which they CANNOT continue to operate) of any type or amount, from any program or department, MUST allow all service ROTC programs on campus, in addition to recruiting offices for the services plus other government services (CIA, FBI). They also must require, as core courses, four years of American history AND Constitutional study. If they refuse to so alter their curriculum, which of course is their right, NO (that is, zero, zip, none, nada, not one red cent) taxpayer money should be given, or granted, or appropriated by either the feds or the states. Let them then raise their tuition accordingly or do without.

The article states: Harvard has been willing to make distinctions and defend the bin Laden family's money, citing their disowning of the terrorist mastermind.

In fact, there is evidence that the bin Ladin family was connected in some way with the September 11 attack and that their "disowning" of Osama may be disingenous.

The Binladin Group (they spell Binladin as one word) is the construction-company-turned-conglomerate started by Osama's father and controlled today by the family. It is the source of their money and power.

The Binladin Group registered the domain name saudi-binladin-group.com on September 11, 2000. They let their domain name expire on September 11, 2001.

There are three strange aspects to this:

Is it just a bizarre coincidence that they registered their domain name on September 11, 2000, with a one-year term, or did they have advance knowledge that this would be a date of significance one year later?
Even if the registration date is a coincidence, why didn't the Binladin Group renew its domain name registration in the days preceding the 9/11/2001 expiration? No business today simply lets its domain name expire. (And if they do make a mistake and let a renewal slip by them, they renew it as soon after expiration as possible, so that they don't lose the domain name.) Did the Binladin Group think that it would no longer need an Internet domain name after 9/11/2001, perhaps because they thought the Western economy would collapse, or because they thought that they'd be forced by war to break all economic contact?
Why does the Binladin Group have no website today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I checked a few days ago and found nothing. This may be the most prominent company in the world today without an Internet presence. (You can still check www.saudi-binladin-group.com in Google's cache or the Wayback Machine; it was, until 9/11/2001, a substantial web site containing nearly 100 web pages covering all aspects of the Binladin Group's business. It was just what you would expect for a major corporation's web site. It is no longer there. In fact, some enterprising person has recently picked up the expired domain name.)

I don't know how to explain these facts, but it appears that the Binladin Group had some connection with or foreknowledge of the September 11 attack, notwithstanding their protestations of innocence.

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.