Please don't bleed on the Ivy - the WaPo disgraces itself with this op-ed piece by Colman McCarthy (to whom we give props, in a 'spell the name right, any publicity is good publicity' sort of way). His gist - Set aside any notion you might have that our nation's educated elite ought to have some contact with our nation's military. In his view, US soldiers should fight, bleed and die elsewhere but not sully our college campuses with their presence:
Now that asking and telling has ceased to be problematic in military circles, ROTC has resurfaced as a national issue: Will universities such as Harvard, Yale and other Ivy League schools be opened to Reserve Officers' Training Corps since colleges can no longer can argue that the military is biased against gays and therefore not welcome?
...
It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.
They can stand with Martin Luther King Jr. and his view of America's penchant for war-making: "This madness must cease," he said from a pulpit in April 1967.
Uh huh. I'll take a guess that Dr. King was talking about Vietnam, which, contrary to some liberal fantasies, is not the only war America ever fought. Even Barack Obama supported some wars (back in 2002 he made the tough calls and backed the Civil War and WWII; about Korea we don't know, but he has tripled our troop presence in Afghanistan.)
To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America's or the Taliban's: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I've had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring.
America, Taliban, Nazi Germany - I admire anyone who leaves home to fight for a cause, however twisted. But I am a drooling maroon. People with less of a tendency toward moral equivalence will see things differently.
ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace.
Please. If McCarty ever is so unfortunate as to have a house on fire I hope he does not call the fire department and instead rises above the foul idea that merely pouring water on flames can halt the inevitable decay of wood back to dust. If he is ever unfortunate enough to be mugged, I hope he can avoid calling the police and instead rise above the foul idea that incarcerating felons can halt the inevitable human tendency towards crime. Grrr...
AND I MEAN GRRR... Moe Lane swings the big stick.
I mean, what campus would be safe?
Vietnam, which, contrary to some liberal fantasies, is not the only war America ever fought.
Ah, but it's the only one the left ever won.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM
If he is ever unfortunate enough to be mugged, I hope he can avoid calling the police and instead rise above the foul idea that incarcerating felons can halt the inevitable human tendency towards crime. Grrr...
Remember the scene in "Airplane!" where the passengers form a line to slap some sense into the hysterical woman?
I wonder if McCarthy -- faced with a similar line formed in order to demonstrate the idiocy of his passive-ism -- would call for the police to use force to protect him.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I love that picture.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM
What impregnable, unassailable moral certainty! What an asshole!
Posted by: Tom Bowler | December 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM
A question. When is it disgraceful to print a column? The column does not suggest violence against a group. It also does not slander individuals. The column, itself, reflects a viewpoint that is afloat in the land -- isn't it the point of op-ed pages to print stuff the editorial department does not agree with?
I dislike and disagree with the column, and do wonder what makes so many peace activists so darn smug. But, really. Is snarky pacifism really beyond the pale of acceptable thought?
Posted by: Appalled | December 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM
In recent years, I've had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes.
...
ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school,
I don't even know what to say to this. It blows the mind that combat veterans would be subjected to this small mind as a professor.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM
McCarthy is such a moronic Harvard Lefty it doesn't even warrant a response. TM-- great photo. The men who become combat troops in today's Army/USMC are heroes in the best sense of the word.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Every lefty who missed the '60's wants to recreate the magic of occupying the dean's office and ending the war by singing "Imagine," or a reworking of "Stewball Was A Racehorse."
I still want to be in the Glenn Miller band.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM
This has been Colman McCarthy's line for decades now. What will be interesting to see is whether or not any elite campuses are bold enough to own up to this type of reasoning themselves. After all, doing so means owning up to the hostility towards the military that exists on those campuses.
Posted by: Kurt | December 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Now that asking and telling has ceased to be problematic in military circles,
One would think this was just a convenient excuse to be used. Sort of like how Afghanistan was the "good" war until it wasn't. Lesson learned. Never trust a liberal to not move the goal posts.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM
This fool has been around forever.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 12:37 PM
"does not suggest violence against a group. It also does not slander individuals"
Same could be claimed for Jim Crow. Back of the bus is not violence, not slander. Seperate but equal is not violence, not slander.
Posted by: boris | December 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
"Pacifist, journalist and ethical vegetarian
WTH? Whatta guy!
"I still want to be in the Glenn Miller band."
And I still want to wear a gardenia in my hair and sing with the trio in front of Glenn and his band.
Posted by: Frau Kartoffelpüree | December 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM
The test for lefty myopia consists of two questions:
1) What moves into the vacuum created by ineffective governments?
2) Is the United Nations an effective police force to counteract that vacuum?
The test for everyone else is:
1) In what class are the answers to these two questions taught?
Answer: In no public school curriculum with which I am familiar.
Which may explain why Colman McCarthy's ignorance is showing.
Posted by: sbw | December 30, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Frau, we'll get the band back together.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 12:54 PM
The opinion is fine on the opinion page. Is there a *public* rebuttal other than on blogs?
Where's JMH?
Posted by: Frau Kartoffelpüree | December 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM
DOT-- thanks for the Wiki link. God a bigger dufus than McCarthy is scarcely imaginable. My favorite quote is the one about Hitler. NcCarthy would have made the Joe Kennedy appeasement deal with Hitler in 1940 to avoid "50 Million Deaths". Leave aside that concocted number, If Churchill and the Roosevelt had not confronted Hitler, the Nazi scientists would have developed the A-Bomb first, and Moscow, London and the US East Coast would have been turned to glass by Hitler's nuclear attacks. McCarthy's a freakin' genius.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM
After all, doing so means owning up to the hostility towards the military that exists on those campuses.
Just once I'd like any of these assholes to make a "principled" stand that costs them funding.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Where's JMH?
I was wondering that also.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 30, 2010 at 12:59 PM
One of those recess opponents is this yutz for assistant atty gen.
Cole went on to write that the United States has faced "many forms of devastating crime," from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. "The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things," he wrote
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/30/gop-fuming-recess-appointment-lawyer-compared-drug-trade/#ixzz19cRaxo00
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 01:00 PM
The movie took a dump afterwards.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 30, 2010 at 01:01 PM
I wonder if McCarthy -- faced with a similar line formed in order to demonstrate the idiocy of his passive-ism -- would call for the police to use force to protect him.
I remember during the recent presidential campaign, when some intrepid reporters decided to approach Bill Ayers outside his home to ask about his connection with Obama. I guess he didn't like the attention because he called the cops.
Posted by: PD | December 30, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Considering that he did that film, stoned, it was still some of Sorkin's best work.
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 01:05 PM
That explains it. You would have to be stoned to create a character as tough as Jessep and allow him to be tripped up by a juvenile lawyer. That was my issue with the film. Jessep would have not fallen for that trap.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 30, 2010 at 01:10 PM
I think this guy got sand in his vagina.
Posted by: Donald | December 30, 2010 at 01:12 PM
“It is by no means enough that an officer of the naval service be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be a gentleman of liberal education, refined, manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor..."
--John Paul Jones [supposedly]
Those are attributes that can be developed on a good college campus. Or they used to be, anyway.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 01:15 PM
Well it was based on the play, which I assume he did sober, and it has the requisite touches Kiefer Sutherland's pychotic marine. Gitmo back then, didn't have the stigma that the left attached to it now, think of it more
like Checkpoint Charlie with palm trees. Jack Baeer's future boss, dispatched in Season 2, Xander Berkeley, surfaces here as the JAG detailee, along with a future JAG TV player, John Jackson.
But getting back to point, 'America's army
or the Taliban' makes one wretch one's Angus
Third Pounder
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 01:19 PM
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".
George Orwell
Posted by: Mike Giles | December 30, 2010 at 01:23 PM
TK-- I've always wondered about Jessup's speech since I first saw it performed on Broadway by Stephen Lang in 1989? It's perfect defense of a honorable, if erroneous military commander. Yet it was written by a coke addled left wing military hater Aaron Sorkin. I still find the speech strange, I guess it makes sense to Sorkin who is on a different planet than me. Lang also played a "crazed" Marine in Avatar. He's much more thoughtful and interesting than coke head Sorkin though.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 01:27 PM
I am not worried that our "elite" colleges and universities will be contaminated by closer contact with our military; I am worried that our military might be contaminated by closer contact with our "elite" colleges and universities.
Seriously.
Posted by: Jim Miller | December 30, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Mike Giles- I had forgotten about that Orwell quote. One of Orwell's best thoughts-- and Orwell had alot of great thoughts.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 01:30 PM
I think the solution here is simple: No ROTC, no government support in the form of student loan underwriting, no NIH grants etc. Works for me.
Posted by: Bryn | December 30, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Bryn-- did't the Congress pass that in the Solomon amendment? Is the Solomon amendment still law?
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 01:32 PM
My eldest son is turning 18 next week and is registering for the draft today. It is required by law even though we don't draft, and even though women (who demand equal rights in all things except apparently equal responsibility) are not subject to the same requirement. Interestingly, he informs me that he has to register in order for most colleges and universities to accept him. That seems inconsistent with the ROTC ban on some campuses, doesn't it?
Posted by: gilley | December 30, 2010 at 01:33 PM
"I admire those who join armies, whether America's or the Taliban's..."
I'd say "unbelievable" if I weren't already too painfully familiar with this kind of sick moral scumbling by the Left.
This over-educated imbecile has no idea who secures his peace.
Posted by: rrpjr | December 30, 2010 at 01:37 PM
Dear me, how I despise the Left.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 30, 2010 at 01:39 PM
pacifism belongs to the equality of outcome school of thought, in that it similarly imposes a false equality between good and evil, just like equality of outcome imposes the twisted notion that sloth and industry merit equal reward and treatment.
it boils down to the basic error of not making distinctions, which Orwell fictionally represented by the language of Newspeak, the major feature of which was to reduce the number of words by which things could be named
(([In 2050] Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? )) George Orwell, 1984
or---how could you have a slogan like "abolish evil" when the concept of evil has been abolished (by making it equal to good)?
Mike Giles, thanks for the Orwell quote. The man was a prophet.
Posted by: Chubby | December 30, 2010 at 01:47 PM
He likely would admire those brave men who machine-gunned Jews.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 01:49 PM
It is designed to show that the toughest of soldiers will always be outsmarted by an elite. Brains over brawn. It puts us in our place and validates Sorkin's view of the world.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 30, 2010 at 01:49 PM
((He likely would admire those brave men who machine-gunned Jews.))
are you talking about Orwell?
Posted by: Chubby | December 30, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Aged hippies are pitiful.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 30, 2010 at 01:50 PM
I wonder if it is hard to be fat and stupid?
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 01:55 PM
gilley,
Unless the law has changed, it is a requirement for US financial aid.
Posted by: Walter | December 30, 2010 at 01:56 PM
((Aged hippies are pitiful.))
manifest arrested development
Posted by: Chubby | December 30, 2010 at 01:56 PM
...for the student, that is. The schools probably don't want to make an offer they won't be able to fulfill.
Posted by: Walter | December 30, 2010 at 01:58 PM
When is it disgraceful to print a column?
When the column is amoral gibberish, leaving the readers dumber for having read it.
When the column expresses such abysmal and foul concepts as to leave the reader feeling filthy. Wouldn't it be disgraceful to publish a column seriously advocating pedophilia, coprophagy, or cannibalism?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 01:59 PM
I think this guy got sand in his vagina.
He's not manly enough to have a vagina.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 02:01 PM
TK-- I guess that's Sorkin's point. I volunteered to organize Fleet Weeks and recussitate the USO in NYC, so I had the privilige of working with uniformed military of all ranks for years. I live and work with the "elites" everyday. The military people know what they are about and how to accomplish goals. the "elites"? what a waste of IQ.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 02:02 PM
Dear me, how I despise the Left.
Sad, innit?
I really think they believe they're doing good. But so many are so pig-ignorant, bigoted, and fanatic they'll never pause and wonder if they could possibly be wrong.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 02:03 PM
RobC-- I have many business associates and friends on the Left. You've just described them perfectly.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 02:08 PM
With an Obama appointment, one requires cronyism as well as the requisite left wing position, from Tappper, Cole was a consultant
for AIG prior to the Collapse
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 02:09 PM
Speaking of "elites", one of our betters and BHO Dem crony extraordinaire Steve Rattner agreed to pay a $10 Million settlement for the NYS pension fund "pay for play" scam in which he participated. Rattner crushed GM/Chrysler bondholders, and stole from NYS taxpayers-- but I bet he's still a friend of Barry and Timmie Turbo tax. Shame, that means the politicized US Atty for the Southern District won't indict him. I really detest these people.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 02:17 PM
To really understand what a doofus Colman McCarthy is, one of his stated criticisms of the ROTC in this piece was that ROTC courses were viewed as academically "soft'.
And yet in the same piece he praises Cornell for having curricula in "women's studies', "black studies" and "gay and lesbian studies". Now those courses are about as soft academically as you can get.
McCarthy, simply put, is a twit.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | December 30, 2010 at 02:26 PM
Oh Bhaara, I'm sure he's auditioning for the Comey slot at Justice
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 02:30 PM
Narciso-- yes. as best as I can figure Bhaara sees himself as a Left-wing Rudy G.
Posted by: NK | December 30, 2010 at 02:36 PM
Scary thoughts from wretchard, LUN:
The anarchist activity on the extreme Left suggests some within are ready to move onto the next phase: internal rectification.
Rectification is not an electrical term. On the Left it means “power struggle” or purge.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 02:37 PM
God bless him for writing what the left actually thinks.
Posted by: bandit | December 30, 2010 at 02:39 PM
Interesting deal,that brings me to my first post ever, one of the recess appointments was
'outed' by the German successor to Phil Agee's
outfit, years ago.
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 02:40 PM
This somehow turns out to be on-topic.
Guess the author and context of the following sentence:
Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign.
Posted by: bgates | December 30, 2010 at 02:44 PM
My dad's closest friend was a Marine Major General named Johnny Condon. After he saw A Few Good Men I asked him if Nicholson had been believable as a Marine, and he said "very much so--a Marine who has lost his mind."
As I recall, Rob Reiner was involved with the flick as well.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 02:44 PM
do wonder what makes so many peace activists so darn smug
It's that they think they have outsmarted the system, such that, the need to actually with a situation with any sort of moral dilemma, is now beyond their mortal curiosity.
Posted by: Neo | December 30, 2010 at 03:00 PM
From all indications, he was a remarkable individual and a great judge of character, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Speaking of real Marines, check out R. Lee Ermey in this clip.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 03:04 PM
I didn't read the comments yet, so I may be covering someone else, but . . .
Personally, I prefer the "warrior ethic" to the "asshole ethic" most generally exhibited by the "intellectuals" on the Left and in most of Academia. I have associated with both, and believe it when I say the former are waaaaaaaaay preferable to the latter as companions in any setting.
Posted by: jorgxmckie | December 30, 2010 at 03:08 PM
That's good news about the band, MarkO. I'll pick up my practice..
LUN
Posted by: Frau Kartoffelpüree | December 30, 2010 at 03:08 PM
DoT,
Google says Reiner was the director.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2010 at 03:11 PM
I fully agree with the author of the post - make peace, not war. And if the best representatives of the American nation will go fighting, who'll be working for the prosperity of the country? Who'll make some new inventions and so on? Besides, the promotion of wars is unhealthy in general, they'd rather enlist the peace activists among these students but not warriors!
Posted by: Ada @ Israel | December 30, 2010 at 03:27 PM
I'm on clarinet in the opening. Tex Beneke on tenor and lead vocal. Damn.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 03:27 PM
Tried to go to the WAPO page and it won't load because twitter is stalled.
Nothing like having useless noise kneecap your business.
Posted by: sbw | December 30, 2010 at 03:29 PM
Buddy Rich or Gene Krupa?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Miller made me drop my clarinet and my Benny Goodman goal. One listen to "In The Mood" and the bari-sax stole my soul.
I'm in, if you need the low notes covered.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 30, 2010 at 03:37 PM
First full day with the Narcisolator, a.k.a. The Andurileater, installed. What a joy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Just read the Wiki on McCarthy. I now see no reason to read the article.
There is very good reason to respond to his ignorance. Forgive me if I sound redundant, because it is what I wrote about in my book.
Any one who presumes to be a citizen of society needs to figure out what minimal behavior constitutes the fabric that underlies how different cultures interact with each other.
McCarthy may profess to want peace, but he doesn't care to examine what processes will help him reach it. He has yet to accept that peace isn't the simple absence of war -- which can leave people oppressed -- but the absence of the need for war. How blithely uncivil of him to wish Jews into the gas chamber from his cozy isolation, protected by others.
Not simply a maroon, McCarthy is worse. He is an unthinking maroon who thinks he thinks.
Posted by: sbw | December 30, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Iowahawk pwns Ezra Klein, as if that was difficult, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 03:43 PM
I personally don't want our soldier boys to be contaminated by the filthy, sloven, condescending minds of the academic elite.
Posted by: Linda | December 30, 2010 at 03:44 PM
From Instapundit this morning, Yale students overwhelmingly support ROTC (Yale students support ROTC return, survey says). Money graf:
Only 16.5 percent support the McCarthy position above, which is a frankly amazing. I mean, I'd love it to be zero, and I think the 30% who subjugate national security to DADT are weak-minded fools, but still . . . [Hey, stop sugar-coating, and tell us how you really feel.]Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 30, 2010 at 03:45 PM
In case you guys need any help, I just bought this. We're covered for instruments.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 30, 2010 at 03:48 PM
From the same folks ...
... there is a message in there .. somewherePosted by: Neo | December 30, 2010 at 03:52 PM
He should be a gentleman of liberal education, refined, manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor...
DOT: If he becomes a gentleman, refined, mannerly, courteous, etc., he certainly is no longer a liberal. Do you know any leftists with these qualities? I don't.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 30, 2010 at 03:54 PM
Here he is -
Colman McCarthy
Posted by: Janet | December 30, 2010 at 03:58 PM
Is that flower for the grave of someone he refused to protect?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Aw. What a nice flower.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 30, 2010 at 04:00 PM
No takers? OK, I'll tell you. The words
Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign.
-were written in a New York Times editorial, which should be enough to let you know that yes, they meant it as a criticism. "A mistaken vision of federalism", they say.
Why do people read the New York Times? Is it just the crossword puzzle? Is their sports coverage pretty good?
Posted by: bgates | December 30, 2010 at 04:02 PM
Their comics section is first rate , specially
the Perils of Maureen, and the adventures of
Mr. Krugman
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 04:08 PM
What key is this in?
I like Buddy Rich, in part because of his delightful personality.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 04:09 PM
Why do people read the New York Times? Is it just the crossword puzzle? Is their sports coverage pretty good?
No, it has always been insufferably condescending, so much so that I can remember Jean Shepherd riffing on the subject back in the mid-sixties.
Posted by: BobDenver | December 30, 2010 at 04:24 PM
I don't have any problem with this piece appearing in an enemy propaganda organ. What's the big deal?
I don't care for ROTC at Ivies at all. We have an excellent military and supplementing it with the cream of the crap won't improve it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 30, 2010 at 04:25 PM
Colman McCarthy may be on to something here, but I think he just can't put it together ...
Let's end militarism and militancy in Taliban schools.
Posted by: Neo | December 30, 2010 at 04:25 PM
To combine all the big band wishes (I wish I played in this one), and the general theme of our columnist, see the LUN.
Posted by: Appalled | December 30, 2010 at 04:29 PM
And as for the Jimmie Lunceford number I would want to be in the middle of, see the LUN.
Posted by: Appalled | December 30, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Some Steyn to tide you over, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Sara, George McGovern comes to mind.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 30, 2010 at 04:41 PM
For your musical enjoyment:
Obummer
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 30, 2010 at 04:50 PM
MarkO: ((I wonder if it is hard to be fat and stupid?))
It's true I'm not the brightest person in the room. Even truer because I don't understand your hostile reply to my inoffensive question.
My conscious has been needling me that I should be spending the time that I spend here on more productive projects, and your post is a confirmation that would probably be the best thing to do, so for that I thank you.
All the best to you and yours in the coming year.
Posted by: Chubby | December 30, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Had to laugh when I read the wiki piece on Colman - he only has a BS (which is BTW, what he's full of). Even more telling is that his major for his degree was not even mentioned! Must be some hard studies like Basket Weaving.
I'd like to see him spar/debate with the submariners (or other military folks) with Masters and Doctorate degrees that they actually had to go to school to earn. I guess he's of the mind that we can make peace by holding peace talks without prerequisites...Now who does that remind me of?
Posted by: Specter | December 30, 2010 at 05:20 PM
Perhaps Colman would also like to see the end of Saudi funding of islamic studies at universities too? Wouldn't want to let militaristic islam & their "warrior ethic" to
"taint the intellectual purity of a school".
Posted by: Janet | December 30, 2010 at 05:28 PM
I enjoy your comments, Chubby, and would hate to see you depart.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 30, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Chubby, I really didn't mean you {my efforts at arcane references tend to go wrong]and when I saw the juxtaposition, I was hoping you would not see it.
When I'm mean I try not to do it that way.
Frightfully sorry. Best for the new year.
Posted by: MarkO | December 30, 2010 at 05:40 PM
Well, better to keep them out. The last we need is ivy league leftist poltroons infiltrating the Armed Services.
Well, if they have to declare that they are gay to get in, maybe it would not be so bad. A sort of ontological closure now that I think of it. They could even get their own special uniform.
Sort of a schematic framing of them--"cautionary tale", but with nuanced irony, so to speak.
Posted by: squaredance | December 30, 2010 at 05:40 PM
DoT,
As you know even the Service Academies have gone big time PC ( I know you get [email protected]) and the are more McCarthy then they evar have been. But he is an old flower child as anyone who has read the WaPo for years will know. He may appeal to the lady at the Prose & Politcs bookstore but no one else.
I like the fact there are still Universilist-Unitarians among us - just for the laughs.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | December 30, 2010 at 05:46 PM