sort of a news item displaying the incredible tyranny that is the
'liberal' mentality, on display, at the U of Chicago.....

Mark

--------------------

June 18, 2008
Battling Diversity at the University of Chicago
Ethel C. Fenig

In a perfect example of Edward Bernard Glick's scenario, an outspoken,
hostile but decidedly minority (so far) group of professors at the
University of Chicago are protesting against the following proposal from
other professors to name a new research center:

     The Milton Friedman Institute, proposed by faculty members who
included three Nobel Prize winners in economics, is intended to attract
visiting scholars who will conduct research on topics related to
economics, business and law. It will promote workshops, seminars and
lectures.

And just why are the dissident professors -- none of whom are Nobel
Prize winners yet --protesting naming an institute after a Nobel Prize
winner, a noted thinker and researcher of free market economics whose
ideas were successfully utilized by former British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and a host of leaders in formerly
socialist South American and European countries?
In an Orwellian statement

     ... to U. of C. President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors -- about 8
percent of the university's full-time faculty -- said they feared that
having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist
could "reinforce among the public a perception that the university's
faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity."

Got that?  Suppression leads to "intellectual and ideological
diversity."  Only liberal professors residing in an isolated ivory tower
could sincerely belch such twisted logic.  And make no mistake about it,
the University of Chicago is an isolated ivory tower situated in the
city's relatively affluent Hyde Park neighborhood surrounded by crime
ridden neighborhoods carefully, but not always successfully, kept out.
Listen to the liberal arts professors whine at the dire consequences of
being associated with such an outstanding individual.

     "It is a right-wing think tank being put in place," said Bruce
Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions and one of the faculty
members who met with the administration Tuesday. "The long-term
consequences will be very severe. This will be a flagship entity and it
will attract a lot of money and a lot of attention, and I think work at
the university and the university's reputation will take a serious
rightward turn to the detriment of all."

Hmmm but its often "serious" leftward reputation is not a detriment as
is this denial of different ideas.

     "I don't think any institute of any educational institution should
be so strongly aligned behind a single ideological program," said U. of
C. music professor and department chair Robert Kendrick.

Perhaps music just isn't ideological.

     "For many people who travel around the word, the university has had
a pretty bad reputation that is tied to the Chicago School and economic
principles that Milton Friedman advocated," said Yali Amit, a U. of C.
statistics and computer science professor. "We don't think it's a great
idea to strengthen this reputation."

Thatcher and South America and numerous Nobel Prize winning economics
professors apparently constitute "a pretty bad reputation" in Amit's
part of the world, which is apparently a closed liberal one.
Cowed by these closed minded academics, university administrators stress
the proposed center's impartiality and non partisan bent.

     [Provost] Rosenbaum said the center will not push any particular
point of view.

     "We are honoring a great scholar, and that is the intent here,"
Rosenbaum said. "We are supportive of a wide range of ideas across the
spectrum of ideologies, and it's not intended to promote any ideology."

-------------------

And for the idiot in the thread previous, who had the gall, the
unmitigated gall, to use the famous lines beginning with .... 'first
they came for the....' this is the liberal's idea of freedom of
expression and the dignity of accomplishment, such as one Milton
Friedman demonstrated and brought to another dozen professors who he
taught who've distinguished themselves as economists, thinkers, and men
of accomplishment in their own rights.

And this is what the asshat leftists do with that....this is their gifts
to everyone. The tyranny of the socialists that always devolves into one
way of thinking and the vulgar road to tyranny.

Mark

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
"travis... at (no spam) aol.cominyrface" <travis... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

Academia is committing suicide; they just haven't figured it out yet.
In 2 or 3 years this shit is going to seem as perversely irrelevant as
SUVs are becoming.

Academia in many countries have given up science in lieu of
business. In many ways it is culturally-determined: in Japan (and
other East Asian nations) and the US it is far more important to hype
up any results, to phrase things in the best possible light...

I see your no better off there but the issues I do think run much
deeper. For example, in England, last week, this 'expert' opined thus
about education in general... and I think it says a great deal. Appropo
Dr Milton Friedman, he was a brilliant and gifted economist, a teacher
and a man who left an indelible mark on some of his gifted students who
have raised the bar of discussion, thinking and the fact that he is to
be besmirched by the left is just the tip of the iceberg. But anyway,
over in England, look at what this 'expert' proposes, and it's along the
lines of the hatred for capitalism, the west, national sovereignty,
western civ, etc etc.... take a wiff'

Mark
----------

news
Drop 'middle-class' academic subjects says schools adviser
By Laura Clark
Last updated at 12:06 AM on 04th June 2008

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school
because they are 'middle class'
Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school
because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will
claim today.
Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the
snip

As hal and trav correctly point out, the general populace does not
really understand what education is for, nor do they really understand
money at all - they only understand paper dollars - how to earn them
and how to spend them. The two are linked.

The masses DO only know how to earn and how to spend.  To almost every
girl I meet, if I disclose my stock trading winnings for any given
good day, it's always about how I should BUY something with that
money.  There is no notion of saving, capital, compounding.  

Guys are like this too...I used to hang in the clubs and I told one
guy how much I earned.  His response was "boy, if I earned that
much, I'd be going out in limos, with VIP tables, blablalba."  
My mental response was, no you wouldn't, if you earned this
much you'd be saving it.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:33:21 -0700 (PDT), shuurai11 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:


The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The
Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in
1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public
(government entity with private components) banking system[1] composed
of (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market
Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major
cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S.
Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4)
numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required
amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve
Banks; and (5) various advisory councils. As of 2008, Ben Bernanke
serves as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.

And in what twisted logic does this have anything to do with the
right? Do you know who created the Federal Reserve?

yes, Congress. Do you know who OWNS the Federal Reserve?


The Kennedys and the Rockfellows.

The net effect of this? The elites will continue to receive broad-
spectrum education while the masses receive "here's how you can
service the elites" education.

Trust me...I know some people from elite backgrounds. Even as well-
read as I am, they have considerably broader exposure simply because
their parents' libraries include shit like Plutarch while my dad read
pop fiction.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:37:20 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
gernot at (no spam) coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:

hal at (no spam) nospam.org writes:

you're such a brainwashed stupid little fuck. You have no idea where
the real money is.

No offence, Hal, but would you care to tell us, or at least provide a
hint. I mean, I've got my ideas which are probably pretty way off
seeing as I don't know any people with money that can set me straight;
Trav has his ideas that seem quite reasonable from where I'm at; I've
read what Naomi Klein says about contractors in the US, etc. But what
do you think?

follow the money

Federal Reserve System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Federal Reserve)

As hal and trav correctly point out, the general populace does not
really understand what education is for, nor do they really understand
money at all - they only understand paper dollars - how to earn them
and how to spend them. The two are linked. If we were really honest
with ourselves we would say, this includes nearly everyone here, even
the ones that like to talk about money. And especially those here who
claim to have a lot of money. In order to really understand this on a
fuller level I'd advise studying economic history starting in england
around 1500. If you're smart, you will figure it out. If not, I check
my email occasionally too :)

I never thought I'd see the day where you said something right.

The masses DO only know how to earn and how to spend. To almost every
girl I meet, if I disclose my stock trading winnings for any given
good day, it's always about how I should BUY something with that
money. There is no notion of saving, capital, compounding. New
credit card I got? Cool, shopping trip, they say. That is how they
deal with money and credit.

Guys are like this too...I used to hang in the clubs and I told one
guy how much I earned. His response was "boy, if I earned that much,
I'd be going out in limos, with VIP tables, blablalba." My mental
response was, no you wouldn't, if you earned this much you'd be saving
it.

The masses are the same.

But the people here who do have a lot are nothing like you say, Renli,
and nothing like you.

On Jun 20, 11:28 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger... at (no spam) nict.go.jp> wrote:

Trav and Renli, without necessarily getting into conspiracy theories,
can you lay it out in one sentence? I mean, like "power to control the
rest" or something like that, simple enough that one doesn't have to
go into the mechanisms needed to make it all work, but just the
underlying motive for it all.

One sentence? Ok...

PEOPLE ARE DUMB.

So what? There's nothing holy about saving, your religious
belief notwithstanding.  That's why God invented currency -
a medium of exchange, to GET something, for something,

Huh?  Saving is about not having to work in the future, idjit.

Delayed gratification.

If you spend $1000/month, and your income is $1000/month,
there is no problem, and no need to save.

Until your income drops or your costs rise...

Of course I look forward to your predictable inane
pseudo-rebuttals...

I look forward to more stupidity from you.