Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bookless Versus Clueless
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll found, as reported by the Associated Press, that "liberals read more books than conservatives," the president of the Association of American Publishers promptly shoved her foot in her mouth.

Pat Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman from Colorado, proclaimed, "The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes.' It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes,' on every page."

She also told AP that liberals "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

Maybe you shouldn't pay any attention to me. According to Schroeder, as a conservative, I've got a bumper sticker for brains. Silly me, I looked into the poll -- which liberals have hailed as proof of their intellectual superiority -- and there's not a lot there in "the whole picture." The poll found that among people polled who read at least one book in the last year, liberals read nine books and conservatives read eight.

When I called Michael Gross, associate vice president of Ipsos public affairs, to find out more about the Ipsos poll, he told me the one-book difference "is within the margin of error, it's not a statistically significant difference."

The poll also found that moderates who said they read at least one book a year, on average, read five books a year. By Schroeder's lights, moderates must be really simple-minded sloganeers.

As a conservative, I am not proud to read that 34 percent of conservatives -- as opposed to 22 percent of liberals and moderates -- said they had not read a book within the last year.

Then again, because the poll did not ask people if they read newspapers or magazines, Gross noted, "I don't think it says anything about people's general level of information."

Then there's the quality issue. A person could read nine romance novels in a year and qualify as Aristotelian by Schroeder's logic.

The sad news in the poll was the finding that 1 in 4 adults admitted to not having read a book in the last year. Those adults are missing out.

Which makes one wonder: Why did Schroeder, who is supposed to champion books, choose to alienate one-third of the American public, those who self-identify as conservatives? She adds new meaning to the phrase "peeling the onion."

In her rush to brand the right as a bunch of illiterates, Schroeder had the poor sense to go after an avid reader, Karl Rove, who has been winning a heated competition with Bush as to which of the two can read the most books. Rove recently told Rush Limbaugh that he beat Bush last year. The Score: Rove, 110 books; Bush, 94.

If Schroeder really wanted to show how big-picture her thinking is, she might have pointed out the Rove-Bush book competition as an example of what conservatives can do. That is, she might have tried to promote book sales.

Instead, she fed into all the happy snipes some nine-book Democrats throw at GOP -- most notably the president's -- intelligence, or lack thereof.

Yes, Bush is so dumb he graduated from Yale, earned an MBA from Harvard, was an F-102 fighter pilot -- and was elected Texas governor and U.S. president twice. All his critics should be so stupid.

You see, the Bush-is-dumb crowd is busy looking at the whole picture. Forget the accomplishments; what's important is how Bush mispronounces "nucular."

There is no happier liberal conceit than the notion that lefties are sophisticated thinkers, while conservatives are pea-brains. So eager are Dems to believe those self-laudatory stereotypes that Schroeder glommed onto the poll results without understanding what they were. And were not.

Let me note that both parties have their share of pinheads -- partisans who not only do not think, but also do not want to.

But in her zeal to brand conservatives as bookless simpletons, Schroeder reveals herself to be rather uncurious about the details of the AP-Ipsos poll.

While she berated conservatives for buying into slogans, she flaunted her prejudices. Her idea of thinking in paragraphs: not letting facts get in the way.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Liberal's 'thinking'
She also told AP that liberals "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

It occurs to me that liberals need a lot of words to express a thought because they love to hear their own voice and see their own words, it's a real rush and feeds their sense of self importance. A further reason is that liberal 'thought' cannot be presented in a few words, the logic is so counterintuitive that only a barrage of buzzwords can sway a reader or listener. e.g. Stalin and Castro speeches drone on for hours, much like the Clintons.

Pat, I am not impressed with your explantion of your superiority.

I'm impressed
Pat telling us that LIBERALS dicuss items in paragraphs is code for telling you (the issue is more complex than that)

Issue,,, AFFIRMITIVE ACTION,,, Question,, If ASIANS as a minority are successful (without affirmitive action) why is Affirmitive Action (for blacks) either helpful or equal?

Answer,, (a long paragraph that does not answer the question but lets you know the LIBERAL knows what they are talking about, and further, if you were as smart as them, you too would support affirmitive action, without an answer to this question. And you are a racist for asking this.)

YEP,,, I'm impressed

I would have been more confident...
--
...had Bush attended the Air Command and Staff College (Maxwell AFB) instead of Harvard Business.

I'd prefer a Commander-in-Chief with an education and a manner more like that of a professional military officer than that of yet another Pointy-Haired Boss with a lousy MBA.




--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

..-- H.L. Mencken

SJ Doc
FDR who led the nation in WWII did not attend the
"Air Command and Staff College (Maxwell AFB)" there was no such college at that time, but he did not attend any military equivalent, Truman was, I believe, an officer in WWI, but did not attend any staff college, but he led the nation during the close of WWII and made the decision about the use of the A bomb.

You should not let your BDS show.

The US is not an "pure' democracy as such. President Bush as a graduate of Yale and Harvard is not what most people would call a moron [again it's your BDS showing].

SJ Doc - glad to know what
really impresses you.

Nevertheless, can you name one president who graduated from ACSC?


Back on topic
Foot in mouth disease indeed. Earth to Pat: if you are going to gloat over how smart your side of the aisle is, make sure first, that you have grown some level of clue about what you are talking about.

Ironically, not only does the poll she so smugly references NOT support her assertion, but it tells us nothing about:

- Content of books read
- Other non-book literature read
- Comprehension of material read

There are many ways to judge the relative intelligence of the individual, number of books read being one of the less informative measures. There are brilliant people all over the planet who do not read a lot of books. They read technical papers, read newspaper and magazine articles in publications such as "First Things", listen to books on tape while driving to 80 hour per week jobs, devour online publications, and so on. One can be well read and not be an avid book reader. One can be a book reader and not contain an ounce of practical world application for what has been read.

I worked in academia for 15 years, during which time I also received a post graduate degree from a liberal university. I have direct first hand experience with the supposed brilliant liberal mind. My observation is that liberal "intellectuals" have one thing in common; they value being THOUGHT to be intellectual more than anything. Thus we get the phrase, "educated beyond his intelligence" as the summary of the typical liberally educated individual.

The modern college professor may have read a lot, written a lot but know very little. These are the people who, while valuing study, don't gain wisdom in the process. They certainly don't learn from history. Most academics lean toward socialism, an ideological system that is a PROVEN FAILURE by any measure you wish to count. Yet, they still believe in it.

jevica, you don't know mucn, do you?
--
Admitting that the creation of an independent Air Force was a ghodawfully bad idea, did you know that there *was* the Army C&GS College (at Ft. Leavenworth) functioning during Truman's time in the National Guard, and the Naval War College (Newport, RI) was in operation during FDR's service in the Wilson Administration's Department of the Navy?

I agree wholeheartedly about FDR's lack of military education, as evinced by his gaudy ineptitude as a Commander-in-Chief, nearly equal to (if not greater than) his arrogant stupidity in his usurpation of presidential powers specifically forbidden him under the Constitution during the Great Depression he so spectacularly prolonged and exacerbated.

(See *FDR's Folly* by Jim Powell [2003] for a brief but well-researched discussion of "The Crooner's" toxic impact upon America and the abject failure of his New Deal.)

Harry Truman's service as a National Guard artillery officer prior to World War I (and as a battery commander in combat) was perhaps a bit better preparation than that undergone by FDR (or JFK, for that matter), but it hardly matches the systematic learning opportunities provided a serving regular officer, and an appreciation of his conduct at Potsdam and in other relations with the Soviet Union, with Communist China, and during the Korean "police action" certainly reflect this failure to accurately appreciate the strategic threats posed by our socialist wartime co-belligerants.

Then there's the malpractitionate degradation of the U.S. military during the years between 1945 and the onset of hostilities in Korea....

The present president's lack of command training (and failure to *think* like anything other than a business manager) has shown glaringly throughout his political career.

He communicates like a guy with a silver-spoon MBA, too - Ivy League "legacy" prestige notwithstanding - *NOT* like a man who has training or experience in leadership.

--



SJ Doc
I know enough to realize that who ever is elected President be it Carter, Clinton, Bush [41 & 43], is the C in C, regardless of their military education, physical condition [FDR], or whatever.

Once the person is elected they are the chief executive.

Your comment about JFK brings to mind a comment about him that was made during a discussion he had with some military men. The sum and substance was there was an Admiral with much combat experience and JFK mad a decision against the Admiral's advice, and comments were made about the large amount of experience the Admiral had as against JFK's. Then there was the trump card played that JFK was the President.

You might want more "command training" in your President, or "training or experience in leadership." If you feel that a President must have those traits then change the Constitution, until then the person elected is the one in charge.

I was not making any comments on "New Deal" or any other policy decisions, made by the Presidents. Just your comment about command training.

I may "not know much" but I feel I know enough to realize that you don't realize that whoever we elect [as President] is in charge regardless of their level of education.

Liberals need a paragraph
to explain anything because obfustication and lies takes longer that the simple truth. Personally I read 4 to 5 books a week, Just finished Gibbon’s Fall of the Roman Empire. Since I spent most of my life in work that involved the physical sciences I am now embarking on the study of History and Law.

So, SJ Doc
Which of the candidates do you want to be our next president?

It is a well-known fact...
...that light travels faster than sound. This is probably why liberals like Pat Schroeder appear to be bright... and then you hear them talk.

Vic says that liberals need a paragraph to explain anything. Somebody ought to tell them about the one thing they REALLY need... a future.

Commander in Chief
The dems want more command training for the president. So they give us Dukakis, Carter, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton, Edwards and Mohammad [Obama]. BDS it is.

Yea I know, Kerry had command training? God help us.

Classic Example
SJ Doc is a classic example of libs using paragraphs instead of a sentence. No point, just rambling and using the libs talking points about the President. Who, I might add has beaten them at every turn. He understands that the muslims want to kill us infidels. The libs on the other hand just want to feel good and try to get along with these murderers.

Kerry
was discharged as a Lt soon after returning to the US. It is extreemly doubtful that he attended any of the command and general staff schools.

a nation divided
Here's a new "we vs them" poll, and the derogatory comments fly from Pat Schoeder of the left. Can someone remind me one more time who it is exactly that is dividing this nation?

SALT
A liberal will spend all day trying to describe the taste of salt, to no avail.

A Nation Divided
Charlie:
The one word answer is The Press and Politicians. George Washington is only Politician That got a free ride. I am listening to a Book By Bill Bennet that pretty well explains the rancor Through out the history of the USA, Also if you are so inclined you might try Sanburgs Lincoln, Abe caught hell for the Civil war.

Reading is a great pastime
I hope that you all get a chance to read interesting books all this year and each succeeding year, for the remainder of your lives. I read between twenty and thirty books each year, down from the hundreds read, each year, when I was a librarian. The wealth of knowledge is within our reach, that is to our bookshelf, and further education can be yours, merely by turning each throughly read page. I thank God and my parents for my early ability to read. Please do not deny yourself the pleasure of so many good books. At my age, 76, I read them aloud to help strengthen my voice. Use it or lose it, it is all up to you!

I've read many books
When I was much younger and very much more foolish, I read many, many books! I was of a liberal ideology, and I enjoyed my comic books very much!! Now, having a conservative ideology I confess that I read fewer books, but the books I read today have meaningful content.

hogrider
The PC police will get you. They are no longer called "comic books". Now they are "graphic novels".

Straw Man
Positing military command experience as the sine qua non of a Commnder-in-Chief is inane.

Ulysses Grant was a West Point graduate and a brilliant commander of troops in the Civil War but proved totally inept as President.


Saunders wrote...
"When I called Michael Gross, associate vice president of Ipsos public affairs, to find out more about the Ipsos poll, he told me the one-book difference "is within the margin of error, it's not a statistically significant difference."
*************************************************
Okay, so what was the point in publishing the poll? I thought dems commisioned hundreds of polls on a variety of subjects and published only the 5% showing repubs in a bad light. The other 95% (like this one) usually hits the shredder.

This was a below-average week for me
In that I read only four books. To wit;

Warships of the World to 1900- Lincoln P. Paine; An encyclopedic rollcall of significant warships of the Ages of Sail and Steam.

The Pocket Book of Civil War Weapons; From Small Arms to Siege Artillery- Angus Konstam: A 250-page overview of the arms of the Blue and Grey.

The Abduction Enigma by Kevin D. Randle, Russ Estes, and William P. Cone, Ph.D: In which the authors conclude that "alien abduction" is the product of misinterpretation of purely natural processes like vivid dreaming and sleep paralysis, coupled with "hypnotic regression" done by unqualified "investigators" with agendas and axes to grind.

And the best book I've read so far this year;

The New Illustrated World History, ed. by John Hammerton: Published by Wise in 1947. A far better book on history and world affairs than any recent volume, IMHO.

I guess this means I only need to read four more books to qualify as a "conservative". In fact, my "to read" stack has six in it right now, which I should have done by the 1st of next month at my usual rate.

None of them are romance novels.


cheers

eon


If Conservatives Don't Read
How come so many conservative books are national best sellers?

I'm with Hogrider
Great article, Debra. It explains in a nutshell why libs think they're SO-ooo superior, and the libs posting after hammer home the point.

I used to read voraciously, but who has time anymore. I'm too busy working so I can pay my ridiculous taxes, to pay for lib stupidity, taxes that are even higher than ever here in Tucson, since the dems run EVERYTHING in this "wannabe CA" town. Especially the school system, which is instituting all of the failed policies like affirmative action, excluding English for Spanish teaching, and all of the other outcome based drivel. No wonder Christian and private schools are flourishing. Pleeze, God! Give families a voucher system.

Let the libs keep shooting off their mouths. It blows their foot right out and makes for a looser fit for their heads, which are still firmly planted in their rectums.

What a bunch of libdopes, and Shroeder is the epitome.

I don't care who's reading
as long as people still do read.

My students don't read. They can't read most of what's presented them. A few years ago I could interest them in the DaVinci Code because of its controversym, but there's no Christ-married-his-half-sister book out at the moment,

I know Eng. teachers who are not readers, esp. the young ones.

It's most interesting that libs. read MORE than cons. books when it's 9 for libs. and 8 for cons. a yr. But when it was demonstrated that Bush had a 77 undergrade average and Kerry a 76, Kerry was always still smarter.

Facts mean little to people who can't think.

All the liberals I know
and work with read lots and lots of fiction. Fiction is something I may read one book a year. However, I usually read three or four books a month, depending on their heft, and it's all non-fiction, learning about various subjects from theology, sociology, history, politics, etc. If my fellow workers are an example of liberals' reading habits, they are really dull!

LIBERALS READ BOOKS

.....Playboy ...Penthouse ...Maxim ...Hustler .....COLOSSUS

baseballdoc
You left out that great literary classic of the liberals, "interactive graphic novels" commonly called coloring books.

open note to Pat Schroeder
I would think the "President of the Association of American Publishers" would have a bit more class than to downgrade my intelligence. Thank-you very much Pat for the insult, and best of luck to your organization.

CO-PRESIDENTS?

.....The Posters have brought up some very good points ...if the President is the Commander-in-Chief ...should he not be formerly trained in military matters and war? ...Eisenhower was a military man in war but a peacetime President (He did get us out of Korea) ...Grant was a successful wartime General but a poor peacetime President ...etc.,etc, ...

.....The obvious solution is that we need Co-Presidents ...get rid of the VP slot and elect two Presidents ...they could even be from different Parties ...maybe a Libertarian (Ron Paul?) to run domestic affairs ...and a Republican (Giulani?) ...to run the war ...

.....I guess this would require an Amendment to the Constitution so forget it ....our politicians and justices don't pay attention to the Constitution any more anyway .....COLOSSUS

Bluepiper
Your experience mirrors mine. The libs that I know simply inhale "summer page-turners," but would never touch an "issue" book.

One of the left-most of them, a woman I've served as a personal assistant, was astonished to learn that I read "their" side of the story as well as "ours."

The liberals love to crow about how they have "nuanced" views of the issues. I'm not certain what that means, but I don't know a single one among them who re-read The Bill of Rights at least once a week, as many of us libertarians do.

How many periodicals do liberals read?
If they had asked, 10-1 they'd say the NYTimes and the New Yorker only (the only sources my liberal friends ever cite). I'm an avid reader, but it takes me a while to read books because I regularly read the NYT (yeah, I know, but it's good to know what the enemy's up to), WSJ, my local daily, several weeklies, and several magazines including the National Review. I also read Townhall every day, along with several newsletters and blogs online. DUH....

Rove for Pub. Assoc. President
How many books has Pat Schroeder read in the year Karl Rove read 110? Then factor in the element of competing job stress to arrive at 'quality leisure time' for each to read, and arrive at a 'Dedication to Learning' index score.

Maybe the publishers' association has found a much better spokesman in Karl than they now have in Pat.

Pat
This is the same beilluant liberal that fell for the dog food joke by Rush

squarepeg
Exactly right.

It's funny that people who are so interested in foreign affairs get all their news through domestic sources. They don't even read The Guardian, even though it's the cousin of the NY Times in terms of ideology.

I, too, get my news from a bunch of different sources, many of them foreign. It's much easier to detect the lies that way.

MBA vs Lawyers
Vic writes: Sunday, August, 26, 2007 7:32 AM
Kerry
was discharged as a Lt soon after returning to the US. It is extreemly doubtful that he attended any of the command and general staff schools.

Actually Kerry was discharged in around 1978. Makes you wonder how he managed to meet with the enemy and protest the war as a naval officer. Something fishy there, maybe?

Back to the issue of Bush's MBA vs. War College education. Let see, maybe we are better off with a President that has an MBA than another one of these parasitic lawyers that keep running and winning national and state offices.

Shrieking Schroeder: Still Stealing Air?
.... SHUDDER!!!

Seriously, though. It is surely bizarre that Shroeder, the un-and-anti-American one-time fit-right-in representative of Denver's Capital Hill's pooftahs, feminazis, faggots and other freaks and who almost single-handedly, for the forseeable future and perhaps for all of time emasculated, feminized, sodomist-ized and destroyed the American Military's will to win is still drawing a wage.

Send her back to Denver where, more in fitting with her talents, she might seriously consider setting up a seltzer stand.

Bookish Liberals
You can read a lot of "Sally, Dick, and Jane" readers in one day, more, if you don't move your lips when you read.

Fear and Elitism
Liberals seem to have two things to cling to in their outlook on the world: Their self-styled elitism and their paranoid fear of Karl Rove. Eight books to nine?? Maybe we read bigger books! Like the Bible.

CONSERVATIVE V. LIBERAL READING PATTERNS
There may be some reasons that conservatives read one fewer book per year than liberals:

1. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to have full time jobs, children, and grandchildren and they often have more children and grandchildren than liberals do. This means they have less time to spend sitting and reading books than their liberal counterparts do.

2. Conservative principles are objective and straightforward while liberal principles are subjective, fuzzy, and based on emotions. Conservatives don't need as many words to explain themselves as liberals do.

3. Liberals generally take more interest in the arts than conservatives do. Maybe some of those books they "read" are really art and photographic books.

Oh the Irony
What are the following comments if not slogans?

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans."

"It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes,' on every page."

"liberals 'can't say anything in less than paragraphs.'"

etc.


I don't read polls...
hmmmmmmmm maybe reading polls make up the bulk of liberal reading....but polls are inaccurate at best, outright lies at worst...and this poll is a PRIME example of the worst kind-outright lies.

michigander
it would seem the left loves any polls that confirms their "feelings" about the right. If I want my feeling reenforced there is tons of data I can cite that will make me feel good. Hard fact however is something else again. Proven fact and reality are a real problem when emotion is your guiding light. The poll listed books read but there is no way of knowinbg what were the subjects that were covered. As we all know there are books that foster ideas and then there are books that satisfy the emotion. Does reading a romance novel really compare with reading history? For years my wife read only books that pertained to her profession, that made her knowledgeable in her field but not knowledgeable in the ways of running this country or underatanding events happening around the world

Hate to extrapolate
... from personal anecdote, but I'm interested to find others here who report that the liberals they know tend to read fiction. Nothing scientific about this reporting, but it is interesting.

Scottie, meanwhile, asked my question: if conservatives don't read, how do so many conservative books become bestsellers?

I'm with Two Canes. Read. Read! Use it, don't lose it. A little discrimination is, of course, in order. I recommend avoiding anything with pink asterisks and paragraph-length subtitles on the cover.

michigander 2
like many adults I have read and reread the harry potter books. I see many parallels beteen lord voldemort and the missus clinton. Does that indicate that the author saw the same connections or that I have read something into her text based up how I have come to view life. Everything is open to intrepretation but I couldn't help but see the similarities

Theory and Proof
"...liberals 'can't say anything in less than paragraphs."

Has anyone ever noticed that the person that usually talks most is the "guilty" party trying to weave his/her way around the "truth"? Kind of like a drunk guy who continues talking just to prove to himself that he is still "in control" of his faculties when all around him readily detect the slur and incoherence of his words. Or the wonderfully creative mind who weaves his/her own reality with a plethora of fantastical concepts unproven but fanciful to the ear and the heart disproven by almost a century of failed social policy which keeps those it wishes to "cure" in an abject poverty of fresh ideas with the old, stale rhetoric of "it's not your fault; it's theirs."

However, I'm veering away from the truth a little with my liberalistic use of words progressively delineating my thoughts. To be more conservative with my message, let me be succint and much more to the point: It's a natural tendency for progressive thought to use avalanches of words to get their message across. After all, when you try to baffle them with BS, fewer words seldom gets the job done, right?

Comic books?
Were comic books included in this poll, regarding the reading level of liberals X conservatives? I have a 12 year old son who reads dozens of comic books every month. Except that I don't know where he stands on the matter of liberal X conservative. One could read the equivalent of a million comic books, but could not possibly considered them equal to one single book, like War and Peace, for instance. Quality X quantity is what one should be investigating. What kind of good reading was considered by this poll? But then, who will define "good"? Considering the trash that goes around as "good" liberal literature, I would advise my son to stick to his comic books.

SJ Doc

Some of the posters this morning may know SJ Doc far better than I do. In this particular case, I did not read his posts as written by a Liberal or as I prefer to call them a "lib". On the contrary, I hear an older military man complaining, as did my father, about some of the logger heads who inherited the white house at critical times in the past and maybe the present. Bushes preparation for CIC is not perfect but could be far worse.

However, SJ Doc's criticism is fair, and reflects his point of view. It's validity is what several posters have held up for question. I would be less eager to rush to judge him as what he says does not, to me , reflect any "lib" content.


for baseballdoc
baseballdoc writes: "if the President is the Commander-in-Chief ...should he not be formerly trained in military matters and war?"

Gee, do you think that had General Custer or General Patton been elected President, they could have dealt effectively with Congress? With their egos and "my way or the highway" attitude? How many bills could they have passed?

Get a clue: Our Founding Fathers NEVER intended America to be at war and perpetually preparing for war. War was supposed to be a temporary aberration for a nation that would mostly avoid foreign entanglements. That's why management skills, political skills, economic skills matter more--those things are required on a day-to-day basis, year after year, whereas a President only has to be an effective Commander-in-Chief on the infrequent occasions of wars.

And notice that the title is "Commander-in-Chief," not "Generalissimo or Maximum Leader." A President is NOT supposed to command a war like a general. He's supposed to MANAGE it and let his general staff (which is the Joint Chiefs these days) command the war.

The basic problem is that too many of today's social conservatives conceive of the President as America's Maximum Leader, waging wars, making moral pronouncements to raise the people's moral character, ramming Congress and the press aside, and behaving more like a benevolent despot. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended--they wanted a President to be more like a manager most of the time.


Wow: Off topic responses
My first impression upon finishing this article resulted in two primary thoughts.

One: I wouldn't care if Rove published a book that said "No New Taxes" for 250 pages. If the learned left would read it and, perhaps, by page 250 they might get a clue.

Two: Polls are a very imperfect measurement of anything. I want more information on the type and substance of the books read. For example: Many folks could claim that reading Walter the Farting Dog (a bona fide children's book, btw) constitutes a book. I'm not sure that it substantiates a position of superior intellect. Polls schmolls.

Can't Go By That
On this particular thread I can't resist the following: yesterday at a big community yard sale I stopped in front of a house that had five or six older ladies sitting on the steps watching their merchandise, which consisted mostly of books spread out on the grass on blankets. They all watched me as I circled slowly around looking at their books. They had about 75% very old murder mysteries, heavy on the Erle Stanley Gardner, and 25% very old Book of the Month Club selections that I remember my mother reading in the 1940's. There was nothing I wanted. As I moved on I heard on of the ladies say, "You see, people don't read books any more." Another lady agreed with her, "Yes, all they do now is play video games.". (In fact I read several books every week---I just didn't want that c***---and have never played a video game in my life---I cite this experience to point out that generalizations about people's reading habits may not be valid at all.) Beeblebrox is right: a person could read 50 books a week but if they're all Harlequin Romances, that shouldn't count, actually.

to ben Haggai
I can save you some time, so that you won't have to figure out which books are the bad ones that liberals like. There is a website called PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in Schools) where conservative parents have posted the titles of bad books.

Here are some of the bad books: "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", "Little Women", "A Farewell to Arms", "Of Mice and Men", "Elements of Literature", "Human Anatomy and Physiology", "The Scarlet Letter", "Romeo and Juliet", "Ethan Frome", "Death of a Salesman", "Death, Be Not Proud", "Dracula", "Fahrenheit 451", "Brave New World", "Animal Farm", "Silas Marner", "Little House on the Prairie", "Charlotte's Web", "Little Red Riding Hood", and five Harry Potter books. Oh yes, also "The American Heritage Dictionary" and "The Bible". People who challenged these books wanted them removed from classrooms and libraries. Bad authors, as you can see from the above list, include Mark Twain, Louisa Mae Alcott, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Aldous Huxley, William Shakespeare, George Orwell, George Eliot, and Edith Wharton. We are not talking just about kindergarten here---these books are to be excluded from senior high schools as well. And, remember, these are conservative challenges. So when conservatives are called anti-intellectual and uninformed, and you jump to defend them, remember the PABBIS list of bad books.

scooter writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 2:03 AM
"I'm impressed..."

================

Your post nailed the lib vs con difference!!

Thanks, I'm impressed, too!

Beeblebrox writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 5:28 AM
"...Ironically, not only does the poll she so smugly references NOT support her assertion, but it tells us nothing about:

- Content of books read
- Other non-book literature read
- Comprehension of material read

============================

Once again it is proven that you can make statistics give you whatever resluts your little heart desires.

Numbers don't lie, but liars know numbers.

Listen to the arguements...
Here's a simple test: listen to the logical arguments presented by Charles Krauthammer (for you liberals who are busy reading "The Wit and Wisdom of Al Franken," he writes for the Washington Post). Listen to the facts presented, how the arguments are constructed, and how the conclusions are reached. Then listen to Bill Maher, who starts with a false premise, backs it up with speculation, and concludes by blaming Bush, which is then always followed by enthusiastic applause.

The smug self-assurance of liberals regarding their imagined intellectual superiority is so exasperating given their middle school mentality that it plays like a (tragic) comedy. It’s a kind of ironic bombast and lack of self-awareness that is reminiscent of Ted Baxter on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. The gap between the liberal self-image of “depth” and “nuance” compared to what actually occurs in reality is roughly the size of the Grand Canyon.

Vic writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 6:54 AM
"Liberals need a paragraph
to explain anything because obfustication and lies takes longer that the simple truth..."

==============================

SPOT ON!!! (and stated simply as only a conservative can do :-)

charlie writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 7:36 AM
"a nation divided
Here's a new "we vs them" poll, and the derogatory comments fly from Pat Schoeder of the left. Can someone remind me one more time who it is exactly that is dividing this nation?"

===========================

NO ONE IS SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!

Why, no liberal would ever attempt to divide our nation..........RIGHT!


Reading if fun
I am a conservative leaning libertarian, and I read at least one book a week for pleasure. Reading is a much better use of free time than watching the boob tube - you have to self-visualize the worlds created in the books, and think about concepts...

To me, the real information from that study was not that conservatives read, on average, 8 books a year and libs read 9, but that people read so few books! It's really sad! Turn off the TVs, folks, and spend time interacting with people, reading, playing sports, etc.

BTW, one other interesting thing - conservatives are more likely to have children, volunteer, go to church, etc., so maybe they are just busier than liberals? also, I suspect more of the people on welfare are liberals than conservatives, and they would have more free time to read...

The ARTS
Stereotypical Liberals are arrogant when it comes to literature, politics, economics, and the arts. My distaste is their attitude towards music as if classical and operatic presentations were the sole result of liberal attention and audience. Such hubris is disgusting and whenever I propose interest in a Puccini and add Poulenc, Mendelssohn, Strauss, or Wagner they seem to get bored. If I raise the intonations of the Russians and it is hard for them to move beyond the Nutcracker or Stravinsky. Their ability to learn and explore new ventures in the arts is expressed in Rap and visits to MOMA as if modern art is their pure possession; albeit, they can have the urine bottle and anger art variety depictions anytime. I leave now Francois Poulenc is about to be played on my classical radio.

With libs
It is always about what it sounds like, not facts. That is why we have one of the biggest indiviual consumers of natural resources telling everyone else that they ahve to cut back or are doomed to screams of adulation from the left. That is why the libs are much more impressed with him than the family who has a house 1/5 the size of the enviro guru, uses passive solar, water recycling etc.

The Mule writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 3:16 PM
"Listen to the arguements
...The smug self-assurance of liberals regarding their imagined intellectual superiority is so exasperating given their middle school mentality that it plays like a (tragic) comedy. It’s a kind of ironic bombast and lack of self-awareness that is reminiscent of Ted Baxter on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. The gap between the liberal self-image of “depth” and “nuance” compared to what actually occurs in reality is roughly the size of the Grand Canyon."

===============================

And there is NO WAY liberals will ever be convinced they are not "intellectually superior" - this woman, one of the worst representatives our country has ever had, once again exhibits her lack of intelligence and tries to gloss it over by taking someone else down. It just doesn't work that way, Pat! You can NEVER build yourself up by tearing another person down!!!! Slow learner, I guess. Maybe if she read more books...........

Shefali writes:
Sunday, August, 26, 2007 3:31 PM
"...also, I suspect more of the people on welfare are liberals than conservatives, and they would have more free time to read...

===================
to continue...
but, sadly have absolutely NO desire to explore other worlds (and possibly find out there IS a way out of their situation) or try to better themselves - so much easier to sit in front of the boob tube and live vicariously through the soaps, View, Oprah etc.

Bookless vs. clueless (polls)
Those who purport to have insight into the right or the left based on polls ... are the truely clueless. Polls are created to elicit certain pieces of information. They ask questions in a way that gets the results that the pollsters desire. This poll is among the most miserably useless. It has no meaning.

My wife reads, at minimum, a book a week. (So does George Bush.) I read about 20 a year. She reads a mix of fiction and nonfiction, the daily newspaper, and two or three magazines a week, all from cover to cover. I skim the newspaper and read 20 or 30 articles online a week. I do not derive my identity or confidence based on other's opinions or polls. By the way, in case you are collecting data, we are conservatives (not Democrats or Republicans). How are we represented in the poll?

Meaningless
Another meaningless poll that someone used to promote their personal philosophy and project their disdain of others.
Gosh, this type of thinking will bring us all together, huh?
The poll itself meant nothing. The follow-up comments made that individual a look & sound like a jerk.
As a college graduate, I regret to inform many that I have met as many educated fools, as I have uneducated brillant people!
In short, never judge a "book" by its cover!

An unfortunate exercise
Debra,
Nice touch on a silly poll. It's self evident that the vast majority of partisans of both Republicans and Democrats do not read anything of worth;if they did would we have the same bums in office for life?

jevica - I most certainly *do* realize..
--
..."that whoever we elect (as President) is in charge regardless of their level of education."

This is one of the major failings of a system that selects its senior government officers on the basis of popularity contests.

These United States have, for the most part, been protected from the adverse impacts of incompetent authoritarians in the Oval Office by cadres of long-serving professional military officers (consider Winfield Scott's accurate appreciation of the logistic difficulties associated with the conquest of the seceeded Southern states, and his "Anaconda Plan" successfully implemented in spite of the rank stupidity of a railroad lawyer in the White House and a bunch of retreaded Whigs dominating the Congress).

Even these, however, have not been uniformly beneficial. Consider Adm. William D. Leahy, chief military advisor to "the Crooner" during WW2, the former Chief of BuOrd responsible for the crappy torpedo technology that got so many American submariners killed during the first year of the war, failed Ambassador to Vichy France, and critic of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

(By the way, in answer to Sgt Relic's note above, when Roosevelt II was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during St. Woodrow's reign, don'tcha think his assimilated rank was more than just a bit better than "field grade," hm?)

This sort of trend in the Executive Branch to elevate management "Whiz Kids" and their methods (as seen in McNamara's DoD, and more recently under Rumsfeld) has had a multitude of ill effects.

My point is that the electorate would do better to pay attention to politicians' prior experience in positions of responsibility, and proof of their foresight in preparation for such responsibilities as indicated by their familiarity with the essential principles of military strategies and operations.

The MSM jerks aren't going to make this point.

So why don't we?
--

JFP - preference for the next president
--
JFP asks:

"Which of the candidates do you want to be our next president?"

Given the available choices, the best (in my opinion) is a former Air Force flight surgeon with a history of active-duty service in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey during the Cold War.

Certainly a wider range of exposure to command problems in the support of U.S. foreign policy than President Bush had as a junior pilot officer in the Air National Guard.
--

SJ Doc
Then you must realize that the C in C is not the only job of the President [it's an important part, but not the only part]. Therefore to pick a choice that has all this vast military knowledge, ability, etc. might get us someone who is not that able on the executive side. There has to be a balance.

We have elections and the people elect who they want. As much as you feel it should be the way you look at it, as long as someone is eligible under the Constitution to run, they could be elected.

Rusty
Re "I do not derive my identity...based on other people's opinions". Consider: we all get information from somewhere---our heads are full of data that we didn't have when we were born. When we like and trust the person giving the information, we are more likely to believe what he says. Such folks as Bill O'Reilly know this very well; he once said to a guest, "If they like you they'll believe anything you tell them". Commentators with a political axe to grind use this knowledge every minute they work. Remember, for example, when Sean Hannity had his viewers help him name his new puppy? And I have heard Rush Limbaugh say, "Don't get yourself confused by watching cable. Just come see me and I will explain everything to you." The message is "I am your buddy, just like family, so anything I tell you is the truth".

On the other end of the spectrum, I have seen conservatives on townhall repeatedly reject any information from a source they don't trust, the New York Times being one example. Obviously every word in the Times is not a lie. Not long ago O'Reilly went after Media Matters (a left-leaning media watchdog) saying that they "take things out of context". This is impossible, since they print the context of every quotation they cite (subscribe free online to Media Matters and see for yourself that this is, in fact, their format).


Reading Poll
It is obvious that the posters on this thread do much more reading than the general public. We don't know very much about what other people read, but we can find out which books are selling. Some information about that might be informative.

On the subject of ''more paragraphs''
--
The character of seductive error is such that it can be stated briefly because the silly suckers most likely to fall for it *want* to believe it.

The difficulty in making the case for corrective truth in the face of such a seductive error is that you have to prove *how* it's erroneous.

This natureally takes more time and argument to manage.

(Besides, of course, most stupid sons-of-many-fathers would rather hang onto a pleasing untruth than confront an uncomfortable fact.)

Consider the flaming evil of algore's *An Inconvenient Truth* (masquerading in its very title as if it were an expression of honest factuality instead of a poorly-crafted suite of blatant lies), and the need to elucidate the nature and structure of the deceptions raddling this Hollywood-sanctified *Triumph of the Will* for "ecolitarian" socialists before those insidious tools of totalitarianism can be refuted.

Think of it the way you treat a gangrenous wound.

You need to carve away all the rotten, infected, stinking, and dead tissue before you can get down to what will permit the patient to heal and grow healthy.

--
"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

..-- H. L. Mencken



complex ramblings
Thank you so much Ms. Saunders, for using the “C” word in your exposure of Ms. Schroeder. Conceit is the word I use most often when reading liberal dribble recommended to me by “fair minded” friends. At the center of an onion is: onion. When I taste the same flavor at the beginning as in the end, all their complex ramblings lead to the same conclusion.

Brevity is the sole of wit! Liberal writers are witless, humorless and sole-less, so they cover themselves in many layers, thinking most readers will confuse circular reasoning for substantive rational.

Busy minded people are not adequate substitutes for metal acumen that produces results.

jevica - the selection criteria
--
I recognize the role of Commander-in-Chief as just about the *only* legitimate role to be played by the President in our federal government.

All foreign policy functions, all enforcement of federal law, all decisions supportive of military operations, are legitimately undertaken only in the management of violent force in defending the sovereignity of these United States.

Apart from the nomination of candidates for posts in the judiciary and the veto power, there's not a helluva lot else in President Bush's working day that isn't a violation of the U.S. Constitution and a breach of his Oath of Office.

So whether a presidential candidate's experience and education is "vast" or not, any examination of such a candidate's qualifications for the post warrant one helluva sharp look at his/her track record, either as a practitioner of leadership in such areas or as a student of military history.

Cheer up. For any good conservative, such a standard of examination would automatically disqualify every one of the RINO candidates presently bouncing around the country, and would have a ruinous impact upon the DemaGOP wannabee crop.

Especially Mommie Dearest, whose command capabilities had been perfectly proven by her failure to maintain "zipper control" in her own household.

Consider the Tailhook Scandal, resulting in 300 naval aviators being directly disciplined, with the observed command failings of one Secretary of the Navy and 14 admirals (including the Chief of Naval Operations) evoking resignations, premature retirements, or "kiss of death" assessments on their 201 files.

Given that "the people" will *NOT* want to elect candidates they perceive as command failures, why not leverage the one great advantage genuine conservatives have over the "Liberals" and attack them on the bases of their demonstrable incompetence in command?

things that make you go "hmm"
"... Karl Rove, who has been winning a heated competition with Bush as to which of the two can read the most books. Rove recently told Rush Limbaugh that he beat Bush last year. The Score: Rove, 110 books; Bush, 94."

George Bush can read?


Lilly: I went to the PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in Schools)web site. I did not see any of those books, but these excellent books were on it: In Cold Blood - Capote, Truman
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - Kesey, Ken
One Hundred Years of Solitude - Garcia Marquez, Gabriel
Slaughterhouse Five - Vonnegut, Kurt
The Catcher in the Rye - Salinger, J.D.
The Chocolate War - Cormier, Robert

Mary C.

Greg - of course! - the Californian
--
"Brevity is the sole of wit!"

Is that because you think of it as something to keep always under foot?

You remind me of the many Pointy-Haired Boss management types who (in the words of Scott Adams in his *Dilbert* strip on Friday) "...pretend to add value" by mouthing the Business School platitude du jour every time they're confronted with an "issue" about which they haven't a clue.



--
"I am interested in the fact that you have unusually keen minds. However, that lays us open, and I am including myself in this, lays us open to dangers that don't hit the phlegmatic, the more stolid.

Unless we are able to predict, we are even more likely to be subjected to functional insanities than those around us.... There's a way out, there's something that we can do to protect ourselves, something that would protect the rest of the human race from the sort of things that are happening to them, and are going to happen to them.

It's very simple, and it's right down our alley: the use of the scientific method. I'm not talking about the scientific method used in the laboratory. The scientific method can be used to protect ourselves from serious difficulties of other sorts, getting our teeth smashed in, in our everyday life, twenty-four hours of the day.

I should say what I mean by the scientific method. Since I have to define it in terms of words, I can't be as clear as I might be if I were able to make an extensional definition. But I mean a comparatively simple thing by the scientific method: the ability to look at what goes on around you. Listen to what you hear, observe, note facts, delay your judgment, and make your own predictions. That's all there is, really, to the scientific method: to be able to distinguish facts from non-facts."

..-- Robert A. Heinlein, Guest of Honor Speech, 3rd World Science Fiction Convention (Denver, 1941)


Forget about books; learn about Diraq
1/5 of the American population cannot ID the US on a world map.

Miss South Carolina offers her solution to this problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

8 or 9: who cares?
I'd rather they'd asked the titles of books read in the last twelve months, then compiled a top ten list for Libs and for Cons. Now THAT would be interesting!

Pat Schroeder for president
When I was about twelve, and the ERA was trying to get passed, and Pat Schroeder ran for president, I was going to vote for her.

Huh. Now I'm grown and that makes me laugh, and so does her thinking about a poll.

Food for thought
Very early in my adulthood I didn't like to read. School prejudiced me against reading. The reading assignments were boring (The Great Gatsby), depressing (A Separate Peace), or downright annoying (The Catcher In The Rye - I deal with teenage jerks enough in real life, I don't need to get inside a teenage jerk's head, thank you very much). (Only as an adult could I appreciate that last one.) Most school reading falls into the boring category, although most are not as successful at it as Gatsby. I still don't remember anything from the novel other than the green light at the end of the pier and the car wreck.

I learned to like reading as an adult. I started withg sci-fi (esp. Robert A. Heinlein, Larry Niven) and moved on to other types of fiction and to nonfiction. I had to like reading in general before I could tackle difficult works such as Will Durant's History of Civilization (some of the most ponderous prose I've ever read) or Francis Schaeffer's philosophical writings.

Have schools figured out that kids need to learn to appreciate reading *first* before they are subjected to the challenging stuff? There's gotta be balance, otherwise reading assignments are just aversion therapy that alienates students from reading.

What is this
about?

How did a discussion on the reading habits of cons vs. libs degenerate into a hate Bush/Rove/FDR, etal...?

Most people I know who have met personally with President Bush come away with a complete different picture than that prsented by the "so-called" MSM "know-it-alls."

The idea that this nation needs a "military" man to be president is absurd. One of the major reasons to make the military subject to civilian control (and I can't believe you all don't know this) is to avoid the possibilty of military insurrection. As soon as we break that rule, we will start down the path that the Romans led; the Germans led, the Japanese led, and right now we see its danger everywhere in the world.

The President, as in Lincoln's time, tries to find a general who will WIN THE WAR!

President Bush respects the constitution! He has no plans to become the "DICTATOR!"

But it appears that many of you, not in just this thread, believe that the following will happen:

1. Bush will declare Martial Law.
2. He will suspend all civil rights.
3. He will close all State Offices.
4. He will confiscate every weapon of any kind.
5. He will suspend the 2008 general election.
6. He will tap every phone in the coutry.
7. He will put a 24 camera in every room of every house in the country.
8. He will annex Mexico and Canada.
9. He will use the atomic bomb on Iran, so the oil companies can profit.

I could go on forever, but the whole premise is as silly as the NAU, the "Bush setup the twin-towers conspiracy, and on and on.."

If the Pat S concept is true, then I guess that I did not read 59 books and study the scriptures daily; BUT I DID! And, I consider myself a conservative; but not a right/left wing nut, both are equally reprehensible.

God bless this nation, our service men, our unselfish civic leaders, and our President. I thank him for helping to avoid a much worse situation.

Are we talking
about political voters or those in office?
People who tend to vote liberal are much less likely to read books than conservatives. And there reading is limited to certain fields. Where as a conservative will read a broader array of fields.

For every 8 conservative readers, there are 5 liberals. That is voters only.

Also, the IQ of liberal voters is lower than conservatives

Why are we even......
paying attention to a simpleton such as Pat Schroeder?


Liberals
want America divided--a Conservative America & a Liberal America.
May be a good idea then the libs would have to pay us for their provisions--like food,housing & medical care.

Liberal thought
No Blood for Oil!

Bush lied, Kids died!

Impeach Chimpy McHalibushitler!

Just thought I'd throw out a couple of "paragraphs" of complex liberal thought.

Have a nice day.


Poll results: Libs also watch more TV
According to my informal survey of conservatives and liberals that I know personally 34% of the conservatives say they have not watched any TV in the past year compared to only 22% of liberals.

Those conservatives who do watch TV say they average about 8 hours per week compared to 9 hours per week for liberals.

From this I conclude that because more conservatives have real jobs or work as stay-at-home moms, whereas more liberals are either independently wealthy, unemployed, are students, are on welfare, or teach at college campuses, they have much more time to watch TV and read books.

I also conclude, based on the intellectual level of most TV (sixth grade), that those who are reading 9 books a year are reading books on the same intellectual level as the TV they watch and would thus be unqualified to make subjective assessments about the intellectuality of others even if they had sufficient data to make such an assessment, which they don't.

Here's my bumper sticker.

"Save the country. Convert a liberal.

lilly
In regards to mediamatters.com, I have been on that site and feel they do take things out of context. How would one know that they cite the entire question, etc unless one heard or read the question, etc?? My problem with the site is what they DON"T cover. It appears that many of the msm sites do not cover certain news. The biggest thus far is the lack of coverage of diane feinstien and her war profiteering hubby. Why wasn't that covered? Why don't they go after that instead of going after coverage they have a problem with?
Also, who backs this site? Rumor has it, george soros.
As for conservatives not trusting certain media outlets, you betcha. And I do believe the same can be said of the right.

books
Do 24 Spider Man comic books count???

Regarding my previous comment...
I wonder if home schoolers read more than public schoolers?

Comment
Someone finally posted the slogans that the self-styled "liberals" constantly mouth, the "Bush lied, kids died" one being the most prevalent. It surprised me that it took so long for someone to respond to Miss Schroder's idiocy about conservatives just having slogans whilst the "liberals" are so much more intellectual.

Also, someone wrote about Mr. Kerry, "Actually Kerry was discharged in around 1978. Makes you wonder how he managed to meet with the enemy and protest the war as a naval officer. Something fishy there, maybe?" If you do some research into the small portion of his military records that Mr. Kerry has made public, you will find that his honourable discharge is indeed dated in 1978, long after he left the Navy. This is the time period in which the execrable James Earl Carter instituted the practice of amnesty for draft dodgers, and, less known, upgrading of discharges for people who had less than honourable ones.
There is good reason to believe that Kerry's initial discharge was, at best, a General Discharge, and perhaps even "Other Than Honourable," although no one has suggestted it was dishonourable. Of course, his conduct in Paris with the enemy, and his lies to Congress about imagined atrocieties were grounds for the Court-Martial he should have received, but didn,t.
Finally, President Bush mispronounces "nuclear," the very same way that Mr. Carter did when he was President.

baseballdoc
The whole co-ruer thing was tried in ancient Rome, where there was a military emperor and a civilian emperor, but that type of realationship cannot work out. If you give one person the control of the military, then that ruler has the real power---especially if he has the loyalty of his commanders. He could easily launch a coup and seize power for himself; hey, he has the entire military apparatus at his disposal!

Our system is fine as-is; and I don't see where military experience has anything to do with being a good Commander in Chief. The best C-in-C's manage the wars, set the broad aims, and allow the commanders on the ground to do their jobs. It's worked for us all this time, there's no need to try changing it now.

wbheff
Carter should have known better, too, as he was a Anapolis grad who worked on nucyular subs.

"Bad" books
Lilly, while the website you referenced does exist, the books you said were listed there were not.

Yes, parents should be concerned about the reading materials to which their children are given access. It is called "parenting." It is the job of parents, not teachers or librarians.

Isn't it interesting that when a teacher or librarian decides which books should or should not be on the shelves, offered, etc., it is call SELECTION. When a parent or concerned citizen makes their wishes know, it is called CENSORSHIP.

Scary thought
I was a "two-time loser" where Mr. Carter is concerned, as I was a resident of Georgia when he was the Governor. He was abysmal as President, but the fact that he worked on the nucear submarines always made chills run up my spine! In retrospect, how lucky we were!

books I wrote but didn’t yet sell or giv
I didn’t read all the comments here today, if I did I would not have had time to read a book or two before breakfast.

My personal library contains a couple thousand books, and I have read most of them. Or at least my reading qualifies as if I read many of them.

You see, if you read ten books written by ten of the lefty dodos, you have in fact only read one, as they all say the same thing.

Using the reverse of that logic, since most of the books on my shelf were books I wrote but didn’t yet sell or give away, when I re-read one of my books, I have in effect read a few hundred books in my library. So there.

------
CapeConservative writes: Sunday, August, 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Numbers don't lie, but liars know numbers.
------

That’s fine, but I like, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

Reading
Daddy was a dirt track stock car racer when we were little, and Mama's family lived 2 days drive from us, so we spent a lot of time in the car. There were lots of us and we had no DVD player, no iPod, no radio, no cartoons and no Game Boys (it was the early 1950s). The last stop we made on our way out of town was the library. The back of the car would be piled with books and there would be no (and I do mean NO) talking because we had plenty to do. Our local library used to have a summer reading contest and when we took our list of books in every week, we would be examined upon random books we had listed so the librarian could be sure we had actually read them. (This being the Fifties, I got in a shouting match with one librarian who maintained that I could not have read a book because I, as a Girl, could not describe the prom dresses the girls wore -- although I could describe in minute detail the hot rods the boys were building.) I still read two or three books a week if I can find that many that are worth bringing home. This week I have finished The Mormon Murders (true crime) and am reading The Secret Garden and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, both my all time favourite books of which I never tire.

As for the sentence vs. paragraph reply thingy, as a writer I have been told by my agent and know to be true that it is easier to write a novel than a short story. Make someone put his thought into 500 words instead of 500 pages and you will see him sweat!

Let’s See
How many bestsellers have Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. written. IS IT LIBERALS THAT ARE BUYING THESE BOOKS? Schroeder is The Same Hatched Faced Hysterical Loon she was in Congress.

A new meaning to a well known word
Over seventy years ago I was reading a book written by Erle Stanley Gardner. I read a comment something like, “She finished her toilet.” Not knowing the dictionary definition of Toilet includes = The act or process of dressing or grooming oneself, I asked my Mother, why would he write something like that?

But I don’t think it really hurt me in any way, and my Mother got a kick out of my question and my reaction to a new meaning of a well known word.

I'm way behind...
many of the people on this site with regard to my personal reading. I've only read 9 books this year, all politics and history. Of course that doesn't include the 80 or so I have read with my daughter before bedtime. Or family/personal scripture study. Or time spent reading TH, HotAir, Kos (just for laughs, and they are abundant), WSJ etc. In my defense, I do work 2 jobs (50+ hrs weekly) despite technically being a stay-at-home dad.

My wife, on the other hand, kicks my rear in volume, but is lacking in substance. She reads 8-10 books (all paperback fiction) and watches 4 or 5 movies a week all while working full-time and studying for her CPA exam.

Other unanswered questions about poll
I have a couple of other observations about this poll:

How did they determine who was "liberal" and who was "conservative"?

I assume that the respondent simply self-identified.

Along this same line, how do we know that the Libs were not inflating their number? This would be in keeping with the personality type, no? Since liberal theology such as is exhibited by Shroeder, relies upon a feeling of superiority, what happens when a pollster asks such a person how many books they have read?

The lib is probably going to aggregate every type of book (you Brian Regan fans will know what I am talking about when I reference the sketch about the "Clock" book) they have read including comic, children's romance, etc. They don't want to appear stupid to the pollster so they tell them "nine" instead of the real number "none".

Meanwhile, conservatives will readily admit that they often stick to periodicals, journals, political web sites, for their reading material. They may even admit they do not get a lot of reading done at all because of family and job conflicts.

Personally, I don't read a lot of books because the ones I do read are long and/or often difficult generally in the philosophy and theology realms. Yes, I do pick up the odd Clancy, Crichton, or Flynn novel for those cross country plane trips but generally I stick to theology studies, historical treatises or science texts. It doesn't bother me to admit I am not a huge reader of novels because I don't place value on what other people think of my reading habits.

I know I am smarter, more well educated, have more wisdom and understanding that the average Lib and that is good enough for me. ;-)

off topic
Speaking of libs, those Krazy Kos Kids got so bunched up about jetblue removing the ads from their site last month. How do you think they are reacting to the jetblue banner ads on this site?

oldguy - sure, Spider Man counts
--
I credit Stan Lee and company as more innovative storytellers (and better characterists) than most of the writers on the MSM's best-seller lists.

Pertinent to the *number* of books that prominent people are alleged to read every year, I wonder just how many of these:

1) Are the kinds of "books" created by business clowns writing on laptops using PowerPoint or some other kind of presentation manager while waiting for a plane?

2) Are collections of newspaper columns or the Internet equivalent?

3) Are merely skimmed, not really read from cover to cover?

More importantly (especially if you're discussing matters with somebody who has to think and reason to get his/her job done), what are the names of the books that the individual *RE*-reads on something of a regular basis?

What are the wellsprings to which the reader returns, again and again?

(Note: The Bible and various other books of holy writ should be disqualified, inasmuch as these are works of faith, not ideas. Moreover, every hypocrite in the Western world smarms about how much he *LOVES* to read the Word of the Lord, and grabs for a Gideon's every time he drops his suitcase on a hotel bed.)
--

Self-report
One of the biggest flaws of this survey is that it's based on self-report. I can't possibly remember all the books I've read in the past 12 months, with the possible exception of the last two or three. It's got to be more than nine, but I couldn't come close to giving you the real number. And of the books I can remember reading "recently", exactly how long ago was it--did I read "Blue at the Mizzen" more or less than 12 months ago?

This survey may indeed mean that liberals read more books than conservatives, but it's just as likely that it means liberals are more full of s--t than conservatives.

wbheff - Jimmy Carter
--
"wbheff" said:

"He was abysmal as President, but the fact that he worked on the nucear submarines always made chills run up my spine! In retrospect, how lucky we were!"

Hey, look at it this way: if *HE* could be selected personally by Rickover and achieve command qualification in the submarine service, just what d'you think that says about the truly idiot-proof safety of nuclear power?

--

Why this issue is nothing but nonsense
This whole issue, which is breathtakingly idiotic, doesn't mean anything because the so-called "survey" is entirely self-reported. So we don't really know who the "liberals" and the "conservativs" are, and we have no idea what kinds of books they actually read. I can't believe anyone spent more than a few minutes on this non-topic.

Johnny Cash, Bob Hope, and Pres. Reagan
SJ Doc writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 4:38 PM
wbheff - Jimmy Carter
--
"wbheff" said:
"He ( Carter) was abysmal as President,
-----------

Its almost funny, but we visited Yugoslavia while Carter was President, and we arrived there just a few days after he had visited Yugoslavia. We were told over and over that no one there liked him.

We visited many countries during 25 years, spending nearly 1,000 nights in Europe. Everyone loved Reagan. I could fill a book with the comments in his favor. People in Europe still remember and love Pres. Reagan.

One year in France, I asked 47 people (actual count), and 45 were thumbs up for Reagan, and about half were thumbs up for Mitterrand.

In 1985 while we were eating lunch in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, a well dressed gentleman told us a joke — “In America you have Johnny Cash, Bob Hope, and President Reagan. In Sweden we have no cash, no hope, and Parliament.”

Again in 1985, in Buna, Yugoslavia, we met a lady from England, who was an elected official with the Labor Party. She had recently visited a college in New York City, and said everyone there hated President Reagan, and he was going to be impeached. I told her, “Going to a college in New York City to learn about the political health of the US, is like going to a Doctor for a physical exam, and he only looks at your armpits.” And I was being polite when I said “armpits.” (This story was published as a “Letter to the Editor” in the Los Angeles Times.)

In Évzoni, Greece, when we stopped for fuel, the station owner heard us speaking English, so he smiled and mentioned “Margaret,” meaning Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain. When I said, “California” and “President Bush,” the Greek really liked that. And he liked it even more when I said “President Reagan.” Quite a nonverbal conversation — well, a few words, but mostly gestures. (1989)

I better give up for now!!!

Lesson from this survey:
Next time Ipsos calls (do Conservatives even get called in these polls?) do what the liberals do, double the number of books you actually read in the last year and tell them that number.



its good to be abnormal!
Hooray!!! I am not average! I read roughly 2-4 books a month and would read more if I had the time. I especially like some of the more obscure writers of the past, such as Francis Burney and Wilkie Collins. I love history books also. Come to think of it there isn't much that I don't read, except for paper back romances(I don't like those) I had no idea that my fellow Americans read so little.





Suggested Reading for Ms. Schroeder
Perhaps Pat should read The Nature of Prejudice by Gordon W. Allport. I bought this book over thirty years ago and is still proudly displayed in my library (over 1,500 books, 90 percent non-fiction). I guess I beat the average. Ms. Schroeder should not come to rash conclusions for they are usually wrong.

Bush IS an idiot!
Whether he reads books or not is irrelevant. As Debra says, he could read books on history or he could read romance novels. And based on his decisions on Iraq, he may well have been reading romance novels.

Nowhere is it more clear that he simply never conceived of the complexities associated with such a mission. Sure he can repeat pithy phrases: "You are either with us or against us," "Mission Accomplished." But it takes a lot more than that to secure a nation that has had internal feuds for generations.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. We are winning the war in Iraq. Silly me. I should be listening to Hannity instead of watching ABC News. What? They are produced by the same company? Dumb liberal!

The post just above
is so replete with inanities and sophisms that it is not even worth the bits used to write it.

Suffice to say, we ARE winning in Iraq. That is now patently obvious.

Hey liberals,
reading "Harry Potter" doesn't count as actually reading!

sjduck, oops doc
Your quote:


(Note: The Bible and various other books of holy writ should be disqualified, inasmuch as these are works of faith, not ideas. Moreover, every hypocrite in the Western world smarms about how much he *LOVES* to read the Word of the Lord, and grabs for a Gideon's every time he drops his suitcase on a hotel bed.)

End of quote
**********
Every well written book is a book of ideas. Do you read books that give you no ideas? Let me know their titles and authors!

Maybe you get no ideas because you can't think??

Everything anyone does that requires action, must first have that terrible concept, "faith."

Do you rise each morning and have a belief (faith) that you expect to return that night?

Do any of the books you read say anything about the ability of man to do great things, if they have some form of faith?

By the way, if you rely on the Gideon Bible, you are missing much by not having your own scriptures.

You do appear to need a little help; I hope you get it soon.

God bless you and your family!

can't think for..
Gee, your ability to express a well thoughtout discussion is awesome. Where did you learn such powerful words; for example "IDIOT!"

I hope you are not Christian, please say your not so I can sleep peacefully. Because, if you are, you are in danger.

Look it UP!

Christ said, "he (or she, btw) who calls his brother Raca is in danger of hell fire." And He further taught that all men are brothers.

Now, what does "Raca" mean? According to the Jewish dictionary it implies that using that designation implies your brother is an idiot.

Therefore, a true Christian would not use that word, but if he did he should apologize and seek foregiveness.

If this is contrary to your "faith" don't bother to defend yourself. You might want to examine your own sense of civility, however.

Tenore2 - articles of faith...
--
...are, by their nature, not susceptible to reasoned analysis. Either one believes in something or he/she does not.

Except for the scholarly study of aspects such as historical correlations, there's not a whole helluva lot that can be done with any kind of holy writ, whether it's one or another expurgation of the Bible, a sura in the Koran, a Buddhist sutra, whatever. They're all equal in their objective veracity, and none any more amenable to verification and validation than any other.

You may have beliefs in common with another person...

No, scratch that. You may *think* that you share beliefs with somebody else. Neither of you, however, has any way to solidly confirm that.

You've got to take it on faith, don'tcha?

Sharing concepts manifest in concrete realities is far more robust. You can get down to proofs that are accessible to the reasoning ability that is a universal capacity in the human race.

(Admittedly, it takes purposeful effort for a person to reason, and the great majority of human beings get themselves a genuine Mr. Gumby "My brain hurts!" moment if they're obliged to do it, but the capability is still there.)

Articles of faith (and the holy writ in which such statements are conveyed) "hit the wall" at the ineffability of the mind and will of the deity.

"...whatever you perceive him to be: hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin."


--
"BETHANY: Having beliefs isn't good?

"RUFUS: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

..-- Kevin Smith, (screenplay) *Dogma* (1999)

FOWG, on the nail!
You wrote: "It occurs to me that liberals need a lot of words to express a thought...".

Plus, many liberals believe that extreme wordiness can cover-up the absence of relevance.

Harry Potter for liberals?
The same Harry Potter where children as young as eleven are allowed to carry loaded wands to school? Not exactly a Sara Brady kind of message.

Huh?
What about KISS? Is that liberal dogma?

sjdoc
This is getting out of hand; what do you really "know?"

Except for the things you can touch, fell, hear or taste, everything else is a mstter of faith. You cannot see electricity, but you canfeel its effect under the right conditions.

You cannot see and atom but the results of what an atom can do can be seen.

You cannot feel the Spirit of God unless the conditions are right. Thus I can say that I know since I have experienced it under the proper conditions.

Do I expect you to believe this? NO; but you could if put yourselfin a condition that would allow for the experience.

Other than that, I can't disagree with the general tone of your comments. We all know what we know, but we don't know what another knows.

Keep the FAITH!

Tenore - forget using the atom...
--
...as your example of "that which is not seen" and get right down to particle physics, why don'tcha?

Quarks, now....

Only the scientifically illiterate could possibly spout about how "Except for the things you can touch, feel, hear or taste, everything else is a mstter of faith. You cannot see electricity, but you can feel its effect under the right conditions."

Even a GP (board certified as such before we started calling ourselves "family physicians") knows better than to concede to a religious whackjob the "take it on faith" message.

If I go by your premises - that I can't find objective and verifiable evidence of real physical phenomena on the basis of diagnostic evidence beyond what I can directly "touch, feel, hear or taste," then I have to write off every ECG tracing, every x-ray, every lab study, every NMRI scan.

And I'm not even going to dignify what this would do to my ability to check a urine specimen for glucose.

I don't care what Hippocrates used to do. CMS payment rates for that particular CPT-4 code just are *NOT* enough to persuade me.

Do you realize that the way you're describing putting oneself in the condition required to "feel the Spirit of God" sounds like the dopers talking about what they claimed to get out of LSD, psilocibin, and/or cane toad licking back in the '60s?

What's the difference between religious faith and the deliberate induction of mental impairment by other means?


--
"LADY CLAIRE: How do you know you're God?

"EARL OF GURNEY: Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself."

-- Peter Barnes (screenplay) *The Ruling Class* (1972)

Ah, Politics and Religion
gotta love it.

The Bible is, in the case of the Old Testament, a book of history and prophesy. The history is accurate and much of it can be verified. It is also about men and women of faith. It talks about how their faith (or lack thereof) moved mountains (or resulted in the mountains falling on them, depending on the situation.)

The New Testament is also a book of history (especially in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (AKA the second Gospel of Luke). It is also about leading a Christian life, something I don't expect non-Christians to care about or follow.

The only thing non-Christians need to take away from the Bible is the prophetic portions for these are where you can do some study to find out if the Bible is the Word of God. Once you do a little reading and study you will find out that it is full of prophesies that have been fulfilled to the letter. The only way that can be possible is if it was authored by a being who lives outside of time (i.e is of extraterrestrial origin).

Since this is demonstrably the case, then the educated non-believer has a responsibility to himself and his legacy to consider the ramifications of a book that is self-evidently not of manmade origin. Those ramifications are staggering.

Skip over the parts about faith or about obedience to God, those parts are not there for you, the unbeliever. The prophesy is there for all of us to consider as it is God's way of proving that the Bible is HIS word and not that of men.

If the Bible is the only book you read this year it will be the most important thing you ever do.



Zaphod, Zaphod, you've gotta stop...
--
...knocking your heads together.

Sez beeblebrox:

"Skip over the parts about faith or about obedience to God, those parts are not there for you, the unbeliever. The prophesy is there for all of us to consider as it is God's way of proving that the Bible is HIS word and not that of men."

Sure, all the prophecies in the Bible "came true."

With careful after-the-event editing by various renditions of the Judeochristian "Ministry of Truth," why shouldn't they?



--
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes."

..-- Isaac Asimov

Gee whiz, doc
Boy do you have a bad case of flue, or a bad itch in your fanny, or just hate the world?

For your information, I have some education; but, that of itself never brought me any comfort about 1) Where I came from; 2) Why am I here and 3) where am I going? (You can replace "I" with "YOU" if you wish.)

Your being a doctor and running urine tests is impressive, but Christ's resurrection trumps that. Of course you can't accept that, right? If I'm wrong please enlighten me.

As a father of 5, including a beautiful autistic daughter, and having been blessed with 21 grandchildern, I have learned something about life that can't be found in a test tube, a blood test, or an X-ray, or....you name it.

I make no apologies for my faith, I feel grateful and blessed to have had a spiritual experience that I can never deny.

Doctors, like all of us, are actually capable of making mistakes. That includes a doctor who told me I had cancer (I'm 76); the worst of this was the impact on my wife, children, grandchildren and close friends. It turns out that I have to fire the doctor; I DON'T have cancer as was confirmed by a specialist; ONE not of my faith, but a man of deep spiritual conviction.

So, medicine man, learn a little humility!

The Jews rewrote OT to promote Jesus?
SJDoc writes:

"Sure, all the prophecies in the Bible "came true." With careful after-the-event editing by various renditions of the Judeochristian "Ministry of Truth," why shouldn't they?"

Spoken like a true novice on the subject.

No offense Doc but you come off as totally unlearned on the subject of Biblical prophecy. Are you aware Doc, that the Old Testament (written and beloved by Jews to this day) foretells of Christ's birth in ways that could have never been changed "after the fact".

Let's test your apparent sweeping knowledge of Scripture Doc; where do you find this paragraph in the Bible:

"Man appointed mortal sorrow, the Blessed God shall come down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing comfort."

This is a direct translation from the Hebrew so it doesn't flow naturally off the English tongue. Still, it does appear to be the core truth of the Christian gospel no?

In case you were not able to identify where this is found in the Bible, it so happens that it is buried in the genealogy recorded in Genesis 5. That's right. Evidently the Jewish scribes conspired to write "after the event" the Christian Gospel in the names of the first 10 men mentioned in the Bible:

Adam means Man
Seth means Appointed
Enosh means Mortal
Kenan means Sorrow
Mahalalel means The Blessed God
Jared means Shall come down
Enoch means Teaching
Methuselah means His death shall bring
Lamech means The despairing
Noah means Rest (or comfort)

The Bible is full of such mysteries that could NEVER have been invented by man, prior to or "after the event".

Check it out. You'll be amazed!

For a more thorough explanation of the Gospel in the Genesis Geneology go to http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/284/


Tenore2, seeking comfort
--
Consider the value of people whose first priority isn't "comfort," spiritual or otherwise, about ineffable origins, blind alley speculations about personal purpose, or the putative postmortem placement of one's persona.

"I make no apologies for my faith, I feel grateful and blessed to have had a spiritual experience that I can never deny."

Can't *CONFIRM* it either, can you?

Look, you can feel anything and everything you want. In the words of the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Just don't attempt to legislate your feelings - and nothing *but* your feelings - into the civil or criminal codes, and we'll get along just fine.


--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."

..-- Isaac Asimov


Too many gargleblasters, Zaphod?
--
Sez Beeblebrox:

"No offense Doc but you come off as totally unlearned on the subject of Biblical prophecy."

Uninterested, certainly. Alas, "unlearned" isn't demonstrable on my curriculum vitae. Beyond a dozen years of parochial schooling, the Jesuits' curriculum back during my college days required a minor in theology and philosophy. I've had a surfeit of education in religion, with exegetic exercises in Christian holy writ sufficient to sicken.

Your masturbatory indulgences in Biblical bilge is (to you) "full of such mysteries" as shock and awe your sensibilities because (and in all likelihood *only* because) they support your desire to believe that you've got a special handle on something bigger, grander, and more important than yourself.

Hm. Probably true. Bigger, certainly, than your own confidence in your personal ability to reason effectively.

So how do you feel about astrology, the kabbalah, and tantra?

--
"When we see the studied craft of the Scripture-makers, in making every part of this romantic book of schoolboy's eloquence bend to the monstrous idea of a Son of God begotten by a ghost on the body of a virgin, there is no imposition we are not justified in suspecting them of. Every phrase and circumstance is marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter and the top of every page are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read."

..-- Thomas Paine, *The Age of Reason* (1794-1807)

Doc of Law:
Your words of wisdom:

"Just don't attempt to legislate your feelings - and nothing *but* your feelings - into the civil or criminal codes, and we'll get along just fine."

When I use the word "feel" it is personal; it has nothing to do with criminal, or civil law. It should be obvious; laws are means of defining and controlling inter-personal relationships. Are you also a lawyer?

You seem to feel that it is okay to cherry pick when quoting your anti-god sources. First of all, if Thomas Jefferson made such a statement then so what? How does that bear in the subject?

Oh, I know, forgot; don't foist my evil ways on you. Please; neither I nor any true Chistian I know wishes to control your life.

As to Mr. Paine! While a brilliant man, he is still a man! His "wisdom" is based on his "feelings" that Christ could not be born of a virgin. He can't prove anything, its his faith!

Well, I understand his concern. That's why I have spent a lifetime seeking answers. I have found them and neither you nor Paine can deny them as they apply to me and to so many others I know.

Now, what proof do you have that God does not exist and does not govern the universe? I'm asking for demonstrable proof, not your "feelings." And, quoting another aethist does not suffice as proof. It must be provable in a test tube or by a "scientific" experiment.

Prove God does NOT exist! Everything I can observe shows an orderly world and universe. If you are, in fact, a doctor, doesn't the human body give you some measure of respect?

If it doesn't, I pity your patients, if you have any. By the way, prove you are a doctor!

Tenore2 - flunked logic, too, didn'tcha?
--
Or you were never even superficially exposed to the principles of logical reasoning. Pathognomonic of such a characteristic is your dead-from-the-neck-up demand that an opponent in dispute should prove a negative position.

Can't be done. Indeed, it doesn't *NEED* to be done. The burden of proof is always on the party advancing the positive assertion (e.g., "God exists and I know *exactly* what level of the fiery furnace into which He's going to chuck you").

To which the proper response is always: "Yeah, whatever. Prove it."

If this level of incompetence in baseline reasoning function is the best you've been able to achieve in "a lifetime seeking answers," you'd best abandon Christianity and convert to Buddhism.

You're going to need a few more reincarnations.

The quotations I occasionally insert are there simply because something or other about the subject reminds me of something I'd read in the past. Whether or not you perceive its pertinence to the matter at hand is (to me) irrelevant.

When I'm not writing for pay, I'm writing for my personal pleasure. If you're interested in having me write something to *your* standards, we'll agree a proposal and set up an invoicing arrangement.



--
"What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

..-- Robert A. Heinlein

SJDoc swallows a thesaurus
Dear SJ Doc,

If you are so "uninterested" then you should have avoided bringing up the subject in the first place. You see, that's the way these forums work. A person posits a position and other people agree or disagree. You don't get to throw bombs and then come back and blythly say you are no longer interested in the very subject you brought up.

Diminishing your credibility further, NOTHING you have written demonstrates you have the least clue about the prophetic nature of the Bible. Informing us how much education you have on the subject means precisely ZERO to the rest of us if you can't show you can engage in the debate.

A DEMONSTRATION that you know about the subject is all that counts. In this regard, I have seen more robust debate from people totally ignorant of Christianity than I am seeing with you and that is regrettable because you appear to want people to be think that you are highly knowledgeable. If that is your goal, may I suggest that a more effective technique would be silence?

-B

P.S. I notice that you skillfully avoided addressing the Gospel in the Genesis 5 Genealogy issue I raised that effectively disproves your thesis about "after the event" rewriting of history.

Beeblebrox
The good doctor now wants to be paid!!!

I'm dying of suppressed laughter.

Not only did he not answer your question re: Genesis 5, he never offered any proof that he is a real doctor.

Now, I don't know whether he is or not, but with his attitude, I sure hope no one I know is one of his patients.

Sometime, if interested, visit my blog; I'm trying to build a forum where people of any religious persuasion can discuss their beliefs with mutual repect.

(That even includes the "doc" but he won't be paid for it!)

I have enjoyed your posts. Even though we probably have different faiths, I respect them. The doctor I mentioned in one of my ealier posts relative to a correction in the cancer diagnosis (see doc, I can spell) is a Zoroastrian. His wife is Lutheran and his children belong to another Christian Church. Since there are so few Zoroastrians in the world he wanted his family to have a religious foundation. Good Man!


Basic incompetence
Let me note that both parties have their share of pinheads -- partisans who not only do not think, but also do not want to.

This is one of the significant differences between Conservatives and the left. Conservatives will acknowledge there are weak links in the chain and will often critize those whose actions and comments are deemed unacceptable. The left pretends no such "weak link" exists among their mob. As for their critizing unacceptable behavior, that is an almost non-existent event.

all that is really proven is...
...by this poll is Conservatives are busy working for a living and Cliff notes and pop-up books should not be counted.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.