I couldn't care less about Ayer's opinion on the Boston bombing. Wait, let me make that more succinct: I couldn't care less about Ayer's opinion.

The language used in last sentence of the clarification is worded in the manner of the modern apology, i.e. not actually apologizing for one's actions/words, but apologizing that people didn't like it: "The Editors feel that the impression that some have gotten from Ayres and Donohue's Reply piece is incorrect, unfortunate, and unwarranted. The Editors regret the confusion."

I don't know if you can draw that conclusion either. The clarification states: " Dr. Lott had asked the Editors that his name be removed in response to a continuing disagreement between him and the Review over certain revisions that Profs. Ayres and Donohue had made in the course of editing their paper." It does not clarify what revisions were made nor their implication.

And the conscious decision to NOT have any oversight on these death mills is just one more facet of what makes this so abominable. Given the nanny state mentality seen in so many other aspects of medicine and life in general these days, it's hard to view the Left's behavior with regard to both the very young an the very old as anything other than a eugenics-driven agenda.

So true, and yet so irrelevant to this article.

What part of PUBLIC educational institution confuses you?

On the contrary, may the faculty at UNCW and elsewhere understand EXACTLY why UNCW lost and ponder the stupidity of their actions.

At a guess I'd say: 1) He wishes to teach at UNCW 2) He does not wish to become one of the many teachers that are bullied into silence instead of standing up for their rights. 3) If this is not an appropriate situation to pursue a person's legal right of free speech, what *is* the appropriate situation?

Being chosen as a vice-presidential candidate is not much of a yardstick. Joe Biden comes to mind...

Maybe because they're the ones sponsoring the " 'Capitol Wellness Expo' happening on Capitol Hill this week"?