Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Did you mean to say that the political center of gravity of every other western nation is way to the left of the US?

Yes

A lone case, or an indication of a general attitude in Europe, or something in between?


The following is posted without intention of infringement or profit for discussion only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html


Outrage as Oxford bans student for being Israeli
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 29/06/2003)




An Oxford University professor has provoked outrage by rejecting an application from an Israeli PhD student purely because of his nationality.

Andrew Wilkie, the Nuffield professor of pathology and a fellow of Pembroke College, is under investigation after telling Amit Duvshani, a student at Tel Aviv university, that he and many other British academics were not prepared to take on Israelis because of the "gross human rights abuses" he claims that they inflict on Palestinians.

Prof Wilkie made the comments after Mr Duvshani, 26, wrote to him requesting the opportunity to work in Prof Wilkie's laboratory towards a PhD thesis. Mr Duvshani, who is in the last months of a master's degree in molecular biology, included a CV detailing his academic and outside experience, including his mandatory three-year national service in the Israeli army.

In a reply sent by email on June 23, Prof Wilkie wrote: "Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they [the Palestinians] wish to live in their own country.

"I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another lab if you look around."

Mr Duvshani told The Telegraph that he was shocked by the email. Speaking from his home in Tel Aviv, he said: "I was appalled that such a distinguished man could think something like that. I did not expect it from a British professor. I sent similar applications all round Europe and did not have another response like that. Science and politics should be separate. This is discrimination."

Mr Duvshani said he would not be put off coming to Britain, because "I think there are better people than him there". He said, however, that he was unlikely to accept any position offered by Oxford University.

Mr Duvshani had no further contact from Prof Wilkie or from the university after receiving the email. When this newspaper contacted the university on Friday, however, a spokesman said that she was aware of the email following a complaint from academics who had seen it.

That evening, the university issued a statement from Prof Wilkie apologising to Mr Duvshani and making clear that he was not speaking on behalf of Oxford. The spokesman said that the university was investigating Prof Wilkie and added: "Freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet of university life but under no circumstances are we prepared to accept or condone conduct that appears to, or does, discriminate against anyone on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, either directly or indirectly."

A report into the matter will be presented to Sir Colin Lucas, the Vice-Chancellor, later this week and Prof Wilkie could face disciplinary action or even dismissal.

Speaking from his home in Oxfordshire last night, Prof Wilkie apologised "unreservedly" for his actions. "I made a mistake," he said. "The email was inappropriate. I expressed personally-held opinions that have nothing to do with Oxford University and they should not have been expressed in that manner. I have learned a lesson.

"I have a view on the situation in the Middle East but I am not a racist or anti-Semitic. I just want to draw a line under the whole thing."

The professor, who was elected Nuffield professor of pathology last month, said that he could understand the distress and anger felt by Mr Duvshani. When asked if he would look again at the student's application for a PhD, he replied "absolutely" and added that he "entirely accepted" the university's equal opportunities and race equality policies.

A series of attempts have been made to isolate Israeli scholars in protest at their country's operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In Britain, calls for an academic boycott have been led by Steven Rose, an Open University professor.

Last year the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology was forced to hold an inquiry after The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Mona Baker, a professor, had sacked two Israeli academics from the editorial boards of two journals because of their nationality.

A Umist inquiry found that Prof Baker had not acted improperly under its rules because the journals she owns were not connected to the university.

Giles Henderson, the master of Pembroke College, said of Prof Wilkie's case: "The college will await the outcome of the university's investigation."

Additional reporting by Charlotte Edwardes

Links to to articles about baby booms in Germany and France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3037942.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2664041.stm

Millie peers in Western Europe?

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

The Europeans-how much of their viewpoint is based on the neurotic need to have somebody (about which they most likely know little) to look down on? ***

The Europeans-how much of their viewpoint is based on the neurotic need to have somebody (about which they most likely know little) to look down on? ***

The Europeans-how much of their viewpoint is based on the neurotic need to have somebody (about which they most likely know little) to look down on? ***

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

Indeed, HC. Indeed. However, it is interesting that the bitterest bile poured out on the US came from Americans. Kinda reminds me of the situation in the miniseries 'Amerika', back in the 80s, where the Soviet Occupation Forces had almost as much of a problem with their American Quislings as they did with the American Resistance. Why? The Soviets desired a nice, orderly transition to a neo-Stalinist system in America, while the Quislings wanted to do to America what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia, during their brief time in power in that country.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

Indeed, HC. Indeed. However, it is interesting that the bitterest bile poured out on the US came from Americans. Kinda reminds me of the situation in the miniseries 'Amerika', back in the 80s, where the Soviet Occupation Forces had almost as much of a problem with their American Quislings as they did with the American Resistance. Why? The Soviets desired a nice, orderly transition to a neo-Stalinist system in America, while the Quislings wanted to do to America what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia, during their brief time in power in that country.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Make of this what you will.

The following is quoted without intention of infringement or profit for the sole purpose of discussion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8816


A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003



BRUSSELS More than 100 European intellectuals, political officials and bureaucrats gathered here last month to discuss how to deal with George W. Bush's America. They saw themselves as representatives of the civilized world meeting to determine how to best control, or at least counteract, the influence of the United States "before it is too late."
In their view, almost all the evil in today's world today can be traced directly or indirectly to the United States, or to the system of nation states that make the existence of the United States possible. They dream of a world in which nation-states gradually give way to a world government run by enlightened folks such as themselves. In the interim, though, they would be satisfied if the United States would just behave in ways they deem reasonable.

That would mean, of course, accepting their enlightened advice on nearly everything. Their notion is as follows: We will lead the worldwide effort to make the Kyoto Treaty a reality, join the International Criminal Court and start channeling our resources and wealth into poorer nations because, well, we are just too darned rich.

They feel that the Western world was moving in the right direction under President Clinton but that Bush has thrown a real monkey wrench into the works. They fear that he just doesn?t seem capable of looking "beyond" the "narrow" interests of his own country. Thus, the man poses a real danger to the world or at least to the role in it that they have reserved for themselves.

One participant went so far as to list the dangers facing "Planet Earth." They are, he said, "Terrorism, global warming, HIV/AIDS and George W. Bush." It seemed clear to me that he was listing them in ascending order of importance.

One had the distinct impression that these folks were much happier before the collapse of the Soviet empire because they really like it when the United States is in trouble or tied down. Some of them even seemed almost gleeful that we are still facing armed attack in Iraq, and most don?t seem to mind that we rather than they are going to have to deal with the lunatics currently running North Korea.

A Middle Eastern prince suggested that it is unlikely we will ever do the right thing because CNN actually showed footage of U.S. troops praying before going into battle in Iraq -- something we would not have allowed to be shown if we truly respected the religious beliefs of his part of the world.

Many of the attendees would love to see the United States taken down a peg simply because we are bigger, richer and more influential than the likes of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and because our agenda differs from their own. They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

The motives of American attendees operating essentially as enablers are harder to understand. Their condemnation of their own country was invariably harsher than that of the Europeans. They tended to portray the United States in the worst possible light and shared the European disgust that potentially so great a nation could harbor the likes of Bush and his Republican cohorts, people who, if one were to believe them, apparently spend most of their time plotting wars against everyone else.

In the midst of all that, a Russian attendee managed to make his way to the microphone. He said that he?d grown up under the communists before the collapse of the Soviet Union and was struck by the similarity of the attacks on America he was hearing from these people and the attacks he read day after day in Pravda.

One of the organizers of the conference countered that he was glad the communists at least understood America and was applauded for saying it.

That may have said it all.

Indeed, HC. Indeed. However, it is interesting that the bitterest bile poured out on the US came from Americans. Kinda reminds me of the situation in the miniseries 'Amerika', back in the 80s, where the Soviet Occupation Forces had almost as much of a problem with their American Quislings as they did with the American Resistance. Why? The Soviets desired a nice, orderly transition to a neo-Stalinist system in America, while the Quislings wanted to do to America what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia, during their brief time in power in that country.

In The Next American Nation Michael Lind wrote that American intellectuals are contemptuous of the aspirations of their countrymen. As a group they seem to lack a generosity of spirit. On the other hand, in that (Winter '99/2000) National Interest article it was commented that Jacksonians are suspiscious of elites. There is no meeting of minds here, and historically American intellectuals have had relatively little influence-they don't get the deference that their egos would demand. Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them? Do I?...no.) ***

In The Next American Nation Michael Lind wrote that American intellectuals are contemptuous of the aspirations of their countrymen. As a group they seem to lack a generosity of spirit. On the other hand, in that (Winter '99/2000) National Interest article it was commented that Jacksonians are suspiscious of elites. There is no meeting of minds here, and historically American intellectuals have had relatively little influence-they don't get the deference that their egos would demand. Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them? Do I?...no.) ***

In The Next American Nation Michael Lind wrote that American intellectuals are contemptuous of the aspirations of their countrymen. As a group they seem to lack a generosity of spirit. On the other hand, in that (Winter '99/2000) National Interest article it was commented that Jacksonians are suspiscious of elites. There is no meeting of minds here, and historically American intellectuals have had relatively little influence-they don't get the deference that their egos would demand. Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them? Do I?...no.) ***

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?

Speaking only for myself, @#$% NO!!!

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?

Speaking only for myself, @#$% NO!!!

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?

Speaking only for myself, @#$% NO!!!

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?) ***

As a rule, no. There are a few exceptions, but those tend precisely to be the few 'Jacksonian-leaning' intellectuals in academia.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?) ***

As a rule, no. There are a few exceptions, but those tend precisely to be the few 'Jacksonian-leaning' intellectuals in academia.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Sounds like Boomers, doesn't it? (As for European elites-do the Jacksonians have any use for them?) ***

As a rule, no. There are a few exceptions, but those tend precisely to be the few 'Jacksonian-leaning' intellectuals in academia.

Quoted from 'A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee'
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003


They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

I've thought of one other item that, IMO, no doubt reinforces that view amongst continental Europeans, rightly or otherwise - the fact that this country was initially settled by, and from, an island nation just off the northern coast of France and the Low Countries, which peoples like the French and Italians thought of for several centuries as being (at best!) on the very outermost fringes of the civilized world.

Quoted from 'A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee'
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003


They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

I've thought of one other item that, IMO, no doubt reinforces that view amongst continental Europeans, rightly or otherwise - the fact that this country was initially settled by, and from, an island nation just off the northern coast of France and the Low Countries, which peoples like the French and Italians thought of for several centuries as being (at best!) on the very outermost fringes of the civilized world.

Quoted from 'A Conclave of Intellectuals Schooled at Pravda's Knee'
By David Keene
The Hill | July 9, 2003


They see us, as many European intellectuals have since the 18th century, as unsophisticated rubes who escaped Europe and European civilization to set up shop across the Atlantic and then had the impudence to build a successful nation to which they have at times had to look for help.

I've thought of one other item that, IMO, no doubt reinforces that view amongst continental Europeans, rightly or otherwise - the fact that this country was initially settled by, and from, an island nation just off the northern coast of France and the Low Countries, which peoples like the French and Italians thought of for several centuries as being (at best!) on the very outermost fringes of the civilized world.

More than 13,000 have died in France because the temperature there was about 40C for two weeks on end. That is the sort of death toll in proporation to the population my Victoria suffered in similar sorts of heatwaves in 1908 and 1939, when air conditioners were not common place, now they are. If 2 weeks of 40C plus temperatures came to Victoria next summer, I can't see the death toll being over 1,000.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu...ave/index.html