Ken, you might want to check back on that page re Hitler. I did not write the piece to which you refer.
It was written by a fella named John Ray and merely posted on the oz-aware site for the convenience of readers.
All of which has no relevance to its validity which each will judge for themself.
Reading your response made me recall that scene in that book about the girl possessed by "the devil" (The Exorcist). When the priest comes to exorcise that devil it goes ballistic because it innately knows that the priest is calm and unswayable and represents an ultimate truth and purity that transcends all other.

In other words, "the devil" goes beserk because it knows there's nothing it can do to ultimately prevail against decency.

When I see leftists hurling epithets and ad hominems at those whose views contradict theirs, and whose views represent truth and ultimate decency, then I see that metaphor in action.

I see it disturbingly many times---which reminds me that indeed "the barbarians are inside the gates".

Take care Ken--you may literally "know not what you do".

Moving along to Grace's comment re 'distinguished academics':

Being somewhat more familiar with the workings of the human mind than most, I'll share with you a certain psychological concept. The danger of being out of touch with reality is that one may well be confronted by that selfsame reality. When that happens, the individual's mind simply does not know how to 'process' the incoming information.

It then 'hangs', much like a computer does when there's data or programming conflict. The fancy word for that is 'catatonic'.

That is essentially all that happened to those "most distinguished academics from Harvard, Princeton, MIT and elsewhere". They had always been out of touch with reality and could not deal with it when it confronted them.

You don't believe 'distinguished academics' would fall victim to such human failings? ` Perhaps they are even more likely to. Read (and shake your head in amazement)about MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins---- (quote) a woman “at the peak of the academic pyramid”----being overcome by the “vapors” upon hearing an “unwelcome idea.” Like a “Victorian maiden,” she collapsed waiting to be “revived . . . by the offending brute’s contrition” (unquote) at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/cc20050209.shtml

(Note, Ken, also not a piece written by myself...)

Just because someone has been 'distinguished' by his/her peers does not automatically mean he/she and his/her peers are not a bunch out of touch with reality. Read "The Closing of the American Mind" (a book) by Professor Allan Bloom and you'll better understand that the more formally educated a person becomes, the more likely (but not always!) he/she will become...to put it succinctly...an idiot.

Ever heard of Peter Singer?

And finally, BOAZ, when Ken said "ribid" he meant not "rabid" but "ribit".

As in "ribit, ribit.....ribit, ribit....."

OZ....
yes.. salient point 'ribit' :)
and.. Peter Singer.. a great example !!!! a wonderful monument !!!
a classic incarnation !!!! a stupendous manifestation....of where atheistic existentialism leads. "Cull the sick oldies.. (GRACE !!! watchout for Singers balaclava clad goons).. 'put down' the downes sydrome kids,..etc etc..

yes.. as u said.."idiot"

What I term the new-age, cultural warrior approach to teaching is not restricted to English. Study of society and the environment is also a concern as noted in the following extract from my book.

A more recent example of a PC curriculum is the Queensland SOSE document that became the centre of a good deal of public debate after its release in early 2000. In fact, such was the strength of the public outcry that the Director-General of Education was forced to establish a review committee to investigate the complaints raised. In summary, the Queensland document was attacked for its uncritical left-wing view of studies of society and environment and the fact that it adopted the worst excesses of an outcomes-based approach to curriculum. The key values outlined in the SOSE document (p 4) include:

democratic processes;
social justice;
ecological and economic sustainability;
peace.

As with the original national SOSE profile, such values are interpreted from a distinctive left-wing, new-age perspective. In line with a socially critical, postmodern view of education, students are taught :

that “knowledge is always tentative”,
that they should “deconstruct dominant views of society” and “critique the socially constructed elements of text”,
“how privilege and marginalisation are created and sustained in society”, and
how “the consumer of a text is positioned and the possibility of who may have been marginalised by authors”.

Whereas education was once based on the assumption that there are some absolutes (truth telling, equal justice for all and the need for tolerance and compassion) in the brave new world of the Queensland curriculum students are told that everything is “tentative” and “shifting” and that the purpose of education is to criticise mainstream society in terms of what has become the new trinity of gender, ethnicity and class. Thus, students are told that they must “develop the ability to critically analyse social structures that unjustly disadvantage some individuals or groups”. Forget that Australian championed such egalitarian measures as the eight-hour day, the conciliation and arbitration system and votes for women.

KevinD,
If someone continuously deconstructs something, then eventually there is nothing left. I believe this is what is happening with many young people today. Because they are taught to deconstruct so much, they can become quite cynical of the world. They have less interests in such things as politics, religion, marriage, or long term relationships. They have little faith or belief in such things, and tend to have more interest in short term or “living for the moment” type activities.

Of course education systems are not the only reason for this, and such things as media also playing a part in the type of philosophies that people develop.

However as a parent, I have often found it difficult to know exactly what my child is being taught, so as to decide whether or not this would be healthy for the child. Finding out what the students are actually being taught can become quite difficult, and this is even after teacher interviews etc. When I have asked, the answers received are usually very vague type answers.

This then is another aspect of children's education. How much should the parents know of the subject matter being taught, and how much should the parents be able to have a say in that subject matter or methods of teaching being used “vs” leaving it all to governments or bureaucrats to decide.

bozzie: Electors were not bought in the great election bribery contest??? You mean howard did his bribing all for nothing spent all those millions of our money for nothing, if so he must be a dill as well - eh?? That others can't, don't want to see the real howard saddens me. Why did they vote for howard - They didn't read n/papers or listen to the Parliamentary b/casts, they took the biggest bribe, they were hoodwinked by propaganda - it works or it would not be used.
ozaware: thanks! demean myself by seeing the real howard - yet you say I have intellectual shortcomings, then you seem to mock the blind (But your safe as the blind probably won't see it)yet like the politicians you did not use their normal term of 'blind freddie'
Yes ozaware like all good howard people you probably see the ABC as left wing as well - especially the children's programmes?
boaz: children o/board, the siev sinking, iraq, concentration camps (just like hitler)the never-never tax, code of conduct for parliamentarians, a real independent speaker in the house - enough!
jcl: WELL said! Regards, numbat

The problem with lefties like Numbat is that they can only think in one tunnel at a time.Life is composed of left and right decisions.Right leaning decisions are usually about survival.while the left are usually about maintaining or extending our comfort zones.

The teaching profession needs to give a more balanced political/social view of the world.The left is too concerned with "common good"of sharing in someone else's hard earned toil,rather than the rewards of their own productivity.

It is not the job of teachers to present a left or right view of the world.Students should be presented with the harsh realities they will face in the workforce and a balanced view of their rights v's responsibilities.Too much of leftist philosophy is about envy and security,rather than individuals be responsible for their own destiny.

Presently individuals are being squeezed by bloated Govt bureauracies,lawyers selling us our rights and insurance companies pleasing them selves.Workers would prefer to have the money in their pockets rather than donating to those who think they know best.

Up until 1996 left wing philosophy has dominated,and what an era of lost opportunity it was.Many retiring people will live in abject poverty in the coming years when there should have been ample for all.The more Govt punishes incentive to work,the less wealth there is for the commom good.These are the realities the left continue to ignore.