Should it surprise us that most of the would-be London terrorists were doctors? Not according to Princeton University economist Alan Krueger, whose research has found little correlation between poverty or lack of education and terrorism, despite the persistent conventional wisdom that they are linked. The Sept. 11 bombers, for instance, were educated and well-off citizens of Saudi Arabia.
What does seem to spawn terrorism is political oppression, he told the Wall Street Journal. “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he said, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
78 Comments
“…whose research has found little correlation between poverty or lack of education and terrorism, despite the persistent conventional wisdom that they are linked.” That is left wing conventional wisdom.
People commit acts of terror because they choose to do so. Most of them are on a holy war to shape the world to their vision. It’s not unlike other big government types who want to mold and shape society through force.
The UK is always outdoing us in education, even their terrorists are better educated. The Christian terrorists in America tend to be white trash fundamentalists who can barely read and write and think the planet is 6,000 years old.
Despite their education though, they couldn’t even create a car bomb. Sheesh, fertilizer people. I could have made a better bomb from materials at a fireworks stand.
The same old ambitions and desire of power, just a different century and more ways to do it.You have got to remember, the people of the middle-east still hang on to the same beliefs and lifestyles of several thousands years.They even claim the beginnings of mankind.Are we so stupid to think that our ways will change all of their ways?
When we drop a 3000lb bomb on an Iraqi house in hopes of killing what we choose to “name-call” then how are they “terrorists” and we are not “terrorists” after we have committed the slaughter and maiming of hundreds of Iraqis in that one single act, including old men, old women, children and babies?
Do you realize how many preemptive designations are included in your question?
Why not: His house destroyed my perfectly good bomb?
Whether or not Arabs can be sold on democracy is a difficult question. But if they can, assigning the job to cowboy oilmen isn’t the way to do it. For instance, look at what they’ve done to Texas. ;-)
Some of these Muslim terrorist physicians that assembled in the UK were also targeting the USofA, perhaps Philadelphia. We need to put a priority on deporting alien Muslim physicians, and also maybe Muslim engineers.
Wiseman,
Replace “people of the middle-east” in your post with “people of North America” or “people of Europe.”
Tell me what you see.
Parkay,
I say anyone who has moved to Kansas from San Diego since, say, 2000, should immediately be sent back.
Need help packing?
George WMD Bush waged a preemptive, unprovoked war against the people of Iraq. It can’t be a huge leap to assume when the most powerful military force on the planet attacks for no reason, that reason is no longer part of the equation.
Right Wingnuts in this country, after all, determined that 9/11 was an assault against good “Christian” people.
Some of the brightest and best educated Americans — graduates of Anapolis and West Point and the USAF Academy — are (in many cases, against their better judgement) waging an ill-conceived war in Iraq simply because George WMD Bush says so.
The next President of the United States will have to mend fences around the world; declare there’s a new sheriff in town and part of his/her agenda is *live and let live!* Emphasis on *live.*
Worship who you want. Pray to whomever cooks for you. But respect those whose beliefs are different.
George WMD Bush has spent the last six-and-a-half years ginning up hatred for Muslims, based on nothing more than his “personal relationship” with “God.”The well-educated Muslim terrorists are no better and no worse than the “God”-guided George WMD Bush who’s killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis for no rational reason.
Well, I’m glad that we have hard evidence to nuke the myth that poverty and lack of education breeds terrorism. But if not that, what?
Hmmm… Let me think. Is there any commonality in these folks and the 911 terrorists and various other terrorist plots? But surely, if they all had something in common, the MSM would be all over it. I mean we can count on our media to have our country’s defense interest at heart.
And it might be something that we need to focus on. Maybe even insert it in a profile.
The only people who are “surprised” are the usual leftist. They have tried to ride this “poor downtrodden” terrorist for years.
Liberals must always “blame” these and other bad decisions on “the man” or “the West” in this case, for brining down all the poor downtrodden types. It can NEVER be due to their own bad decisions or ridiculous ideology et al.
But some are starting to stand up and say enough, be it about this Islamic crap shoot or our own US based “race based” nonsense that all the poors problems are due to “the man” rather than their own poor decisions.
At least Bill Cosby has the balls and the wherewith all to stand up and tell what some of the problems here are.
Hopefully some in the Muslim community will grow a set also and help flush the likes of these people and their enablers such as CAIR down the shitter.
Yes, outlander, they DID all have something in common, you smug little puke.
They had a hatred of invasion, occupation, and domination by foreign powers . . . the same as we would have if the A-rabs had stationed troops to “protect” us and bring us the “blessings of their superior culture” here.
You and I would be first in line to kill them if they did to us what we do to them.
Stop doing it, and they’ll stop trying to kill us.
Pretty simple, really.
Mrbill–
That was so stupid as one need not even dignify it with a response.
I thought freedom of religion was an important American principle.
One of the mothers of the Doctors, said he is a good boy, proud Muslim and just doing his duty of Jihad according to the Koran.
Maybe we can send the Capn in, he can negotiate with these people. If Capn gets held prisoner and executed, we will place a flower on the altar of the “Blame America” monument for his martyrdom that demonstrated a noble socialistic attempt at peaceful negotiation.
“Stop doing it, and they’ll stop trying to kill us.”
That is so 9/10/01Kumbaya
What should we do?
We should STOP DOING what has failed.
We should pull our troops completely out of the Arabian penisula.
We should close all American bases on foreign soil.
We should end military aid to all countries in the world, particularly Israel. That includes so-called “foreign aid” that is really just subsidies to buy our arms.
We should beef up our borders and ports make them air-tight–that includes illegal economic immigration.
We should work within the law to track down and bring to justice terrorists just like the British did in Ireland and like Clinton did with the first group of terrorists, which were caught and successfully convicted.
What doesn’t work is what Bush is doing right now–invading Iraq and fomenting terrorism.
And btw, how’s capturing Osama bin Laden going?
How’s that working out for you Bush boot-licks?
Bush will be out of office and Osama is still running his show . . .
Yeah, you are right Capn. I’m donning my cheese-eating surrender monkey “bong hits for Muslims” hat right now.
Let’s party down everyone.
When you see it walking down the street, and you chance to meet.
Walk on by DA DAH DAH DE DAHH DAH
Walk on by DA DAH DAH DE DAHH DAH
No, it’s “doo watty ditty dum ditty doo”
The other thing they had in common was that they were mainly Iraqi.
So let’s see:
Before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, no terrorism.
After the invasion and occupation of Iraq, terrorism.
Good thing we invaded to “stop terrorism.”
So TT Republank, do you still think that I am not entitled to my opinion because I was born in Kentucky and grew up in Detroit? I have lived in six different states, does that mean I can’t have an opinion?
And how is your gay bashing/gay accusing business going? Still think that everyone that disagrees with you is gay?
Dumbass.
Bush was definitely not poor but he definitely entered a life of terrorism. What is his excuse?
Cheney ditto.
Who have I bashed being gay? The worst I have said was KSFARMLES -which is by the way accurate.
Oh, you mean what that TT dude said.Yes, another nic that WSClark and Tom assign to me. How wonderful, I wonder who it will be tomorrow?
And you know who agrees with my position?
General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency under Reagan:Supporting the troops’ means withdrawing themCOMMENTARY | July 05, 2007
Gen. William Odom writes that opponents of the war should focus public attention on the fact that Bush’s obstinate refusal to admit defeat is causing the troops enormous psychological as well as physical harm.
By William E. Odom
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine “supporting the troops” as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for “not supporting the troops” where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
………………
The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.
To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what “supporting the troops” really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.
The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192
Hey, Fleettwood, why don’t you call him up and tell him he’s a terrorist-loving America-hating sissy-boy who just wants to sit in a circle and sing kumbaya?
I’m guessing the GENERAL would want to share his thoughts with you on that . . .
Still think that everyone that disagrees with you is gay?Posted by: WSClark | July 06, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Ahhh, if that were true and I was single, just think of the _gigantic_ dating pool that would open up.
Let’s see, I COULD go back to the days of RepubliKhan and pull up posts from you, accusing me of being gay……………
…………… like a sixth grader.
And it is funny to note that the only posters on this blog that have accused me of being gay are RepubliKhan, TT and JM.
Hmmmmmm……………….. is there a pattern there?
WSC–
Don’t argue with the troll, man.
That’s what he wants.
It’s pathetic and sad. Don’t enable it.
I’ll be back later to resume my smackdown of Republank – for now – I have a life that it far more important.
Yeah, but it is so much fun watching him when he is losing an argument, he goes right for the nic-switch and the gay accusations.
He is a funny boy, Capn’!
You can’t convince the wack-o at the insane asylum that he’s not Napoleon.
Likewise, you can’t get ReplagiarTroll to stop doing what he does.
It’s what he does.
amateurs…
WS & Capn,
Looks like we’re “amateurs.” Amateurs at baiting, at name-calling, at context-dropping. Amateurs at Bush/Cheney boot-licking. Amateurs at repuking Republican Party talking points.
Yep. Amateurs.
The troll is absolutely the pro.
Jeez, Tom, given the criteria, I would rather be right and a amateur, than wrong and a pro.
“Yes, outlander, they DID all have something in common, and BTW you are the greatest, man”
“They had a hatred of invasion, occupation, and domination by foreign powers”- CapnAmerica
Nope, that wasn’t it, Capn. But thanks for the compliment.
And the Raging of the Hateful Morons continues unabated.
Some of you folks seriously need lives.
“Yes, outlander, they DID all have something in common, and BTW you are the greatest, man”
versus the original:
“Yes, outlander, they DID all have something in common, you smug little puke.”
I’ve never seen that particular trick before – I don’t think any way. Well, I have seen what I suspected were poster generated admiring compliments from a different nic. So, maybe this isn’t that unfamiliar – but it is still kind of creepy, albeit slightly amusing.
With all these terrorists being Saudi’s – when will Bush and the rest of the Bush family stop kissing the Saudis butts?
Ater all, wasn’t it Bush that stated ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’? Well, he and his entire family has been cozying up to the Saudis for years and perhaps their loyalty and patriotism should be suspect.
The NY Times says two of the arrested M.D.s in London had inquired about coming to this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/world/europe/06cnd-britain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Terrorism: talk about an interesting interpretation of the hippocratic oath.
Here is an interesting commentary:
Lamis AdoniWashington Post
Unquestioned Right to DominateAmerica is a modern Rome: an arrogant empire that does not understand the limits of power. I guess no empire really does. This is why they rise and fall. It is not an American trait; it is the nature of unchecked power. Yet in his book, Murphy tries to construct a moral ethos for American hegemony and aggressive drive to dominate the world. Unfortunately the basic premise of his argument goes against history.
Murphy’s comparison between Rome and America is void of historical perspective. It nullifies world history of social, economic and political development. Humanity has gone through many struggles to move toward democratic systems and expand universal rights. The fact the Rome was not a democracy should be seen in the context of human development and not the self-serving lens of American exceptionalism. It took centuries to abolish slavery, and America has only recently shed the shame — if we are comparing with the Roman Empire timeline, this is an important element.
Modern technology, oil and advanced sciences have enabled our latest global empire to become the most powerful in history, the most devastating, the most dominating and domineering. Murphy’s thesis, as presented in several interviews, is that the U.S. is different in its moral imperative and system. He argues that although the country could be veering towards self-destruction, it still has a chance to learn from Rome.
There is no doubt that at least in theory, democratic institutions should provide a moral if not a political check on excesses of imperial power. But the empire has been subverting those institutions, international law and its own declared values to ensure its hold on power and continue its expansion. One would like to take solace in the fact that an elected Congress could end the war in Iraq — that is a clear difference between a democratic American empire and slave-driven Rome.
But if we read well into the dominant American discourse — with the exception of the anti-war movement — there is no questioning of imperial notions and goals. The talk is all about whether America can succeed or not; the main point is whether America is winning or losing. There is little discussion in the establishment about whether and why America is entitled to win and to dominate.
Empires all reach a point where aggression, plunder and subversion become an unquestioned entitlement, an inherent prerogative fed by self-declared and self-serving claims to moral superiority. The American empire is not original in embedding itself in the self-serving morality of “taming the savages;” old Rome needed no high-tech computers or laser-guided weapons to justify its conquests and its cruelties. In the end, empires share the same imperative of power.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/2007/07/unquestioned_right_to_dominate.html
I’m surpised it hasn’t happened here yet. There are lots of educated people from the Middle East living here who are devout to their Islamic beliefs.
“Despite their education though, they couldn’t even create a car bomb. Sheesh, fertilizer people. I could have made a better bomb from materials at a fireworks stand.”
The Christian Fundies may be nutty and dumb but nobody in Oklahoma City would questions their ability to destroy things.
“Whether or not Arabs can be sold on democracy is a difficult question. But if they can, assigning the job to cowboy oilmen isn’t the way to do it. For instance, look at what they’ve done to Texas. ;-)
It is not a proper role for us to “sell” democracy to the Arabs. If the Arabs decide they want it, they can pick up guns and get it the hard way like all of us have had to do.
Just another nail in the coffin of “multiculturalism”. Cowardly, insane, utopian, guilty white liberals like capn kangaroo will never hold ragheads or other oppressed minorities to account for their evil and nonsense.
I was in New York city on 9/11 and I saw some “muslim-Americans” celebrating the terrorist attacks. Had I been carrying an unregistered weapon on that day there would have been 7 or 8 dead ragheads on Atlantic Ave. and I would not have lost a second’s worth of sleep over it. I am sure that the capn would have been celebrating right along with them.
Wow, you’re a real bad ass, Sgt. I wonder what the Iraqis thought during the “shock and awe” bombing campaign….the one thing about us humans is we all have the same feelings.Can’t say I blame them much for hating us, too.
No terrorism before Iraq?HUH?
Many in the anti-war movement are anti-Jewish racist nuts.
All anyone has to do is read the anti-war statements on this thread and see the hate many on the left have towards Israel, a country formed by the U.N. on ground that was NEVER an independant country prior to that date.
And the talk about the Saudis? Well, one minute you liberals attack Bush for being a “go it alone Cowboy” and the next you attack Bush for his choice of allies.
The Saudis have much to answer for. They should crack down harder on their own radicals and stop the flow of money into terrorist organizations, from their country.
However, do you liberals want to declare war on Saudi Arabia? If not, what is it that you want Bush to do?
Shut up Paul, you are sounding like a parody of yourself.
Sad.
I do not support the contention that Bush started the Iraq war.We had been at war with Iraq through 3 Presidents, including Bill Clinton. The Veterans Administration says that anyone who served in the military under Bill Clinton served during COMBAT!
Anyway, the wisdom of removing Saddam will be debated for generations to come. What must be included in the argument, for the sake of balance, is some guess as to what Iraq and the middle East would have looked like, if Saddam was still in power. That is hard to imagine, is it not?
I do not agree with the following link, entirely, because it, too editorially supports the idea that the West can NEVER send ground troops into a Moslem country.
However, the writed makes sense as far as the history of Islam and Jihad are concerned: Moslems chose terrorism because they are AWFULL at conventional warfare!:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam
WSWhen you say “shut up” I know that you have no useful comment to make and are waiving your white flag, once again!
Okay Pall,” do not support the contention that Bush started the Iraq war.We had been at war with Iraq through 3 Presidents, including Bill Clinton.”
If that’s the case, then how about a tally of casualties during the Bush I and Clinton administrations, and compare them to the figures under Bushllit. Then ask yourself how totally incompetent Bushllit is, against his daddy and Bill!
Sgt Racist SOB says, “I was in New York city on 9/11 and I saw some ‘muslim-Americans’ celebrating the terrorist attacks.”
That is a lie. You are a f***ing liar.
Nobody in America celebrated 9-11, except for Bush-Cheney who knew that they had “hit the trifecta” in getting a pretext to grab Iraq oil.
And btw, Sgt. Racist, I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure that saying that you will shoot and kill somebody for expressing an opinion is against the law.
You might want to think your posts over a little more before you engage in ASSAULT on a public forum.
The word is “waving” Paul, not waiving.
Jeez, you really are a dumbass, aren’t you Rossell?
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact, coupled with the ability to carry out the contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence.
As distinguished from battery, assault need not to involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension. For example, wielding a knife can be construed as assault if a fearful situation was created.
There are 3 qualifications for assault. In general, assault is committed when (1) a harmful threat or offer is made (2) in a situation which creates fear (3) where there is ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
******
Sounds pretty much like exactly what you’re doing.
CapnWhen, exactly, did ANYONE “grab Iraq oil” as you claimed, above?
WSMany Moslems DID support 9-11. How can you claim that no Moslems supported it? And what if a Moslem DID support 9-11? It has been documented that Saddam Hussein celebrated 9-11. It has been documented that the so-called “Palestinians” celebrated 9-11.”Osama” is one of the most popular names for new babies in England, as Moslem births have overtaken British names.How do you back up what you say, WS?It is obvious that Islamic terrorism is supported by a large number of Moslems.Are you claiming that NO Moslem in New York was happy about 9-11?How can you make such a claim?
Paul–
When some Crown Prince or another came to the US last time, Bush KISSED him and walked around HOLDING HANDS with him.
Gawd, it was utterly humiliating for our once proud country.
We don’t need to declare war on Saudi Arabia, but on the other hand, do we need to literally KISS feudal monarchs? As a democracy, aren’t we supposed to oppose aristocracy?
For starters, stop kissing their asses.
WS”Spelling is the least important part of writing”A famous person said that, I will see if you are smart enough to find out who it was.
I am terrible at spelling. I admit it. I don’t care.
You spell very well, most of the time, but you make absolutely no sense and you constantly make claims you can’t prove.
Who is the true “Dumbass”???
By the way, you have spelled my name wrong almost EVERY time you have written it.
Again, spelling isn’t terribly important. Ideas are what matter. You don’t make any sense at all, and your stupid comments are none the wiser for your nearly perfect spelling!——By the way, I have found that consistent bad spelling is a great way to fight off the trolls.
There are some words I always get wrong. There are others I always get right.
The trolls always get it wrong.
Yes, Econ, I’m claiming that NO Moslems celebrated the 9-11 attacks in New York.
Well, Ramzi bin Yusef who was in prison for the first WTC attack in ‘93 (because H. W. Bush was asleep at the wheel) celebrated the attack.
He was the only one in the US that I heard about.
“How can you make such a claim?”
Say what?
Never said anything like that Rossell.
As usual, you are talking out your ass.
CapnLet it be said, today, that I agree with you on that one. It might have been seen as an insult, under Saudi custom, for our President to do less than he did, but why must WE be the ones to be insulted by conforming to Moslem/Arab culture?
Still, we can’t fight the whole world at once. I am not sure what to do about our so-called allies that finance terrorism.
I think all Islamic states should be held to account for the funding of terrorism.
BTW, how many Christians “celebrated” when some fundy wack-o shoots an abortion doctor?
WSI had you confused, on the “statement” in question, with Capn.My apologies.
CapnHuh?If you dont hear about it, it did NOT happen?Wow!
And if a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Reads to me that Capn is insecure in his manhood.
It wasn’t a Prince, it was King Abdullah.
It’s a sign of respect in many Arab societies to hold hands while talking and walking with someone.The classic Saudi way of greetng is to give 4 kisses.One on the left cheek and 3 on the right cheek. This apply to both sexes (male to male; female to female) As for the elders, one way of showing respect is to kiss the right hand and the forehead aside from the kisses on the cheeks. It is very common for male friends to hold hands in public but this doesn’t necessarily mean they have special relationship
CapnDo you have any survival skills at all?While I think shooting abortion doctors is wrong and have opposed such actions in the past, the nation is NOT in mortal danger from abortionist killers.The nation IS in mortal danger from terrorism!
A little history on “Palestine”
“http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam
President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak has been battling terrorists there for many decades. Al Qaeda’s number two is Egyptian.
President Mubarak has remarked many times that terrorists are not really Islamic. They use Islam as a pretext for what they really want–political power.
Bin Laden is Islamic like Tim McVeigh is Christian.
And the talk about the Saudis? Well, one minute you liberals attack Bush for being a “go it alone Cowboy” and the next you attack Bush for his choice of allies.
The point was that the entire Bush family has been kissing the Saudis butts for years before 9/11 and the so-called war on terror.
And Saudis are not our allies – are they in the trenches fighting in Iraq? Are their soldiers being killed by homemade bombs in the streets? So, Saudis are NOT our allies and Bush has much to answer for because of his loyalty and devotion to them and not his own country.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, “friendly” companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. However, despite pressure from the US government and foreign oil companies, the current Iraqi government has not passed a national oil law. While regional governments angle for influence over the foreign oil contracts, most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union opposes de-nationalization. Iraq’s political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.
*****
There you have it, all laid out, plain as day.
Western powers never liked getting muscled out by “nationalization” in 1972. And more recently, the U.S. and U.K.’s hard line in leading the sanctions meant that other countries were getting rewarded with contracts by Saddam.
Ergo, Saddam had to go.
And while they were at it, the Neo-Cons decided to set up a Ayn Rand paradise of free enterprise and no taxation.
Yeah. How’s that going?
Wasn’t the democratization of Iraq, so that the poor oppressed people would have something to live for and not be willing to become human bombs or instruments of destruction against the West, one of Bush’s talking points?
“Again, spelling isn’t terribly important. Ideas are what matter.”
Ah, yes, the typical excuse of the poor speller. Paul, did it ever occur to you that when you can’t spell, you can’t get those ideas across correctly? Spelling DOES matter. You can’t have one without the other. It’s nothing but laziness, and if you’re lazy about your spelling, you’re lazy about your ideas.
Too bad. So sad.
“All anyone has to do is read the anti-war statements on this thread and see the hate many on the left have towards Israel, a country formed by the U.N. on ground that was NEVER an independant country prior to that date.”Posted by Econ 101 July 7,2007 at 8:15pmI can’t say as I have ever read many anti-Israel comments here by anyone other than Ed Friedemann.But that is what right wing wackos do so well: lump everybody together that disagrees with them.
Ohh noooo the Cramit BOT is back!!!
Phantom, looks like it might have been “OIL” LOL
RDYou are wrong. Spelling doesnt really matter much as long as you get your ideas across. You are free to disagree.However, I challenge you to look through any page of the dictionary and find words that are spelled more than one way.I challenge you to read a British or Australian newspaper and see how many words they spell diferently than we, in America, spell the same word.I challenge you to read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance and see how many words we spell differently, today.
In fact, one of the arguments, prior to the signing of the Declaration, was the spelling of the word “inalienable” or “unalienable”.
It was a pedantic fight between Harvard grads and William and Mary grads.
You would have fit right in!
Didn’t matter then.
Doesn’t matter now.
Maybe Paul was not taught spelling in grammar school?
Spelling is a foundation to one’s education and a measurement of one’s intellect.
deanYou, as well, are wrong.Spelling can be corrected by “spellcheck.”Spelling can be corrected by clerks and secretaries.
There is no “stupid check”.
I have known brilliant people who could not write as well as me, and who’s spelling was even worse than mine.
I read a legal brief and response, just last week, that contained several errors in the original filing and the response.
For the record, I think BOTH attorneys are smarter than me in many ways, they were just in too big a hurry to run a “spell-check” before filing.
Yes, spelling is important. My point is that you only need to spell well enough to get your point accross. Also, your spelling should not be so bad as to detract from that point.
Think of it this way: A severly autistic person could, perhaps, memorize the entire dictionary. This would be an indication of his ability to absorb knowledge.Would that autistic person, by acquiring that knowledge, gain ANY wisdom that he could use in making decisions?
Unfortunately, the importance that you place on spelling is, often, inversely proportional to the importance you place on true wisdom.