Comments on: Horowit

By: Oskar Shapley

Oskar Shapley — Sun, 14 May 2006 12:36:32 +0000

That no matter how much he rails against the academy, what he most deeply, desperately wants is to be taken for an academic?

Wait, I know this movie, Anakin Skywalker CRAVES to be a Jedi Master:

The Forcefessors: The 101 Most Dangerous Jedi Masters in the Republic and why they must be purged, purged I tell you!

By: Asashouryuu

Asashouryuu — Sun, 14 May 2006 03:00:12 +0000

You have all obviously missed the point, and indeed the very patriotism, of system of numerologification. As is well known, the graphic representation of zero and its formal mathematical conception was introduced into European intellectual culture – along with many other evils such as ‘algebra’ and ‘alchemie’ – by arabs. This dangerous artifact of Islamofascism has been rendered impotent by D.H.’s new system wherein ‘one’ has been reassigned the value of zero, ‘two’ the value of one, and so on. Under this new patriotic system 101 now has the actual value of 100. Your failure to recognize this is simply another example of liberal intellectual inferiority.

By: huxley

huxley — Fri, 12 May 2006 19:27:31 +0000

As a matter of fact, the book proves quite clearly that academics whose last names start with letters near the beginning of the alphabet are far more dangeral than academics whose last names start with letters like “T” or “W.” And Howard Zinn turns out to be not very dangerous after all.

Well Mr. Bérubé, if that is indeed your name, that was nice bait-n-switch you pulled there.

First you were clearly taking about how dangeral academics were and then out of nowhere you say “Howard Zinn turns out to be not very dangerous after all.” And what does that have to do with anything? Howard might not be dangerous but he is DANGERAL! You don’t get to be the Decider about how dangeral Howard Zinn is … David Horowitz is the Decider!

You’re just lucky that Jason’s complaint isn’t forthcoming yet. I’m afraid he might write a letter to Time magazine about this …

By: huxley

huxley — Fri, 12 May 2006 19:18:28 +0000

Jason,

You’re right, I am now willing to concede that David Horowitz is as stupid as the entire editorial staff of Time Magazine COMBINED (give or take two or three). Consider my complaint forthcoming!

By: Michael Bérubé

Michael Bérubé — Fri, 12 May 2006 18:40:34 +0000

I, for one, will defend Time magazine to the death. It is not for nothing that Time is called the “liberal Bible”; Joe Klein, in particular, is widely regarded as infallible by liberal bloggers.

I think it was brilliant of them to sneak an extra seven liberals into their top 100. And they would’ve gotten away with it, too, if not for those pesky Jasons and the Army of Davids. Fie, fie on you all!

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:33:51 +0000

But I’m sure that it’s okay that Time listed at least 107 people in their 100 “People Who Shape Our World.” I don’t think any complaints about that will be forthcoming from all of you.

By: Tad Brennan

Tad Brennan — Fri, 12 May 2006 12:47:58 +0000

“dangeral” is a word that has been needed for a while, like “truthiness”. Except in this case it has a very precise mathematical definition, as a vector product of pure ideological danger projected onto the political axis, resulting in a complex-number located in the wanker-wingnut plane.

All values plus or minus two or three.

By: Brian Palmer

Brian Palmer — Fri, 12 May 2006 10:07:35 +0000

In set theory terms, assuming the axiom of choice, cardinals are just the initial ordinals. So 2 and 3 would be both ordinal and cardinal numbers.

By: Hattie

Hattie — Fri, 12 May 2006 07:51:01 +0000

I want to be dangeral like you, Prof. B.

By: Michael Bérubé

Michael Bérubé — Fri, 12 May 2006 04:59:32 +0000

But if the book is indeed about the “101 Most Dangerous Academics”, then clearly there’s some sort of partial ordering of academics from “most dangerous” to “least dangerous”.

As a matter of fact, the book proves quite clearly that academics whose last names start with letters near the beginning of the alphabet are far more dangeral than academics whose last names start with letters like “T” or “W.” And Howard Zinn turns out to be not very dangerous after all.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Fri, 12 May 2006 04:02:28 +0000

Is Juan Cole the hidden professor?

By: anon

anon — Fri, 12 May 2006 00:34:47 +0000

So.. he knew it was either 100, 102 or 103. And so he chose 101. Makes sense to me.

By: DS

DS — Thu, 11 May 2006 23:10:02 +0000

I would number three as the second two and two as the third non-three.

But that’s just me.

The funniest part of Horowitz’s response is when he says there are “two or three” others named in the introduction. We sure don’t need an explanation about the title then, do we?

Maybe he should have called it “100 or 101 of the Most Dangerous Academics in America – with 2 or 3 More Listed in the Introduction.”

On bookshelves now for only 19 or 20 dollars.

The New York Times gives it 1 or 2 stars.

The 2nd or 3rd Edition to be published June or July of 2008 or 2009.

By: arden chatfield

arden chatfield — Thu, 11 May 2006 20:53:50 +0000

While I cannot speak for Theogon, I myself learned during my studies at the Rutgers Department of Mathematics, on my way to getting a Ph.D. in said subject, that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are both cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.

‘Two’ and ‘three’ are cardinal numbers and ‘second’ and ‘third’ are ordinals.

By: Tad Brennan

Tad Brennan — Thu, 11 May 2006 20:24:00 +0000

Thanks for the update and clarification, Kieran.

You are a shining beacon of academic integrity and intellectual honesty, a light to the nations and a lesson to the ages.

Honestly.