Laura berates her readers for not coming up with America’s most popular Cookbook author
“Inside Higher Ed”:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/09/report reports that some people got together and “went through”:http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=25 David Horowitz’s book _The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America_ looking for errors. They found a bunch, of course, but by far the funniest one was the discovery that “While Horowitz’s book promises a list of the 101 most dangerous academics, he actually includes only 100.” Inside Higher ed reports “Horowitz said that’s because he included at least two and possibly three professors in his introduction.” This stuff writes itself.
_Update_: Post edited to make it clear that the “that’s because …” quote was from the news report, and not Horowitz himself. (The report seems to be paraphrasing a response from Horowitz, though.)
Since Harry “recommended”:https://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/12/david-brooks-on-unequal-childhoods/ Annette Lareau’s “Unequal Childhoods”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520239504/junius-20/102-8303545-9810554 I’ve been doing a good deal of thinking about it and related issues. Two questions seem particularly pertinent to me: first, I think that Lareau’s demonstration that different parenting values and styles impact on children’s life chances has implications for the way in which political philosophers view the social world since it suggests that social outcomes are not just the result of the the “basic structure” of society, but also of ingrained habits and dispositions that are reproduced from one generation to another. Second, I think that fact, if true, poses a problem to liberals in that state action to overcome disadvantage-reproducing “habitus” requires the state to take a stand on the relative value of different conceptions of the good.
bq. The sole aim, let us not forget, of the British military deployment in Iraq is to facilitate the establishment of a stable government in Iraq. But if, as now seems increasingly likely, that goal is unobtainable, then the sooner that they pack up and come home, the better.
So writes “Con Coughlin in the Daily Telegraph”:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/05/09/do0902.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/05/09/ixopinion.html . Now I’ve no brief for Mr Coughlin, whose absurd stories “Saddam had advance knowledge of 9/11”, blah blah blah … have regularly been picked up by Powerline, Instapundit and the credulous Euston left in Britain. My guess is that Coughlin is best seen as a relay for what “intelligence sources” want us to read. If British “intelligence sources” are now promoting the idea of abandoning Iraq that’s worth noting. (Btw, googling “Con Coughlin” and “intelligence sources” gives a useful sample of past reports.)