Using the library does not show the steps they took. That is the task for proper citations in any paper.

So forgive me my humor when I hear you gasping at the thought of “My gosh how cruel you are for making them use the library for more then one paper.”

Let me try to explain it this way. Remember Geometry? Or Calculus?

How many of your professors just wanted the answer? How many wanted you to show your work?

All I am doing is teaching my students to show me “How they arrived” at their answer using the good old fashioned library and a good old fashioned pen.

I am simply speaking of taking a pedagogical approach that allows for modern research methods where appropriate. I could agree completely with making your students do it the “old fashioned” way on at least one paper, just not all of them.

But what of the journey? What of the excitement of delving into the books and their crumpled yellow pages and to read the 32nd edition of a book that began being printed on the shores of Dover in 1712? Does the internet provide that?

What about the feel for textual development. What about the feel of a book in ones hand as one delves into the authors ideas and concepts knowing that scholars of old have held that same book in their hands as they formed their own ideas and went on to intellectual and scholarly greatness? Does the internet provide that?

What of the journey to understanding. It is a lifelong process and it begins with a book. I fear it might end with the internet and I personally see the internet as a massive book burning event. Radical. Yes. But anything that wants to replace an actual book is in my opinion a Book burning event.

Then one day we will wake up and find their are no books. Only the internet. Only the “Poof and your their mentality.”

For me this week has been spring break. This week has been about delving into the internet in an attempt to understand its nature. What I have found is people like you Jim who treasure the internet to the extent that you are willing to “scold” old professors who treasure “books” in a belief that only “You” are enlightened. What I have found on the internet is an intolerance of all things as we “hurry” to make our point.

I do not find enlightenment or tolerance or learning on the internet. I find greed, avarice, and contention. Where ever humans interact on the internet their is contention. What ever website you visit their is greed and avarice.

No I want my students to understand the message of History contained in a book or many books. I want my students to turn off the switch of their computers and to join me on a journey of learning that does not include the internet and its “Poof and your there” mentality. The journey is about learning what “I” teach them. The journey is about discovering what is inside of their minds. Unlocking that is the discovery. Exposing that is the mission.

I am sure your wife would laugh at this notion. However I laugh at the professors today who are in such a hurry to teach that they do no longer care “How” their students learn. They only care that they do learn. I do not take that approach.

How they learn is as important to me as what they learn. So Im sure your wife would laugh at me. I understand the need for speed. But it does not apply in my classroom.

However A large number of Americans are not willing to give those up and Think it is an egregious crime and are willing to howl till the moon sets at the criminality of it.

Who is right? Without compromise their is no solution.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Thanks for quoting me out of context Nic.

I in no way in my post advocated giving up freedoms at all. Period. I said many are willing. Many are not. I was not advocating either position only discussing said positions.

Fox news is well Fox News. I hate to break it too you but they have an agenda and I dont think their reporting is actually all that fair and balanced.

Just so you know. But you do what you want. Maybe you should go back to Google and Wiki. In your case it might actually do you some good.

Agreed. That’s why I get all my facts from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That, or I just go with what my gut tells me.

I believe in BOOKS my friend. I do not believe in the quick, fast type a few words and let “google” do the work for you. Scholarly pursuit is hard work. If it were not everyone would be a scholar.

I ask my students to go to the library. Do you remember what that is? Do you remember how to find something in the good old card catalog? I ask my students to do the work. I want them to appreciate the work involved in forming an opinion about anything. I want them to walk the long rows of books that are the foundation of our society and the foundation of what is good and true and honest about the history of man. I want them to sweat and labor and swear and wish I would retire. But in the end I want them to “Think for themselves.”

I ask my students to share their experiences in conference rooms sharing ideas and thoughts as they digest what they have learned. I ask my students to read and think for themselves. Not form opinions that someone has already formed and is spoon feeding them on an internet blog or website site.

A book is a wonderful thing. It is not a condensed synopsis of what one believes but is rather the entire content of what one is attempting to inspire in another. Yes you can read a cliff note and experience a bit of understanding about Friedrich Nietzsche but have you trully understood him as a man, a philosopher, a professor and a religious thinker by reading a few excerpts from the internet?

I choose to think not.

I do not take exception to you calling me a bad teacher. I have heard it before. Usually in mumblings from the first student who I catch Wiki’ing his paper. But by the end of the semester the students have gained a new found appreciation for the good old Library and a good old book. They have had to think for themselves and they have had the unique experience of “Original Thought.”

I teach my students the value of their own mind. If that is wrong then perhaps I should retire as some have suggested. But I will never stop teaching my students the meaning of original thought. “thinking for their selves.”

AS a professor I could care less what Joe Blogger thinks. I want to know what my student thinks. It is his mind, his dollar and his life (or hers) that interests me. I want to know what My student thinks Sigmund Freud thought based upon their readings. I do not want to know what Joe Blogger thinks of Sigmund Freud. Now when Sigmund Freud starts his own website and begins posting his work then I might change my opinion.

Until then I believe in books and I believe in original thought.

I must respond. I do not have to google the welfare debate that raged. I was there. I read the papers, magazines and listened to the radio and newspaper. No there was no internet to “Google� or “Wiki�

The worst thing that has happened to Americans is “Google, Wikipedia.� It prevents you from thinking for yourselves. It prevents you from feeling, absorbing and experiencing the history of the moment.

Having an argument? Google it and get an instant answer. The problem is that you are getting someones SPIN on the item in question. You have missed the “Experience of the historical moment.�

I tell my students If I even sense that you have Googled or Wiki’d your paper I will make you write 10 papers in its place. However I do use Turnit in.com.

WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Google and Wiki aren’t worthwhile references because they’re not hard copies of stuff? What is wrong with you? You don’t think people can take 100 different takes on the web and form their own opinions? Look at EVERY POSSIBLE AVENUE and look at ALL THE PROS AND CONS IN AN INSTANT then form your own opinion? In my opinion you’re a horrible teacher by limiting sources that your students can use. And this is coming from the son of two teachers, and two damn good ones too. Looks like you’re trying to force ideology on your students.

I would like to think that the “Bushies” are wildly over-represented in the blogosphere, and there is a much larger plurality of traditional conservative Republicans (both libertarian and evangelical) in the electorate at large. I’d like to think th…

The worst thing that has happened to Americans is “Google, Wikipedia.” It prevents you from thinking for yourselves. It prevents you from feeling, absorbing and experiencing the history of the moment.

Having an argument? Google it and get an instant answer. The problem is that you are getting someones SPIN on the item in question. You have missed the “Experience of the historical moment.”

I tell my students If I even sense that you have Googled or Wiki’d your paper I will make you write 10 papers in its place. However I do use Turnit in.com.

Think for yourself. It does a body good.

Now lets get to the truth not some Googled nonsense.

H.R. 3742 was one of several versions of the legislation that had been introduced in the House starting in early 1995. H.R. 3742 was the version that finally prevailed in the House, passing the House on July 18, 1996 by a vote of 256-120. This is basic facts. There is no spin here. This is what it is.

100 democrats AYE 53 republican AYE
97 democrats No. 0 republicans No
227 republicans AYE 25 Democrats Aye
3 republicans No 21 democrats No

While it is true that a Presidential Veto would have been over ridden the fact of the matter is that even a majority of democrats voted for this bill. Yes they fought it tooth and nail all the way which is what they were expected to do in the end they Voted affirmative because they knew it was the right thing to do at that time in History. Why is that do you suppose? Because in the end the prevailing attitude of the American Public was that Welfare Reform was needed and was an extremely important step in Bill Clintons overwhelming desire to Balance the Budget.

See here is where Googling does you no good. You do not get the sense of the country, the mood of the voters and the political “Wind” of the time. You only get cold words on paper subtly spun to meet that persons agenda.

While Googling or Wiki might make you appear smart it does in fact make you a marching clone for someone elses thinking.

Think and feel for yourself. You’ll be glad you did.

Consider this from an article on CNN Money:

The winners are..

High-end heaven: Analysts cited Nordstrom (Charts), Tiffany and Coach as three winners.

Indeed, the luxury space has been on an upswing for almost two years. “There’s a clear divergence in retailing between the upmarket and downmarket retailers,” said Frank Badillo, senior economist with consulting firm Retail Forward.
25 great gifts from 5 major stores

While rising fuel prices have generally hurt consumers’ ability to spend freely, gas price inflation has affected low-income households more than upper-income families. Moreover, Badillo said the trends of an improving job market and income gains are favoring higher-income consumers.

“Therefore, these consumers haven’t felt the need to change their shopping patterns,” he said.

Following up in the same article:

…. and the losers

Discount doldrums: Despite Wal-Mart’s (Charts) early holiday price-cutting, the world’s largest retailer failed to generate the sales it sorely needed in November. Wal-Mart posted a dismal 0.1 percent dip in sales at it stores open at least a year, which is a key measure of retail performance known as same-store sales.

Rival Target (Charts) fared better. But analysts said Target probably benefited from the weakness at Wal-Mart. So what went wrong?

Said Badillo, “Wal-Mart’s core shoppers are low-income families. Those families go after the big deals and that’s it. Target has slightly more upscale shoppers who can afford more.”

The plain truth is that even as wages for the poor and lower middle class have stagnated the portion of medical expenses that even the insured pay has grown as has their portion of the cost for their insurance. Prices for gasoline have skyrocketed. The same applies to real estate and in many places rents.

What most people want is someone who is at least interested in an open minded search for solutions to these problems instead of wearing ideological blinders that limit what solutions they consider acceptable. This is why libertarians don’t stand a chance and the more fiscally conservative branch of Republicans aren’t far behind them. People are realizing that capitalism left to its own devices leads to a society more resembling Dickens’ England more often that it will lead to a post-World War II America.

First, I’ve always liked David Brooks and I continue to do so.

Secondly, this is yet another reason we need a third major party in America.

That is all.

I’ll leave it at that rather than getting into the discussion of whether or not anyone actually believes that any army could perform the function that you suggest ours should have in the caves of Afghanistan. OBL didn’t lure us there without reason, he knows very well that unless the locals give him up, that it’s unlikely we’ll get him there. An interesting story recently though, that Native American trackers have been brought in and that strikes me as an exceptionally good idea.

Nic, The problem for me with voting third party (presumably Libertarian) is that I’m not as libertarian as you are.

C.S., the fact that you think Benjamin Franklin’s quote “could be taken to an extreme” shows you’re not a Libertarian at all.

Franklin was arguing that there will always be rulers who will claim they need our obedience in order to keep us safe and that the sacrifice of our freedom never provides any real protection.

George Bush tried to claim that “the terrorists” were a force more threatening than any we’d ever seen before, one that the first Americans simply couldn’t comprehend. So we had to surrender our rights to privacy, to due process, to all checks on the government’s power or we’d die in a nuclear fire.

All he really needed to do was to take the strongest military in the world and chase bin Laden and his allies into the caves and wipe al Qaeda from the Earth. Instead, he got bored and distracted.

On your other point, I guess I’d rather that we have watchdog organizations and an unbiased press to uncover waste and fraud wherever it occurs rather than choosing which areas to excuse it in. I think the fraud in social spending programs is especially insidious because it takes money away from the truly deserving or needy recipients, and because it builds on our acceptance of entitlements that are sacred cows which can’t be cut.

That said, of course I agree there are serious issues of fraud and corruption with regard to defense contractors (and not just because they’re donors, but also the lobbyists with close relations to both Repub and Democratic Congressmen/women.) I want that fraud to be routed out as well and I don’t see why we have to choose to address one or the other.

I haven’t always agreed with welfare programs, but I do think every Republican highlights them as full of waste and graft, while not examining weapons programs that are often just as wasteful, end up being more costly ,and often don’t work. Why? Because defense contractors are big donors. So, I guess I’d rather try to help the poor in programs that work sometimes, than be in Brent Wilkes’ back pocket.

I certainly agree that Edwards, and just about every major politician I’ve seen or heard, overgeneralizes to make rhetorical points, and that such a extreme dichotomy doesn’t benefit true public discourse…

However there still seems be something more objectionable to calling anti-war protesters ‘traitors’ than simple generalization. Being a traitor has absolutely nothing to do with being right about the war on terror. It implies motive. One could actually want to hurt the US, but unwittingly advocate an action which helps it, or hurt the US while intending to help it. I guess it’s just the extreme use of the false choice fallacy which irks me.

For all of his generalizations, Edwards certainly is saying “The rich want poor babies to get hooked on crack so they can keep them poor” or something like that. Now he could certainly go down that road in the future, but I don’t think he has yet.

One issue is that each side always feels that they are just pointing out a divide that already exists…So, I don’t think there’s as much difference in what one side is doing vs. the other.

Ok, I follow the logic. However, then you would have to call Martin Luther King, All of the Founding Fathers, Hitler, Stalin, and pretty much anyone who changes or wishes to change the status quo in any way divisive. Making ‘divisiveness’ a very poor rubric to judge a candidate by…

Perhaps what is more important about tactics, and what many of us dislike about the GOP of the last 8 years, is whether you are willing to try an convince your ideological opponents that your position is right (implying finding some sort of compromise or common understanding), or if you simply dismiss them out of hand. I think this would solve some of our problem in pulling apart the Mr Luther Kings from the Stalins…

I wouldn’t say I know enough about John Edwards to be able tell where his stance falls on that sort of scale.