http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,755424,00.html

You wanted a non-American source. Here's one. There's more. Go look yourselves. Every Israeli attack causes a hunt for collaborators. That's not a story the US's MSM is very good about publishing, but it is well known to others.

The New York Times is not considered by anyone on either side (left, right, Republican or Democrat) reliable anymore. Foreign Affairs, Der Speigal, Le Monde and a number of French newspapers are covering this. Slate is, too, if you want another lefty non-mainstream online mag. Kaplan at Slate has cited a number of the arguments I cited; a number of the columnists there are not exactly war hawks, but they are not blaming Israel for starting this one (only for bringing out the big stuff). In the blogosphere, you can find more non-traditional (less political) bloggers who are looking at this for a way out, rather than to assign blame.

A Clauswitzian or a Sun Tzuian analysis seems ruthless or immoral to many folk. These are normative philosophies in military philosophy and science. In some ways, we have forgotten what war really looks like and how it is fought. Sherman's approach was at once Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. It looks ugly. The poster gave a really good analogy there. Sherman may be reviled, but he won.

I've seen some truly sad drunks. This was wussy drunk. Inane, wussy drunk. A stupid college kid is more creative than this. Even the bigotry was garden variety anti-semitism. No UFOs, no alien abduction, no truly creative craziness.

The idiot was driving 85mph drunk down PCH. He should be happy he didn't wind up underwater at Carillo Beach, or dead off Muholland Drive.

I got the point of Cary's: this sad little trashy piece of drunk could have killed someone. Cary also pointed out that if Gibson had guts, he would have insulted the ethnicity his little bigoted self thought the deputy was, instead of his standard bigot bogeyman. Gibson lacked the ability to even be a good belligerent drunk. So much for Mad Max.

He acted like he was so macho-macho when marketing that "excuse to beat Christ to ribbons" movie. He was so smug. Here Gibson is just another ordinary man.

Satire and inanity evidently are in far too short supply in this world.

I live in a hundred mile range of Minneapolis. I'm from Louisiana, born and raised. I laughed at the article. Some people need to get over themselves. Given the masses of "Yankee" jokes I've heard every day of my life (now from relatives-especially in the winter when it gets to be -20s) the disdain for the North and Midwest, and the curled lip some Southerners use for the term "Yankee", as well as the ridiculous screaming of the Confederacy, for Southerners to even think of whining about this piece is blantant hypocrisy and wussiness. If you rack on Yankees, you can't whine when they yank back. Southerners INSULT Norherners everyday, and "Yankee" is aperjorative term. For my insulted Southern brethern, I can only say "what goes around comes around". Compared to some stuff I've heard in Houston, Keillor is very, very mild.

The point is that certain levels heat makes many people crazy. When it hits 100+, no one is sane. I've lived throught Louisiana summers without air conditioning. There's a reason murders, riots, and Darwin -award winning stunts go up in the summer. Beer+ extreme heat = crazy.

But people missed another point. The boiling point in the North is lower. I didn't think it was hot until it hit 100. In Duluth. Ya'll don't KNOW heat! People in Minneapolis thought it was hot at 80, and started to lose it at 90. Wusses!

This thread is supposed to be about a silly article in a spoof newpaper. The paper is no where near as witty as the Onion, and the writer is a good example of an unreliable narrator.

In smaller state universities, research is expected, but teaching IS the core function. At a flagship or an Ivy, research is the core function. You can go to a hybrid for less than a flagship, get more attention from professors who actually publish, and get into an Ivy League graduate school. My students do. I am a professor at a small state university.

The LW does not know why the colleauge was not offered the position. My guess would be the department did NOT like the implication from the "administrator letter" of being told what to do. Just because the two people are professionals does not make them equally qualified. Unless we are in the DPC, we don't really know what the department was looking for.

LW should take the position. As for the subordinate, she should be telling chairs that she wants to teach, and get recommendations from faculty, not administrators. No one cares about the administrator's opinion outside of their narrow area, and some people love to screw with administrators. She should develop a relationship with the department.

As for the "pettiness" of academe, I've worked in business and government. I've never seen the pettiness, abusiveness, or just plain evil powermongering in academe that I saw outside. DOn't judge everybody by the flagships and the "stars". Every institution has it's jerk quotient.