Brad McCormick wrote:
> [snip]
> > Many of the
> > obvious errors could be easily corrected, but the subtle errors (including
> > misuse of technical words or phrases, the promulgation of ideas not
> > validated by scientists, and promotion of "politically correct" views) that
> > would leave incorrect implications would be more difficult to root out.
>
> This last point seems to me a "biggy". Isn't it at least
> curious that progress in the scientific exactitude (etc.)
> and "progress" in ideological political correctitude seem
> both to be ~progressing~?
These 2 used to progress together, but with neo-monetarism they both get
*rolled back* together -- I think this is the point that the report makes
with the quote:
"Perhaps the best measure of what has gone wrong is the fact, attested to by
textbook authors and editors, that publishers now employ more people to
censor books for content that might offend any organized lobbying group
than they do to check the correctness of facts. From a business point of
view, that makes sense."
Dubya's attempts to re-unify church and state are a striking illustration...
( http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/02/02/bush_faithfundg010202 )
Chris
