Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Sep 9, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Pretty questionable in my mind. This appointment makes Hoover look less credible. I doubt they care what I think, but they must have *some* concerns about their reputation, and I'm guessing that more people than not look at Rumsfeld with doubts and misgivings. Whatever accomplishments he had prior to the war, his recent failures as a military and political leader will surely dominate his legacy in the eyes of most people.
Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2007 at 1:29 am
Reading this, no one can doubt that Stanford is mightily committed to diversity.
In selecting Rumsfeld for Hoover status, Stanford has reached to the bottom of the barrel to balance out the mostly brilliant and positive contributors to humanity that operate from their wonderous institution. What a blight on the record of an otherwise fine institution!
Rumsfield definitely belongs in a tower - along with another doubtful non-hero, George Schultz) - but it's doubtful that anyone who has followed their horrific, power-mongering careers - careers that claim "success" over the blood-stained bodies of their hapless victims - would imagine for a minute that any tower they inhabit wouldn't be surrounded by guards - to keep the both of them and their poor-excuse-for-strategic-thinking ideas as far away from the rest of humanity as possible.
Posted by Hurray, Rumsfeld!, a resident of Stanford, on Sep 10, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hear, hear Rumsfeld! It takes courage to buck the hate propoganda machine and move here! Better get armed guards to protect you from the "tolerant and accepting" liberals around here who are committed to free speech only for those that agree with them, and so committed to diversity they want to run out of town anyone who disagrees with them.
One of the many reasons I am no longer a Democrat is that to be a to be for free speech, tolerance and intellectual pursuit is now to be a Republican.
Posted by jjostinato, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2007 at 7:44 pm
If you are so clouded in your partisanship that you cannot recognize that this man is incredibly intelligent, talented, knowledgable and that he has given so much of himself to his country, you are typical of what has traditionally been referred to as "so Palo Alto" but, as indicated by several posts here, a dying breed.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:28 am
Let us not forget that the Stanford community prided itself on its refusal to do defense work at SLAC and its exclusion of NROTC, and actually made SRI remove Stanford fom its name because they were doing war related work. While I have been a friend of Stanford through the years, it has been with the affection one feels for a somewhat daft friend whose idiosyncracies one ignores. We expect children to be childish, we hope adults will grow up.
Posted by Help me regain confidence in our Universities!, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2007 at 8:03 am
Thanks, Walter, for the reminder of what Stanford is. To refuse an entity because they do "war related work" when the military is the ONLY reason we still have the freedom to say and teach anything we want, allowing Stanford to even exist, is the height of hypocrisy and ingratitude.
Are there ANY reasonable, balanced universities left in the States besides MIT? ( They have Chomsky, but at least they are balanced out so that students can read and hear other points of view and actually practice THINKING, and they have ROTC)
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:31 am
There is a form of defeat that does not have troops marching down our streets. It is when our laws are subordinate to the General Assembly, our rights are circumscribed by a different picture of human rights and our trade is by leave of others. We get the greater by accepting the lesser.
Posted by read again, a resident of Stanford, on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:57 am
I didn't say the military was our ONLY guardian of the Constitution..I said that without it we would not exist. We have to always remember that our military is our last line of defense when no other option looks like it will work in time. I only hope we keep using our military before it is too late.
Posted by I read it again, a resident of Stanford, on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:07 am
oops, i see what you mean, I DID say "only"..but meant that without it we would have no freedoms. but I can see how you would take it to mean that there are no other guardians of our freedoms. of course, that is completely false. just that nobody else is our last line of defense.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Please, Froggy, your last was dense even for you.
On the other hand, speed limits are set for radar enforcement by a measure of average speed. That is why they do not use radar on some Palo Alto and Los Alto streets. It still does not explain why Arabs are Arab's worst enemies. I have to wonder what your Doctorate is in. I have some guesses I will keep to myself. Unless I need an adjustment.