chivalry lives?

Technically, a member of the political party that seized power in Russia in 1917, one that advocates the violent overthrow of capitalism.

My use is someone that deludedly believes their altruistic belief in their deity of the collective gives them moral and political claims to my life, liberty and private property.

Goggling " "university professor" liberal conservative ratio " I find

Down the page a bit I find:

OK, I went too far. Some times things simmer inside and I get kind of ballistic. If you call me a racist and I would just shrug it off, I'm know I'm not. If you threatened to discriminate against me based on race or gender, I'd say I don't want to work with or for you.

But show me a picture that evokes a vice (such as desire to live off the labors of others), and the implication I'm amused causes me to slowly realize it as a subversive attack, pretext to an institution, say Argonne National Lab, justify reverse-discrimination against people of the same gender or race as myself, and the establishment of double-standards based on races/genders it is OK to demean, humiliate and degrade (and thereby many peoples value-assessments of them), and those it is not.

It seems the liberal social engineers have accomplished giving us white christian males a dose of the discrimination and hyper-sensitivity

Two wrongs have not made anything right, and an eye-for-an-eye is leaving many blind.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens wrote (in ) about 'chivalry lives?', on Mon, 13 Dec 2004:

The key phrase there is 'liberal arts'. It's hardly surprising that such a survey would find a politically-left bias in 'liberal arts' faculties.

In any case, academia as a whole tends to be leftish, by its very nature. The students are encouraged to think, and question everything, which leads them naturally to radicalism and iconoclasm, and those who stay in academia rarely change their initial views very greatly.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Henry wrote (in ) about 'chivalry lives?', on Sun, 12 Dec 2004:

A spelling mistake. Or, at best, a transliteration error.

-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited.

Its more than just 'liberal arts', government-academia engineers and scientists squander billions of dollars. Do they ever bother thinking that an inverted double-standard is still a double standard? That two wrongs make not a right?

That robbing someone and calling it "tax", justifying it by saying its for the good of the people you are robbing is still armed robbery?

The government-academia complex is no less greedy and destructive than the capitalist mixed-market. It is a parasite that expands to the size its host will tolerate. It tends to deliver the least value at greatest expense to its host, while competing business must deliver the most value at least expense.

The academia-complex is worse than business. Business (military notwithstanding) has to do something profitable that people will pay for. Academia needs only contrive whatever worthless excuses for funding, which edu-bureaucrats are only too happy to pay for.

All that means is that you have to change your name to 'America' (or possibly 'Israel').

Well, as long as it's your part I'm less bothered. OTOH some people deserve it and we are all enriched by their demise.