Marxist Profs or Sensitive Students?

Over at the LA Times' Dust Up, reason.tv interview subject and chief skeptic at The Skeptic Michael Shermer and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Greg Lukianoff are discussing academic freedom, student indoctrination, and the like. Two snippets:

Shermer: "...Unless they are openly teaching a course entitled, in effect, 'Why Liberals Should Rule the World,' professors have no business introducing their political bias to students. Their job is to teach the curriculum of their subject, not churn out a bunch of Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko graduates who will go out into the world woefully ignorant that most Americans think entirely differently from the way they do...."

Lukianoff: "...Is having an opinionated professor really the same as indoctrination? I have seen claims—often from conservative students—that students have a right not to be "harassed" by the left-leaning opinions of their professors. This drives me nuts because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment. Harassment rationales are used to shut down people with dissenting opinions (often the socially conservative, the un-PC, or the merely unlucky) far too often...."

More here. They'll be kicking each other around each week.

reason on campus bias and more here.

Comments

Michael Ejercito | April 14, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Read here .

Mick | April 14, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Critical Theory introduced that notion, in fact.

edna | April 14, 2008, 5:31pm | #

mmm, it might have been nice to read an intelligent opinion that was actually different than shermer's. he and lukianoff seem to be in 95% agreement.

yes, it would be damned difficult to find an intelligent opinion to the contrary, but it would be easy to find a phd professor as a debate opponent who would at least provide a hilarious and inadvertent demonstration of shermer/lukianoff's point.

Jordan | April 14, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Another brilliant feint in FIRE's grand scheme to appear neutral while fulfilling its rightwing agenda. As per joe.

Episiarch | April 14, 2008, 5:32pm | #

This would be even more interesting if they were doing a concurrent Centurion or several keg stands.

shrike | April 14, 2008, 5:36pm | #

Wow! They prod college freshmen with polarization full-time now?

I am still trying to determine if my 35% federal tax rate is "socialist" or if the remaining 65% is "capitalist". I am really suspicious of this labeling game.


Hmmm, should I turn to Fox News or to Democracy
Now! for an answer?

Maybe I should have paid more attention in class.

Apaulogist | April 14, 2008, 5:54pm | #

If I was the student, I would be pissed that my tuition money was spent for purposes other than advertised. It's kind of like how unhappy I was when Nick and the gang joined the dog-pile on Ron Paul while claiming to advocate "free minds and free markets." Fortunately, we can all vote with our course/college choices and magazine-buying dollars.

Warren | April 14, 2008, 5:56pm | #

Major in engineering and this is much less of an issue. Either you can model a linear system, perform the Laplace transform and identify the poles, or you can't. There's just not that much room for bias and opinion (but what room there is can get pretty hot).

Though I was required to take "senior seminar" in order to graduate, it was nothing short of a one hour a week - Marx-worshiping, Republican-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko indoctrination mandate.

javier | April 14, 2008, 5:58pm | #

being exposed to different ideas is not harassment but when you are graded poorly precisely because your ideas differ from the prof's, then you have a problem.

squarooticus | April 14, 2008, 5:59pm | #

Fortunately, we can all vote with our ... magazine-buying dollars.
Drink!

R C Dean | April 14, 2008, 6:01pm | #

Goddam, squarooticus. Its after 5:00. I don't need no steenkin' rules telling me I can drink!

javier | April 14, 2008, 6:05pm | #

Michael Ejercito,

i went to university st. thomas and was there for ann coulture's speech. It was fairly ridiculous but that is no excuse for not allowing YAF sponsored events. In fact. St. thomas was actually really conservative when I was there, at least compared to macalester down the road. however, most in the school council parts were fairly liberal.

Jonathan Hohensee | April 14, 2008, 6:09pm | #

I hate when the comment thing fucks up after you written something.

In my experience, I only had a handful of teacher who where really out of hand and would turn the classroom into a pulpit, outside of that I've had many teachers who would occasionally throw out a vaguely left-leaning glib remark ("This is a picture of Hitler-I mean president Bush. Ha Ha Ha"). If there was an attempt to curb the indoctrination, I have no doubt that teachers would be running in fear over making some statement that could be even slightly construed as being political, either that or the more anal Con kids would shoot down those professors who occasionally throw out a side joke.

The Winter Soldier | April 14, 2008, 6:09pm | #

Teachers who attempt to indoctrinate, rather than teach, should be put up against a wall. No blindfolds either, I want the bastards to see it coming . . .

shecky | April 14, 2008, 6:15pm | #

Are these guys trying to get a talk radio gig?

Voros McCracken | April 14, 2008, 6:18pm | #

"being exposed to different ideas is not harassment but when you are graded poorly precisely because your ideas differ from the prof's, then you have a problem."

Precisely. To be fair to many Marxist professors, I'd say there's a wide divergence from case to case on how well they accomplish it. Many are fully tolerant of opposite viewpoints and grade entirely on the quality of your research and arguments. Unfortunately, there are a sizable minority who, for whatever reason, hold your grade hostage until you spit back out their viewpoint.

ed | April 14, 2008, 6:19pm | #

Major in engineering and this is much less of an issue

True enough, tho' I doubt the experience of getting stoned and snuggling with an impressionable chickie while testing the prof's theories of inebriation and casual sex as a path to understanding Finnegans Wake would be the same with a pointy-headed engineering undergrad. Just sayin'.

NAL | April 14, 2008, 6:20pm | #

Fortunately, we can all vote with our course/college choices and magazine-buying dollars.

Yes and no. Yes, you can choose to pull out of a college whose professors espouse views that you find offensive or even oppressive, but no it's not as simple as returning a defective clock radio to Circuit City and vowing to only shop at Best Buy from now on, because:
1) The money that you paid for your current semester/quarter college courses will most likely be completely or at least partially lost (not to mention the lost time/effort)
2) The course work that you've completed up to this point may not transfer to your new college (representing more lost money, time and effort).
3) The time and effort (and fees) that goes into applying to a new college are not trivial.
4) Moving arrangements and costs are always expensive and stressful.

Mr. Nice Guy | April 14, 2008, 6:27pm | #

I had a fair amount of teachers that let their political ideology get in the way of relating empirical and logical reality to us. But I do think that, if you look at conservatives today, they think anything to the left or contrary to a Rush Limbaugh program must be evidence of a liberal conspiracy and bias, and so I can't credit their assertions of liberal bias much. I don't think such conservatives are worried about bias in academe, they just would like to see a bias more friendly to their views...Meanwhile, the majority of us who are not conservative or liberal tools get screwed. Are'nt we in the majority? Can't we just tell these people to go bite each other while us grown ups talk about reality?

joe | April 14, 2008, 6:28pm | #

...Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko...

Oh, ok. Just as long as you're taking the question seriously and not pimping a political line.

Mr. Nice Guy | April 14, 2008, 6:30pm | #

NAL
A lot of the reasons you mention could apply to any new job, where you've made some investments to move to the job, get a place, a parking spot near the workplace, etc., and are arguments as to why it's not always as easy to "voluntarily walk away" from an employer as many hard-core libertarians seem to think...

There's an old saying ed, | April 14, 2008, 6:32pm | #

'Love is a matter of chemistry, sex is a matter of physics.'

Neil | April 14, 2008, 6:38pm | #

Theres no doubt most of so-called "higher" education (ESPECAILLY in the 'liberal arts' departements) are filled with Democrat Party-loving socialistic Marxists.

But this is begginning to change, with places like Regent and Liberty, the new generation is becoming Conservative!

shecky | April 14, 2008, 6:44pm | #

Shermer is sounding oddly like Ben Stein in that article. What gives?

I've had some apolitical asshole teachers and profs who demanded that students service their egos in order to pass. Yeah, it's fucked up. But just like putting up with some nasty parts of one's job, sometimes they're just a means to an end. At least half of education is just paying dues anyhow. Is dealing with Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving profs really as dramatic as Shermer made out to be?

MMMM | April 14, 2008, 6:44pm | #

It's sad but true that too much education is a waste, but also that education is wasted on too many people.

I despise creeping totalitarianism nannyism, the kind of coercive protectionism that infantalizes the student body. I also despise the more extant problem: creeping totalitariam paternalism, the kind of authoritarian protectionism that convinces a nation full of sheeple to quietly cede their civil rights and moral center to a tough-talkin daddy figure who says they're safer that way.

In the face of this two-pronged assault on individualism, what I hear too often from protesters of the second type (big daddy fascism) is clinically hysterical rhetoric made of grossly sextual metaphors and/or crassly overstated complaints in language so litigious it could make a nannytort lawyer blush.

At the very least, undergrads must be expected to (gasp!) grow their intellect. Those who characterize difficult encounters with the knowledge base as "harrassment" or "kxssing xss" are dogs who cannot be tolerated. Those who mischaracterize their confrontation with new ideas as having it "shoved down their throats" are American X cliches.

Personally, in that case, I think education will have succeeded when it shoves the Constitution and Bill of Rights down the throats of each and every one of them.

CHris Potter | April 14, 2008, 6:44pm | #

This drives me nuts because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment.

A professor is in a position of authority over his or her students. There are a lot of things that are totally appropriate for people in general to do that are not appropriate for people in authority to do.

I trust all of us would agree that it would be inappropriate for a professor to make romantic advances towards his or her adult students. The same holds for making ideological advances.

Kimberly Hellmuth | April 14, 2008, 6:46pm | #

Let's see:
I had a law school professor who taught us that the US Constitution is inferior to the South African Constitution and should be ignored because it was written by "rich, white males". This was 1L conlaw, btw.

I had a law school professor who taught that women are constantly abused by men, and that all women are by nature lesbians...we've just been forced by men to think otherwise (which I guess is a good thing for the propagation of the species and whatnot). She also taught that a proper use of Congress was to legislate housework - complete with "IRS-like agents" to do random checks in order to make sure that men were doing their fair share.

And I had an undergrad professor whose 1st exam included the MULTIPLE CHOICE question: "Based on your own personal experience, what would you tell a young girl to expect from her 1st menstrual cycle". The correct answer was "Do not worry about PMS - it does not exist and was invented by men to belittle women". (My husband, then boyfriend, LOVED that class;)

Seriously, some of it gets WAY out of hand. I'm in grad school now (perpetual student here) and as I was waiting for my class, I listened to the undergrad class taking place. The professor was trying to convince the students that capitalism was evil and that we should enforce group behaviors to help everyone.

Kimberly | April 14, 2008, 6:47pm | #

I'm not sure there was point to that post. Sorry! I think I was just trying to give some over-the-top examples that I have seen at two Southern colleges:)

Neil | April 14, 2008, 6:50pm | #

Ben Stein is a brillliant political commentator who reveals the truth about far-left indoctranation in "higher" education.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Neil just can't leave it alone. He HAS to prove his inanity to the world definitively.

MMMM | April 14, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Chris Potter: "I trust all of us would agree that it would be inappropriate for a professor to make romantic advances towards his or her adult students. The same holds for making ideological advances."

With the absurd notion of "ideological advances" the commenter becomes a case in point: the conservative male ideologue as Dave Mammet's Oleanna.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Ben Stein is a dishonest pseudo-intellectual in the service of anti-empiricism, anti-evolution intelligent design advocates.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 6:55pm | #

Michael Shermer was clearly touched inappropriately by Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving profs in the past. Several at once. And he's confused because he thought it felt good.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Sorry innominante one, guess I'm just bitter and better go cling to my gun and scripture.

Hey, you know who was one of the first people to endorse the "Theory of Evolution"?

KARL MARX!

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:03pm | #

I'm not a conservative, "MMMMM". You seriously don't see the difference between a random person out on the street pushing a political opinion, and a professor doing so in his/her class?

It's interesting how many profs who squeal "Academic Freedom!" when they're called on their propagandizing will belittle the opinions of any student who dares voice a dissent from their dogma.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:05pm | #

I guess that makes Karl Marx pretty smart, Neil. Pretty smart indeed.

If it were true. In fact, the major ideas behind the theory of evolution stretch back quite aways, some all the way to Heraclitus. You *do* know who that is, don't you, Neil?

tarran | April 14, 2008, 7:06pm | #

OK,

based on Neil's 6:56 post, I have concluded that Neil is an ingenious piece of performance art.

Next he'll be telling us that the Nazis were the original proponents of the Interstate Highway System

ain | April 14, 2008, 7:07pm | #

"But this is begginning to change, with places like Regent and Liberty, the new generation is becoming Conservative!"

Wow...we can only hope they are as good as Monica Goodling.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:08pm | #

It's interesting how many profs who squeal "Academic Freedom!" when they're called on their propagandizing will belittle the opinions of any student who dares voice a dissent from their dogma.

You know, I've been taking humanities courses fairly non-stop for eight years, and I personally have *never* seen or heard a professor belittle someone's opinion insofar as it differed from his/her own.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and maybe I'm just the luckiest human being on the face of the Earth, but it has led me to believe that such events are much more rare than those who are invested in the meme would have people believe.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:08pm | #

Its absoluteley true. Just check it out here

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm

". Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky)."

Hows that? So, you agree with Marxists now? Theres a reason they endorsed evolution!

shrike | April 14, 2008, 7:09pm | #

Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Hegel were the best of liberal minds.

The problem with the Groper Norquist types is that taxes are the ONLY issue!

True freedom extends beyond tax policy!

(I know, the GOP types cannot grasp this fact)

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:11pm | #

Elemenope,

I've also never had a SWAT team raid my house in the middle of the night, nor has this happened to any of the houses on my street, at least as long as I've lived there.

That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about midnight SWAT raids.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:17pm | #

Chris Potter --

Difference is the relative frequency we are intended to infer from the people telling the stories, true or not.

The way Shermer tells it, academia is absolutely lousy with little Marxist tyrants, which as I said from my experience is an exaggeration of several orders of magnitude.

On the other hand, SWAT raids are well understood to be rare, but still sufficiently serious (and usually tragic) to warrant attention despite their rarity.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:18pm | #

So, you agree with Marxists now?

If they endorsed evolution as a decent explanatory theory, I agree with them on that point.

Hitler was a vegetarian and Churchill a racist alcoholic. What is your fucking point?

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:19pm | #

Also, the people who dare question such a professor are probably more pigheaded types who are going to be unaffected by propaganda. The people I'm concerned about are the vast majority of freshmen, who come in to college with the weak political background produced by our largely politically apathetic society.

Of course I believe they should be exposed to as many political opinions as possible -- but that exposure should not come in the form of an authority figure propagandizing a captive audience.

Fluffy | April 14, 2008, 7:20pm | #

A lot of you people are all wet.

There is no such thing on the liberal arts side of the university as "value-free" content. This means that by definition there is ideological bias in all content, if you look hard enough.

I would take issue with the notion that there should be value-free content.

If I have a choice between taking a class taught by Hegel and taking a class taught by Mr. Rogers, I know which one I am choosing. Despite the fact that Hegel would definitely have been the kind of guy who would give you a bad grade if you didn't submit to his viewpoint. But getting bludgeoned with his viewpoint would be the point of taking the class.

I think too many people look at their education as a mere credential, to be acquired like an appliance or like levelling up in a video game. "They might give me a worse grade if I don't agree with them!" So what? That's only important if you're buying a GPA and not an education. If you're buying an education, engaging in an epic semester long battle of wills with an aggressive professor will benefit you more than turning in a couple of nice little papers and getting an A.

I suspect that the "fear of indoctrination" talk is really just the nanny statism of the right. [The fake right, not the real right, which is of course me.] People who could never be indoctrinated by any professor are deadly worried that someone else might be so weak-minded that they are indoctrinated. "Oh noes! This dangerous product might produce liberals!" is just the pseudoright's version of "Oh noes! This cigarette marketing might appeal to children!" or "Oh noes! The poor might gamble their money away if you open a casino!" In other words, it's crap. Everyone is afraid that someone else might be indoctrinated, but somehow I've never met anyone who puts this fear into the first person.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:21pm | #

And apparently, according to almighty Wikipedia, evolutionary thought stretches further back into the pre-Socratics all the way to Anaximander.

I learned something today because of you, Neil. For this you should be proud.

Fluffy | April 14, 2008, 7:22pm | #

On cue, Chris Potter pops in front of my post to act out my critique.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:24pm | #

"Oh noes! This dangerous product might produce liberals!" is just the pseudoright's version of "Oh noes! This cigarette marketing might appeal to children!" or "Oh noes! The poor might gamble their money away if you open a casino!"

Excellently put.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:24pm | #

Well, in my four years of undergraduate work at SUNY, I've had two classes with lectures filled with lefty propaganda. Appropriately, one was a communications course titled "Propaganda & Persuasion".

Oh, and I'm a double major in math/physics...so that represents a huge proportion of my liberal arts coursework.

sidereal | April 14, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Wow. Shermer busted out 'Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko graduates' non-ironically? My estimation of him just went way down. It's still pretty high, though. There was a lot of room to drop. Big fan. But 'pinko'? Seriously?

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Fluffy,

Now that is silly. So, this means you'll not complain about public school indoctrination re: drugs, smoking, recycling, or guns, since you obviously weren't taken in by it?

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Also, the atheists here have no grounds to complain about Christian theology being taught in public schools, according to Fluffy, since they clearly wouldn't be affected by it.

Pat | April 14, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Kimberly Hellmuth

"Let's see:...
I had a law school professor who taught that women are constantly abused by men, and that all women are by nature lesbians...we've just been forced by men to think otherwise (which I guess is a good thing for the propagation of the species and whatnot)."


I hope for her she is not married or have any children for that matter, because she would be all screwed when she has to come home to her family...what am I saying, she is already screwed. One wonders what happened to her.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:42pm | #

Chris --

You do realize there is an appreciable difference between 10 years olds and 17 year olds, despite all the jokes made to the contrary, right?

Comparatively fewer 10 year olds are resistant to indoctrination, and in any case, by the time you are 17 if you are *not* resistant, you are likely a lost cause anyways.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:43pm | #

There is no such thing on the liberal arts side of the university as "value-free" content. This means that by definition there is ideological bias in all content, if you look hard enough.

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Of course I don't expect professors to be opinionless robots, but that shouldn't mean that they don't even try to keep their own political views from dominating the class. If you can't teach a course on contemporary issues without turning it into a bully pulpit for your political opinions, you need to find a new line of work.

"They might give me a worse grade if I don't agree with them!" So what? That's only important if you're buying a GPA and not an education.

Like it or not, most people aren't going to college to enrich their intellectual lives. Dropping from an A to a D because you dispute a professor's opinions could seriously impact your ability to get a job.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:44pm | #

My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil backers.

You cannot be a person of faith and believe in freedom this "theory".

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Neil:

Regardless of what Marx thought about Darwin, empirical evidence demonstrates that evolution is real.

Come back when you're done committing logical fallacies.

joe | April 14, 2008, 7:47pm | #

The complainers just want ideology-free, straightforward education. You know, like, "George Washington was the Father of our country," and "Lincoln freed the slaves."

As at least one commenter above amply demonstrates, it's difficult to take this critique seriously when so many of the complainers don't understand the difference between being exposed to ideas and being persecuted or indoctrinated.

Oh no, you heard lefty ideas? Ones you didn't walk into the class agreeing with? Er, is that it?

When I was at GW, there was a group called the Politically Incorrect Student Society who were always whining about how terribly they were being persecuted. Their big issue was...the GLBT organization received the same funding as every other student organization. They weren't complaining that ideas were being squashed and students made to feel unwelcome, but that ideas WEREN'T being squashed, and students WEREN'T being made to feel unwelcome.

There is a line that shouldn't be crossed; students should be free to question and disagree and discuss competing ideas in an atrmosphere that encourages the free exchange of ideas. Professors have a responsibility to create such an atmosphere. The interesting discussion is about how to create an atmosphere that allows questioning and dissent and open discussion. Squashing the ability of professors to discuss ideas isn't the way to do that.

And as for "someone in a position of authority," ahem: maybe this is a good opportunity for some people to get beyond the "no one held a gun to their head. The could CHOOSE..." b.s. that renders so much libertarian thought on workplaces so divorced from reality.

INIGO MONTOYA | April 14, 2008, 7:47pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:44pm | #

My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil backers.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

sidereal | April 14, 2008, 7:48pm | #

I think the difference between public school teachers and college professors has more to do with the voluntary nature of college association. After all, nobody's complaining about Intelligent Design being taught privately.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #

TIO evolution is a good explination for an atheist. But isn't intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?

Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in this?

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #

I thought lonewacko was the ultimate douche. Now there's competition.

Bring back Donderoooo please. It will be like matter & antimatter. Maybe they will merge in some strange way and end up, like, not dicks.

Or not

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:50pm | #

Apparently Neil believes that being faithful necessitates being a reality-denying moron.

Let's hope he isn't indicative of the future of religion in America.

For what it's worth, Neil, a whole fuckload of Christian scholars disagree with you on the whole evolution and faith thing.

That's a metric fuckload, BTW. It's bigger.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:50pm | #

Elemenope,

Ah. The "rebellious teenagers resist indoctrination" myth. Ever heard of the Brownshirts?

The typical behavior of 17 year olds is not rebellion against conformity. It's just a strict adherence to an alternate conformity. Dogmatic Marxism is an awfully attractive form of "rebellion" to a kid who was raised in a "shallow capitalist" society.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 7:51pm | #

edna | April 14, 2008, 7:51pm | #

But isn't intellegent design just as good an explanation?

no.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #

TIO evolution is a good explination for an atheist. But isn't intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?

Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in this?

I think the word you're looking for is "ignorant"

joe | April 14, 2008, 7:52pm | #

For what it's worth, Neil, a whole fuckload of Christian scholars disagree with you on the whole evolution and faith thing.

Yeah, but only radical lefties.

Like Pope John Paul II.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 7:52pm | #

Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in this?

This is what we in the business call "false dilemma". You see, you excluded a whole other set of reasonable options.

Like "ignorant", "idiotic", and "embarrassingly stupid".

Les | April 14, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Also, the atheists here have no grounds to complain about Christian theology being taught in public schools, according to Fluffy, since they clearly wouldn't be affected by it.

Children in mandatory public school vs. adults voluntarily in college.

You are silly.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Why doesnt someone explain to me the gaps in the fossill record then?

joe | April 14, 2008, 7:54pm | #

The typical behavior of 17 year olds is not rebellion against conformity. It's just a strict adherence to an alternate conformity. Dogmatic Marxism is an awfully attractive form of "rebellion" to a kid who was raised in a "shallow capitalist" society.

And also, the smoking. And the drugs.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:54pm | #

The complainers just want ideology-free, straightforward education. You know, like, "George Washington was the Father of our country," and "Lincoln freed the slaves."

Read the above about perfect vs. good.

And as for "someone in a position of authority," ahem: maybe this is a good opportunity for some people to get beyond the "no one held a gun to their head. The could CHOOSE..." b.s. that renders so much libertarian thought on workplaces so divorced from reality.

I'm not calling for a law against professors pushing political opinions in class. I'm making a statement about what should be the (non-legally-enforced) expectation for professors.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 7:56pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:44pm | #
My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil backers.

Your point is wrong and is not supported by empirical evidence.

You cannot be a person of faith and believe in freedom this "theory".

Try explaining that to Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #
TIO evolution is a good explination [sic] for an atheist. But isn't intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?

Because there is no empirical evidence for intelligent design. If there were, there wouldn't be any need to mandate its instruction, scientists and science instructors would include it of their own accord on its merits. It, like "creation science" is a default explanation based on a false dichotomy.

Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in this?

I haven't used the word "bitter", so I don't know why you keep putting it in quotes, as though you're ascribing it to me.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 7:58pm | #

And also, the smoking. And the drugs.

ie, things that all their friends are also doing. You're not seriously going to argue with me about the conformity of "teenage rebellion", are you?

Seriously, how many teens rebel by cranking up their boom boxes and blasting Beethoven, as opposed to those doing so with the latest hip-hop artists? The former is far less expensive, and just as rare and subversive in our society as the latter.

joe | April 14, 2008, 7:58pm | #

I'm making a statement about what should be the (non-legally-enforced) expectation for professors.

...and doing so because you recognize that professors, despite the "voluntary" nature of their association with students, have power and authority over them, and the students are not simply free to leave without consequence.

What solutions you aren and are not proposing is irrelevant. Laws, expectations, professional enforcement, legal enforcement - none of these have anything to do with whether or not professors (bosses) are in positions of authority over their students (employees).

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 7:59pm | #

"...gaps in the fossil record..."

Are you referring to the gaps that keep on being filled in by new discoveries? The gaps that exist because we haven't and never will be able to exhaustively examine every bit of the planet? The gaps that will always exist because of the random nature of fossil formation, or the gaps that will always exist because some fossils are destroyed by natural events like floods and earthquakes?

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:00pm | #

You're not seriously going to argue with me about the conformity of "teenage rebellion", are you?

No, just pointing out how closely your discourse on the subject tracks with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, MADD, and the like.

The little tots, they're subject to peer pressure, so we must save them from being influenced by the bad people who would take advantage of that!

Urkobold™ | April 14, 2008, 8:02pm | #

This is what we in the business call "false dilemma". You see, you excluded a whole other set of reasonable options.

Like "ignorant", "idiotic", and "embarrassingly stupid".

THE Urkobold™ INSISTS ON TOTAL FAIRNESS FOR Neil.

HE IS ALSO MISGUIDED AND BITTER.

Ophelia Paine, PhD, Professor of English and Woman's Studies, East Buttmunch State U | April 14, 2008, 8:04pm | #

What are you people talking about? Harassment? We professors believe in exposing students to a diverse array of opinions.

In my University, we have a wide range of opinions among our professorial staff. We have quite a spectrum of opinions - New Dealers, democratic socialists, Trotskyites. In the Woman's Studies Department we likewise have a wide array of views: Equity feminists, difference feminists, lesbian feminists, straignt feminists . . .

Urkobold™ | April 14, 2008, 8:04pm | #

ALSO, AS A COMMENTER, HE BOTH SUCKS AND BLOWS.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:05pm | #

Thank you for your wisdom and insight, oh mighty Urkobold, my lord and master.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:05pm | #

No, just pointing out how closely your discourse on the subject tracks with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, MADD, and the like.

What does this have to do with anything? The fact that those groups have horrid ideas for how to deal with alcohol and other drug use by teens doesn't change the fact that they're right about teens being heavily influenced by peer pressure.

Les | April 14, 2008, 8:05pm | #

Why doesnt someone explain to me the gaps in the fossill record then?

I suspect you're probably not interested in a genuinely scientific answer, but this site would answer most questions that an objective inquirer might have.

As far as God and evolution go, try this.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:06pm | #

If it please the Urkobold, rumor has it that Neil's middle name is "Bob".

Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:06pm | #

The bottom line is universities are a hotbed of liberal America-hating leftists enamored with the Democrat Party and their lackeys, and infected with Bush Derrangement Syndrome.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:09pm | #

No, Neil, the bottom line is that you are an idiot who is bitter that you couldn't even gain admission to community college.

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:09pm | #

What does this have to do with anything?

It is an example of people with similar ideas to yours.

The fact that those groups have horrid ideas for how to deal with alcohol and other drug use by teens doesn't change the fact that they're right about teens being heavily influenced by peer pressure.

And also, the fact that they are right about how teens are subject to peer pressure doesn't change the fact that they have horrible ideas about how to deal with alcohol and drugs.

It's a warning about where this could be headed. Something to look out for.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 8:09pm | #

Chris --

You've completely missed my point.

It is not that teens are significantly resistant to peer pressure in an objective sense (though, compared to 10 year olds, they most certainly are). Humans are somewhat credulous creatures, regardless of age.

It's that, at that age, the are basically *morally* responsible for themselves and their own beliefs; if they get snookered because they can't think, that's their problem and fuck 'em. I wouldn't say the same about a ten year old who was being propagandized to.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:10pm | #

joe,

I know where you're going with this -- you're trying to justify laws governing the employer-employee relationship. Yes, an employer has a great deal of influence over an employee. Yes, an employee choosing to walk away from the job may suffer hardship as a result. I don't deny that.

I do deny that legislating details of employment relationships is the best way to handle that situation (just as I would oppose legislating professor-student relationships).

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:10pm | #

Hey, now. Neil is clearly someone with a unique insight into derangement syndromes.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:11pm | #

Hey TIO, what are you? Some bartender with an English or Women's Studies "degree"? LOL!

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:12pm | #

OK, Chris. Good for you.

Sadly, there is a significant body of libertarians who disagree with you that an employer has a great deal of influence over an employee...an employee choosing to walk away from the job may suffer hardship as a result.

They come out every time any workplace issue is discussed.

sidereal | April 14, 2008, 8:12pm | #

So when I'm losing an argument, I can say 'the bottom line is' and repeat my unfounded assertions and be right? Awesome rhetorical device!

The bottom line is ice cream is a nutritious breakfast.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:12pm | #

joe,

You know, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tse-Tung believed the State should control employer-employee relationships -- just like you! Careful where you go with that idea!

Urkobold™ | April 14, 2008, 8:13pm | #

I THOUGHT "Bob" WAS HIS UNCLE.

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:15pm | #

And I am, Chris. For example, I advocate ferociously for democratic answerability, precisely because it is possible for government to become abusive.

Now you're getting it: a cautionary tale doesn't mean you wholly withdraw from the issue. It means you learn from what can go wrong, and keep that in mind as you formulate problems.

Mad Max | April 14, 2008, 8:15pm | #

Mao had little pieces of flair that he made his people wear.

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:16pm | #

Actually, Kneel Bob, I have a B.Sc. and M.S. in biology and I'm working on my doctorate in biology studying evolutionary and ecological genetics of populations.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:16pm | #

Elemenope,

So, if a professor is convincing 18 year old students to sleep with him/her by implying it will help their grades, no one should be concerned about this situation because it involves consenting adults?

joe | April 14, 2008, 8:18pm | #

Or a boss convincing his secretary.

OK, I'll stop.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 8:20pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:06pm | #

The bottom line is universities are a hotbed of liberal America-hating leftists enamored with the Democrat Party and their lackeys...

Yes Neil. And they also study things from time to time.

It's amazing how many of us escaped college without becoming "liberal America-hating leftists", or something like you....

Absolutely amazing.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:21pm | #

joe,

I recognize this game. You're the Overbearing Horny Professor, and I'm the Impressionable Virgin Coed who's failing your class.

Well, I'm not sleeping with you, professor, I don't care how much it helps my grade. Maybe a little cuddling, but THAT'S IT!

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:23pm | #

If Neil went to Regents, he's Exhibit A in the evidence of harm done by propagandizing college students.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:27pm | #

Chris theres no need for me to be "propagandized" . You know, most people in this country don't believe in evolution. Especially the real folks out there in the heartland between Manhattan and Malibu.

These are VALUES and they're natural.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 8:28pm | #

So, if a professor is convincing 18 year old students to sleep with him/her by implying it will help their grades, no one should be concerned about this situation because it involves consenting adults?

Oh, come on! Sexual predation is so not the same thing as propagandization.

When talking about apples, please refrain from bring up broccoli.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:32pm | #

The cells in your body that were sexually violated will be shed and replaced in a few weeks or months.

The neurons that were intellectually violated by classroom propaganda will remain stained with ideological semen for a lifetime.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 8:36pm | #

Neil, what does not believing in evolution have to do with values?

I'm honestly curious.

sidereal | April 14, 2008, 8:38pm | #

You know, most people in this country don't believe in evolution.

Um. . what?

Especially the real folks out there in the heartland between Manhattan and Malibu.

The people who live in Manhattan and Malibu aren't real? You do know that 75% of the US population is urban and only 25% rural, right? Have you considered that whether something is true or not isn't based on how many people believe in it? Reality isn't a democracy.

TallDave | April 14, 2008, 8:43pm | #

I would have more respect for the argument the overwhelmingly lefty profs can hold forth in class on whatever views/rants they like, except that these are the same people who say blacks need +20 pts and Asians -30 on their SATs so we can have "diversity."

Apparently some kinds of diversity are more diverse than others.

Of course, they'll argue more leftists and fewer righties want to teach at colleges, which is true, just as it's true more Asians and fewer blacks want to study hard and attend college.

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 8:44pm | #

For instance, observe this thread. Here you are arguing with Neil, who is probably just a troll, but in any case not someone whose mind is likely to be changed by arguing with him.

What could be your purpose in doing so? Is it not because you fear that someone else who reads this thread may be convinced by him? That's the reason that I care about less-strongwilled students not being seduced into leftism by overbearing professors.

shrike | April 14, 2008, 8:44pm | #

This guy "Neil" is a dumber redneck than any GOPer on Fox even.

He is a fucking Creationist hillbilly!

Yes - I know, he does this to promote Bush and Cheney.....

What a fucking idiot though.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:47pm | #

"Yes - I know, he does this to promote Bush and Cheney....."

Don't forget McCain, our next Commander-in-Chief!

Michael | April 14, 2008, 8:50pm | #

It was rather interesting being an avowed libertarian in a Film and Media Arts program in an Eastern state university. "Production of Media Culture" was a required class, and it was basically "Major media organizations are evil, because they like to make money" class. You should have heard the gasps when I posited that the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine was POSITIVE for debate in the United States. Once I explained what the Doctrine actually did, I had a fair number of allies within the class. My teacher remained a Culture Studies light Marxist, but I earned her respect with my knowledge of foreign films and general skepticism, though. It seemed as if she (an adult doctoral student adjunct) had never heard libertarian arguments before.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 8:56pm | #

What could be your purpose in doing so? Is it not because you fear that someone else who reads this thread may be convinced by him?

I do it because it's *fun*. Why else on Earth would I bother?

Well, to be honest, actually, I also find it educational in several senses. I get to learn about the psychology of trolls, and hicks (simultaneously!). I get to refine my arguments on these topics and read others that are novel to me or better-constructed. I get the opportunity to occasionally, possibly be proved wrong, which can only happen if you engage with someone you hold a disagreement with (admittedly unlikely in Neil's case.)

Also, did I mention it was fun? Entertaining? And fun?

shrike | April 14, 2008, 8:57pm | #

oh, the Fairness Doctrine - another smokescreen!

A tired FCC 80's dead move --- and the GOP wants to kill NET NEUTRALITY?

the GOP wants to bypass Net standards and kill access for little guys like reason.com?

Another Sean Hannity blowjob for misdirection!

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater | April 14, 2008, 8:58pm | #

It was quickly buried underneath Neil's latest bout of verbal diarrhea, joe's lackluster libertarian-baiting, and the hijinks that always seem to summarily ensue, but...

I never knew that Voros McCracken was a Hit'n'Runner.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:02pm | #

Hey Joe did you see Obama sinking today? Hes imploding!

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:07pm | #

Hey, Neil. How about you answer my question.

What does rejecting evolution have to do with values?

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:10pm | #

"What does rejecting evolution have to do with values?"

If you believe in evolution you're a costal elite who believes in atheistic materialism and an "anything goes" morally relativistic attitude.

This leads to things like the killing of the unborn, sex before marriage, crime, drugs, divorce, illigetimate births, etc.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:12pm | #

Neil, that's a throwaway answer.

Try a *little* harder.

Bingo | April 14, 2008, 9:13pm | #

"Neil"? More like "kneel"

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:18pm | #

Why don't you respond to my first answer Thats a good an answer as any.

Maybe I'm just a dumb, bitter American who clings to guns and religion.

sidereal | April 14, 2008, 9:20pm | #

I never knew that Voros McCracken was a Hit'n'Runner.

Awesome.

I still remember staring at his results showing Maddux had a top average on balls in play one season and a bottom average the next and thinking "Holy crap. Pitcher evaluation just got revolutionized".

Fluffy | April 14, 2008, 9:23pm | #

Chris,

A couple of points:

First of all, I don't think public schools should exist, precisely because I honestly don't believe religion/philosophy/ideology can be successfully compartmentalized, and therefore conclude that if the separation of church and state is a good thing, the state must be similarly separated from subsidizing just about any humanities-related activity.

But the conservotard whining about left-wing professors is not restricted to public universities, so comparisons to public school students are not apt.

The discussion about peer pressure is also not apt as far as I am concerned, because it assumes there is a default set of ideas that students "should have", and inappropriate influence from professors is causing them to "fall away" from this state of grace. This is, of course, crap. It's crap for smoking and drinking, too. I have no problem with people using marketing to convince college kids to smoke or to drink, and I have no problem with a professor using a college class to convince students to become communists. That's what freedom is about - if I think smoking is good, I should be allowed to convince YOU that smoking is good. If I think communism is great, I should be allowed to convince YOU that communism is great. Etcetera.

And like LMNOP, I fight people online because I want to argue with THEM. The audience is secondary.

an employee choosing to walk away from the job may suffer hardship as a result.

Joe, I have never argued that an employee would not suffer hardship as a result of walking away from a job. I argued that they would not suffer a harm, in the sense of an actionable harm that requires legal redress.

The Whine Commonsewer | April 14, 2008, 9:25pm | #

Is having an opinionated professor really the same as indoctrination? I have seen claims—often from conservative students—that students have a right not to be "harassed" by the left-leaning opinions of their professors. This drives me nuts because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment

Certainly that's a misprint. Wasn't it just days ago we were assured that FIRE was pretty much locked into reactionary Neanderthal ideology?

Fluffy | April 14, 2008, 9:27pm | #

crime, drugs, divorce, illigetimate births

In my state it's the folks in the trailer parks who don't believe in evolution who have all the crime, drugs, divorce, illegitimate births, etc.

Us latte-drinking, Volvo-driving elitist materialist types don't commit any crime, don't have babies at 16, don't drop out of school at 17, etc. It's the Jesus people who do that.

Where I sit if we could just get rid of all the people who believe in intelligent design, our stats on just about every measure of social well being would spike immediately.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:28pm | #

If you believe in evolution you're a costal elite who believes in atheistic materialism and an "anything goes" morally relativistic attitude.

...

Why don't you respond to my first answer Thats a good an answer as any.

No it isn't Neil, because you are implying a whole host of things that the people you are talking with don't imply.

So, if you would, please be explicit; draw the picture. How does one get from evolution to an "atheistic materialism" and a "morally relativistic attitude"? Cause I'm not seeing a plausible causal connection, and I've been around the block on this one.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:29pm | #

"Where I sit if we could just get rid of all the people who believe in intelligent design, our stats on just about every measure of social well being would spike immediately."

So now your endorsing genocide. You just proved my point!

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:30pm | #

Fluffy raises an excellent point: atheists are *underrepresented* as a proportion of the population in prison.

How do you explain this, Neil?

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:31pm | #

Neil, try to focus. I pointed out my objection. Try not to be distracted by the people who think you are so stupid they would endorse extinguishing you to bring up the national average.

Fluffy | April 14, 2008, 9:31pm | #

Neil, that's awfully literalist of you. But then I guess anyone who takes the Book of Genesis literally has a thinking problem.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:32pm | #

And as for proving your point, you have to make one first.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:32pm | #

I bet they didn't believe in the Lord BEFORE they went to prison elemenope. People often turn to God after their atheistic, if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray.

The Whine Commonsewer | April 14, 2008, 9:32pm | #

In my American Government class the core subject matter was Jeremy Rifkin. The class had nothing whatsoever to do with American Government and everything to do with pissing and moaning about how many clock radios Americans own.

Most of the students regurgitated what the prof wanted to hear and yawned their way to the safety of the next class.

It was an annoying waste of time and taxpayer money. However, I doubt if any student was influenced in any way other than a firm resolution to bounce hard objects against the lefty loonie prof's bald noggin.

Oh, and no escape, attendance was like half your grade.

The Whine Commonsewer | April 14, 2008, 9:33pm | #

So now your endorsing genocide

No, I think he's just pointing out that tornado's are an example of natural selection. They always take out the trailer parks.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:34pm | #

Neil, conversion rates in prison are extremely low, as prison ministries themselves routinely admit.

Try again.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 9:34pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:32pm | #

I bet they didn't believe in the Lord BEFORE they went to prison elemenope. People often turn to God after their atheistic, if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray.

No one who believes in god ever does any bad things.

I mean, the 30years war was totally excusable, because, like, they were killing the shit out of everyone for different interpretations of teh bible

What kind of pistol would jesus pack?

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 9:35pm | #

But first, try again with the "evolution is atheistic materialism" thing. It still ain't clear.

The Whine Commonsewer | April 14, 2008, 9:36pm | #

People often turn to God after their atheistic, if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray

That's what happened to all them hippies. Now you'll find them Sunday morning at Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 9:38pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:29pm | #

"So now your endorsing..."

In college they often make sure people use the apostrophe properly with contractions.

But maybe thats an atheist leftist kind of thing.

Daniel Reeves | April 14, 2008, 9:39pm | #

Chris theres no need for me to be "propagandized" . You know, most people in this country don't believe in evolution.

Assuming this is even true, what on earth are you trying to imply from this? Please tell.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 9:41pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:29pm | #

You just proved my point!

I didnt think you were much on "proof" dude. Not a Karl Popper fan.

Or is anyone named Karl vaguely suspect?

Chris Potter | April 14, 2008, 9:43pm | #

That's what freedom is about - if I think smoking is good, I should be allowed to convince YOU that smoking is good. If I think communism is great, I should be allowed to convince YOU that communism is great. Etcetera.

I agree with you insofar as it should not be ILLEGAL to do such things.

I think it's contrary to the purpose of a college to have authority figures pushing ideology, that's all. I don't think my view on that matter should be legally enforced, but let's not pretend this isn't a problem.

Daniel Reeves | April 14, 2008, 9:49pm | #

I don't think my view on that matter should be legally enforced, but let's not pretend this isn't a problem.

"[Modern liberalism], like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." - Frederic Bastiat

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 9:52pm | #

the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:16pm | #

I have a B.Sc. and M.S. in biology and I'm working on my doctorate in biology studying evolutionary and ecological genetics of populations.

Which makes you a marxist i think.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:56pm | #

I wouldnt be suprised if he is Gilmore.

Wouldnt be suprised at all.

Daniel Reeves | April 14, 2008, 9:59pm | #

Is Neil parodying himself?

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:03pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:56pm | #

I wouldnt be suprised if he is Gilmore.

Wouldnt be suprised at all.

Fuck Neil,

You being an idiot doesn't make scientists "marxists".

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:04pm | #

Daniel Reeves | April 14, 2008, 9:59pm | #

Is Neil parodying himself?

I wouldnt be suprised if he is

Wouldnt be suprised at all.

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:05pm | #

Is Neil parodying himself?

I wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) if he is Daniel.

Wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) at all.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:05pm | #

Shouldnt have cut and pasted that

Neil, "Surprised". It has an r in there.

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:06pm | #

Damn, Gilmore! We are,like, mentally connected, dude. It's cosmic!

Neil's Dad | April 14, 2008, 10:06pm | #

spelling is marxist

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:07pm | #

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:06pm | #

Damn, Gilmore! We are,like, mentally connected

The lord works in mysterious ways

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:11pm | #

The lord works in mysterious ways

I just hope He's not working through Neil.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 10:12pm | #

Anyone catch The Factor tonight??

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:15pm | #

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:11pm | #

The lord works in mysterious ways

I just hope He's not working through Neil.

Of course He is.

A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. ~Proverbs 29:11

Les | April 14, 2008, 10:17pm | #

Oh, that was good.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:18pm | #

Neil | April 14, 2008, 10:12pm | #

Anyone catch The Factor tonight??

I think he's trying to out himself at this point

We got pwned by some grade-A trolldom

Neil | April 14, 2008, 10:19pm | #

I just wanted to know what Bill had to say about Hussein's Bittergate.

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 10:22pm | #

Does Bill do your thinking for you, Neil? Me, I decided what to make of BHO's comments without the assistance of talking heads.

Must be that coastal atheistic precociousness.

Neil | April 14, 2008, 10:23pm | #

What do you make of them Elemenope? Do you defend them or what??

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:24pm | #

maybe I'm wrong

he could be a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool idiot

for a minute there i had hope we were getting played

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:28pm | #

someone please put on the album "Fear of a Black Planet". I think it's the soundtrack of this thread

My idea for an anti-lonewacko device was for his computer to play mariachi music anytime he comes to H&R

in Neil's case, it should be this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpKRd2xQeq8

Elemenope | April 14, 2008, 10:36pm | #

Do you defend them or what??

I think that to point out that people who are poor and live in an economically depressed area of the country are serially pissed-off about their situation is no crime. Especially because it tends to be true.

It is also no crime to point out that in situations of economic weakness, people's political behavior becomes focused upon those things that give them a feeling of strength (Guns, God, etc.). I think it is no comment on the validity of those things, just simply the tendency of people to read them into their political behavior that changes (i.e. publicly "cling" to them).

I think he phrased some parts of his comments poorly, and he said them to the wrong audience (San Francisco is not the best place to talk about the mid-west, IMO). It was a foot-in-mouth moment, and if anywhere it should have happened in rural Pennsylvania, not a 'coastal' fundraiser, to use your term.

To infer from his comments that he is somehow elitist is a stretch, especially since for the vast majority of his life, unlike his two opponents, he was far from wealthy. So I do not agree with the dominant media frame of the comments, and to that extent, I defend his comments.

More to the point, there are more important things to be concerned with than a comment that, while phrased poorly, was essentially true. Like, for example, *what these three people actually stand for*.

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:42pm | #

LMNOP =

Seriously. Stop trying. dude is 'baitin.

Although, as a side note, the Economist this week pointed out that most Americans want to vote for things that are in fact contrary to their interests (e.g. protectionism, enlargement of government, increased regulation, silly global warming ideas, 'energy independence', missle sheilds, mexican sheilds, etc)

That probably makes the Economist, like, Marxist though.

Saying most Americans are idiots isnt exactly something a politician should do, though. "Bittergate" though has to rank up as possibly the gayest catchphrase of recent memory

GILMORE | April 14, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Pardon me = "shields"

I got too used to reading Neil's name and forgot the old "i-before-e" rule.

Stupid marxist professors...

ace | April 14, 2008, 10:45pm | #

this debate always pisses me off. shermer and those who agree with him imply that the democrat/republican ratio of universities should mirror the country's ratio. clearly, this is a politically insensitive point, but i hope the open-minded people here at h & r will understand: there is a positive correlation between education and liberal attitudes.

to me, it seems that the most likely explanation is that certain moral truths become difficult to ignore during school. living for four years surrounded by people of all races, religions and sexual orientations makes it harder to harbor certain socially conservative beliefs. after being exposed to that kind of diversity, one finds it harder to say with certainty "i know what attitudes people should have about sex/family/drugs/etc and i want legislation passed forcing my views on everyone," which is the core conceit of social conservatism.

as for why socially liberal students often go for the fiscal liberalism package, from a snotty fiscal conservative perspective, they have the empathy/guilt from their social liberalism which, on average, counteracts