Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Camille Paglia: Refreshing and devastating
Posted by: McQ on Friday, October 27, 2006

I have always, always enjoyed reading Camille Paglia. While I often disagree with her (she's a self-identified Democrat) on particulars, she's always struck me as someone who is remarkably consistent and confident in her thinking. Confident enough to be uninhibited in her opinions but in a way which puts Coulter to shame. She did an interview with Salon that's a must read. Her views on media, feminism, politics and academia are extremely interesting to say the least.

Let me share a few tidbits from the interview with you, but do go read the whole thing:

On the Mark Foley flap:
Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.

[...]

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley's name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men.

[...]

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It's already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You'd expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.
She expresses perfectly the irony and hypocrisy evident from Democrats all in the name of short-term political gain. And she has much more to say in the full interview.

Asked if the Foley scandal hurt the Republicans, Paglia answers:
And this was at a moment in the campaign when we needed to keep the fiasco in Iraq on the front pages. For the Democrats to have stolen the headlines and forced the major media to switch subjects has been a tremendous boon to Bush. What kind of disproportion of scale are we talking about here? The Foley case is nothing compared to the disaster in Iraq and the innumerable lives that are being lost or ruined on both sides.
I wonder if she's ever considered a job as a political consultant?

On Bob Woodward's new book and American views on 9/11:
Oh, Woodward, what a big yawn! Who the hell cares about Woodward? I mean, at this point, he's just an inside-the-Beltway figure. I certainly don't need him to clarify my view of the Iraq debacle.

A big problem is that in the minds of too many Americans, Iraqi culpability for the disaster of 9/11 is still pretty deeply rooted. It's because of the vagueness with which most Americans perceive the map and peoples of the Middle East. It shows how bad education has been in geography and international history at both the high school and college levels. It's highly alarming. The reflex mind-set after 9/11 was, "We've got to do something!" So there was this lashing out at whatever seemed Arab or Muslim.
LOL! "Woodward? Yawn". Loved it.

I think she pretty well nails the reason for the lingering belief that Iraq was somehow complicit in 9/11. As most of us know, it is much easier to manipulate the ignorant than the informed and anyone who believes the majority of this nation is well educated enough to sort through the specifics and differences necessary to make a determination on whether Iraq was indeed complicit is, in my estimation, sadly mistaken.

In fact, in another part she goes on to talk more about how poorly academia is serving us these days:
I'm worried about the future of America insofar as our academically most promising students are being funneled through the cookie-cutter Ivy League and other elite schools and emerging with this callow anti-American, anti-military cast to their thinking. How are we ever going to get wise leadership or sophisticated diplomacy from people who have such a distorted, clichéd view about everything that's wrong with the United States? Neither the intellectuals nor the Democrats have any answers to the problems we face. It's not as if the Democrats are offering a coherent and persuasive foreign policy — they have no foreign policy! They just come across as small-minded politicos jockeying for power.
Again, given the ROTC and recruiter flaps, not to mention the latest kerfuffle at Columbia, I think her point is valid about the product being turned out by those schools she mentions.

Bush:
I'm not a Bush hater. I've always viewed him as a decent fellow who was pushed into the presidency because he was his father's son. But he's been out of his depth in foreign affairs from the start. He certainly lacks the basic verbal skills for the presidency — reading speeches authored by others is no substitute. But I've become concerned about Bush's mental state in the past few months. Sometimes in his press conferences or prepared statements (which I listened to on the radio), I heard a sort of Nixonian tension and hysteria. His vocal patterns were over-intense and his inflections impatient, lurching and sarcastic. There was this seething quality to his speech that worried me and that seemed to signal that something major is being planned — perhaps another military incursion.
Here is one of the few times she gets off into the weeds as far as I'm concerned. While her points about his verbal skills are valid, the rest, eh, not so good. I have to admit though I have detected a bit more combativeness in Bush's recent appearences, but whether I could then go as far as to say that means "something major is being planned" vs. "he's really not happy with the way things are going" remains to be seen.

Rumsfeld:
That Donald Rumsfeld is still employed as the secretary of defense is a living testament to the managerial incompetence of the current president. If Rumsfeld had been booted out early on, Bush would have gotten more of a pass. It could have been argued that he had merely been misled by bad advisors.
She has a point. Sometimes Bush's loyalty to others is his undoing.

Bill Clinton:
Whenever Clinton speaks, it throws into dramatic relief the inarticulateness of our current president, who sometimes can barely get through a sentence. After a career teaching in art schools, I've seen many examples of highly intelligent performers and artists who weren't naturally verbal, so I always gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But now I feel that he really doesn't perceive subtleties and that his thinking is schematic and reductive. Clinton's range of reference and his ability to think out loud and to mesh the large idea with the small detail is remarkable.

On the other hand, I think, what the heck is Clinton doing? I used to assume he was campaigning to be the next secretary general of the United Nations, but he's turning into a compulsive blabbermouth who is compromising his own dignity as a former president. He was unusually young after two terms in office, but no former presidents have tried to hog the spotlight. He acts like he's the shadow president. This isn't Great Britain, where the leader of the opposing party is ready to step in if the government falls. It's a bad precedent, because we wouldn't want a disgruntled Republican ex-president bouncing around the map bad-mouthing a sitting Democratic president. Why is Clinton undermining the authority of the president when national security is so sensitive?
That goes for Jimmy Carter as well, not that he'll shut up. But with the criticism from both Clinton and Carter I'd have to argue that this horse is already out of the barn (although I'm not sure Bush would play that particular game anyway ... but Cheney would).

I'd also point out that Bill Clinton is beginning to gear up for Hillary's run in '08. He's getting in to his campaign mode. And that's something we've not seen from ex-presidents so you have to assume he's breaking some new ground here. How much is enough and how much is too much is still to be determined. We'll see if the American people understand and accept that difference. Paglia seems less than happy about it.

But I think it can be safely said, even without Bill Clinton's contributions, that Jimmy Carter effectively killed the unwritten rule about ex-presidents remaining silent about the present occupant of the White House. And I'm going to be honest ... while I think Carter is an ass, I'm not sure it benefits the country one bit for past presidents to remain silent. I would just be nice if, when they spoke, they had something relevant to contribute and not talking just to protect their legacy with history rewrites.

Iran and Noam Chomsky:
What else? Yet another folly — creating more generations of hatred against America. The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky's books — which I've always considered half lunatic. Chomsky's hatred of the United States is pathological — stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore. But Chomsky's toxic view of American imperialism and interventionism is like the playbook of the rigid foreign policy of the Bush administration. So, thanks very much, George Bush, you've managed to rocket Noam Chomsky to the top of the bestseller list!
Heh ... I got a laugh out of this. But Paglia failed to mention another Chomsky booster who waved his book around during his UN speech - Hugo Chavez. My guess is he did much more for book sales than did Bush. I don't particularly agree with Paglia's take on Iran ("yet another folly") because I can't pin any particular blame on this administration that other administrations don't at least partially share. I simply enjoyed the way in which Paglia took down Chomsky in this particular passage.

Democrats and the '08 election (Hillary):
I was so distressed when I heard that Mark Warner had dropped out of the presidential race. I thought he was going to bring fresh blood into the primaries. Are we really left with the same old tired nags and with robo-Hillary leading the pack? It's extremely discouraging because we would have won the last election if we'd had a better candidate than John Kerry, with his droning hauteur and his Boston-run campaign that made one gaffe after another. It was very close because the country was already getting tired of the Iraq war.

But what candidate do we have to offer when national security is the No. 1 item on the front burner? Democrats became so distracted by their focus on domestic issues over the past 25 years that they're weak on national defense. I started talking about this when I was trying to reform feminism in the early '90s: If we want a woman president, we need to start training ambitious young women not in women's studies, with its myths of universal male oppression and female victimage, but rather in military history and national security issues. That's why Hillary, after she arrived in the Senate, began doing her homework by getting on the Armed Services Committee. But my generation of baby-boom Democrats hasn't done much deep thinking about international issues except in terms of postmodernist fragmentation or fuzzy, smiley-face multiculturalism. We desperately need better candidates.
It's called "telling it like it is". No mention of Obama. But she is right about Hillary and how she identified the need and took the necessary steps to at least give her the proper credentials to claim to be a 'national defense' Democrat. And frankly, that may be the difference in her winning the nomination over other Dem candidates.

Democrats and Republicans:
The Democrats' portrayal of Republicans as fat cats out of touch with ordinary Americans just doesn't fly anymore, and they should drop it. I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it's job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy — not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality. The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem. It's like Hillary's philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, does it? Or does it take a strong family and not the village?

What's broadened the appeal of conservatism in recent years is that Republicans stress individualism — individual effort and personal responsibility. They're really the liberty party now — I thought my party was! It used to seem as if the Republicans were authoritarians and the Democrats were for free speech and for the freedom to live your own life and pursue happiness. But the Democrats have wandered away from their own foundational principles.

The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country. When the American economy was still manufacturing based, the trade unions were viable, and the Democrats stayed close to their working-class roots. But now the Northeastern Democrats, with their fancy law degrees and cocktail parties, have simply become peddlers of condescending bromides about "the people."
And "common good" is one of those bromides. But she touches on the heart of the problem for Dems I think. And she may be right, depending on what happens in a few days, they may indeed need to "throw out the entire party superstructure" and start over. In fact they may need too anyway, and any success in '06 will only delay that needed overhaul.

Anyway, go, read it all (its a 5 pager and there's plenty more).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And "common good" is one of those bromides. But she touches on the heart of the problem for Dems I think. And she may be right, depending on what happens in a few days, they may indeed need to "throw out the entire party superstructure" and start over. In fact they may need too anyway, and any success in ’06 will only delay that needed overhaul.
And the Democrats overhauling themselves is much more likely if they crash in 2006. Having an opposition party led by adults—the presumable result of Democrats purging the moonbats—is worth a lot more than what two years (and likely two years at most) of divided goverment would at best get us.

Vote Republican in ’06, help save the Democrats!

And if the Republicans keep both houses, and the Democrats don’t reform—then hello strong third party movement. Still a much better thing than what two years of divided governemnt would get us.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Free clue: whenever you see or hear the word "reductive", you are looking at derision of principles.

Onward.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Billy, you can’t afford free clues.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It shows how bad education has been in geography and international history at both the high school and college levels.
And who exactly is controlling our institutes of higher learning (and lower learning) Maybe if they weren’t emphasizing feminist studies, and other multi-cultural who-hah, teachers would have enough time for geography, history, and civics.
He certainly lacks the basic verbal skills for the presidency. ... His vocal patterns were over-intense and his inflections impatient, lurching and sarcastic.
Maybe because such scrutiny is paid to his speech patterns, he has become self-conscious about them. The more he concentrates on speaking correctly, the less heart-felt he seems. When he’s speaking from the heart, he sounds genuine about what he’s speaking about.

I become a blithering, stuttering idiot speaking in front of large crowds. Put me with a small group, or in text, and I can adequately express myself (usually, if I’m not in a hurry.)

It will be interesting to see what the reaction to this is from left of center. I see another excommunication happening.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Wow. I’m really impressed with that interview. It seems not every Democrat is bloody insane after all. It’s too bad none of the Dems’ candidates are going to listen to her, though.
 
Written By: kevin
URL: http://
Yeah Keith, but you’re not running for President either. It’s not unreasonable to expect a President to be able to speak well in public. It’s reasonable to consider it a job requirement. If the Dem’s hadn’t nominated a complete horse’s *ss, Bush probably would have lost and his speaking skills would have been no small factor.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Well, I guess for some people, style is more important then substance.

I’ve always read important speeches, even if I’ve heard them first hand. So, I don’t have a bias w/ regards to Bushes style, since much of the substance of his important speeches is dead on.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
"And the Democrats overhauling themselves is much more likely if they crash in 2006. Having an opposition party led by adults—the presumable result of Democrats purging the moonbats—is worth a lot more than what two years (and likely two years at most) of divided goverment would at best get us."
I hadn’t thought of this angle. I’m inclined to consider the Democrats a lost cause, but maybe what they really need is a complete beating for several elections in a row so that they are forced to genuinely reform or die. I’m not sure one more loss in ’06 is going to do it, however. The Republican’s aren’t exactly making it easy to vote for them either. What a mess.



 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Delivering speeches well is only a trivial part of communication skill and I don’t really care about speeches. Much more important is the ability to clearly and persuasively articulate one’s thoughts extemporaneously. Think of Reagan.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
"It’s not unreasonable to expect a President to be able to speak well in public."

He had angular features, a very ruddy complexion, strawberry blond hair and hazel-flecked, grey eyes. In later years, he was negligent in dress and loose in bearing. He was a poor public speaker who mumbled through his most important addresses.

Wikipedia entry for Thomas Jefferson.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Yeah Harun, and you think the communication requirements of a President in early 1800 compare to 2006 exactly how?

Furthermore, as I just wrote, giving speeches is not the same as communicating ideas extemporaneously.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I never thought Iraq was directly involved in planning 9-11. That’s not why I accepted the reasons for going to war. I hope I don’t have to go into those reasons right now.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
I have always, always enjoyed reading Camille Paglia. While I often disagree with her (she’s a self-identified Democrat) on particulars, she’s always struck me as someone who is remarkably consistent and confident in her thinking.

Confident, yes. Like a lot of people with attitude, she sprays ammo all over the field. Hits and misses, but not much deliberate aim.

But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous.

True, objectively. But so what?

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot

Yeah, the polls have really reflected the way *Democrats* shot themselves in the foot over foley. *snort.*

Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard?

So Dems should have done what, exactly? Stood up for Foley? Made innaccurate statements like "I’m sure this was an isolated incident?" Gone out and told social conservatives, "look guys, this incident demonstrates that it’s time for you to drop the anti-gay stuff."? They should have... politically immolated themselves? Right.

I’m worried about the future of America insofar as our academically most promising students are being funneled through the cookie-cutter Ivy League and other elite schools and emerging with this callow anti-American, anti-military cast to their thinking.

Give me a break. Cheap propaganda. People being funneled through elite universities are going onto Wall Street and voting Republican. On the public policy side, all those anti-Americans are going out and joining the DoD, the DHS, and intel, as well as the rest of the government. She’s just taking potshots at cheap targets with zero credible data or specifics.

Bush is probably stressed out, but I don’t agree with her there either.

I guess Rumsfeld and Chomsky count as hits.

Okay, okay, she has some good ideas, but also plenty of nonsense.


The Democrats’ portrayal of Republicans as fat cats out of touch with ordinary Americans just doesn’t fly anymore, and they should drop it. I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it’s job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy — not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality. The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem

It doesn’t, huh? You mean, Camille Pagilla thinks that Democrats are dumb in this line of argument? Or does she have an actual case that this sort of economic appeal/argument/smear doesn’t work anymore? The second one, I very much doubt. Democrats aren’t out to implement "the homosexual agenda" or give out the Social Security system to illegal immigrants, and that doesn’t stop the Republican party from trumpeting it. And it doesn’t neecesarily stop it from working..
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I enjoy reading Paglia becuase I think she is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that people she disagrees with are arguing in good faith, and have legitimate concerns. They’re not idiots, but she has nevertheless come to a different conclusion than they have. I think this is extremely refreshing. She never accuses her political opponents of bigotry or incipient fascism, the way the Democrat machine always does.

She’ll say, "I’m completely pro-choice, but it’s idiotic to argue that the issue has no moral dimension at all, as do most other choice advocates."

As for Bush’s seeming inarticulateness: I’m a frequent defender of his — certainly not on every issue, but in the broader strokes — but I recall thinking during the Vice Presidential debates in 2004 how refreshing it would be to have a president who spoke less like Bush or Kerry, and more like Cheney. Like him or hate him, the man speaks very well. I don’t think the Republicans have has a Presidential candidate who could speak well since Reagan.
 
Written By: Wiz
URL: http://
The Chomsky part is good.

My personal distaste of Chomsky goes back to his very personal role is propagandizing for the Khmer Rouge and denying that the genocide was happening(when was lots of evidence for it).

He has not improved one iota in the intervening years. Same tired old rhethoric, same greenwaldian style of prose in mostly unreadable books.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Heh
Kerry was essential to the Democratic party - he was there to lose, or else Hillary wouldn’t have been able to run in ’08.
What probably scared their cabal witless is Kerry came as close as he did to winning.
(satire....makes ya wonder though, don’t it....)
People being funneled through elite universities are going onto Wall Street and voting Republican
I don’t know whether to laugh at this, or feel sorry for you.
This rates a big - "if you say so glasnost".
I’m sure you’re right, the big schools like Columbia and UCLA and Harvard only turn out conservatives. It’s those little schools through out the midwest that are turning out the liberals.
Ya-buddy.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"People being funneled through elite universities are going onto Wall Street and voting Republican."
"She’s just taking potshots at cheap targets with zero credible data or specifics."
Mr Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.





 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Yeah, the polls have really reflected the way *Democrats* shot themselves in the foot over foley. *snort.*

Lefties are comforting themselves for their shameless exploitation of Foley’s issues by citing some skimpy-ass polls that tipped some initial cringing amongst voters. That turns out to be the demographic equivalent of Chinese food but, damn it, they’re going to hang on to it just the same. Otherwise, they’d have to look in the mirror and ask themselves who and what they sold out and what exactly they got for it.
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
Cheney. Like him or hate him, the man speaks very well.
As do Rove and Rumsfeld. Think that’s one reason why the Libs hate this BushCo triumverate so much? They are articulate, but more importantly succinct.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
we need to start training ambitious young women not in women’s studies, with its myths of universal male oppression and female victimage, but rather in military history and national security issues.
And who has succeeded in modeling this exceedingly well? Sec State Condeleeza Rice. For Republicans.
Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.
Actually, it’s pretty much what I’ve always expected from progressives. I’m rarely wrong in that assessment.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
People being funneled through elite universities are going onto Wall Street and voting Republican.
I’d guess this is more of glasnost being contrarian than something he necessarily believes. A lot like what Pogue has fun doing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, do you have any thoughts on the liklihood of the Democrats fracturing or reforming?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Big agreement with Tom Perkins in his first post. We NEED a sane and useful Democratic party. Or else simply dissolve them and come up with another more reasonable party.

I have been reading Camille for a while, she is one of those nearly extinct individuals, a person of the left who is not a blind idealist nor consumed with either conspiracy paranoia, or seething hatred.

I disagree with her about half of the time, but I find it an agreeable disagreement.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Democrats aren’t out to implement "the homosexual agenda" or give out the Social Security system to illegal immigrants, and that doesn’t stop the Republican party from trumpeting it.
Certainly the Democrats in California want to gove the SS sytem to illegals. They want to give them drivers licenses, make it impossible for police to hand them over to immigration, etc.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It doesn’t, huh? You mean, Camille Pagilla thinks that Democrats are dumb in this line of argument? Or does she have an actual case that this sort of economic appeal/argument/smear doesn’t work anymore?
Election results don’t work for you?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’d guess this is more of glasnost being contrarian than something he necessarily believes. A lot like what Pogue has fun doing.

Sort of. Unknown is also sort of correct. I definitely think that the view of Ivy League universities as little liberalism factories is ripe for challenging - like every other nugget of conventional wisdom.

What did I say anyone wants to bet against? Does anyone think that Ivy League university graduates don’t flock to Wall Street? Anyone want to come after me on that? Let’s compare the number of Harvard - better yet, Yale - Graduates who go into finance to the number that go to work in social justice. Go ahead. Knock me out and prove me wrong.

Now, anyone think that Wall Street is dominanted by a left-wing ideology, and that all these eager young investment bankers are headed there to advocate for liberalism? Anyone? Read the Wall Street Journal much?

Now, if you make my little sniper attack on an overhyped myth out to be a maximalist claim that there are no leftists in academia, then.. it would of course be untrue. I was taking a contrarian cheap shot at a popular cheap shot.

Frankly, I think Camille really is out of whack. The elite universties feed the American elite, and the American elite is hardly majority anti-american. Frankly, leftism runs bigger in the small private colleges.

Yeah, and looker, small schools in the midwest aren’t turning out nothing but conservatives either.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Frankly, I think Camille really is out of whack. The elite universties feed the American elite, and the American elite is hardly majority anti-american. Frankly, leftism runs bigger in the small private colleges.
Don’t forget what segment of those schools she’s talking about, ’nost. It isn’t the economics department, unless they’re in the foreign policy business now.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Frankly, leftism runs bigger in the small private colleges.
I would agree with that. Also, a Universities’ overall complexion is not really a problem, the problem is whether they are tolerant or not. The faculty at my University is overwhelmingly left wing, but I have never met with any hostility whatsoever for my rather outspoken conservative/libertarian views. On the other hand, my first University twenty years ago had profs, who would flunk you if they even knew you had voted for Ronald Reagan.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Yeah, and looker, small schools in the midwest aren’t turning out nothing but conservatives either
Hey, you got my point!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
But I think your ’isms’ in small colleges are going to be somewhat reflective of WHERE the small college is, whereas I think a lot of the larger schools tend to run that way regardless of where they are.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Does anyone think that Ivy League university graduates don’t flock to Wall Street? Anyone want to come after me on that? Let’s compare the number of Harvard - better yet, Yale - Graduates who go into finance to the number that go to work in social justice."

Yeah, show me the stats. Show me how many graduates from Yale and Harvard and show me how many went to finance. I’ll bet the percentage is less than 10%. Probably way less. You’re just spewing hyperbole here. If you have an actual point, it isn’t clear.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider