As Unix-Jedi said may of os mind but we are not on the hiring and PnT committees that make those decisions. Bet it was something like Bill Ayers, that 60's liberal? Hire him right away.
Ity is like the guy that was at princeton (Peter Sanger(?)) whose basic thought was those who are not perfect should be snuff out at birth because they are a cost to society.
Didn't we fight a bunch of people in the 40's that thought that?
Well, Unix, I would suggest that rather than bitching about the current state of education, do something about it. That actually goes for all of you. If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher. Or at least a mentor to a child. We certainly need them.
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me.
That would be Peter Singer who wrote such "uplifting" words as these:
"Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus."
"When the death of the disabled infant, will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."
This guy is on record as saying that parents should be allowed to kill infants up to one year old.
"educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students."
SOME educators want to do so. But you are exhibit A for the group of educators who don't have the first clue about what critical thinking skills are. After all, you think anonymous unverifiable accusations are more authoritative than detailed first person accounts from someone willing to be named on the record.
If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher.
They won't hire me, Mark. Nor will I waste the time to do the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers. And I know they wouldn't keep me even if they did. I'd insist on fair and honest work. I've already seen what happens to teachers who demand that. The rot and self-delusion is so entrenched in education that there's no way, IMO, to save it short of tearing it down and starting over. We're almost to that point. Parents that care send their kids to private schools. Those who can't afford that are taking advantage of the huge growth arena of "additional study" - like Sylvan.
Don't you dare try and tell me it's not how it is. I come from a huge family of teachers. I did a fair amount of work for a girlfriend who was getting her masters in education. My junior year of college was harder than her entire masters program. I directly work with the Education Department. The one with the Che t-shirts. The commie flags. The Obama stickers everywhere. The ones who have students who failed out of every other major of study in school. The one with entry SAT scores hundreds of points under every other major. The one that graduates teachers with no hard science course requirements. No external philosophy or history courses, even.
(Granted, you denying it is actually proof we're onto something, your dishonesty is handy that way. Remember, you can always serve as a bad example.)
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
You've proven that you don't know what critical thought is. Ergo, there's no way in hell (other than by bad example) that you can teach it.
Right wing propaganda? Mark, I'm talking about my experience.
In your words, a primary source. So listen up, and listen well. For I boomerang your mishmash of misunderstood ideas and sound bites back on your head. Primary Source. According to you. So unimpeachable. I'll not hold my breath waiting for your apology.
Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me.
It's called public shaming. It's not unhealthy. It's wanting truth and justice and even the American Way.
You're a liar, Mark. A blatant deceiver. Your opinion(s) are rehashes of someone else's, and you call us brainwashed. It's not an unhealthy obsession to make sure that people know you're a liar, a crock, a shameless loser who can't be bothered with even the attempt at honest debate. When you leave, I (and I think DJ, too) don't follow. I've posted once on your site, and that was because you were being blatantly dishonest (and referring to this site). I shan't do it again. Go away, troll and lie and deceive and talk your heart out to your handful of "regular readers" as you have for years on your site. It's a Free Country, after all. (Or was. Looking dim on that front.)
Here, Kevin's site is a research facility. People come here to learn. To grow. To discuss and debate. It promotes freedom. Self-actualization. Truth instead of Pravda. (What America used to stand for - before we bit into the poisoned apple of "public education".)
Having your lies and deceit demeans this site. Reduces its value. Takes the clarity that Kevin brings to issues and clouds them with doubt and confusion. I will oppose your lies here. I will make damn sure anybody else reading this knows you've got a years-long track record of deception, lies, single-mindedness, refusing to admit error, and refusing to concede points disproven, repeating the earlier discredited points over and over, expecting us to have forgotten. Well, the regular's haven't. But many people read here who don't comment. They come here via google, via searches. They don't know that you're a lying "educator" who says that capitalism and socialism are equal, who has a huge amount of trouble backing up any argument he makes with facts, preferring opinion pieces which he repeats almost wholesale.
But they'll note something's wrong when DJ, or Ed, or me, or Kevin refer to your past history. When they can easily look at a case Where you lied. And then they can weigh "your" "opinion(s)" suitably.
I won't let you demean this site, depress its value, remove its importance. I won't let your careless slanders and lies go unchallenged and unobserved. Your site is a worthless conceit. Do what you will there. Here? Oh, no, it's on, liar-boy. You've been served.
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many
What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media. Other than a few blogs and some talk radio, what is the supposed source of this propaganda -- telepathy? stealth brainwaves transmitted on some secret wavelength?
...educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
No, they don't. Not most of them. I've been in academia almost my entire life -- in different countries, in different states, in lowly institutions, in top-ten institutions, at every level from kindergarten to doctorate -- they don't. A minority actually does, many think they do, but in practice most really, really don't.
Markadelphia is convinced that the mainstream media is right wing, in spite of the fact that even lefty institutions such as Harvard have proved otherwise. Of course, when you're as far left as Marky is, even Ted Kennedy looks like a right winger.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you? (Rhetorical questions and all…)
"If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher."
We've been trying for months to teach you, teacher boy. If you don't like what we write, then try learning. It'll open a whole new world for you.
"Or at least a mentor to a child."
Of course, you jump to the conclusion that we don't currently mentor children, right, teacher boy? Still haven't learned to not jump to conclusions, have you?
"And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students."
You have demonstrated for many long, weary months that you have no idea what critical thought is, and you're lecturing us that it ought to be encouraged in students? You practice chutzpah as if spitting were an art form.
"Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something ..."
Of course, you jump to the conclusion that we don't currently accomplish anything, right, teacher boy? Still haven't learned to not jump to conclusions, have you?
"... as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me."
Of course, your somewhat unhealthy obsession is to continue to deny reality, to deny error, to refuse to learn, and to save your precious ego from risk, right liar boy?
You have no sense of shame or embarrassment, none of the usual checks and balances that tend to keep ordinary people from become loudmouthed idiots. Now why is that? Did your mommie drop you on your head, or did you learn that at school?
It's not an obsession, little boy. It's simply the refusal to let an idiot win by default. The ink's dry, and your past will be pointed out with damned nearly every response to you so that others can follow it easily.
I am curious. Did you attend SF State in the sixties? I was an engineering student at that university during the mid sixties and a bunch of loose screws similar in thought process to you disrupted my, and seventeen thousand other real students education.
"the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers."
That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude :)
"What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media."
Sarah, seriously, what country do you live in? Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium. Fox News is still the most popular news channel. The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
"Did you attend SF State in the sixties?"
When you are as far right as all of you are, everyone is a communist. It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know. I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact.
I am currently in a PhD program. While I don't intend to be a full-time academic, I would be interested in being a part-time adjunct.
Based on several experiences I have had already, I do not expect to be allowed a long career as a college professor, however. Certain attitudes are assumed to be part of the academic package, to the point that if you do not share them, you are regarded as some sort of freak or dangerous upstart.
"Fox News is still the most popular news channel."
And let's see.... NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN... so yeah, it's the most popular, but it's also the only one of five that does NOT lean left. Nor does it lean as sharply right as MSNBC leans left.
And you count this as evidence that liberal opinion does not dominate television?
"The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this..."
NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune... is the New York Post as big as ANY of the above? Can you in fact name a single daily with the readership and status of the above five *besides* the Wall Street Journal? Or are you claiming that one of 6 equals "dominance" just as you apparently think one of 5 equals "dominance" in television?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that there are any fewer left leaning blogs than "blogs like this"? Can you name a single right leaning blog that fills a niche complementary to the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos?
And of course I noticed that you completely sidestepped "Liberal opinion dominates education" in the sentence you so skillfully "rebutted".
Just to be sure you know, "rebutted" does NOT mean "emptied a chamber pot onto, AGAIN". Given your responses, I think I can be forgiven for suspecting that might be what you *think* it means.
It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know.
Just like that woman in New York Fucking City who, in 1984 after Reagan was elected, exclaimed "But I don't know anyone who voted for him!"
Dude. You're a teacher. You are entrenched in a cesspool of liberal group-think. You claim to be the most moderate person YOU know. But that really doesn't mean squat.
Couple that with your sheer refusal to learn anything that might shatter your precious little make-believe world, and yes, you're a liberal loony.
I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
Because you guys were just SOOOOOOO understanding of anyone who didn't agree with you, right? I mean, all those people who called me a nazi, a chickenhawk, a Rethuglican, a Reich-winger, a goose-stepping thug, a Christofacist Godbag, a Brownshirted murdering goon, a baby-killer, a racist, a homophobe, or any of the million other epithets I've had hurled my way, they were just expressing themselves, right?
What an absolute load of horse shit. If there's anything the past eight years have taught me, it's that anyone who doesn't immediately and without question conform to the Liberal worldview, they are shunned, scorned, insulted, attacked both verbally and physically, and made victim to any number of slights that they Left can conjure. I was living in Seattle back in 2004 when one of my neighbors was the victim of arson because of a Bush/Cheney sign. ARSON! His front yard was on fire! His house was almost burned down because of his support for a political candidate! You want to talk of hatred, asshole? Take a look at what the Left has been doing to this country for the past eight years!
But I know you won't. Because once again, it would shatter your little make-believe world to pieces, so rather than deal with that you'll just shove your head right back up your ass where it's nice and comfy.
"It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know."
I suspect you mean, "I am probably the most moderate person that I hang around with."
Now, why would that be? Is it because any time you open your blathering mouth in front of someone who is less liberally loony than you are, you get your head handed to you, and so you hang around only with people who are more liberally loony than you are?
...That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude.
Nice refutation. What is it you teach, Mark? Whatever it is, I hope you aren't passing these "skills" on to your students.
I'm curious: what % of teachers you work with would you say vote Republican?
Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium.
Yes, I said as much. It's because liberal talk radio is so BORING that even liberals won't to listen to it (see: Air America, failure of).
Fox News is still the most popular news channel.
As Grumpy pointed out, there are several other channels that lean left. If Fox is indeed the most popular, it might be because roughly half of the population has only ONE news channel they can call home, while the other half has at least a half dozen to choose from.
The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...
You're giving me two newspapers as evidence that print media isn't overwhelmingly liberal? What about the NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Tribune, the Strib, just to mention a few?
...the millions of blogs like this...
I mentioned blogs. Most people don't read most blogs -- most people read a few very popular blogs. But you are right, if it weren't for the Internet, the liberal stranglehold on print media would be virtually complete. Yet, for the last few years at least, the HuffPo and The Daily Kos have rated the most popular political blogs in terms of readership.
...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
Because the competition was even more incompetent. Besides, you should say "re-elected," because blogs weren't very popular in 2000.
"the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers."
That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude
You didn't tell me why it was so funny. I'd really like to know.
It's not. It's the truth. Unlike you, I can point to the obvious. Kids are indoctrinated in school. Proven time and again. Bloody hell, you're Exhibit A.
Mark, you've proven you're blatantly dishonest. You struggle to try and prove that you're not an ignorant fool, and just keep proving that you are an ignorant fool.
Remember your primary source bullshit that I called you on? ("Primary sources" are used historically, for far ago events. Nor are they automatically honored.) But you refused to accept that, and kept right on.
But when Kevin demonstrates to you a (per your repeated usage after explanation) primary source, you refused to accept it.
Well, here I'm a primary source. Either admit that your previous "primary source" reliance for questionable "conclusions" isn't necessarily valid, or stand proven (once again) of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and obtuseness.
"What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media."
Sarah, seriously, what country do you live in? Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium. Fox News is still the most popular news channel. The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
Radio waves. Cable news channel.
New York Post? Who the hell reads it?
Wall Street Journal - I've told you this before. This is you repeating something you've heard. Have you ever read the goddamned Wall Street Journal? It's famous for it's left wing reporting. And for having extreme conservative opinion pages. Yes, the WSJ opinion page is conservative. (Not your derogatory "propaganda".)
Fox News is the most watched (Gee, wonder why that is) CABLE news channel. It's viewership is not as much as the other channels combined.
And it's dwarfed by the over the air news media. And the papers across the country - excepting a couple that you can note. The same media, by the way, who are now admitting they were shamefully in the tank for Obama, and fretting what that will mean for their credibility.
Go tell them! They're right wing! They're bitter clingers! Stop telling us - the media's even agreeing now! It's just you and Alterman now!
When you are as far right as all of you are, everyone is a communist.
All of us? Tell me, Mark, what makes me far right wing? What makes Kevin? Labrat? DJ?
It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know.
Alternative hypothesis: You're incapable of critically and correctly evaluating.
2nd Alternative: You're surrounded by communists.
The 1st is far more likely, and follows with the proofs you've been giving us for the two years.
I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
Only the liars, Mark. Only the liars. If you're not my enemy, why would you lie to me? You have blatantly lied to us, and for example, kept assuring us that Obama doesn't hold beliefs that according to his record, his speeches, and his published plans that he does. That's dishonest. Why would you lie to us? Why would you lie to yourself?
And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact.
I'm hardly angry. In fact, I'm writing this in between making waffles for my sweetie. She has to get up and go work at 4:30 in the morning at a highly successful auto plant. So I'm making waffles to freeze them so she can have a tasty breakfast. So she can go work to be taxed to pay for the Frosts healthcare. You know, the healthcare they didn't think was important enough for them to pay for it. I'm not raging about it. Neither am I making shit up about it.
You, on the other hand... Well, we've demonstrated how dishonest you are. My sweetie doesn't understand "why I bother with that fucking idiot". (She's read many of your comments.) Last night I gave her the link to my above denunciation of your attempts to degrade this site. She read it, read some other comment threads, and said "Oh. I understand."
We may be going into the dark night of socialism, fascism and communism. But your attempts to destroy the individualism that is at the very heart of what the American Experiment was about shall not go unchallenged.
And of course I noticed that you completely sidestepped "Liberal opinion dominates education" in the sentence you so skillfully "rebutted".
Actually, he did address that comment. He said, "That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude." Albeit, not in direct response to my comment, but in the interest of conciseness, I think he considered that a universal rebuttal to the general idea that public education is heavily left-leaning.
"And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact."
You mean stuff like "Sarah Palin is dumb"? Yes, I know you didn't make it up personally, but you bought it hook line and sinker, in spite of primary source evidence from the person responsible for bringing Palin up to speed on international issuesand a political enemy who generally agrees with you who actually watched Palin in action and went to the trouble of pointing out that Sarah Palin is actually very intelligent. (When an enemy concedes a point which hurts their own position, it's only because it's true and the enemy has enough intellectual integrity to admit it.)
Making stuff up (or borrowing made up stuff) is your pattern teacher. We constantly point to evidence which supports our statements and demanding the same from you. And on those rare occasions when you point to some valid evidence as in this case (Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) we do acknowledge the validity of that specific evidence, even when that evidence is only a fraction of the full set of evidence available.
Come to think of it, you still have not stated one single point to support your claim that our (time tested) rules for evaluting evidence undermine some of our claims about Obama. How about it Mark, you made the claim, now it's time to back it up. Or were you just making something up and passing it off as fact?
And that's not the only time you've engaged in handwaving and refusing to answer when we asked for specifics of your claims. You also recently made some claims about (I think) McCain, then when pressed for specifics you claimed we already knew what they were, then you notably did not provide a single specific. (I don't remember exactly what it was and I couldn't find the comment. Does someone else remember exactly what that was?) Once again, it sounds exactly like making s**t up.
Kevin, maybe you could add a page to your blog simply listing out pointed questions which Markadelphia has refused to answer or provide evidence for, along with links to those comments. It's already a huge list and I think it would be instructive.
BTW Marky, if the lamestream media is not left-wing and influential, how do you explain the abject ignorance of the apparently intelligent Obama voters in the video here?
And it's that right-wing media that's to blame, don't forget.
Because more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America. And we follow Rush without question. Nevermind that most of us don't listen to him and have no idea what he's talking about from week to week.
No, Mark is out to reinforce (he's proven it time and again) why the "progressive thought" has no actual thought in it. Just compilations of insults, perceived slights, victimizations, calculated injustices, and beyond all, intentions over actuality, results over opportunity.
Comparative political science. Comparative, because you can do whatever you want and don't get straitjacketed into methodological dogmas like in other subfields. Also, because my program doesn't have a political philosophy concentration, (boo!).
I'm looking into the interaction between the state, and non-state sources of community or political power. Right now that means religious groups, but I'm hoping to find other cases as well. I'm very interested in the religion issue, but there's too much cant going around on it, and if I can find a nonreligious structure that is broadly comparable, it should shed new light on the subject.
Also, the topic is a good place to poke at the weak points of classical liberalism, and modern statism, and every other political philosophy out there, so I like.
"Because more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America."
Rush Limbaugh's show pays for itself. Where does its income come from? From advertisers. Enough people watch his show to make advertising on it worthwhile for advertisers, and so advertising time on his show sells for enough that he is paid in excess of $30 million per year from its revenue.
This is known as free enterprise, and the rates are established through supply and demand.
Now, why can't Air America do that? Because not enough people are willing to listen to it to make advertising on it worthwhile, and so advertisers don't advertise very much on it, so the demand for advertising time is low, so the rate for advertising time is low, so the revenue is low, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Interesting, ain't it? Perhaps Al Franken et al could participate successfully in the free enterprise economy if they didn't talk about how awful they think it is. Hypocrisy should be painful, shouldn't it?
"You are entrenched in a cesspool of liberal group-think."
Really? Then how do you explain my colleague who is an evangelical Christian? Or the math teacher in our school who is devotee of Milton Friedman? If anyone is a victim of group think, it is many folks who post here...a group think that relies upon creating enemies where none exist.
"what % of teachers you work with would you say vote Republican?"
That would be half...50 percent.
"Most people don't read most blogs"
Mmm...no. Most estimates I have seen are between 20 and 30 million and the percentage of those that do are overwhelmingly conservative due to the fallacy that all media are liberal and evil.
"And we follow Rush without question."
Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says so if the shoe fits...
No. How do you explain your lies, deceits and redirections?
You're again trying to change the subject, liar.
You complain we call you a liar - insinuating we've made it up. No, you're a liar because you lie. All attempts to get you to a logical, honest discussion are doomed to failure.
Which is why we laugh at your "judgments" that you're "the most moderate" and other similar hilarities. Even if it happens to be the case, you're not a trusted *ahem*primary source.
Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says....
And you would know this, how? You're a teacher. You work during the hours that Limbaugh broadcasts, so obviously you cannot get your information from that *primary source* - you have to be getting it from a secondary source. So, which one?
"Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says so if the shoe fits..."
How many times, in how many ways, have we told you, over and over and over again, that we are NOT fans of George W. Bush, except in his capacity of Commander in Chief during a period of war?
How can you be so fundamentally dishonest and still survive?
Mmm...no. Most estimates I have seen are between 20 and 30 million and the percentage of those that do are overwhelmingly conservative due to the fallacy that all media are liberal and evil.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Out of the people who read blogs, the majority does not read the majority of blogs -- the majority reads a few very popular blogs, so it's a moot point that there are "millions of blogs like this" feeding the masses right-wing propaganda. You ignored the point that the two most popular political blogs are the Huffpo and Daily Kos, both heavily slanted to the left. (Now I see why Unix uses boldface when addressing you.)
BTW, I don't listen to Rush, never have. On occasion I listen to Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage, and I distinctly recall that you approved of Ingraham (n.b. Savage is not a big fan of Bush). But Kevin brings up an excellent point -- how could you make the claim that we repeat everything Rush says verbatim unless you listen to him on a regular basis? And it would have to be an amazing coincidence, anyway, since at least two of us mindless locksteppers don't actually tune in.
"Chicago Tribune..."
...who endorsed Bush for President in 2004.
You misquoted me: I wrote "Sun-Tribune." I meant the Sun-Times.
So, how about that video Ed linked to? What do you think of that, Mark?
Well, Mastiff, you are much less able to downplay your ideology than I am, since I'm in the natural sciences. Sounds like fascinating work, though. Are you studying in the U.S.?
Now I see why Unix uses boldface when addressing you.
Not that it held, mind you, but I was one on a board where we had to do a lot of HTML markup due to the threading, and it's not that hard.
Plus, it makes me feel better, to point out twice as hard something Mark's either studiously ignoring - like the point you're trying to get him to stick to - or he's just being flat dishonest about.
If he were really able to critically think, it might be instructive for him to compare and contrast who tries to ignore more points. Funny thing, I can't recall any time when he asked specifically for something to be dealt with that Kevin, you, I, DJ, Russell, LabRat, Geek (etc.) then ignored.
But to try and catalog his omissions and attempts to change the subject is a major undertaking. (I know. I started to once.)
After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies—indeed, anything “studies”— were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.
...
The K-12 public education system is essentially wrecked. No longer can any professor expect an incoming college freshman to know what Okinawa, John Quincy Adams, Shiloh, the Parthenon, the Reformation, John Locke, the Second Amendment, or the Pythagorean Theorem is. An entire American culture, the West itself, its ideas and experiences, have simply vanished on the altar of therapy. This upcoming generation knows instead not to judge anyone by absolute standards (but not why so); to remember to say that its own Western culture is no different from, or indeed far worse than, the alternatives;
[U-J: gee, that sounds familiar] that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort...
"since at least two of us mindless locksteppers don't actually tune in."
Make that three. I don't listen to him either. In fact, I actively avoid spoken and sung words during the work day because they interfere with my work. (It's impossible to focus on complex code and what someone is saying at the same time.) I only listen to instrumental music played from iTunes.
I can only think of one reason why we might say the same thing as Rush does verbatim, that's when he quotes the same sources that we're quoting. Occasionally I might come across someone pointing out something Rush said, but on average, that's only once every 3 or 4 months.
Marky, can you point to specific examples? (Yea, right! Snort! Look who I'm asking!)
See, it doesn't require collusion for multiple people to reach the same conclusions. It merely requires looking at the same evidence and using the same tools to evaluate that evidence. Heck, scientists do it all the time. When two scientists with no connection to each other make the same discovery, it's not because they've colluded somehow. It's because they're looking at reality and using the scientific method to evaluate what they're seeing.
"he'll say they're cherry-picked and then he'll ignore the poll or say that it was unscientific."
I'm surprised he actually ignored it. Or maybe not.
If it was just the video, then there would be good reasons to downplay it. There are too few people in the video for the results to be anything but anecdotes, and we all know (all of us but Markadelphia, that is) that anecdotes are not data. The people in the video were cherry-picked to some extent. They looked for Obama voters who were apparently intelligent, articulate, and willing to talk on camera.
While the interviews were fascinating (especially that only one of them wanted to know what the true answers were), it's the poll results which provide the true data.
And in the unanswered questions department:
How about it, Marky. Which of our claims about Obama are undermined by rules of evidence?
"Now THAT is the funniest fucking thing I have heard all year."
Now THAT is believable, for once.
We LIKE the fact that he showed a backbone in response to 9/11. You don't, hence you don't understand our attitude toward him, hence it's funny to you.
"And you had damn well better chose your words carefully at this point."
"We LIKE the fact that he showed a backbone in response to 9/11."
It's sad funny, dave, not funny funny. In the thread above, I discussed how effectively the right has brainwashed people into believing they are the solution. In the space of six months Bush went from..."bin Laden wanted Dead or Alive" to "he's not all that important" and "I don't spend that much time on him."
If these words were uttered by Al Gore or any Democrat for that matter, all of us would be in complete agreement. Instead, DJ will now offer some excuse (sounding much like a liberal does complaining of being a victim) about what Bush really meant while all the while the facts still remain: the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports.
Instead he chose to largely ignore Al Qaeda and attack Iraq which has proved by and large to help the people who attacked us on 9-11. One could also say that he pulled troops out of Saudia Arabia, thus caving to bin Laden's number one demand of us. So, where's the backbone?
Kevin, I do the monthly 6.95 thing off and on...more off than on as he tends to repeat himself a lot. During the election it was really fun to listen to him grinding his feet in a circle. YouTube also puts up his stuff for free.
Instead, DJ will now offer some excuse (sounding much like a liberal does complaining of being a victim) about what Bush really meant while all the while the facts still remain: the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports."
We are not concerned with what Bush meant, we are concerned with what he did. For months, you have refused to understand that, no matter how many times it has been explained to you. It is your fundamental dishonesty at work again, liar boy. It is as Kevin said:
"Observing reality is not the same thing as needing something to be true."
And you simply need for it to be true that Bush did nothing right, so you cannot admit that he did do anything significantly right.
Now go away, little boy. Grownups are talking again.
how effectively the right has brainwashed people into believing they are the solution. In the space of six months Bush went from
You keep repeating this as if it means something.
Did nothing else happen in those 6 months?
Did the situation stay exactly static?
the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports.
Who?
Most of them are dead. Bin Ladin, your talisman, is hiding on a frozen hillside, having to do peritoneal dialysis with out proper facilities, equipment, or solutions.
And you consider this a flaw.
Instead he chose to largely ignore Al Qaeda and attack Iraq
We've explained this enough it's not going to get through to you.
We couldn't leave the soldiers on the Iraqi border forever, and the UN wasn't getting off their gold-encrusted toilets to do anything. Saddam was providing massive support and training to terrorist organizations - including asylum for al Queda members.
Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. I understand, since you're a not honest person, that you don't understand the concept of living up to obligations and honestly making promises. But the rest of us understand it.
It wasn't a new war, it was a direct continuation of the last one - and one that had full and total support of the Clinton Administration during their enforcement, and the almost total support of Congress when it came to a vote. Meaning that they were using it for partisan political attacks and trying to "score points" on Bush for his successes.
But after all the screaming and rhetoric, amazingly, Congress voted - overwhelmingly - to support the war. Repeatedly. (And notice that now that the election is over, the Rush to Flee Baghdad doesn't seem to be bothering Mr. Obama.)
which has proved by and large to help the people who attacked us on 9-11.
Help them into a dirt nap. They've lose massive credibility. They've lost face, stature, and support.
At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.
The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”
One could also say that he pulled troops out of Saudia Arabia, thus caving to bin Laden's number one demand of us. So, where's the backbone?
Because they weren't needed there.
So he's at fault for not keeping troops where they're not needed, just to make you happy (and you'd bitch if he left them there because it would be an incitement), and he's at fault for changing the plan and aims based on changes in the situation. He should stick to the original plan and goals, no matter what changes in the meantime. But if he does THAT, then he's stupid and inflexible.
Unix-Jedi said most of what I was going to say, so I won't add more onto that concept. What I will say is this:
Most Soldiers, unlike you Mark, understand that war is not static. It is fluid. When the situation changes, you change with it. You obviously don't understand that. Much like your fellow Democrats don't understand that. And the ones who DO understand it get kicked out of the American Communist Party a la Joe Lieberman.
But after reading the absolute piles of bullshit you've tossed onto this blog's comments regarding the War in Iraq, I really don't expect you to understand much at all. So I'm not exactly broken-hearted. But the one bright spot in GWB's time as President was his refusal to surrender and run from the terrorist threat facing us, no matter where it came from.
I fear for the next four years under your Lord and Messiah.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/11/absolutely.html (56 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
i do, now, want a shirt that says 'i'm with stupid' and the arrow pointing up.
Oh, quite a few of us mind.
But just look at our own example of the educational establishment...
As Unix-Jedi said may of os mind but we are not on the hiring and PnT committees that make those decisions. Bet it was something like Bill Ayers, that 60's liberal? Hire him right away.
Ity is like the guy that was at princeton (Peter Sanger(?)) whose basic thought was those who are not perfect should be snuff out at birth because they are a cost to society.
Didn't we fight a bunch of people in the 40's that thought that?
Well, Unix, I would suggest that rather than bitching about the current state of education, do something about it. That actually goes for all of you. If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher. Or at least a mentor to a child. We certainly need them.
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me.
"Peter Sanger(?)"
That would be Peter Singer who wrote such "uplifting" words as these:
"Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus."
"When the death of the disabled infant, will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."
This guy is on record as saying that parents should be allowed to kill infants up to one year old.
"educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students."
SOME educators want to do so. But you are exhibit A for the group of educators who don't have the first clue about what critical thinking skills are. After all, you think anonymous unverifiable accusations are more authoritative than detailed first person accounts from someone willing to be named on the record.
If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher.
They won't hire me, Mark. Nor will I waste the time to do the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers. And I know they wouldn't keep me even if they did. I'd insist on fair and honest work. I've already seen what happens to teachers who demand that. The rot and self-delusion is so entrenched in education that there's no way, IMO, to save it short of tearing it down and starting over. We're almost to that point. Parents that care send their kids to private schools. Those who can't afford that are taking advantage of the huge growth arena of "additional study" - like Sylvan.
Don't you dare try and tell me it's not how it is. I come from a huge family of teachers. I did a fair amount of work for a girlfriend who was getting her masters in education. My junior year of college was harder than her entire masters program. I directly work with the Education Department. The one with the Che t-shirts. The commie flags. The Obama stickers everywhere. The ones who have students who failed out of every other major of study in school. The one with entry SAT scores hundreds of points under every other major. The one that graduates teachers with no hard science course requirements. No external philosophy or history courses, even.
(Granted, you denying it is actually proof we're onto something, your dishonesty is handy that way. Remember, you can always serve as a bad example.)
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
You've proven that you don't know what critical thought is. Ergo, there's no way in hell (other than by bad example) that you can teach it.
Right wing propaganda? Mark, I'm talking about my experience.
In your words, a primary source. So listen up, and listen well. For I boomerang your mishmash of misunderstood ideas and sound bites back on your head. Primary Source. According to you. So unimpeachable. I'll not hold my breath waiting for your apology.
Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me.
It's called public shaming. It's not unhealthy. It's wanting truth and justice and even the American Way.
You're a liar, Mark. A blatant deceiver. Your opinion(s) are rehashes of someone else's, and you call us brainwashed. It's not an unhealthy obsession to make sure that people know you're a liar, a crock, a shameless loser who can't be bothered with even the attempt at honest debate. When you leave, I (and I think DJ, too) don't follow. I've posted once on your site, and that was because you were being blatantly dishonest (and referring to this site). I shan't do it again. Go away, troll and lie and deceive and talk your heart out to your handful of "regular readers" as you have for years on your site. It's a Free Country, after all. (Or was. Looking dim on that front.)
Here, Kevin's site is a research facility. People come here to learn. To grow. To discuss and debate. It promotes freedom. Self-actualization. Truth instead of Pravda. (What America used to stand for - before we bit into the poisoned apple of "public education".)
Having your lies and deceit demeans this site. Reduces its value. Takes the clarity that Kevin brings to issues and clouds them with doubt and confusion. I will oppose your lies here. I will make damn sure anybody else reading this knows you've got a years-long track record of deception, lies, single-mindedness, refusing to admit error, and refusing to concede points disproven, repeating the earlier discredited points over and over, expecting us to have forgotten. Well, the regular's haven't. But many people read here who don't comment. They come here via google, via searches. They don't know that you're a lying "educator" who says that capitalism and socialism are equal, who has a huge amount of trouble backing up any argument he makes with facts, preferring opinion pieces which he repeats almost wholesale.
But they'll note something's wrong when DJ, or Ed, or me, or Kevin refer to your past history. When they can easily look at a case Where you lied. And then they can weigh "your" "opinion(s)" suitably.
I won't let you demean this site, depress its value, remove its importance. I won't let your careless slanders and lies go unchallenged and unobserved. Your site is a worthless conceit. Do what you will there. Here? Oh, no, it's on, liar-boy. You've been served.
It's on like Donkey Kong.
And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many
What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media. Other than a few blogs and some talk radio, what is the supposed source of this propaganda -- telepathy? stealth brainwaves transmitted on some secret wavelength?
...educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students.
No, they don't. Not most of them. I've been in academia almost my entire life -- in different countries, in different states, in lowly institutions, in top-ten institutions, at every level from kindergarten to doctorate -- they don't. A minority actually does, many think they do, but in practice most really, really don't.
"What right wing propaganda?"
Markadelphia is convinced that the mainstream media is right wing, in spite of the fact that even lefty institutions such as Harvard have proved otherwise. Of course, when you're as far left as Marky is, even Ted Kennedy looks like a right winger.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you? (Rhetorical questions and all…)
"If you don't like how it is run, become a teacher."
We've been trying for months to teach you, teacher boy. If you don't like what we write, then try learning. It'll open a whole new world for you.
"Or at least a mentor to a child."
Of course, you jump to the conclusion that we don't currently mentor children, right, teacher boy? Still haven't learned to not jump to conclusions, have you?
"And contrary to the right wing propaganda that has brainwashed many, educators want a variety of points of view and opinions to encourage critical thought in all of our students."
You have demonstrated for many long, weary months that you have no idea what critical thought is, and you're lecturing us that it ought to be encouraged in students? You practice chutzpah as if spitting were an art form.
"Then you can spend your days actually accomplishing something ..."
Of course, you jump to the conclusion that we don't currently accomplish anything, right, teacher boy? Still haven't learned to not jump to conclusions, have you?
"... as opposed to continuing the somewhat unhealthy obsession you (and DJ) seem to have for me."
Of course, your somewhat unhealthy obsession is to continue to deny reality, to deny error, to refuse to learn, and to save your precious ego from risk, right liar boy?
You have no sense of shame or embarrassment, none of the usual checks and balances that tend to keep ordinary people from become loudmouthed idiots. Now why is that? Did your mommie drop you on your head, or did you learn that at school?
It's not an obsession, little boy. It's simply the refusal to let an idiot win by default. The ink's dry, and your past will be pointed out with damned nearly every response to you so that others can follow it easily.
Markadelphia,
I am curious. Did you attend SF State in the sixties? I was an engineering student at that university during the mid sixties and a bunch of loose screws similar in thought process to you disrupted my, and seventeen thousand other real students education.
Just curious.
"the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers."
That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude :)
"What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media."
Sarah, seriously, what country do you live in? Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium. Fox News is still the most popular news channel. The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
"Did you attend SF State in the sixties?"
When you are as far right as all of you are, everyone is a communist. It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know. I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact.
Oh, THIS should get interesting.
I am currently in a PhD program. While I don't intend to be a full-time academic, I would be interested in being a part-time adjunct.
Based on several experiences I have had already, I do not expect to be allowed a long career as a college professor, however. Certain attitudes are assumed to be part of the academic package, to the point that if you do not share them, you are regarded as some sort of freak or dangerous upstart.
"Fox News is still the most popular news channel."
And let's see.... NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN... so yeah, it's the most popular, but it's also the only one of five that does NOT lean left. Nor does it lean as sharply right as MSNBC leans left.
And you count this as evidence that liberal opinion does not dominate television?
"The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this..."
NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune... is the New York Post as big as ANY of the above? Can you in fact name a single daily with the readership and status of the above five *besides* the Wall Street Journal? Or are you claiming that one of 6 equals "dominance" just as you apparently think one of 5 equals "dominance" in television?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that there are any fewer left leaning blogs than "blogs like this"? Can you name a single right leaning blog that fills a niche complementary to the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos?
And of course I noticed that you completely sidestepped "Liberal opinion dominates education" in the sentence you so skillfully "rebutted".
Just to be sure you know, "rebutted" does NOT mean "emptied a chamber pot onto, AGAIN". Given your responses, I think I can be forgiven for suspecting that might be what you *think* it means.
I wonder how much liberals have to do something like this:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/24/conservative-coping-mechanism-the-secret-resume/
It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know.
Just like that woman in New York Fucking City who, in 1984 after Reagan was elected, exclaimed "But I don't know anyone who voted for him!"
Dude. You're a teacher. You are entrenched in a cesspool of liberal group-think. You claim to be the most moderate person YOU know. But that really doesn't mean squat.
Couple that with your sheer refusal to learn anything that might shatter your precious little make-believe world, and yes, you're a liberal loony.
I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
Because you guys were just SOOOOOOO understanding of anyone who didn't agree with you, right? I mean, all those people who called me a nazi, a chickenhawk, a Rethuglican, a Reich-winger, a goose-stepping thug, a Christofacist Godbag, a Brownshirted murdering goon, a baby-killer, a racist, a homophobe, or any of the million other epithets I've had hurled my way, they were just expressing themselves, right?
What an absolute load of horse shit. If there's anything the past eight years have taught me, it's that anyone who doesn't immediately and without question conform to the Liberal worldview, they are shunned, scorned, insulted, attacked both verbally and physically, and made victim to any number of slights that they Left can conjure. I was living in Seattle back in 2004 when one of my neighbors was the victim of arson because of a Bush/Cheney sign. ARSON! His front yard was on fire! His house was almost burned down because of his support for a political candidate! You want to talk of hatred, asshole? Take a look at what the Left has been doing to this country for the past eight years!
But I know you won't. Because once again, it would shatter your little make-believe world to pieces, so rather than deal with that you'll just shove your head right back up your ass where it's nice and comfy.
""Did you attend SF State in the sixties?""
As usual, Markadoofus, you blathered, but you didn't answer his question. You were in diapers in the sixties, weren't you, little boy?
"And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact."
Your hypocrisy is boundless, ain't it, liar boy?
"It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know."
I suspect you mean, "I am probably the most moderate person that I hang around with."
Now, why would that be? Is it because any time you open your blathering mouth in front of someone who is less liberally loony than you are, you get your head handed to you, and so you hang around only with people who are more liberally loony than you are?
...That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude.
Nice refutation. What is it you teach, Mark? Whatever it is, I hope you aren't passing these "skills" on to your students.
I'm curious: what % of teachers you work with would you say vote Republican?
Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium.
Yes, I said as much. It's because liberal talk radio is so BORING that even liberals won't to listen to it (see: Air America, failure of).
Fox News is still the most popular news channel.
As Grumpy pointed out, there are several other channels that lean left. If Fox is indeed the most popular, it might be because roughly half of the population has only ONE news channel they can call home, while the other half has at least a half dozen to choose from.
The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...
You're giving me two newspapers as evidence that print media isn't overwhelmingly liberal? What about the NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Tribune, the Strib, just to mention a few?
...the millions of blogs like this...
I mentioned blogs. Most people don't read most blogs -- most people read a few very popular blogs. But you are right, if it weren't for the Internet, the liberal stranglehold on print media would be virtually complete. Yet, for the last few years at least, the HuffPo and The Daily Kos have rated the most popular political blogs in terms of readership.
...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
Because the competition was even more incompetent. Besides, you should say "re-elected," because blogs weren't very popular in 2000.
"the bullshit politically correct, liberal, socialist indoctrination that's required of teachers."
That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude
You didn't tell me why it was so funny. I'd really like to know.
It's not. It's the truth. Unlike you, I can point to the obvious. Kids are indoctrinated in school. Proven time and again. Bloody hell, you're Exhibit A.
Mark, you've proven you're blatantly dishonest. You struggle to try and prove that you're not an ignorant fool, and just keep proving that you are an ignorant fool.
Remember your primary source bullshit that I called you on? ("Primary sources" are used historically, for far ago events. Nor are they automatically honored.) But you refused to accept that, and kept right on.
But when Kevin demonstrates to you a (per your repeated usage after explanation) primary source, you refused to accept it.
Well, here I'm a primary source. Either admit that your previous "primary source" reliance for questionable "conclusions" isn't necessarily valid, or stand proven (once again) of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and obtuseness.
"What right wing propaganda? Liberal opinion dominates education and the vast majority of print and televised media."
Sarah, seriously, what country do you live in? Right wing propaganda dominates the radio waves all across this country. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio show in the history of the medium. Fox News is still the most popular news channel. The New York Post...the Wall Street Journal...the millions of blogs like this...how else could a complete incompetent like George W Bush get elected?
Radio waves.
Cable news channel.
New York Post? Who the hell reads it?
Wall Street Journal - I've told you this before. This is you repeating something you've heard. Have you ever read the goddamned Wall Street Journal? It's famous for it's left wing reporting. And for having extreme conservative opinion pages. Yes, the WSJ opinion page is conservative. (Not your derogatory "propaganda".)
Fox News is the most watched (Gee, wonder why that is) CABLE news channel. It's viewership is not as much as the other channels combined.
And it's dwarfed by the over the air news media. And the papers across the country - excepting a couple that you can note. The same media, by the way, who are now admitting they were shamefully in the tank for Obama, and fretting what that will mean for their credibility.
Go tell them! They're right wing! They're bitter clingers! Stop telling us - the media's even agreeing now! It's just you and Alterman now!
When you are as far right as all of you are, everyone is a communist.
All of us? Tell me, Mark, what makes me far right wing? What makes Kevin? Labrat? DJ?
It's frikkin hilarious that you all have branded me as being a liberal loony when I am probably the most moderate person I know.
Alternative hypothesis: You're incapable of critically and correctly evaluating.
2nd Alternative: You're surrounded by communists.
The 1st is far more likely, and follows with the proofs you've been giving us for the two years.
I just don't subscribe to the "New Right's" view of the world i.e. everyone is an enemy or a liar that doesn't fall in lock step with us.
Only the liars, Mark. Only the liars. If you're not my enemy, why would you lie to me? You have blatantly lied to us, and for example, kept assuring us that Obama doesn't hold beliefs that according to his record, his speeches, and his published plans that he does. That's dishonest. Why would you lie to us? Why would you lie to yourself?
And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact.
I'm hardly angry. In fact, I'm writing this in between making waffles for my sweetie. She has to get up and go work at 4:30 in the morning at a highly successful auto plant. So I'm making waffles to freeze them so she can have a tasty breakfast. So she can go work to be taxed to pay for the Frosts healthcare. You know, the healthcare they didn't think was important enough for them to pay for it. I'm not raging about it. Neither am I making shit up about it.
You, on the other hand... Well, we've demonstrated how dishonest you are. My sweetie doesn't understand "why I bother with that fucking idiot". (She's read many of your comments.) Last night I gave her the link to my above denunciation of your attempts to degrade this site. She read it, read some other comment threads, and said "Oh. I understand."
We may be going into the dark night of socialism, fascism and communism. But your attempts to destroy the individualism that is at the very heart of what the American Experiment was about shall not go unchallenged.
Grumpy,
And of course I noticed that you completely sidestepped "Liberal opinion dominates education" in the sentence you so skillfully "rebutted".
Actually, he did address that comment. He said, "That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, dude." Albeit, not in direct response to my comment, but in the interest of conciseness, I think he considered that a universal rebuttal to the general idea that public education is heavily left-leaning.
Mastiff,
What's your field of expertise?
"And let's tap into our inner rage, make something up, and pass if off as fact."
You mean stuff like "Sarah Palin is dumb"? Yes, I know you didn't make it up personally, but you bought it hook line and sinker, in spite of primary source evidence from the person responsible for bringing Palin up to speed on international issues and a political enemy who generally agrees with you who actually watched Palin in action and went to the trouble of pointing out that Sarah Palin is actually very intelligent. (When an enemy concedes a point which hurts their own position, it's only because it's true and the enemy has enough intellectual integrity to admit it.)
Making stuff up (or borrowing made up stuff) is your pattern teacher. We constantly point to evidence which supports our statements and demanding the same from you. And on those rare occasions when you point to some valid evidence as in this case (Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) we do acknowledge the validity of that specific evidence, even when that evidence is only a fraction of the full set of evidence available.
Come to think of it, you still have not stated one single point to support your claim that our (time tested) rules for evaluting evidence undermine some of our claims about Obama. How about it Mark, you made the claim, now it's time to back it up. Or were you just making something up and passing it off as fact?
And that's not the only time you've engaged in handwaving and refusing to answer when we asked for specifics of your claims. You also recently made some claims about (I think) McCain, then when pressed for specifics you claimed we already knew what they were, then you notably did not provide a single specific. (I don't remember exactly what it was and I couldn't find the comment. Does someone else remember exactly what that was?) Once again, it sounds exactly like making s**t up.
Kevin, maybe you could add a page to your blog simply listing out pointed questions which Markadelphia has refused to answer or provide evidence for, along with links to those comments. It's already a huge list and I think it would be instructive.
BTW Marky, if the lamestream media is not left-wing and influential, how do you explain the abject ignorance of the apparently intelligent Obama voters in the video here?
...how do you explain the abject ignorance of the apparently intelligent Obama voters in the video here?
Ed, he'll say they're cherry-picked and then he'll ignore the poll or say that it was unscientific.
Sarah:
And it's that right-wing media that's to blame, don't forget.
Because more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America. And we follow Rush without question. Nevermind that most of us don't listen to him and have no idea what he's talking about from week to week.
No, Mark is out to reinforce (he's proven it time and again) why the "progressive thought" has no actual thought in it. Just compilations of insults, perceived slights, victimizations, calculated injustices, and beyond all, intentions over actuality, results over opportunity.
Sarah,
Comparative political science. Comparative, because you can do whatever you want and don't get straitjacketed into methodological dogmas like in other subfields. Also, because my program doesn't have a political philosophy concentration, (boo!).
I'm looking into the interaction between the state, and non-state sources of community or political power. Right now that means religious groups, but I'm hoping to find other cases as well. I'm very interested in the religion issue, but there's too much cant going around on it, and if I can find a nonreligious structure that is broadly comparable, it should shed new light on the subject.
Also, the topic is a good place to poke at the weak points of classical liberalism, and modern statism, and every other political philosophy out there, so I like.
"Because more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America."
Rush Limbaugh's show pays for itself. Where does its income come from? From advertisers. Enough people watch his show to make advertising on it worthwhile for advertisers, and so advertising time on his show sells for enough that he is paid in excess of $30 million per year from its revenue.
This is known as free enterprise, and the rates are established through supply and demand.
Now, why can't Air America do that? Because not enough people are willing to listen to it to make advertising on it worthwhile, and so advertisers don't advertise very much on it, so the demand for advertising time is low, so the rate for advertising time is low, so the revenue is low, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Interesting, ain't it? Perhaps Al Franken et al could participate successfully in the free enterprise economy if they didn't talk about how awful they think it is. Hypocrisy should be painful, shouldn't it?
But no one seems to mind a bit that Ayers' job is to teach future teachers
One good thing, though. It's not like he's got hold of the best and brightest.
"Chicago Tribune..."
...who endorsed Bush for President in 2004.
"You are entrenched in a cesspool of liberal group-think."
Really? Then how do you explain my colleague who is an evangelical Christian? Or the math teacher in our school who is devotee of Milton Friedman? If anyone is a victim of group think, it is many folks who post here...a group think that relies upon creating enemies where none exist.
"what % of teachers you work with would you say vote Republican?"
That would be half...50 percent.
"Most people don't read most blogs"
Mmm...no. Most estimates I have seen are between 20 and 30 million and the percentage of those that do are overwhelmingly conservative due to the fallacy that all media are liberal and evil.
"And we follow Rush without question."
Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says so if the shoe fits...
Then how do you explain
No. How do you explain your lies, deceits and redirections?
You're again trying to change the subject, liar.
You complain we call you a liar - insinuating we've made it up. No, you're a liar because you lie. All attempts to get you to a logical, honest discussion are doomed to failure.
Which is why we laugh at your "judgments" that you're "the most moderate" and other similar hilarities. Even if it happens to be the case, you're not a trusted *ahem* primary source.
(Whoops, hit OK too soon.)
Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says so if the shoe fits...
Another lie.
But that's par for the course for you.
You've also accused us of supporting Bush without reservation many times. Which isn't true either. But you've never taken that into account either.
Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says....
And you would know this, how? You're a teacher. You work during the hours that Limbaugh broadcasts, so obviously you cannot get your information from that *primary source* - you have to be getting it from a secondary source. So, which one?
"Well, you repeat, verbatim, pretty much everything he says so if the shoe fits..."
How many times, in how many ways, have we told you, over and over and over again, that we are NOT fans of George W. Bush, except in his capacity of Commander in Chief during a period of war?
How can you be so fundamentally dishonest and still survive?
Ah, yes. Anvil, meet forehead. Forehead, meet anvil.
Hey, Mark?
Maybe this will get through to you.
Mmm...no. Most estimates I have seen are between 20 and 30 million and the percentage of those that do are overwhelmingly conservative due to the fallacy that all media are liberal and evil.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Out of the people who read blogs, the majority does not read the majority of blogs -- the majority reads a few very popular blogs, so it's a moot point that there are "millions of blogs like this" feeding the masses right-wing propaganda. You ignored the point that the two most popular political blogs are the Huffpo and Daily Kos, both heavily slanted to the left. (Now I see why Unix uses boldface when addressing you.)
BTW, I don't listen to Rush, never have. On occasion I listen to Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage, and I distinctly recall that you approved of Ingraham (n.b. Savage is not a big fan of Bush). But Kevin brings up an excellent point -- how could you make the claim that we repeat everything Rush says verbatim unless you listen to him on a regular basis? And it would have to be an amazing coincidence, anyway, since at least two of us mindless locksteppers don't actually tune in.
"Chicago Tribune..."
...who endorsed Bush for President in 2004.
You misquoted me: I wrote "Sun-Tribune." I meant the Sun-Times.
So, how about that video Ed linked to? What do you think of that, Mark?
Well, Mastiff, you are much less able to downplay your ideology than I am, since I'm in the natural sciences. Sounds like fascinating work, though. Are you studying in the U.S.?
Now I see why Unix uses boldface when addressing you.
Not that it held, mind you, but I was one on a board where we had to do a lot of HTML markup due to the threading, and it's not that hard.
Plus, it makes me feel better, to point out twice as hard something Mark's either studiously ignoring - like the point you're trying to get him to stick to - or he's just being flat dishonest about.
If he were really able to critically think, it might be instructive for him to compare and contrast who tries to ignore more points. Funny thing, I can't recall any time when he asked specifically for something to be dealt with that Kevin, you, I, DJ, Russell, LabRat, Geek (etc.) then ignored.
But to try and catalog his omissions and attempts to change the subject is a major undertaking. (I know. I started to once.)
To provide some value-add: Victor Davis Hanson. [U-J: gee, that sounds familiar] that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort...
"Now I see why Unix uses boldface when addressing you."
It's because a two-by-four doesn't work over the internet.
It's because a two-by-four doesn't work over the internet.
Well, my preference would be a clue-by-four. But those doesn't work over the internet, either.
"since at least two of us mindless locksteppers don't actually tune in."
Make that three. I don't listen to him either. In fact, I actively avoid spoken and sung words during the work day because they interfere with my work. (It's impossible to focus on complex code and what someone is saying at the same time.) I only listen to instrumental music played from iTunes.
I can only think of one reason why we might say the same thing as Rush does verbatim, that's when he quotes the same sources that we're quoting. Occasionally I might come across someone pointing out something Rush said, but on average, that's only once every 3 or 4 months.
Marky, can you point to specific examples? (Yea, right! Snort! Look who I'm asking!)
See, it doesn't require collusion for multiple people to reach the same conclusions. It merely requires looking at the same evidence and using the same tools to evaluate that evidence. Heck, scientists do it all the time. When two scientists with no connection to each other make the same discovery, it's not because they've colluded somehow. It's because they're looking at reality and using the scientific method to evaluate what they're seeing.
"he'll say they're cherry-picked and then he'll ignore the poll or say that it was unscientific."
I'm surprised he actually ignored it. Or maybe not.
If it was just the video, then there would be good reasons to downplay it. There are too few people in the video for the results to be anything but anecdotes, and we all know (all of us but Markadelphia, that is) that anecdotes are not data. The people in the video were cherry-picked to some extent. They looked for Obama voters who were apparently intelligent, articulate, and willing to talk on camera.
While the interviews were fascinating (especially that only one of them wanted to know what the true answers were), it's the poll results which provide the true data.
And in the unanswered questions department:
How about it, Marky. Which of our claims about Obama are undermined by rules of evidence?
While the interviews were fascinating (especially that only one of them wanted to know what the true answers were)...
Was that the giggly girl? She's also the one that said she still would've voted for Obama even if she had known all those things.
"And in the unanswered questions department,"
Ed, that department no longer has organizational provisions. It has a curator.
"It has a curator."
LOL!
…and lots of dust.
Sarah,
Yep, I'm in the Greater D.C. area. Been freezing my butt off the last week :(
Unix-Jedi wins the Internets today for the VDH find!
QotD fodder for tomorrow! And for the next überpost!
It's because a two-by-four doesn't work over the internet.
I'm fairly sure a two-by-four delivered in person wouldn't make a dent in a skull that granitic.
It's not due to the density, Juris, but the hollowness. It would pass right on through, just as everything else does.
"You work during the hours that Limbaugh broadcasts"
Sometimes we listen to Rush during class. Or I catch on the Internet after school.
"except in his capacity of Commander in Chief during a period of war?"
Now THAT is the funniest fucking thing I have heard all year.
What exactly is so funny about that, Mark? And you had damn well better chose your words carefully at this point.
"Now THAT is the funniest fucking thing I have heard all year."
Now THAT is believable, for once.
We LIKE the fact that he showed a backbone in response to 9/11. You don't, hence you don't understand our attitude toward him, hence it's funny to you.
Sometimes we listen to Rush during class.
What, that's not child abuse?
Or I catch on the Internet after school.
Wait. . . YOU'RE a member of Rush 24/7?
Or are you just lying again?
"And you had damn well better chose your words carefully at this point."
"We LIKE the fact that he showed a backbone in response to 9/11."
It's sad funny, dave, not funny funny. In the thread above, I discussed how effectively the right has brainwashed people into believing they are the solution. In the space of six months Bush went from..."bin Laden wanted Dead or Alive" to "he's not all that important" and "I don't spend that much time on him."
If these words were uttered by Al Gore or any Democrat for that matter, all of us would be in complete agreement. Instead, DJ will now offer some excuse (sounding much like a liberal does complaining of being a victim) about what Bush really meant while all the while the facts still remain: the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports.
Instead he chose to largely ignore Al Qaeda and attack Iraq which has proved by and large to help the people who attacked us on 9-11. One could also say that he pulled troops out of Saudia Arabia, thus caving to bin Laden's number one demand of us. So, where's the backbone?
Kevin, I do the monthly 6.95 thing off and on...more off than on as he tends to repeat himself a lot. During the election it was really fun to listen to him grinding his feet in a circle. YouTube also puts up his stuff for free.
Instead, DJ will now offer some excuse (sounding much like a liberal does complaining of being a victim) about what Bush really meant while all the while the facts still remain: the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports."
We are not concerned with what Bush meant, we are concerned with what he did. For months, you have refused to understand that, no matter how many times it has been explained to you. It is your fundamental dishonesty at work again, liar boy. It is as Kevin said:
"Observing reality is not the same thing as needing something to be true."
And you simply need for it to be true that Bush did nothing right, so you cannot admit that he did do anything significantly right.
Now go away, little boy. Grownups are talking again.
how effectively the right has brainwashed people into believing they are the solution. In the space of six months Bush went from
You keep repeating this as if it means something.
Did nothing else happen in those 6 months?
Did the situation stay exactly static?
the people who were responsible for 9-11 are still out there and stronger than ever according to our own intelligence reports.
Who?
Most of them are dead. Bin Ladin, your talisman, is hiding on a frozen hillside, having to do peritoneal dialysis with out proper facilities, equipment, or solutions.
And you consider this a flaw.
Instead he chose to largely ignore Al Qaeda and attack Iraq
We've explained this enough it's not going to get through to you.
We couldn't leave the soldiers on the Iraqi border forever, and the UN wasn't getting off their gold-encrusted toilets to do anything. Saddam was providing massive support and training to terrorist organizations - including asylum for al Queda members.
Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. I understand, since you're a not honest person, that you don't understand the concept of living up to obligations and honestly making promises. But the rest of us understand it.
It wasn't a new war, it was a direct continuation of the last one - and one that had full and total support of the Clinton Administration during their enforcement, and the almost total support of Congress when it came to a vote. Meaning that they were using it for partisan political attacks and trying to "score points" on Bush for his successes.
But after all the screaming and rhetoric, amazingly, Congress voted - overwhelmingly - to support the war. Repeatedly. (And notice that now that the election is over, the Rush to Flee Baghdad doesn't seem to be bothering Mr. Obama.)
which has proved by and large to help the people who attacked us on 9-11.
Help them into a dirt nap. They've lose massive credibility. They've lost face, stature, and support.
250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines
One could also say that he pulled troops out of Saudia Arabia, thus caving to bin Laden's number one demand of us. So, where's the backbone?
Because they weren't needed there.
So he's at fault for not keeping troops where they're not needed, just to make you happy (and you'd bitch if he left them there because it would be an incitement), and he's at fault for changing the plan and aims based on changes in the situation. He should stick to the original plan and goals, no matter what changes in the meantime. But if he does THAT, then he's stupid and inflexible.
There's one moron here, Mark. And it's not Bush.
Unix-Jedi said most of what I was going to say, so I won't add more onto that concept. What I will say is this:
Most Soldiers, unlike you Mark, understand that war is not static. It is fluid. When the situation changes, you change with it. You obviously don't understand that. Much like your fellow Democrats don't understand that. And the ones who DO understand it get kicked out of the American Communist Party a la Joe Lieberman.
But after reading the absolute piles of bullshit you've tossed onto this blog's comments regarding the War in Iraq, I really don't expect you to understand much at all. So I'm not exactly broken-hearted. But the one bright spot in GWB's time as President was his refusal to surrender and run from the terrorist threat facing us, no matter where it came from.
I fear for the next four years under your Lord and Messiah.
Not to worry, Dave. The Messiah will read a speech to 'em off a teleprompter and everything will be just fine. He does magic, y'see.
Unix,
Your link is broken. Is this the article you had linked to?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>