thedrifter
01-27-05, 06:28 AM
Politically Convenient Collegiate Correctness
January 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bob Parks
Last Saturday, while performing multiple reps on my remote control, I stopped on C-SPAN. I'm not sure where the event was and didn't pay attention as to who was the host, but after 10 seconds I knew I was watching another liberal crying-over-spilt-milk, woe-is-us, group-hug session. One of the audience questioners, doing a great imitation of Chris Matthews while asking a three-minute question complete with arms a-flailing, stated that they (meaning himself and those he knew) were the "intellectuals" and obviously those who voted for President Bush... were not.
So many retorts came to mind. Please indulge me as I jump around at bit.
As some of you may remember, I last commented on the situation surrounding Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a Kuwaiti student at Foothill College in San Jose who claims he was told by his Political Science Professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of pro-American views expressed in an essay. So going by that C-SPAN-aired standard, Ahmad Al-Qloushi is misguided, delusional... and not an intellectual.
Also in another case of the adult foot-in-mouth epidemic, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers elicited the predictable screech of feminists when he implied there were "innate" internal differences between the sexes that hold women back in science and math careers. Lawrence Summers is thereby a Neanderthal, sexist pig... and not an intellectual.
I’d tend to partially agree. What was he thinking?
Can you imagine all those outraged students whose parents are presently in hock, coaxed on by activist faculty, plotting the next opportunity to picket Summer’s office building with clever chants led off with "Hey hey, ho ho...." I guess that's better than laying in the middle of a state roadway performing another mock die-in and being arrested.
Despite the nation's youth (under the guidance of Nickelodeon, MTV, and Hollywood brats) exhibiting all the narcissistic, consumer-driven attributes liberals practice and yet claim to despise, direct indoctrination on the university level is now starting to have real world consequences. The "by any means necessary" approach now sanctioned by "progressives" is producing young footsoldiers that perform according to their immediate feelings rather than utilizing logical thought to arrive at conclusions.
I remember my father having some of his students over the house for dinner and his sometimes talking to them about their weighty, personal issues. I can’t ever remember his telling them what they wanted to hear; holding their hands, as it were. He'd always ask them questions back and introduce them to the newly discovered other point of view, hoping they could eventually seek a better course on their own.
That... I consider teaching.
I've later had the opportunity to talk with college students around the country, who when they get the ill fortune (sarcasm) to hear another point of view other than the saturated irrationality driven home as liberal gospel, are left to have to reevaluate previous dictates. Without a young mind to mold into a blind acceptance sponge, liberalism cannot last. Just ask the Karl Marx and the Nazis.
Interesting the lack of follow through by the media on the Ahmad Al-Qloushi / Professor Joseph A. Woolcock thing. Why would that be? If the prof was a conservative, flunking a student for not toting the GOP line, the kid would be in front of Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric within the week. Might it be because Woolcock is liberal… is black? This would seem to make the professor one of those “repressed minorities” who probably earns close to six figures with tenure. Life’s hard… it’s so tough.
One of his former students wrote to me and said, “ Professor Woolcock is a hateful man; spending any time with him in his classroom will clearly prove that. After only two weeks in his class I knew, unless I had similar views to his, I would not succeed in the prescribed coursework. The initial reading for his basic survey class in political science is steeped in powerful forms of brainwashing.”
Now while I don’t know of Woolcock, that’s a strong first impression.
I think we all know someone who is angry inside and usually that anger is irrational. Here is a man who is privileged enough to have a pretty cush gig with good pay, federal holidays off, winter, spring breaks, and the summer off. Now while taking home papers to grade can be a chore, the compensation is well worth it, especially if it’s a job you love.
But Woolcock, as a black professor, seeks to instill in his students the liberal line where blacks will never meet their potential because of a dizzying, persistent, constant called “racism.” That racism is spelled “A-m-e-r-i-c-a.”
Woolcock is an “intellectual.”
I was told by that student, “Professor Woolcock seemed to be setting-up the younger students, using lots of strong political myth, regarding the way things worked at the national level and within American society. On top of this he spends very little time really teaching the material covered. Most of his classroom time is spent ambiguously ranting over why the U.S. government and its established order is obviously all wrong and is inherently evil.”
If that is the case, why is Woolcock well paid and teaching in a university? Why is he not in shackles, in the cotton fields where he belongs? Because despite all it’s shortcomings, the United States is a place where infinitely more people flock to than flee (not including Gore and Kerry supporters). If liberals are so loving, compassionate, tolerant, and intellectual, why are they so full of hate and anger?
Because they cannot stand to have their ideas scrutinized. Indoctrination upon susceptible young minds is a task they must endure for the preservation of their cause.
With that, we go to Cambridge, Massachusetts where Harvard Prez Summers made the utmost of miscalculations when publicly stating that men and women were, heaven forbid, different.
Summers, in his address, talked about his daughter, and while patting his own back on the gender-neutral environment he feels he’s bringing her up in, she still named one of her trucks "daddy truck" and the other "baby truck" and claimed she treats them like dolls. Maybe she did that because… that’s what little girls DO. Hello…!
That elicited the predictable response from Nancy Hopkins, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist, who walked out. It was later reported that she said if she had not left she "would've either blacked out or thrown up.”
As much as Ms. Hopkins obviously wants to be thought of as otherwise, how many men do you think she knows (outside of her little liberal clique) after hearing something they disagreed with, would have a near case of the vapors? Talk about a sexist stereotype accomplished quite efficiently.
Hopkins is an “intellectual.”
I don’t have access to the numbers, but if women fail to excel in math and science, just who is holding them back? Teachers? As a single father, I can empathize with the daily balancing act between parenting and career. But to turn this into a “glass ceiling” lament is both degrading and insulting to women. In my lifetime, whether accidentally or intentionally, I’ve seen women break glass.
In my experience, I can attest to the fact that ceilings exist. There may be a position you’ve worked long and hard for and someone else from outside is hired on for that slot. However, if you’re feeling under-appreciated in your current workplace, there’s always someone out there who will better appreciate what you do, and compensate you accordingly. *****ing and moaning does nothing but **** off your boss, male or female, and you assure yourself of never moving up.
Feminists always want things both ways, which will always leave men confused. Men will usually get that sneer whether you open a door for a feminist or not. Men and women are different, you liberal intellectuals out there. Deal with it.
Except for those ironmen gargantuans, nobody likes to lift heavy things. In our society, women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to run into burning buildings. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to kill the big spider in the bathtub. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to take out the trash or fix the toilet. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody wants to enter a war zone. Men volunteer to do so and women aren’t expected to.
Women could do any of those activities if they so chose to do so. Must be nice to have the option. In the case of the near-fainting scholar, her gripes mirror that of her colleague Professor Woolcock. She’s probably well paid, yet still angry at the world as we know it.
So what are the real world consequences of liberal indoctrination?
If liberals are the “intellectuals” then they are lazy ones. It takes nothing at all to dictate to a young mind that will only go where you direct them, especially when their grade point average depends on it. When challenged, liberal “intellectuals” want to shout the challenger down like spoiled children who cover their ears and scream “la la la la la….”
Many of the people liberals deem not intellectual were once like them. One day, they heard another point of view that was rational, and factually intellectual. With the exception of David Brock, I’ve not seen too many people become openly liberal after being life-long conservatives. The other way around is way more commonplace. The former is an evolutionary process liberals don’t believe in. They can’t afford to.
With the advent of outlets that challenge the assertions long held by a manipulative media over a sycophantic public, more people have been able to make educated choices outside of the classroom. Makes one wonder just how many Dan Rather moments did an unchallenged media get away with over the years?
Liberals may self-proclaim themselves intellectuals but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. One can’t make cognizant, intellectual arguments while being close-minded to alternative points of view, as liberals tend to do and accuse others of. One can’t be intellectually racist or sexist, as liberals tend to do and accuse others of.
Until more professors like Woodcock are outted and Hopkins shown to be the nincompoop she set out to be, these people will have their words in your college kid’s brain.
And to add insult to injury, you paid for it.
Bob Parks
Ellie
January 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bob Parks
Last Saturday, while performing multiple reps on my remote control, I stopped on C-SPAN. I'm not sure where the event was and didn't pay attention as to who was the host, but after 10 seconds I knew I was watching another liberal crying-over-spilt-milk, woe-is-us, group-hug session. One of the audience questioners, doing a great imitation of Chris Matthews while asking a three-minute question complete with arms a-flailing, stated that they (meaning himself and those he knew) were the "intellectuals" and obviously those who voted for President Bush... were not.
So many retorts came to mind. Please indulge me as I jump around at bit.
As some of you may remember, I last commented on the situation surrounding Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a Kuwaiti student at Foothill College in San Jose who claims he was told by his Political Science Professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of pro-American views expressed in an essay. So going by that C-SPAN-aired standard, Ahmad Al-Qloushi is misguided, delusional... and not an intellectual.
Also in another case of the adult foot-in-mouth epidemic, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers elicited the predictable screech of feminists when he implied there were "innate" internal differences between the sexes that hold women back in science and math careers. Lawrence Summers is thereby a Neanderthal, sexist pig... and not an intellectual.
I’d tend to partially agree. What was he thinking?
Can you imagine all those outraged students whose parents are presently in hock, coaxed on by activist faculty, plotting the next opportunity to picket Summer’s office building with clever chants led off with "Hey hey, ho ho...." I guess that's better than laying in the middle of a state roadway performing another mock die-in and being arrested.
Despite the nation's youth (under the guidance of Nickelodeon, MTV, and Hollywood brats) exhibiting all the narcissistic, consumer-driven attributes liberals practice and yet claim to despise, direct indoctrination on the university level is now starting to have real world consequences. The "by any means necessary" approach now sanctioned by "progressives" is producing young footsoldiers that perform according to their immediate feelings rather than utilizing logical thought to arrive at conclusions.
I remember my father having some of his students over the house for dinner and his sometimes talking to them about their weighty, personal issues. I can’t ever remember his telling them what they wanted to hear; holding their hands, as it were. He'd always ask them questions back and introduce them to the newly discovered other point of view, hoping they could eventually seek a better course on their own.
That... I consider teaching.
I've later had the opportunity to talk with college students around the country, who when they get the ill fortune (sarcasm) to hear another point of view other than the saturated irrationality driven home as liberal gospel, are left to have to reevaluate previous dictates. Without a young mind to mold into a blind acceptance sponge, liberalism cannot last. Just ask the Karl Marx and the Nazis.
Interesting the lack of follow through by the media on the Ahmad Al-Qloushi / Professor Joseph A. Woolcock thing. Why would that be? If the prof was a conservative, flunking a student for not toting the GOP line, the kid would be in front of Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric within the week. Might it be because Woolcock is liberal… is black? This would seem to make the professor one of those “repressed minorities” who probably earns close to six figures with tenure. Life’s hard… it’s so tough.
One of his former students wrote to me and said, “ Professor Woolcock is a hateful man; spending any time with him in his classroom will clearly prove that. After only two weeks in his class I knew, unless I had similar views to his, I would not succeed in the prescribed coursework. The initial reading for his basic survey class in political science is steeped in powerful forms of brainwashing.”
Now while I don’t know of Woolcock, that’s a strong first impression.
I think we all know someone who is angry inside and usually that anger is irrational. Here is a man who is privileged enough to have a pretty cush gig with good pay, federal holidays off, winter, spring breaks, and the summer off. Now while taking home papers to grade can be a chore, the compensation is well worth it, especially if it’s a job you love.
But Woolcock, as a black professor, seeks to instill in his students the liberal line where blacks will never meet their potential because of a dizzying, persistent, constant called “racism.” That racism is spelled “A-m-e-r-i-c-a.”
Woolcock is an “intellectual.”
I was told by that student, “Professor Woolcock seemed to be setting-up the younger students, using lots of strong political myth, regarding the way things worked at the national level and within American society. On top of this he spends very little time really teaching the material covered. Most of his classroom time is spent ambiguously ranting over why the U.S. government and its established order is obviously all wrong and is inherently evil.”
If that is the case, why is Woolcock well paid and teaching in a university? Why is he not in shackles, in the cotton fields where he belongs? Because despite all it’s shortcomings, the United States is a place where infinitely more people flock to than flee (not including Gore and Kerry supporters). If liberals are so loving, compassionate, tolerant, and intellectual, why are they so full of hate and anger?
Because they cannot stand to have their ideas scrutinized. Indoctrination upon susceptible young minds is a task they must endure for the preservation of their cause.
With that, we go to Cambridge, Massachusetts where Harvard Prez Summers made the utmost of miscalculations when publicly stating that men and women were, heaven forbid, different.
Summers, in his address, talked about his daughter, and while patting his own back on the gender-neutral environment he feels he’s bringing her up in, she still named one of her trucks "daddy truck" and the other "baby truck" and claimed she treats them like dolls. Maybe she did that because… that’s what little girls DO. Hello…!
That elicited the predictable response from Nancy Hopkins, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist, who walked out. It was later reported that she said if she had not left she "would've either blacked out or thrown up.”
As much as Ms. Hopkins obviously wants to be thought of as otherwise, how many men do you think she knows (outside of her little liberal clique) after hearing something they disagreed with, would have a near case of the vapors? Talk about a sexist stereotype accomplished quite efficiently.
Hopkins is an “intellectual.”
I don’t have access to the numbers, but if women fail to excel in math and science, just who is holding them back? Teachers? As a single father, I can empathize with the daily balancing act between parenting and career. But to turn this into a “glass ceiling” lament is both degrading and insulting to women. In my lifetime, whether accidentally or intentionally, I’ve seen women break glass.
In my experience, I can attest to the fact that ceilings exist. There may be a position you’ve worked long and hard for and someone else from outside is hired on for that slot. However, if you’re feeling under-appreciated in your current workplace, there’s always someone out there who will better appreciate what you do, and compensate you accordingly. *****ing and moaning does nothing but **** off your boss, male or female, and you assure yourself of never moving up.
Feminists always want things both ways, which will always leave men confused. Men will usually get that sneer whether you open a door for a feminist or not. Men and women are different, you liberal intellectuals out there. Deal with it.
Except for those ironmen gargantuans, nobody likes to lift heavy things. In our society, women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to run into burning buildings. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to kill the big spider in the bathtub. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody likes to take out the trash or fix the toilet. Women aren’t expected to. Nobody wants to enter a war zone. Men volunteer to do so and women aren’t expected to.
Women could do any of those activities if they so chose to do so. Must be nice to have the option. In the case of the near-fainting scholar, her gripes mirror that of her colleague Professor Woolcock. She’s probably well paid, yet still angry at the world as we know it.
So what are the real world consequences of liberal indoctrination?
If liberals are the “intellectuals” then they are lazy ones. It takes nothing at all to dictate to a young mind that will only go where you direct them, especially when their grade point average depends on it. When challenged, liberal “intellectuals” want to shout the challenger down like spoiled children who cover their ears and scream “la la la la la….”
Many of the people liberals deem not intellectual were once like them. One day, they heard another point of view that was rational, and factually intellectual. With the exception of David Brock, I’ve not seen too many people become openly liberal after being life-long conservatives. The other way around is way more commonplace. The former is an evolutionary process liberals don’t believe in. They can’t afford to.
With the advent of outlets that challenge the assertions long held by a manipulative media over a sycophantic public, more people have been able to make educated choices outside of the classroom. Makes one wonder just how many Dan Rather moments did an unchallenged media get away with over the years?
Liberals may self-proclaim themselves intellectuals but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. One can’t make cognizant, intellectual arguments while being close-minded to alternative points of view, as liberals tend to do and accuse others of. One can’t be intellectually racist or sexist, as liberals tend to do and accuse others of.
Until more professors like Woodcock are outted and Hopkins shown to be the nincompoop she set out to be, these people will have their words in your college kid’s brain.
And to add insult to injury, you paid for it.
Bob Parks
Ellie