conservatives: liberal = smart?

Really? I think they'd be more conservative from having to uphold those reactionary principles of honor, valor, and tradition.

It's a stupid argument either way, as each side will simply define intelligent to suit their wishes.

also, that statistic is talking about faculty... not graduate degree holders in general. i think it takes a certain type of individual to have the calling to be a teacher. just like social work, you don't see a lot of gop support there either.

that bill is scary shit. i've got friends who are students in florida. it's gonna make a mockery of the education system there.

imagine this: someone is going to be able to sue their way through college as a biology major over evolution. "my professor offends me and won't accept my views or my papers!"

i'm gonna start a cult. IT'S THE TRUTH MAN! and in my religion god says that written words are evil. they're graven images! so i'm gonna sue my professors every time they force me to read! i'm being oppressed!

who cares if i have three phds but don't know anything because i've never cracked a book? we've gotta be sensitive to my beliefs!

it cracks me up because so often the right loves to go on and on about how political correctness is a lefty disease.

roll on the floor laughing.
m.

i dunno. i smell fishiness. it's a "woe is me, we're being oppressed" line of attack. another yanker for the conservative email chain to convince people that they're the underdog and that they need to try that much harder. again i say it, the white man has finally figured out how to play the "oppressed" card.

the sad part is, turn this on it's head. if someone went to a christian school and demanded that they accept an atheistic view of evolution/creation, they'd ridicule that person just the same. but there's no way horowitz is trying to protect that person. if that person was in jeopardy, the gop would ignore it. in fact, the bill probably pertains to public universities only. so that christian school could ostracize that student all they wanted to.
m.

The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.

"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.

Haha! I'd love to see Congress try "mass impeachment" of the federal judiciary. I mean, I wouldn't, because it would be appalling and everything, but it would mostly be hilarious. This is 1995 all over again. They think they can control things that they can't, and they're gonna blow their political capital on things that A.) mostly won't happen and B.) will embarrass them. Bills restricting teaching at universities? Oh man, I feel like Brer Rabbit in the briar patch.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes that the top %ile of smart people are teaching at colleges and universities.

Colleges and unis = liberal environments = not a shock.

Before, Republicans just scared other people. Now, they're starting to scare themselves.

When Dick Cheney tells you you've gone too far, you know you're way over the edge.

Last week, the vice president told The New York Post's editorial board that Tom DeLay should not have jumped ugly on the judges who refused to order that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted. He said he would "have problems" with the DeLay plan to get revenge on the judges: "I don't think that's appropriate."

TPM also noted that the recent re-publicizing of DeLay's folly apparently came through a friend of Rove's. I smell blood.

memories of law school: considering the large number of John Olin Chairs at various law schools, the proliferation of "law and economics" curricula, the near-veneration of folks like richard posner, the presence of active federalist society branches at EVERY law school, the fact that most law grads CREAM at the prospect of going to work for $100s at some BigLaw, the innate stodginess of the legal profession, legal reasoning and law school curricula, and the heavy-handedness of administrators = NOT AN ENTIRELY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR RIGHT-WINGERS.

so whachoo wingnuts talkin' 'bout?!?

(xpost)

and i love how the radical conservative stereotype of university life never seems to include what, say, engineering professors are like, or the Howard Phillips/libertarian-worshipping econ/business school guys that my brother had to grimace his way thru.

then again, it's a stereotype. it's an image created to use to bolster one's agenda among one's own kind. whether it resembles anything in actual daily life or not is beside the point.

But that's the thing. Most people in this country are not currently college students, so if you tell them the campuses are all being run as Maoist re-education camps, I guess it's an easy sell.

yup. set up a framing, set up a narrative that plays to a lack of understanding and actual consideration, then use all your energy in pushing it for years. you'll be surprised how much mileage you get out of it.

conversely, half a century ago, political allegiances of military officers was split 50-50. gee, which is a bigger "problem"? (i don't remeber where i read this)

um xpost

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

second, this hilarious piece by a guy at stanford...really takes the issue to a whole nother level imo

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001588

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html

Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.

The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

What's so funny about the "many friends in high school = future liberal" statistic is that, no matter what the outcome of that study was, both liberals and conservatives will easily spin the conclusion to match their own notions about themselves and "the other side"

e.g.

Option 1: "Study says having a lot of friends in high school makes you a liberal"

conservatives: yeah no kidding, the left is all about following "the in crowd," and never thinking for themselves. Never change, Libtards.

liberals: when you have a lot of friends from different backgrounds you are more likely to be tolerant and see things from someone eles's perspective all your life. diversity is our strength etc

Option 2: (but if the study had said) "study says having few friends in high school makes you a liberal"

conservatives: no wonder! liberals are anti-social grievance mongers and are composed of societies freaks and weirdos. they can't make friends, they're too busy being angry complainers! never change, libtards.

liberals: this is because we liberals are the underdogs, the downtrodden, the repressed in society. we are used to being outsiders looking in...

And it's not too hard to figure out what the rhetoric would be for "not many friends in high school = conservative" and vice versa.easily,