... and did, yesterday.OLSON: Palin-osis spreads among some liberal women, by Doug Olson, Local Guest Columnist
In which a male "former teacher" (ouch) endeavors to speaks for womankind, while in the process pole vaulting over the thin line that separates satire from mean-spirited bile of the sort that currently is poisoning the presidential campaign.
Here’s a sneering snippet.
Palinosis is a near-fatal, always traumatic malady occurring in epidemic proportions among aging, left-wing “feminazis” (a little Rush Limbaugh lingo here) that long ago bought into the notion that all men were sexist pigs bent only on keeping women ignorant, barefoot and pregnant. In other words, women that are suddenly realizing they've been living a toxic lie for the last 30 years or so.
Presumably only Healthblogger is laughing.
The mystery to me is what the newspaper has to gain from encouraging sexist diatribes, but perhaps it’s just another sad measure of how far the level of discourse in America has fallen ... or how few reasonable local people are willing to aply for the position of local guest columnist.
Photo credit: http://www.gigglesugar.com/152917
60 comments:
I read this column, too and was surprised at the degree of sexism it contained and that it was published by the Tribune. I hope they don't publish anything else like this.
blech, I've tried typing about 3 different comments on here, and none quite encompass my disgust with this piece.
And Tribune, seriously? SERIOUSLY!? Who did this article appeal too, or was supposed to appeal too?
Someone at the newspaper usually responds when questions like this come up, although this instance is sufficiently egregious that I may have to compose a letter to the editor.
Let's hope that the next guest column isn't a light-hearted satire about African Americans fighting against discrimination, only to realize that it wasn't all that bad.
While I readily agree with the determination of sexism and share the disgust for it, I find it somewhat healthy for the less enlightened to occasionally remind us of their near ubiquitous presence.
Indiana is an incredibly conservative state. Olson, DeKay, and others are often the norm rather than the exception. We long-timers tend to lose sight of that or at least temporarily forget on purpose to excuse ourselves from what would be everyday outrage.
Think about it: We put Steve Price in charge of millions of dollars of tax money. Our hospital has a chief of staff who thinks racist and homophobic jokes are funny. Electorate polls show us as more regressive than West Virginia.
We're viewed by much of the United States as hillbillies on the whole because it's true. People avoid us as a result.
National research keeps telling us that openness and tolerance are keys to economic success and we keep putting rednecks in positions of authority and notoriety.
Pretty simple from a market perspective - show ourselves as ignorant and get treated as such.
The Tribune is published now by the guy who used to be in charge of ad sales. Not that John Tucker ever delivered the brand of journalism he promised, but that probably explains it better than I could. I'm assuming he knows his market.
To the extent that perception is reality, we have a lot of work to do.
A few tangential points.
The Evening News is now published by the former, and not so competent, ad guy. Kozarovich is the publisher of The Tribune, for what it's worth. A working journalist who edits and publishes the same paper in which we read this tripe.
I tend to agree with bluegill that guest columns can be informative to many as a reminder of what civilization must overcome. Troglodytes have feelings, too.
Finally, as you might imagine, I draw strong conclusions when such opinions are submitted. If it's important enough to seek publication, it ought to be important enough to fact check and proofread. I will assume that the writer's curiosity did not extend to history and proper names.
Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug would probably take as much umbrage from being referred to as "Steinam" and "Abzig" as from the column itself. After all, they are/were both fully aware that the "Olsens" of this world exist and flourish.
Expose. Rebut. But don't suppress. If, as the NAC staff point out regularly, the voters could be exposed to the thinking of Steve Price, he wouldn't be drawing a legislative salary and could spend more time working on his music.
We're viewed by much of the United States as hillbillies on the whole because it's true. People avoid us as a result.
And...Bluegill supplies the post-Fringe Fest reality check.
Thanks for the correction. I'd forgotten the last tune in the musical chairs game. Either way, I think some strong perceptions about their readership are revealed. And, quite frankly, I think they're ones we all share.
Per the Steve Price assessment, I'm not so sure. I'm not convinced that Price gets elected in spite of his ignorance but rather owing to a sizable portion of the electorate's identification with it.
There we're a lot of Palin supporters floating around town this weekend. When I first heard her speak, my gut reaction was, "Holy crap, Steve Price is running for Vice President."
I suppose the crux of it is that I am, at least for now, finished trying to change old New Albanians. Having essentially wasted years on what the senior editor has referred to as trying to teach those who don't want to learn, I'm much more interested in attracting new ones.
I've lately come to the conclusion that a lot of right wingers bother me as much as they do, not because of legitimate political disagreements, but mostly because many of them are just plain assholes. That's not with whom I want to spend my time, fighting, placating, or otherwise. If it takes recruitment to solve that problem, so be it.
In that regard, the 20 or so hours I spent at the Fringe Fest were as informative as they were entertaining.
Given the general level of (dis)respect single occupancy vehicles receive in NAC environs, it was gratifying that the most important cultural event thus far in my New Albany life involved creative people taking over a parking lot.
I suppose the Tribune was too busy with the likes of Olson or B.J. Thomas to notice. You know how the liberal media are.
Given the general level of (dis)respect single occupancy vehicles receive in NAC environs, it was gratifying that the most important cultural event thus far in my New Albany life involved creative people taking over a parking lot.
On Saturday evening, I learned something. Having taken over the parking lot, I discovered that I didn't really want to give it back. There's research to be done with respect to what the law permits, but my feeling at present is to try and use half or more of it as much as possible, year round as weather permits, as a continental style beer garden.
Bluegill wrote,
"There we're a lot of Palin supporters floating around town this weekend. When I first heard her speak, my gut reaction was, "Holy crap, Steve Price is running for Vice President."
Steve Prive in drag. Now, there is a mental image I didn't need today!!
Bluegill - I find myself in agreement with you once more. The energy spent trying to raise the thinking bar for people who’ve committed their small lives to ignorance is futile. The hope is for the thinking amongst us. Folks like Mr Olsen make me cringe, but given the overwhelming burden of ignorance our community bears, we should keep offering alternatives. My take on the Tribune piece? Consider the source. The Tribune is owned by CNHI* of Birmingham AL. The business model for a “community Media franchise” is to reduce the costs of news gathering and increase the revenues from Ad Sales. Hence we have an Ad Sales guy running the editorial staff at the local paper. No surprise - that’s the biz. there’ll in. If you don’t make the mistake of reading the Tribune as a newpaper, then hold your nose and read away. I’d personally never waste my time or money on it. I clipped two statements to make my point:
*Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. (an advertising circular or community media franchise?) “We are committed to excellence. We will actively seek to achieve and maintain the highest level of excellence in all of our newspapers and other products and services we provide for our readers and advertisers. We will adhere to the highest standards of journalistic excellence....We will own and operate quality media enterprises that offer growth potential and add value to our company.” http://www.cnhi.com/aboutus
The Boston Globe (a real newspaper) “We seek to inform, to explore, to entertain, to contribute creatively to the commonwealth....To be the indispensable source of trusted relevant and authoritative news and information for all our readers, thereby helping them meet the challenges in their lives” http://bostonglobe.com/aboutus/about.aspx?id=7114
What bothers me most is the fact that civil discourse seems to have taken a back seat. There seems to be little tolerance or stomach for a difference of opinions with mutual respect being shared. I'd love to say that people of faith raise the level of discourse, but that often doesn't happen.
I was struck last week on a blog where someone referred to Barney Frank as 'worthless.'
I had several thoughts. I wondered if the person saw people with whom he disagreed with in general as worthless.
Or, did he see Mr. Frank's opinions as worthless and miss-speak.
Or, did Mr. Frank's sexual orientation play into this in some way.
It does make me wonder...
OK, I had to read the column to find out what all the hubub was about. I wasn't offended. I just thought the thing was really stupid.
The thing that people should try to remember is that we live in America where there is still freedom of the press -- whether one likes it or not. If you have a differing viewpoint then I would suggest that you contribute with your own column.
With all due respect, it isn't fair to compare The Tribune with The Boston Globe, or anything in that arena. It's a lot easier to sit back and be critical when you're not actually part of the team.
Since Mr. Olson provided his address beneath his cute column, I sent him the following e-mail yesterday:
Mr. Olson:
As a "woman of a certain age", I'll bet I'm right that you've been on the wrong side of a divorce - or a failed love affair. Your language is evocative of ex-husbands of a certain age. It's so dated - yet still has that bitter edge.
I'm a mother of 2 women and a grandmother of 4 girls, so I think I have some insights into femininity. In my view, the Sarah Palin attraction for right wing white guys is this: She is your ideal "feminist" - a beauty queen in high heels and a skirt, who hunts (from helicopters, no less) and fishes, can skin a moose and bring it home for dinner. All this with a baby on her hip. And she's a governor, to boot. Wow! What's not to love?
Except that she does not support other women much. No equal pay for equal work. No abortion rights, even in rape and incest. As Mayor of Wasilla, she even charged rape victims for the cost of the rape kits that collected evidence. She supports - or at least did support before announcing she's about to become a grandmother at 44 - abstinence only sex education. Well, you say, all families have their problems. The difference is, those families are not imposing policies affecting the rest of us.
Sarah Palin is intellectually incurious at a very complex and critical time in our country and the world; she belongs to an extremist religious group of "end timers"; does not acknowledge the human impact on the environment; is worse than no help at all on foreign policy; and cannot string together an intelligible sentence. She can flash that Miss America wannabe smile, wink and mug for the camera like the actress she is, and some people - mostly of the male persuasion - fall for it. But she is insulting to intelligent women of all ages. However, she'd be HUGE on Hee Haw!
Ruthanne Wolfe
"With all due respect, it isn't fair to compare The Tribune with The Boston Globe" Really? One calls itself a newpaper, the other calls itself a newspaper. That seems like the perfect comparison to me.
@Gossip Girl when you said:
It's a lot easier to sit back and be critical when you're not actually part of the team.
Ummm you're preaching to the choir.
Since I was mentioned personally, I felt obiged to at least comment.
I am laughing at the hypocrisy of all you left-leaning individuals always touting intellectual honesty, tolerance, and freedom of expression.
Here we have a columnist voicing his viewpoint that happens to be different from yours but probably closer to the majority of Americans and all you can do is condemn and name-call.
Why is it that women who choose to be in a more traditional role threatens so many of you?
Our democratic society allows everyone the opportunity to get involved and advance what we believe to be the best path for our country.
Sarah Palin is no different. She is tranditional in many ways and proud of it.
When did she ever say "no equal pay for equal work"?
Oil and energy exploration are not mutually exclusive from environmental conservation.
She does speak intellengently although with an accent that many of you demean her for and on topics you disagree.
This article describes what many women feel; although it may not be you personally or your family member, many women struggle with wanting both the traditional and non-traditional roles of womanhood.
Those tolerant individuals should acknowledge this and help find ways for women to be successful in all the roles; not just your liberal ones.
Bluegill summed up all of your hypocrisies in one paragraph:
I've lately come to the conclusion that a lot of right wingers bother me as much as they do, not because of legitimate political disagreements, but mostly because many of them are just plain assholes. That's not with whom I want to spend my time, fighting, placating, or otherwise.
I also choose to be around like-minded individuals. That's what great about America. We are afforded the opportunities!!
The prosecution rests, Your Honor.
Healthblogger:
Palin has said she agreed with the Supreme Court decision in the Lilly Ledbetter case, as did John McCain. Look it up.
We have different ideas of "traditional" womanhood. Mine does not include killing animals from airplanes. And as for speaking "intellengently", try this on for size:
"One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars." Intelligent or vacuous? No wonder her handlers keep stuffing her in cars with motors running to rush her away from "inquiring minds". Seriously, a heartbeat away?
Ruthanne
@healthblogger, This is just me, and I don't think that it's the challenge of women wanting to fall into a traditional role that bothers people, but it's this authors blatant dismissal and insults to those women who are simply not interested in fulfilling a traditional role.
Speaking from personal experience, it's a hard freaking job, you go one way, you're a weak female who needs to start standing up for herself, go the other way, you're a man-hating "feminatzi" (really? how disgusting), no one needs to try and speak for females and the roles they decide to pursue expect for the female herself, because, really, y'all ain't gotta clue what it's like to fill either role, and the repercussions of either role.
I'm going to keep this up a bit longer, as I'm swamped this morning and have nothing queued and ready.
I find it interesting that HB wrote this:
Why is it that women who choose to be in a more traditional role threatens so many of you?
A better question might be put to Doug Olson: "Why is it that women who choose not to be in more traditional roles threaten you?"
It's also ironic (that detested liberal word again) that HB, who has been spewingg venom at Barack Obama for months, is offended at expressions of disdain. ecently he's been the master of such verbiage.
The GOP used to have an elephant as its symbol. Now it's a pictogram of pots and kettles, with death threats in the guise of "free speech" not very far beneath the surface.
HB - "Why is it that women who choose to be in a more traditional role threatens so many of you?"
I'm not threatened a bit, the women who raised me lived out their lives in traditional roles and I love them and support them. But frankly, they were all f#@king miserable. One was raped by her father as a child. Another was deeply emotionally injured by this abuse but never recieved proper mental health care (see, the pious traditionalists thought she just needed to pray harder to a male God and she eventually killed herself, the other, well, I won't even go into my Grandmothers sadness when her drunkard husband tortured her emotionally. They all were dutiful traditional wifes, but no one cared about their truths or their pain.
So why are you picking on women who've decided to live "free' and without abuse, and instead seek out and council violent abusive "traditional husbands" You'd have more of an effect if you went to the root of the problem instead of always picking on the victims.
And I have to agree with Bluegill (again!) 95% of the GOP "base" I've had to deal with are bitter fearful little men and they disgust me. Oh, and thanks for giving the GOP cover for 30 years with your conservative "family values" bulls*%t so they could systematically pillage the middleclass and destroy our country. Hope the "liberals" return the favor soon.
I really shouldn't, but.....
Courtney said, "Speaking from personal experience, it's a hard freaking job, you go one way, you're a weak female who needs to start standing up for herself, go the other way, you're a man-hating "feminatzi" (really? how disgusting), no one needs to try and speak for females and the roles they decide to pursue expect for the female herself, because, really, y'all ain't gotta clue what it's like to fill either role, and the repercussions of either role."
Absolutely right on. I have no idea what it is like, especially for single moms. I do know this, though...the traditional role of women was at a different time in history. I am not saying that it still is not possible or plausible, but is just more difficult. I put most of the blame on men today. That's right, I said men. Men that are "afraid" of commitment or those that won't grow up. They put many women in a position that has no winners. People today also live outside their means, causing both parents to work just to keep up with the Jones's.
I am a firm believer that women today can have the best of both worlds if that is what they really want. It takes some creative moves to make it happen, but it is entirely possible.
As for Sara Palin not being intelligent, I disagree. You have quoted one line of her from an intreview. There are plenty of examples of others that don't have the aid of a teleprompter or written text sounding just as incoherent. She is a true feminist in the historical sense of the word. True, she doesn't believe in abortion as a right, but that has only been inserted into the feminist movement in the last 35 years. You may not agree with her stance on the issues, but you surely agree that she embodies what most women want in life...to have it all.
I removed the previous post becuase it said both too much and too little. I think it is fair now.
@ruthanne
There are a lot of half-truths in your posting. Hunting from helicopters, no equal rights or pay for women, making VICTIMS pay for rape kits. They all have some truth, about the same truth as Barack Obama helping terrorists reform our education system.
@roger
I suppose you mistook HB's "laughing at your hypocrisy" as being offended by it. In his posting he didn't mention being offended, not even by the personal attack of you presuming he agrees with the author.
@bluegill
I would like to correct your deliberate misinterpretation of the joke HB posted. In all of the time I've known HB he has never made a comment in jest, anger, or frustration that was derogatory toward a particular ethnic group. He honestly just doesn't think that way.
You obviously do. You projected your belief, that a person's race contributes significantly to who that person is, onto HB and you held Barack Obama (who is African-American) to a different standard of propriety. Why was no one upset when Barack Obama said,
“Now, I have to say that I would have to investigate more of Bill’s dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was, in fact, a brother,”
speaking of what he thought about Bill Clinton being our first black president. Seems a little stereotypical to me.
Not to get off the point, but I just want to remind anyone who may have forgetten that Barack Obama is not 100 percent African-American. His mother (the person who was the biggest influence on his life growing up) is white. It bugs the crap out of me that people keep calling him black. He's just as black as he is white.
I would have said it, but it is really poorly received when conservatives say it. Thank you though.
Here's a good place to start, Jake.
Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia
Bluegill,
While your comment makes absolutely no sense when taken in any sort of context, I thank you for sharing your racism help resources. If I meet anyone else with racial preoccupations I'll pass the link along.
If you feel like clarifying your post, I'd be happy to discuss issues with you.
Some might think a couple hundred years of history are context.
I hope you at least take time to read through the various sections of the museum's site and explore some of the other links.
If you do, you might begin to see HB's posting within its historical context.
If you still agree that it belongs in the humor section after that, I'm not sure what I can do for you.
"Here we have a columnist voicing his viewpoint that happens to be different from yours but probably closer to the majority of Americans and all you can do is condemn and name-call."
I guess the left has learned that namecalling and condemnation is the only way to get heard in the current political landscape. The right has perfected it...
Sorry. Gossip Girl is Amany. I wasn't trying to be annonymous. I tried using my name while registering at the blogger place, but there was a problem.
Bluegill,
I'll say it again. YOU...DELIBERATELY...MISINTERPRETED the post. Reasonable people understand HB didn't mean it to be racist. Are little children singing Eenie meenie miny mo racist? Most (Everyone but you) will say the answer is no. It matters very little what a person says and a great deal what they do and think.
You have a preoccupation with racism and hating HB. See a therapist. Maybe you're just trying to turn the discussion back to something you feel comfortable talking about. I'm not sure. Address the obama comment too. Send his campaign your link so they know the stereotype of black people being good dancers has its history too. You know what he'll say. He'll say I wasn't even born then and you want to hold me accountable for that?
And on a final note and in the mood of your candidate, if you have something to say to HB (namely that he's racist), say it to his face.
Is this truly the mantra of conservatives, "Being a conservative means never admitting being wrong."
Has anyone every read HB admitting to having been wrong about anything? Or changing his opinion even slightly? Another local conservative blogger writes that his values were set by age 5. And then brags that he hasn't changed since.
What's wrong with this picture?
HB may not tell "Q" jokes. He may not tell "N" jokes.(I believe that he doesn't) However, that is not the only test. It takes a little deeper digging.
In a discussion of gay marriage, HB uses "homosexual" in the same sentence with pedophilia and bestiality. His "funny" cartoon was not a caricature of Obama. It was a stereotype.
From Dictionary.com:
"caricature, a satirical drawing, plastic representation, or description which, through exaggeration of natural features, makes its subject appear ridiculous."
Even Obama's critics, for the most part, credit him for outstanding oratorical skills. The words in the cartoon were NOT part Obama's natural features. Enlarge his ears(if possible), show him with a basketball(he has done appearances with such)or any number of other things that can be actually attributed to him. That's the problem with the cartoon--it wasn't remotely him.
Age 5 is close. It takes most people to the age of 30 I guess. College is the euphoric state where the mind entertains all the wrongs in the world and how a more socialist state can cure them. Then after graduation, many have to go to work, pay taxes, start a family, worry about what their kids are learning and just want the government to leave them alone. We welcome them to the conservative ranks. Some linger in the liberal fog and usually never leave the university, like professors.
I was taught, by age 5 or 6, that if I wanted something I had to work for it. I have never expected anything from the government. I learned that if I wanted to eat, I need to help in the garden. I liked my nice bedroom, so I helped around the house. I learned that there was something more to this short time on earth than my own self interests. I learned that there is a higher power...and that power is not the government. By age 5, I was a conservative. I had not formed opinions on guns, abortion or taxes, but I knew that nothing would or should just be handed to me in this life. Now I am 35. I work, have a family, go to church, pay my taxes and help those that are less fortunate than I. It's not that I don't believe in government or that folks don't need help. I just think we can do it better. By the way, I have 4 little conservatives in my house. They have no idea what that means, but when they get their first job and look at that pay stub, it will all become clear.
Very good, Daniel. Of course, when you originally wrote about "5" it wasn't quite so limited.
Also, could someone please wake me from this dream that I am apparently living in? I go to work every day(missed 3 days in 25 years). Pay taxes. Contribute to charity AND a church. Volunteer. Have paid all of my debts(ala DR). Yet, I'm a liberal and according to Daniel, this can't be. It must be a dream.
Well then, Hoosier, it sounds if you and I are on the same page....except I put my faith and trust in myself and use the abilities that God gave me instead of putting my faith in liberal programs and my trust in the federal govrnment.
Huh?
Fortunately, as a liberal, I haven't put any trust in the current Republican administration and feel pretty good about it.
It seems, Daniel, that you're saying that there's a choice. Believe in yourself and God (therefore, be a conservative) or just believe in the government (and be a liberal). Is that right? You can't work hard, use your abilities for the greater good and still be left of center? That seems rather arrogant...I know plenty of good religious people who are on the left. I, like Hoosier, work hard, pay my taxes, help people in my profession and even have a spiritual side. Yet, I'm not a conservative and don't really put my trust in the government. And I'm even happy in my life! What a quandary!
it's not a dream Mark - they call it Self-Righteousness and it's a conscious delusion whereby humans, through the "virtues" of ignorance and isolation, come to believe they have The Truth to all of life.
Liberal, conservative. Leftist, right winged. Republican, democrat.
Feminist, Chauvinst. Racist, nonprejudiced.
Too many slots to fit into, too many labels to cast, too many disseverments we readily cast on ourselves and each other.
Have we really lost the ability to think for ourselves? Why do we constantly have to be part of one herd or another?
Is the climacteric result of this constant need for being part of a collective, one way or another the current shape we find not only our country in, but the rest of the "developed" world?
When we turn away from individuality we turn towards a world of black and white, and the important things get consumed in the vanishment of the gray areas where the truth usually resides.
Daniel purred, "College is the euphoric state where the mind entertains all the wrongs in the world and how a more socialist state can cure them."
Really? I've heard a fair number of sweeping generalizations in my time, but this comes close to the top of the list.
Taking this at face value, are we to conclude that college attendance should discredit anyone of conservative mindset ... or ar they the ones clever enough to escape the alleged brainwashing and still receive an education?
What of Daniel himself? Did you feel the need to avoid college to stave off socialist contamination, or did you matriculate, impervious to the leftist stain?
If all the things worth knowing come to us by puburty, as Daniel seems to be suggesting, then is there any value in education whatsoever? Would knowledge of advanced physics or chemistry disappear, or would it magically be transmitted by a thorough reading of the Scriptures?
Just curious.
First, I didn't say anything worth knowing came to us by puberty. I stated that my values were present by then. Head knowledge was yet to arrive. I went to college, but I also dropped many classes because of the slant that was presented by the professors. I even changed my major because of one. I don't think it is the actual classes that contribute to the liberal pool as much as it is the youthful company with many lofty ideas. My children have lofty ideas, like a time machine or flying tractor, but growth shows what is possible in this time. I encourage everyone to go to college, but beware the hidden agenda of a "liberal" arts education.
I don't think it is the actual classes that contribute to the liberal pool as much as it is the youthful company with many lofty ideas.
Hard to imagine anything more worthy of a conspiracy theory than the potential threat of "lofty ideas."
Although "stunted ideals" comes close.
How's this for a stunted ideal...Let's tax the entrepreneurs that make the lofty ideals reality even more than they are taxed now. Let's kill any drive to better ourselves through a systematic lowering of the expectations.
From Stephen George in this week's LEO:
Let’s call this line of thinking the terrorism of the idiocracy. It did not start with John McCain or Sarah Palin — although they have found wild profit in it — and it surely will not end there. In actuality, it begins in the vacuum created by a general ignorance of the world around you, the pride you take in that ignorance, and the vulnerability that leaves you with. When some addled shit-peddler like McCain or Palin fills the vacuum with radical lies, these barely literate masses take a crazed posture, and the worst of their own fear and loathing manifests itself in heinous, hilarious ways.
"but I also dropped many classes because of the slant that was presented by the professors. I even changed my major because of one."
Really? So you wouldn't even listen to someone with another opinion from your own? You didn't attempt to challenge any of the ideas in class? Geez, I brought up opposite viewpoints all the time in class and was usually rewarded with a quick nod of the head. I've always found professors to enjoy the debate of ideas.
The fact that you dropped classes to avoid topics you found "slanted" says an awful lot. Will you remove your children from classes in high school if you feel the teacher is too slanted? My wife is a European and a member of the Social Democrat Party, so you'd probably want to make sure your kids didn't take her Biology or German classes.
I am not sure what other people's educational experiences were in college, but I was very much taught in the Thomistic model of learning. It is a start from ground 0 and studying everything and everyone in pursuit of the truth. College was not about what we learned but about how to learn---namely reading and studying everyone.
The problem I often see is that people go into college already armed with what they call the truth and use their educational experience to validate what they already believed. This isn't a right or left problem, it is a right AND left problem.
One thing I have learned is that holding fast to an ideology is often the greatest obstacle for discovery there is. Unfortunately most people are too lazy to start at ground 0 and read the perspectives of everyone and discover that which is truthful. Most seem to start with their opinions already cemented into place and read people who validate their own opinions.
@ iamhoosier Re: 9:27am
HB may not tell "Q" jokes. He may not tell "N" jokes. (I believe that he doesn't) However, that is not the only test. It takes a little deeper digging.
Yup, it takes a lot deeper digging and a good dose of fabrication
In a discussion of gay marriage, HB uses "homosexual" in the same sentence with pedophilia and bestiality.
So did you just now. That point is neither good nor important.
Even Obama's critics, for the most part, credit him for outstanding oratorical skills. The words in the cartoon were NOT part Obama's natural features. Enlarge his ears(if possible), show him with a basketball(he has done appearances with such)or any number of other things that can be actually attributed to him. That's the problem with the cartoon--it wasn't remotely him.
First, critics agree he is good at reading from a teleprompter. But he spends a large amount of time "Umm"ing when you take the training wheels away and he has mentioned the 57 or 58 United states, seeing fallen heroes in the audience on Memorial Day and other such gaffes, so it is not unreasonable to make fun of his speech especially with comments like "All's we can say is Merci Beaucoup".
Finally, and on the same paragraph as italicized above, HB never said that the cartoon was Barack, so if you're correct and the cartoon "wasn't remotely him" then what made you think the cartoon was directed at him?
HB never said that the cartoon was Barack
He labeled the post as Obama.
Alright bluegill,
I begrudgingly give you that one. Without that clue, I'm not sure anyone would have gotten it.
Points (arbitrarily awarded)
Jake: 30
Bluegill: 1
How's the reading going?
"... I'm not sure anyone would have gotten it."
I sure hope that you don't believe that. Just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
I realize that most of us are not in pre-med or physicians...
(that is 100% sarcasm)
Mark
Bayernfan,
I actually dropped a Philosophy class that was taught by a man from Berkley. I was warned before I signed up, but decided to give it a shot anyway. The man was full of himself, had no room for other arguments and presented theories that were no win situations from a Christian standpoint.
I also changed my major after a paper that I had written in "World Politics" about Reagan and the end of the cold war was trashed and graded unfairly. The prof. was a liberal that would look for an argument from me. The others in class kept silent. I finished my college studies at a Christian Universtiy and wish I would have just started there.
As for not letting my children take a course taught by your wife...that depends on what she is teaching them. If she teaches in Biology that which is unprovable, such as evolution or being born homosexual, I would offer them my point of view. I don't believe I would pull them from the class.
I was warned before I signed up, but decided to give it a shot anyway. The man was full of himself, had no room for other arguments and presented theories that were no win situations from a Christian standpoint.
I also changed my major after a paper that I had written in "World Politics" about Reagan and the end of the cold war was trashed and graded unfairly.
If I had a nickel...
Now I know why my grade point average was not a 4.0. The professors didn't like me. No way that I was ever wrong about anything...
I had an undergrad Con Law professor skewer an essay I gave on my thoughts on Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore. He was a conservative minded person and he went off on my thoughts. I didn't quit the class or change my major, I just kept writing what I believed, ended up with an A- in the class. I guess I should have just dropped it, quit the school and found some school that would cater to my beliefs instead of challenging them.
As Mayor of Wasilla, she even charged rape victims for the cost of the rape kits that collected evidence.
That's a disengenuous accusation. This was a policy put in place by the Wasilla police chief, and it's unlikely that Palin had any knowledge of it.
Not to get off the point, but I just want to remind anyone who may have forgetten that Barack Obama is not 100 percent African-American.
Technically, he isn't African-American at all. He's American (native American, even).
If she teaches in Biology that which is unprovable, such as evolution
Ummmmm. Fruit flies.
Post a Comment