Why Liberals rule academia and media

[Bonnie]

www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/printmo20040923.shtml

As Smith puts it, "Intellectual are not anymore 'above' the persuit of status, power and wealth than others. "Bribes--often thinly- disguised as university chairs and foundation grants--are as effective among intellectuals as others. a relatively small group of people who control the mechanisms of laud and lucre cna have a tremendous influence on ambitious academics.

"The Secular Revolution" shows how key influencers pushed universities to teach that the perfection of social mechanisms will deliver us from evil, including the evil of that PRIMITIVE HUMAN INVENTION KNOWN AS RELIGION.

the book also includes a fascinating case study of the destruction of moral reform politics in Boston through ridicule and sarcasm. A chapter on those who sold the concept that law is socially constructed (rather than natural) provides good background for understanding how the Supreme Court came to assert it's supremacy to clear Constitutional intent.

Similarly, a chapter on journalism shows how "key persons within journalism (especially publishers and editors, and also journalism professionalizers form the ranks of the unversities and the active press) actively sought to minimize and ultimately to undermine traditional religion."

His bottomline: "The secularization of the institutions of American public life did not happen by accident or happenstance. ..(It was) an acievement of specific groups of people, many of whom intended to marginalize religion. The people at the core of these secularizing movements, at least, knew what they were doing, and they wanted to do it."

 

[musicman]

For all their high-toned talk and better-than-you airs, liberals have fallen prey to man's fundamental weakness - his inherent, unceasing arrogance. It is only through belief in an objective morality, existing apart from oneself, that one can find humility, and rise above the baser aspects of his nature. It's just not all that complex.

 

[Annie]

Bonnie, like me it seems you've spent a bit of time at the university, in the education department. Have you ever noticed that those most strongly defending the poor, beleagured public schools, are themselves the product of a private school? They argue for 'product assessments', 'portfolio assessments', etc. They are all for 'whole language' which has been totally discredited for non-LD kids. When you question though them, they had to memorize large amounts of 'knowledge facts.' They spent a lot of time writing, reading. They were 'forced' to memorize poems, the Declaration, Pre-Amble to the Constitution. Forced to read Shakesphere, Dickens, and some philosophers-and analyze them in traditional ways.

Yet they see no correlation between their academic attainments and standards.

 

[musicman]

Excuse me for butting in, Kathianne, but what you're saying rings so true. It goes, once again, to the fundamental arrogance of liberalism:

"Do as I SAY, not as I DO!"

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, like me it seems you've spent a bit of time at the university, in the education department. Have you ever noticed that those most strongly defending the poor, beleagured public schools, are themselves the product of a private school? They argue for 'product assessments', 'portfolio assessments', etc. They are all for 'whole language' which has been totally discredited for non-LD kids. When you question though them, they had to memorize large amounts of 'knowledge facts.' They spent a lot of time writing, reading. They were 'forced' to memorize poems, the Declaration, Pre-Amble to the Constitution. Forced to read Shakesphere, Dickens, and some philosophers-and analyze them in traditional ways.

Yet they see no correlation between their academic attainments and standards.

Kathianne, there is an unbelievable disconnect in my opinion, and more shocking is the level of knowledge these people have in the book sense but not an ounce of common sense. I truly don't know what they think they are preparing students for?

I am going to get this book and read it, unfortunately it will probably confirm some of my worst fears, but I think it's an important read.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, there is an unbelievable disconnect in my opinion, and more shocking is the level of knowledge these people have in the book sense but not an ounce of common sense. I truly don't know what they think they are preparing students for?

I am going to get this book and read it, unfortunately it will probably confirm some of my worst fears, but I think it's an important read.

One of the benefits about returning to school as a 'mature' student, I was able to point such things out, the profs knew they couldn't grade me down, that I would challenge them with the chair. You would not believe how many of the 20, 21 year olds would come to me after class and say, "I never thought about that they didn't go to public schools. Why would they be pushing for things they don't KNOW will work, putting down those that have been DEMONSTRATED to work?" Then we would talk about PC and politics. I always come back to politics.

Truth to tell, a 20 year old is very idealistic. Theories and all hold great allure to them, as they should. Problem is, there is no *warnings* given about when to cut bait, just 'if not working, YOU are doing it wrong.' I love trying new ideas, many work and add interests for the kids, but at the core, they must know certain things, in order to build the framework to hang theoretical knowledge and learn where and when to apply their knowledge.

 

[Bonnie]

One of the benefits about returning to school as a 'mature' student, I was able to point such things out, the profs knew they couldn't grade me down, that I would challenge them with the chair. You would not believe how many of the 20, 21 year olds would come to me after class and say, "I never thought about that they didn't go to public schools. Why would they be pushing for things they don't KNOW will work, putting down those that have been DEMONSTRATED to work?" Then we would talk about PC and politics. I always come back to politics.

Truth to tell, a 20 year old is very idealistic. Theories and all hold great allure to them, as they should. Problem is, there is no *warnings* given about when to cut bait, just 'if not working, YOU are doing it wrong.' I love trying new ideas, many work and add interests for the kids, but at the core, they must know certain things, in order to build the framework to hang theoretical knowledge and learn where and when to apply their knowledge.

When I hear what comes out of the mouths of 20 year olds Im terrified, and it wasn't too long ago I was 20, but I honestly don't remember being that idealistic, and I have to credit two things for that, religion, and my parents who really taught me about life, politics, etc early on, plus growing up an only child I was lucky enough to be able to travel with them so I saw a good deal of the world at a very young age, and I grew up fast.

 

[Annie]

When I hear what comes out of the mouths of 20 year olds Im terrified, and it wasn't too long ago I was 20, but I honestly don't remember being that idealistic, and I have to credit two things for that, religion, and my parents who really taught me about life, politics, etc early on, plus growing up an only child I was lucky enough to be able to travel with them so I saw a good deal of the world at a very young age, and I grew up fast.

Inevitable question: Public or Private? :halo:

 

[Bonnie]

Inevitable question: Public or Private? :halo:

First 8 years Catholic.........After that public

 

[Bonnie]

For all their high-toned talk and better-than-you airs, liberals have fallen prey to man's fundamental weakness - his inherent, unceasing arrogance. It is only through belief in an objective morality, existing apart from oneself, that one can find humility, and rise above the baser aspects of his nature. It's just not all that complex.

I think you summed that up nicely.... the operative word being arrogance

 

[Annie]

First 8 years Catholic.........After that public

Yep, 6 years for me, before I escaped the clutches of really evil nuns! Seriously! They were evil. Made us draw, label, color maps of nearly any place you can think of. In 3rd grade, the dam lady made us do new maps, every time a new African nation was created, which was like every other day. Had to redraw all those mines, sugar canes, rivers, ect. Trust me, this was ugly! My friends in public schools, NEVER had to do that crap. Their teachers gave them an atlas. I don't think we had those. :shrug:

4th grade we had to read Julius Caesar, no freakin joke. Of course, we had to study the Roman Empire first. (The nun's explanation of what I later learned were the 'later Caesars': some of the rulers were really bad men. Take that Caligula!)

Then we got to act it out. You do not know the hate one can develop for Shakespere or Caesar until you listen to 40 some 4th graders struggling through the Bard's words. It was criminal. (I still remember Shirley Augustine's reading! Good Lord). I also made amends with Caesar in high school, when the teacher read it! Thank God!

Now the Catholic schools have dumbed down, but still pretty high standards. Other private schools, with much higher tuition, still do the above, though hopefully in a better way!

 

[Bonnie]

I remember one nun, she was really nice..........sister Mary Grace, but she gave us homework every night of our Easter vacation.......... Talk about criminal

I do remember some shakespeare and yes the map drawing, and I even remember Moby Dick.......EESH

 

[musicman]

I'm a 4-year inmate (St. Bernadette reforma - er, grade school). The thing I remember most is that medieval torture known as "diagramming sentences". What possible earthly use is any of this going to be in real life, I remember asking myself, as I boiled down hideously run-on compound sentences. And yet, I now seem to possess an automatic laser which allows me to cut through a lot of fat. "Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor" becomes, in it's simplest and truest form, "Robin Hood stole". The Second Amendment, at it's heart, says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Modifiers are wonderful; they add nuance (oh, God - who said that?) and flavor. But I'm able, without even giving it a lot of thought, to go straight to the meat of a sentence, or a speech, or a news report.

Maybe those scary old penguins were on to something!

 

[Bonnie]

I'm a 4-year inmate (St. Bernadette reforma - er, grade school). The thing I remember most is that medieval torture known as "diagramming sentences". What possible earthly use is any of this going to be in real life, I remember asking myself, as I boiled down hideously run-on compound sentences. And yet, I now seem to possess an automatic laser which allows me to cut through a lot of fat. "Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor" becomes, in it's simplest and truest form, "Robin Hood stole". The Second Amendment, at it's heart, says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Modifiers are wonderful; they add nuance (oh, God - who said that?) and flavor. But I'm able, without even giving it a lot of thought, to go straight to the meat of a sentence, or a speech, or a news report.

Maybe those scary old penguins were on to something!

You have quite a way with words, but you being a musician, I totally get that......Maybe the nuns were more inspirational to you than you think??

 

[musicman]

You have quite a way with words, but you being a musician, I totally get that......Maybe the nuns were more inspirational to you than you think??

Without a doubt! Of course, I still want to flinch or dive under a desk whenever I see one of them. Let's face it, though - it comes right back to human nature. It's not in a child's nature to sit quietly and absorb knowledge. And rote, memorization, grades, testing - UGH! The sun is shining! The ballfield is calling!

What seems to have been lost is the knowledge that kids don't have a clue what's best for themselves. That's what they're supposed to be able to rely on GROWNUPS for. None of this ever seemed to be in dispute in parochial school.