Today was my last day at the House DFL Caucus. I am leaving to attend law school at the University of Virginia.
When I returned to this blog in February, I said I wouldn’t be blogging about the Legislature while they were in session. Though we’re been out of session for two months now, I have tried to avoid writing about the Legislature (except for a few posts about Legislative endorsements). Anyway, I’m unemployed now so all bets are off!
Loading ...
Zack,
Does that mean that you were blogging on the taxpayers’ dime? ;-P I had to tweak you a little bit because I know you guys like to take shots at Brodkorb as to who pays him to say what he says.
Chris,
So typical…
You have to spin everything to the negative here because that’s all your sick troll mind knows how to do.
You’re like the brain surgeon who goes home and beats his wife, a degreed graduate on the one hand, yet completely and utterly sick on the other hand. ;-P
Nitro = permanent ignore.
LOLS like you have to remind me.
You treat me like all Republicans treat American Democrats. I’ve learned to get used to it, however, I will not just go away, pally.
Zach, even though you are a dipshit, you are a good blogger and fun to read. (And I even hear you are a pretty good guy)
Best of luck in Virginia. Study hard. Don’t be afraid of that Socratic method.
And keep spewing your Dem talking points. I hear law professors love that.
Law professors are usually democratic, because they are generally highly educated. I find it ironic that right wingers so often claim they are so much smarter than lefties, or even moderates, yet when you look at a broad cross section of people with an MA or higher, they are overwhelmingly registered dems or third party. And, regardless of their party affiliation, they are generally for a more fair tax system and a larger social state. You righties are truly pathetic sheep.
anonymous,
It’s condescending comments like that that turn voters off to liberals. As someone who is probably more educated than you are, I could try to explain why your comments are off base. But why would I want to waste my time? You wouldn’t be able to understand anyway. See how off putting condescencion can be?
Umm, Chris. I don’t disagree with you but when making the argument that you’re more educated, you should probably spell ‘condescension’ correctly. ;)
Chris,
“As someone who is probably more educated than you are”
LOLOLS a lot of good that did you politically, Chris.
Zack,
Remember the thoughts, ideals and even the flaws of the founder of the institution you will be attending. Thanks for your work and the forum it helped provide. Best wishes and good luck.
Thanks for all the kind thoughts, but just to clear things up, I am not leaving the blog - just my job at the House DFL Caucus.
Why would you want to waste your time being condescending to me, because you think I was condescending in my message? Doesn’t that make condescension the subject, instead of the widely known statistical fact that I mentioned? If you have different information, please share. After all, I do only have a BA, so I might be too dumb to understand what you say. But, perhaps you can give the argument a try.
Anonymous,
My spelling error (good eyes) aside, the problem I have with liberals is how they put everyone else down because they aren’t as educated, etc. as liberals claim to be. Book education, particularly advanced degrees like MAs and PhDs, is certainly different than real life education. I can say, as someone who has a J.D. and practices law, that you learn very little in law school about actually practicing law. Could it be that the reason groups of people with similar degrees and also share similar political philosphies has little to do with them being better than “less educated” people and more to do with socialization and what is taught in the classroom?
The fact that liberals put such a high value on education and such a low value on personal accomplishment has always frustrated me. Bill Gates does not have a college education. My dad does not have a college education. My dad is not Bill Gates, but he has accomplished a lot and he sure as hell isn’t a pathetic sheep. Drop the condescension. Just because someone is more educated than someone else doesn’t mean they are smarter or better. As I said, my dad is a hell of a lot smarter than a lot of the college professors I had that, quite frankly, had over-degreed themselves to such an extent that they didn’t know anything about the real world but lived in some theoryland that doesn’t even exist.
Chris: You make some very valid points. However, you are missing the big one. While you are 100% correct and totally on point when you say that real life can give you every bit as much of the education that the ivory tower can, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of folks who do stick around in college for a while have learned a lot more than the average man or woman on the street about the important skill of CRITICAL ANALYSIS. Especially in today’s America, there is an infinitesimal amount of focus put on critical thinking, both in our schools and in our daily lives. We are simply not called upon, by the media or otherwise, to be able to really think through a situation, considering all of the facts. We are instead called upon to make snap judgments that are based on nothing more than TV sound bytes. I should add one caveat here in saying that I do believe that most people have a natural ability to make very sound decisions simply by following their inner feelings. However, most of us have learned not to listen to our gut, because it can’t possibly be right. I highly recommend a great book I am reading at the moment called “Blink”. It is quite fascinating and says a lot about our current predicaments.
Anyway, to get to the point: the fact that large swathes of folks who have spent many years in college - learning how to think critically - primarily go against everything modern conservatives stand for, ought to at least be an eye-opener, and something worthy of making us rethink a few things. I don’t see why that simple idea should be challenged so whole-heartedly by so many conservatives.
One last thing. I am NOT a liberal, in the sense of what the word means historically. I do NOT believe that liberation of the individual from the masses is logical. Progressive IS actually a much more apt term. To the contrary, I believe that our best work is accomplished when we are part of the group, working together. A man on a deserted island can live quite well by himself. But, a man who works together with a bunch of other survivors on that deserted island can be part of something far more substantial. Contrary to what so-called conservatives believe - or so it seems to me - the natural human instinct is not to horde for oneself at the expense of others. Our natural instinct, I would argue, is to come together with other who can help. I give you some of my help, and in return I hope that you will help me when I need it. That is both more logical and more efficient. Equality of CONDITION is the most efficient way to survive on this planet. That is not liberalism. That Communitarianism. I learned that in one of my political science classes, which is what my degree is in. There is a lot I learned that will never again use in my life, but there was so much more that I use every single day, because I choose to use it.
There is no law that says you can’t be book smart and street smart at the same time, dig?
I forgot to mention that there actually are only a few degree areas in which highly degreed folks are not overwhelmingly self-identified democrats are “liberals”. They are usually business-oriented majors. Furthermore, the more scientific the area gets, the more progressive the politics. I think that is very instructive as well. However, if you look at voting records of people with MA’s, it is overwhelmingly Democrat, but if you look at Ph D’s, a whole lot more Republican votes are there. When asked why, they overwhelmingly say tax cuts are the primary reason they vote that way. I wish I could pull up all the stats from a research project I did in college on this stuff, but I no longer have access to the statistical databases, and I have no idea where that paper is. Maybe I will find it one of these days.
Anonymous,
Great discussion. I agree with you that, in theory, college should be a place where critical thinking is taught. However, in practice, I don’t think it is taught. I can give you an example that happened to me. In a Sociology class, the professor asked a question on a test about welfare. I cited many statistics and theory and gave a thoughtful answer. She didn’t like the content (saying I was just another Rush Limbaugh) and downgraded me according to what she wanted to hear. I got a B in the class, and that was the lowest grade I received in college. I was different than most of my classmates who merely repeated everything the professor taught.
I agree with you that the more business oriented the major is the less liberal the students are. Although I had a genuine Marxist who taught an econmics class, which I thought was pretty interesting. I disagree with you, however, that the judgement of a person with a MA or a Ph D is more valuable than the judgement of a person with a lesser degree or, in some cases, no degree at all. Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln (I know the Lincoln reference is going back a long way) were not college educated. I also cited Bill Gates and there are many other examples as well.
If I wanted to tease you, anonymous, I would say that you are a progressive looking for a reason (ie. more educated people are progressives) to justify your ideology. But I don’t think the liberal ideology needs any more justification than the conservative ideology. I would point out, however, that Milton Friedman (the father of modern supply side economics) did receive a Nobel Prize in Economics whereas John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern progressive economics did not.
Chris: Nobel prizes are awarded on merit. Just because people like me think Friedman is a completely diluted nut-case, doesn’t mean that his theories are not elegant and damn smart. There are many folks out there who many believe are even evil, but also happen to be geniuses, degree or not.
That brings me another point: When did I say that “the judgement of a person with a MA or a Ph D is more valuable than the judgement of a person with a lesser degree or, in some cases, no degree at all?” If I did, I take it back, as I would NEVER say that. What I did say is that, “the vast majority of folks who do stick around in college for a while have learned a lot more than the average man or woman on the street about the important skill of CRITICAL ANALYSIS.” You conveniently skipped over that remark.
Lastly, I can totally understand where you are coming from in regard to that Sociology class. I myself, believe that supply side economics is just a killer theory that makes bilking labor out of its due, totally just. That’s why Friedman is an economic powerhouse. That’s just my opinion. The fact that you were not allowed to have the opposite opinion in that person’s class is destructive. I have seen the same thing happen. However, I have seen the opposite happen as well. I remember a comparative political economy class I had - also with a Marxist professor - and one of the very few staunchly conservative students in the class challenged an argument I had made. He was a very smart and candid student who could debate with the best of em’. I lost debates to that kid on numerous occasions. He was one of only two people in the class - the other was ultra progressive like myself - who got an A. I got a B . The professor is still a mentor of mine on a occasion, and we still talk about that kid who was so damn smart. We are both sure he is the next Friedman. Incidentally, he went to law school at Boston I think.
Anyway, a good professor ought to welcome challenging perspectives, as long as they are well argued. The quality of the argument is what should matter, especially in a higher education situation.
Anonymous,
Great discussion. I’m glad we both agree that people should be judged on their merits and not on whether they are educated or not. I’m also glad we agree that people shouldn’t have to just repeat what their professors teach in college. I had one bad experience and a whole lot of great experiences with liberal professors as well. There was one who did not agree with me on a single thing, but she would ask me to sign up for her classes and she encouraged me to have one of my papers published, which she also assisted me with.
If you were trying to defend the same positions in college that you are here, I would be surprised to see you pass. You often site incorrect, false, unsubstantiated facts here which in the field I graduated from would get you laughed at. I often disagreed with my professors and recieved high grades none the less. That was because I could back up my arguements. You parrot Rush and Sean and the savage Weiner without exception. In short, I wouldn’t have given you a passing grade.
Richard,
You are that professor I mentioned. Unless someone agrees with you, they are a piece of crap. Funny how you claim I parrot people I don’t even listen to, too. For a guy who “backs up his arguments” you still haven’t produced any evidence that President Bush used cocaine or that he knew about 9/11 beforehand.
Chris, Chris, Chris: Why did you have to go and mention 9/11? Look, the ONLY evidence that has not been brought forward, and may in fact be out there, is that showing Bush baby knew about the attack plans beforehand. However, there is an absolute plethora of evidence that makes an air-tight case against the official story. And cocaine? Are you really ignorant enough to think that a Texas rich boy oil sucker didn’t dance with the white monster? Wake up man! If you can find me one damn politician who didn’t snort coke in the 80’s I’ll give you $100. By the way, there is a very high chance that $100 bill has coke residue on it. Fact check it if you don’t believe me.
Anonymous,
I think your post can be summed up with one word: innuendo. Nice try though!
Innuendo:
1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
2. Law.
a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory.
What about my post was innuendo? I think I was making a pretty direct statement on both counts.
Chris,
Here’s a comment with no innuendo.
You are a loser.
Anonymous,
Prove both allegations. I want pictures, dates, times, real evidence that would stand up in a court room. Otherwise, you’re just blowing innuendo.
Nitro = permanent ignore.
Richard,
You have posted a few obviously incorrect facts along the way. You have had a tendency to make up things about me in order to distract from an argument and as I recall made a few far off statements about things NASA has invented. If people make mistakes it is easy to cite the correct information and move on. Why waste time on personal attacks.
I want pictures, dates, and times that prove that Bush didn’t lie during his 2003 State of the Union address when he talked about British Intelligance concerning Uranium from Africa. What did the White House know about that intelligence and when?
“In the January 28 speech, Bush claimed that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That assertion was similar to claims made previously by administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell (CBS Evening News, 12/19/02), that Iraq had sought to import yellowcake uranium from Niger, a strong indication that Saddam Hussein’s regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
In fact, the Niger story, as documented by journalist Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03) and others, was based on crudely forged documents. In addition, the administration’s own investigation in March 2002 concluded that the story was bogus. As one former State Department official put it, “This wasn’t highly contested. There weren’t strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down” (Time, 7/21/03).”
Where’s the innuendo in my post?
Exactly what I was going to write. I find it so ironic that the 70% is always charged with producing the evidence to back up their story, but the lousy 30 percenters seem to always get off without providing jack. There are at least five very well-written books out there explaining the various impossibilities that are contained in the official story of 911. I’m sorry Chris, but until the President and all his little men come forward to explain that stuff, I am going to suspect them of collusion at the very least.
If we do really have to get into providing factual evidence and the like, I will be more than happy to get into that, but you need provide your’s first, because I can call upon hundreds of folks who will provide me with plenty of facts. I doubt you can do the same. Answer Nitro’s request and the game is on, dig?
Also, don’t forget Joe Wilson. Remember? Valarie Plame’s husband? Yea, he’s the guy who was in Niger investigating the Yellow-cake farce. Coincidence? Hmmm. I don’t think so buddy.
Also, don’t forget Joe Wilson. Remember? Valarie Plame’s husband? Yea, he’s the guy who was in Niger investigating the Yellow-cake farce. Coincidence? Hmmm. I don’t think so buddy.
You’re absolutely right, anonymous, it was no coincidence that Wilson was sent by the CIA to investigate yellow cake. He was sent because his wife recommended him. And by the way, the British still stand behind their intelligence with respect to urnaium and Niger. What the hell do you think Iraq was trying to buy from the world’s largest uranium supplier, pork bellies?