« She's a Better Man Than Me | Main | Bigger, Faster, Stronger... »

Another Moonbat Academic

Tell me again why tenure is a good idea...

California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay

A 17-year-old Kuwaiti student whose uncles were kidnapped and tortured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invaders more than a decade ago said his California college political science professor failed him for praising the United States in a final-exam essay last month.

Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a foreign student at Foothill College near San Jose, Calif., said he was told by professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay.

"Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America, you must be deranged," said Mr. Al-Qloushi, who feared the failing grade could cost him his student visa.

"I didn't want to be deported for having written a pro-American essay, so as soon as I left his office, I made an appointment with the school psychologist," he said.

Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries. College officials declined to comment, saying it is a confidential matter because Mr. Al-Qloushi and Mr. Woolcock have filed complaints.

This is microcosm of what, I think, is wrong with academia today. Rather than being a home for free thought and ideas as they routinely espouse, it has become a home of intolerance and group think.

And I can tall you from first hand experience that anyone criticizing this teacher will be attacked for trying to stifle academic freedom. Irony is lost on the dumb.

(Having said the above, the kid could have failed the paper and made the quote up. OR potentially the most likely scenario is that the kid failed the paper because he can't write AND the Professor is a moonbat. I'd pay 10 bucks to see the paper. Still, if the quote is accurate, the Professor is the one who needs both psychological therapy and a pink slip.)

Update The (as yet unverified) paper can be found here. (I've only skim read the first half.)

As many of you know there are a few Poli Sci professor bloggers. I emailed James Joyner and Steven Taylor and asked if they would mind grading one more paper. I'll (probably) reserve any comment until I read what they say. Still, the nature of the assignment itself appears to lends credence to the fact the professor is a goofball.

BTW- The quality of the paper and the level of goofballedness of the professor do not have to correlate in any way.

Update 2: Poli Sci Professor Steven Taylor has his say. He gives it a "low D." I agree with 99.99% of what Steven says but I will excerpt the kid in his own defense.

The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed
So the kid did at least stumble into answering the question. (albeit for only a mere sentence fragment)

By and large (as always) the liberals will focus on the fact that a 17 year old Kuwaiti kid has trouble with english as if that is somehow an excuse for the professor telling the kid that if he liked America he needed psychological therapy. Conversely, conservatives will find the offense of the professor far more egregious than a kid failing a paper.

My bottom line is this. If the professor really said it, he should be canned.

Update 3: James Joyner must have been longing for his red pen days.-- And his subject line sums the whole thing up.

AND Leopold Stotch, also a blogging Poli Sci professor says, "I doubt I would have given him more than a D" in the comments.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Moonbat Academic:

» Carpe Bonum linked with Welcome to America, Ahmad Al-Qloushi

» ISOU linked with Could it be possible...

» PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science linked with Free Grading

» Outside The Beltway linked with California Professor Flunks (Awful) Pro-U.S. Essay

» Say Anything linked with More On The Anti-U.S. Professor

» dcthornton.com linked with Don't Think! (Silicon Valley Edition)

» Signifying Nothing linked with Bad essay gets bad grade, news at 11

» The Moderate Liberal linked with For the Record...

» The Education Wonks linked with Extra Credit Assignment: Great Reading...

» Watcher of Weasels linked with America-Hating 101

» Michelle Malkin linked with GRADING AHMAD AL-QLOUSHI

» PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science linked with My MLK Day Post

» dulce periculum linked with Bias in the classroom, or is it?

» Outside The Beltway linked with Horowitz Responds . . . Sort Of

Comments (113)

I keep telling people it's ... (Below threshold)

I keep telling people it's insane we apply COmmunist principles to our most important profession.

Link to the essay, read it ... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Link to the essay, read it for yourself:

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad%27sessay121004.htm

The assignment was to write an essay about this:

"Dye and Zeigler contend that the Constitution of the United States was not ‘ordained and established’ by ‘the people’ as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.”

TallDave, I used to think t... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

TallDave, I used to think the same way until I found out about Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. Google those and you'll see what the deal is.

Oh yeah, Paul, you owe me $... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Oh yeah, Paul, you owe me $10.

Well, technically, one coul... (Below threshold)
julie:

Well, technically, one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.

I head this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured.

I had a community college e... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I had a community college english lit teacher (NOT a professor) that could find an endorsement of communism in the writing of everyone from Shakespeare to Cavemen's wall paintings. If you disagreed with her interpertation you were assured failure. She informed us of both the first time class met, as a warning so those of us who didn't agree could drop the course. That was nearly 30 years ago in a small West Texas town. I read in the local paper that she is retiring this summer. Please excuse any grammatical errors in this post, I'm an English lit dropout.

Bullwinkle: Historically, ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Bullwinkle: Historically, when regimes like the ones your lit. prof. supported come into power, the first thing they do is put people like her against the wall and shoot them. How's that for irony! ;-)

Julie, how do you measure i... (Below threshold)
UK:

Julie, how do you measure intelligence?

I will get back to you tomm... (Below threshold)
UK:

I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one.

Commie troll alert, people.... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Commie troll alert, people. I'll bet the "in-depth analysis" won't include Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

I meant applying Communism ... (Below threshold)

I meant applying Communism to the profession in the sense of giving lifetime employment to teachers, ensuring that there is little or no accountability for results and institutionalized resistance to change.

Julie, you are the reason I... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Julie, you are the reason I hit the delete key 4 times and retyped that line. (gotchya ;-)

P

Hint: Notice the verb

julie,The irony of... (Below threshold)

julie,

The irony of leftist causes always seems to be totally lost on them. They protested Vietnam on humanitarian grounds; we withdrew and millions were slaughtered and tens of millions enslaved. Jimmy Carter armtwisted the Shah into not repressing revolution in Iran on human rights grounds, and a much worse regime took over (Carter's Sec'y of State said in 20 years the Ayatollah "would be remembered as a saint." Good call.). What do they suppose would happen if we did the "humane thing" and withdrew from Iraq tomorrow?

Julie, you are the reaso... (Below threshold)
julie:

Julie, you are the reason I hit the delete key 4 times and retyped that line. (gotchya ;-)

What line?

Hint: Notice the verb

What verb?

ah crud julie on c... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ah crud julie

on closer review, the verb is "pay" lemme try it this way....

"I'd pay 10 bucks to see the paper."

I specifically deleted "to READ the paper" because I knew someone would want 10 bucks. ;-)

Get me the original and you get a Hamilton. LOL

P

DUH DUH DUH UDH So... (Below threshold)
Paul:

DUH DUH DUH UDH

Sorry Julie, doing too much at once... that was aimed at Sue.

Sue go back and read how I beat you out of 10 bucks.

Moonbat Academic... (Below threshold)

Moonbat Academic

There's a redundancy if I ever saw one. The academics who aren't moonbats are the exceptions. Except in the blogosphere, of course.

Julie, how do you measur... (Below threshold)
julie:

Julie, how do you measure intelligence?

In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK.

I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one.

Why would you ever think I am here to help you?

Skimming the paper I think ... (Below threshold)
CrowScape:

Skimming the paper I think that if I was the professor of his class (note: just a college student here) I don't think he would have a recieved a very good grade for it; Not because I disagree with anything in it, but because it talks about the aftermath of the Constitution and not its formation, which is what the original question was adressing.

Still, I certainly wouldn't have told him to get psychological counseling.

I just hope I don't run into a similar professor that Ahmed got as I go for my Poli Sci degree, I hate dropping classes due to crap like that.

The quality of the paper is... (Below threshold)

The quality of the paper is not too good people.

Forget about whether you agree with the point of it or not.

The punctuation is horrible, the grammar and structure are equally bad. And, as stated above, it helps to support ones assertions with some facts or at least some references, rather than assertions. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

The exercise of writing a paper is about cummunicating your ideas properly, using the rules of expression- spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. in a proper way. Not doing so is the first and easiest way to get a bad grade.

The writing level is junior high school level at best. Not college. (If this is the quality level expected to garner a passing grade at university these days, we have larger problems than liberal professors people.)

If I had submitted such a paper in college, it would get an "F". No question. Hell, if I had submitted this paper in HIGH SCHOOL, it would get an "F".

It deserved an "F" just for those errors alone.

If this is indeed the actual paper.

For what it's wotth, I agre... (Below threshold)

For what it's wotth, I agree that if the teacher said what is reported, he should be fired. Absolutely.

Also though, if this is the level of writing that is allowed at university, even by a 17 year old, then perhaps there are bigger issues at hand. From this sample, the kid is not college material. Junior high level writing is NOT college level. Period. Making excuses for him only compunds the obvious fact that the teacher has real grounds to fail this kids paper based on it's (lack of) merits, JUST ON GRAMMAR ALONE.

A "low D" would be possible. But, it would be kind, IMO.

If you don't have at LEAST a basic level of proper grammar skills, how can you expect to pass?

Come on.

The low standards that pass for academia in this country are going to kill us faster than any outside enemy.

The US brain trust is in deep trouble if people expect such bad writing to garner a passing grade based solely on it's political content.

"But it progressed and Amer... (Below threshold)

"But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history."

That has to be the longest non-sentence I've read in a long time.

Oh, please! You people need... (Below threshold)
julie:

Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life. He's not at Harvard. He's a first semester 17 year old ESL student at a junior college. What were the papers like of the other students in the class? What were their grades? The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist -- oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.

Julie,I've taught ... (Below threshold)

Julie,

I've taught at the community college level and have taught a number of ESL students. Further, I have taught literally 100s and 100s of Intro to American Gov students over the past 12 years--I am certain this isn't a very good response.

Context would sharpen my opinon, but the more I think about it the best-case one could make for the essay is a D- and a very fair case can be made for an "F".

Stephen is exactly right on... (Below threshold)

Stephen is exactly right on this; it's a legitimate final exam question and the kid went off on a tangent. I probably wouldn't have failed him, but I doubt I would have given him more than a D.

Steven, a genuine question,... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Steven, a genuine question, I'm not trying to bait you either way...

To what extent would you (personally) hold the grammatical errors against a 17 year old Arab student?

I know your main peeve was that he didn't answer the question, which is a good point, but I was just wondering if you (or if you thought other professors) would give him a pass on the grammar if his thought process was impressive.

(introducing a third question in this mix)

I don't know that this is a... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I don't know that this is an "A" answer-I am not a college proffessor, but it doesn't look like an oustanding answer-almost looks like the kind of answers we would give, when we didn't have a clue what the answer was, but would just start writing to be writing something.

I think if the teacher said, what he is reported to have said, no matter what the quality of the answer, then he was out of line, and should be reprimanded/fired/whatever.

As for education in general-I think overall education in the US no longer relies on critical thinking, but indoctrination of students.

Oh, please! You people n... (Below threshold)

Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life.

Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults. From what I've read so far, you are not. Too bad.


The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist -- oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.

Agreed, and there are two threads on whether he was treated fairly. The first is whether he was treated unfairly by the teacher in regard to being threatened. As I've stated, if this is true, the teacher should be summarily sacked. End of that.

The second thread is whether the paper was graded unfairly because of it's CONTENT THEMATICALLY or was it possible there were other considerations, such as the paper was badly written.

Note the headline of the article which began this meme:

California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay

The conotation of that headline, and the ensuing article and this discussion, is that the student's paper was given a failing mark based SOLELY upon it's THEMEATIC CONTENT, (it's being pro-USA) rather than any other concerns, such as grammar and spelling, which go completely ignored in the article.. which is suspicious at best.

But, spelling and grammar are of import, because they are the OTHER reasons a teacher would have grounds to fail a student's paper.

Paul astutely focused upon this issue, and proceeded to get the paper graded by an actual professor. A wise step. Becase Paul understands that there is a serious difference between failing a paper for THEME and failing it for bad grammar and spelling. It's important because it's always possible the student isn't being entirely honest. Nor is the teacher.

And, the professor agreed that it was at best a "low D". That's an important point in discerning whether the student was treated fairly or not, because the teacher has the right to fail a paper based upon NON-THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. Such as spelling and grammar.

So, the intial thrust of the headline above is not entirely true, and doesn't consider the other possiblities.

Further, it matters not if the student is only 17 in a junior college. The work on the paper is STILL subpar, even for a Junior college. As I said, it's junior high level writing, at best. It is a teachers responsiblity to keep the standards level and expect a certain level of work. This topic isn't touched upon at ALL in the article or in this discussion. And, it's important.

As you say Julie, it is ultimately a matter of whether the student was treated fairly, and this includes the teachers overall evaluation of the paper as well as the teachers verbal exchange with the student over the paper.

The thing is, we don't know what happened. We only know one side of the story so far. The students side. Dismissing the teachers side of the issue just because he is a "liberal" is about as un-American as one can get.

If that is your only point, then you can have it, and I'll exit the circle jerk.

I know your main peeve w... (Below threshold)
julie:

I know your main peeve was that he didn't answer the question, which is a good point,

I believe I made that point in my first post, Paul.

Steven: Without co... (Below threshold)
julie:

Steven:

Without context, I don't see how you can render a relevant opinion. The issue is not what grade you would have given, but what grade the professor should have given.

Julie, it would be inter... (Below threshold)
julie:

Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults.

Since, you are trying to insult me, no, I can't.

. . .there are two threads on whether he was treated fairly.

A comment is not a thread. -10 pts.

The first is whether he was treated unfairly by the teacher in regard to being threatened.

You are referring to your second comment. - 5 pts. There is nothing in Paul's article re: threats. - 10 pts.
Grammatical error. - 5 pts.

The second thread is whether the paper was graded unfairly because of it's CONTENT THEMATICALLY or was it possible there were other considerations, such as the paper was badly written.

Mis-use of word thread. -5 pts.
Punctuation errors. - 10 pts.

Note the headline of the article which began this meme: California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay. [snip]

You don't know how his paper compared to the papers of the rest of the class. Nor, do you know the instructor's methods of grading. Therefore, you can not say that the grade was based partly, if not entirely, on other factors, such as the student's political views. -10 pts.
Punctuation and spelling errors in snipped portion. -10 pts.

But, spelling and grammar are of import, because they are the OTHER reasons a teacher would have grounds to fail a student's paper.

Punctuation error and failure to heed own advice. - 10 pts.

Paul astutely . . . .
Unnecessary sucking up. -15 pts.

A wise step. Becase Paul understands . . . .
More sucking up. -15 pts.

And, the professor agreed that it was at best a "low D". That's an important point in discerning whether the student was treated fairly or not, because the teacher has the right to fail a paper based upon NON-THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. Such as spelling and grammar.

The more impt. point is whether the student was treated differently from the other students in the class. -10 pts.
Punctuation error. -5 pts.

So, the intial thrust of the headline above is not entirely true, and doesn't consider the other possiblities.

Thrust? - 5 pts.

Further, it matters not if the student is only 17 in a junior college. The work on the paper is STILL subpar, even for a Junior college.

As if you are in any position to judge. -10 pts.
Punctuation error. - 5 pts.

The thing is, we don't know what happened. We only know one side of the story so far. The students side.

You don't know all of the student's side and you are assuming the instructor's side. - 10 pts.

Dismissing the teachers side of the issue just because he is a "liberal" is about as un-American as one can get.

What? - 10 pts.

If that is your only point, then you can have it, and I'll exit the circle jerk.

I won't stop you. + 10 pts.

Grade: - 150 points or F minus, minus, minus, .....

Wow. You don't need anyone ... (Below threshold)

Wow. You don't need anyone to insult you.

You do a fine job making an ass of yourself.

<a href="http://www.outside... (Below threshold)

James Joyner:

Update (2011): My co-blogger, "Leopold Stotch," notes in the comments below:

"For me there’s something deeper going on—not with this particular case, but it represents a trend among conservative students to blame all bad grades on liberal bias. In fact, what I find is that my conservative students tend to gloss over material that confronts their worldview. Thus when I cover Marx, my conservative students dismiss the material and my lectures, then write poor essays on exams, and then complain of my liberal bias when they receive their grade."

A good point. Folks on both sides of the aisle need to do a better job of investigating other possibilities before automatically shouting "Bias."

Pretty much what I was saying as well, (not so directly) for those who are interested in dialogue and not simply stroking their egos.

What gets me about this isn... (Below threshold)
eirik:

What gets me about this isn't the grade on the paper, it sounds like you could justify a low grade on it based on a variety of merits. What gets me is the suggestion that someone see a shrink based on a political philosophy. Unless there is something more about this than we know, something the student actually did or said to really warrent therepy, that is totally uncalled for. At that point, the grade the student gets is instantly calld into question.

For that matter, I'd call the professors sanity into question. To make a suggestion like that to a student without even the consideration of what it might look like if it hit the media is insane.

Guys, keep in mind this is ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Guys, keep in mind this is Foothill College, a 2-year institution. Not exactly Harvard material. I'll bet the professor gave better grades to worse essays.

Wow. You don't need anyo... (Below threshold)
julie:

Wow. You don't need anyone to insult you.
You do a fine job making an ass of yourself.

No, you were the ass for going on and on how badly the kid wrote when your own writing leaves much to be desired. Remember, glass houses and all that.

"Folks on both sides of the aisle need to do a better job of investigating other possibilities before automatically shouting "Bias.""

Pretty much what I was saying as well, (not so directly) for those who are interested in dialogue and not simply stroking their egos.

But, you are also shouting bias. Apply your little gem of wisdom to yourself for a change. And as to stroking egos, that is exactly what you were doing going on and on about the kid's writing.

It just seems a bit odd tha... (Below threshold)

It just seems a bit odd that a professor would say a student needed to seek psych help for views such as those in the paper. It's pretty unbelievable as presented. There is likely another reason. Something occurred at that meeting. The student obviously felt threatened by the assertion that he seek help. It is entirely possible that the student has shown other signs of needing help, and the teacher gave the paper a bad grade simply for it being a poor paper, and when they confronted each other, issues became mixed up. It happens. It's also possible the teacher is nuts. Or sick. It just seems to transend right or left.

And, again, even if it is a 2 year college, the paper is still poor for a 2 year. I've read better papers by 12 year olds. Really.

No, you were the ass for... (Below threshold)

No, you were the ass for going on and on how badly the kid wrote when your own writing leaves much to be desired. Remember, glass houses and all that.

Ah. I see. So, it's about me now? How nice of you. YOU drew first blood my dear. Remember this little gem?

You people need to get out more and see real life.

Apply your "glass houses" barometer to your own lack of grace and good manners.

What it comes down to is... When you say something like that, you are engaging in diversion, a thinly veiled attempt to change the subject, attack the messenger, thus taint the message.

You are unable or unwilling to engage what I'm saying, so you simply attack me. It's the rhetorical weapon of choice for those who don't have an argument or don't wish to engage it. So, why are you here? To stroke your ego? Read your own words on the page?

The subject in this comment area isn't, nor should it be, me. Tthe subject is the student and his paper. But, your focusing upon me means you don't have to engage what I've said, nor the points I've raised. How open minded of you.

And, how about the Julie Greatest Hits:

"Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults.

Since, you are trying to insult me, no, I can't."

I see. So, pointing out that you are being insulting to others is insulting you? Okay... And, I wasn't insulting you at all, Julie. That's pretty amazing actually! I was simply pointing out that your language was insulting of others in the comments. And, it was insulting. And, pointing that out is insulting you? That's rich. It would be really funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

Your "grading" reply was silly. Truly. You put so effort into insulting me further. Ouch. I'm hurt. Really. I. Am. So. Very. Hurt.

Not.

Your replies are cranial-rectal inversion shorthand for "I'm not going to debate you, I'm just going to call you names and throw stones and misdirect and you'll concentrate on that..."

And, for the record, your opinion of my writing has about as much credibility as your manners and your analytical abilities. That is to say...zero. Nada. Zilch.

Comment writing is simple writing. It's not composed. Comparing it to a paper, which is suppossed to be edited and vetted properly is simply not apropos. But, that doesn't serve your greater purpose of bashing me does it? Oh well.

But, you are also shouting bias. Apply your little gem of wisdom to yourself for a change.

No. I wasn't shouting bias, I was stating that there are always two sides to a story. A point which pretty much everyone, except you, seems to agree with.

I was also making the point that the writing in the paper sucks. A point which pretty much everyone agrees with, everyone except you, Julie.

And, as for stroking egos, that is exactly what you were doing going on and on about the kid's writing.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know the kid, don't want to know the kid, so I'm not stroking his ego. I don't know Paul, so, I could care less what he thinks of me, (No offense, I'm sure the feeling is mutual at this point.) and I'm certainly not stroking my own ego by wallowing in this nonsense pit with you. Please.

Whatever egos you are talking about, it's a mystery to me. Why? Because you are simply.... wrong.

Why do you insist upon turning this discussion into one about me? Answer: Because it means not talking about the subject at hand.

There was a discussion going on. Is that how you work Julie? Is everything a confrontation and a threat? Do you attack perfect strangers in blog comments to make yourself feel good? Do you attack people to not have to discuss the issues?

Because there was a nice discussion going on, and you found it neccessary to draw first blood.

For which you get nothing but disdain from me.

Addressing something a few ... (Below threshold)

Addressing something a few comments up the thread, I took an upper division poli sci course as an undergrad, at a state university that touted its poli sci program rather highly; the only non-U.S.-born student in the class was from Great Britain.

The first student papers read in the class were very frustrating to the professor. They were unresponsive, poorly constructed, built on assumptions rather than reading and thought, and prone to misusing essential terms.

The professor, who became my favorite, spent several weeks trying to straighten out these basic errors before he could really start to teach the material. But he recognized right away the challenges he had with the students in that class, and worked from the start on making sure the quality of every student's work was going to improve.

Nor would it have occurred to him to send a student to a shrink because of his political views. He was a liberal who had serious qualms about the speech codes that were already appearing in those days, and I, already a conservative, became one of his favored students and got the best grade in that class.

Oh, please! You people n... (Below threshold)
julie:

Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life. He's not at Harvard. He's a first semester 17 year old ESL student at a junior college. What were the papers like of the other students in the class? What were their grades? The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist -- oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.

You considered this an insult and an attack? Oh, brother! What's next? You're not going to start crying on me, are you? There, there, get it all out. Go ahead. Post another 10,000 words. You'll feel better if you do. No one else will, of course, but I'm sure you will.

julie wrote this:<... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

julie wrote this:

Well, technically, one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.

Professors often fail students when they don't follow instructions. That's usually a good way to grade a paper, based on the guidelines.

I find it interesting that you are so offended by the essay question Julie. The constitution wasn't written by a bunch of farmers by any means, it was written by a highly educated, influential, powerful group of men. It was written by an elite group of men. Big deal. Did the US constitution exclude a majority of the people living in America at the time? Well, there sure was a large number of people excluded, as native Americans and African Americans certainly were not included. There were many of both in America at the time.

Were a majority of the people living in America excluded? Honestly I dont know that answer, and would have to research the question more fully myself. It may indeed be a bad question if the "majority" was not excluded, but the basic question has some validity. Alot of people were left out.

So the kid's paper was fairly terrible. Whether he is or is not "pro-American" is beside the point. He didnt write a good paper. It might be interesting to see how the rest of the class did, but the main topic here is this one kid's paper.

If the teacher did tell the kid to seek "psychological treament because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay" then I agree with previous posters that he should be fired.

Somehow I have a hard time believing that the teacher would suggest treatment for pro-American views, however. That seems unlikely, but I suppose it could have really happened, and in that case he should lose his job.

You considered this an i... (Below threshold)

You considered this an insult and an attack? Oh, brother! What's next? You're not going to start crying on me, are you?

You really are pathetic. It was not so much what was said, but the fact that you used a (lame) insult to denigrate others. It's a trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument.

And, I never said I personally took it as an attack. I simply said that I felt you were attacking others in order to not have to discuss the topic at hand. Get it?

No. I don't suppose you will.

Crying was the farthest thing from my mind. Disdainful laughter, loud laughter, was the actual case.

You think too highly of yourself Julie.

Don't flatter yourself. Really. Don't.

Professors often fail st... (Below threshold)
julie:

Professors often fail students when they don't follow instructions.

Gee, think that is why I mentioned it in my original post? And when a student does not follow instructions when writing an exam essay, how does this instructor ususally handle it? Did he handle it the way he usually does or did he handle it differently, and if so, why.

I find it interesting that you are so offended by the essay question Julie.

Liar.

[snip snip snip]

Look my little chomskybot, you and all the professor Woolcocks of the world can try to be as dismissive of our constitution as much as you want, but no one is buying it.

And did I tell you how utterly offensive I find your use of a chomsky quote in your sig line to be? I notice you don't use it here. Why is that?

So the kid's paper was fairly terrible. Whether he is or is not "pro-American" is beside the point.

No, it is exactly the point. The allegations are that he received a lower grade due to his political beliefs.

He didnt write a good paper.

Then he should be treated like other students who may also have not written a good paper.

It might be interesting to see how the rest of the class did, but the main topic here is this one kid's paper.

Well, it's more than “interesting” since who ever reviews the grievance will be looking at that very issue at the hearing. And the topic was whether this student received a harsher grade or treated differently than other students based on politics.

Lame insult to denigrate ot... (Below threshold)
julie:

Lame insult to denigrate others? You mean: You people need to get out more and see real life. LOL. That you find that pathetic and denigrating is pathetic. And do you think pointing out that different schools have different standards, or that he was a freshman and a foreign student, or that the true issue was whether he was treated differently than other students, were not legitimate points to be made, but instead, as you put it, “trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument?” Then you are really nuts.

And, I never said I personally took it as an attack.

Then why are you so overly emotional?

I simply said that I felt you were attacking others in order to not have to discuss the topic at hand. Get it?

No. See first answer. Get it?

No. I don't suppose you will.

Well, you sure didn't "get it."

You think too highly of yourself Julie.

It's not so much I have a high opinion of myself, it's about me having a justifiably low opinion of you -- which you worked hard to earn.

So, what's next? I get subjected to another thousand words of gibberish?

Julie:No, I actual... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie:

No, I actually do find it interesting that you are offended by the essay question. It's not the greatest question of all time, true, but there are some points worth considering. I have no reason to lie about that.

Look my little chomskybot, you and all the professor Woolcocks of the world can try to be as dismissive of our constitution as much as you want, but no one is buying it.

Hmmm...critically analyzing the context surrounding formulation of the Constitution is a bad thing?

And did I tell you how utterly offensive I find your use of a chomsky quote in your sig line to be? I notice you don't use it here. Why is that?

No, but you just did. I like that quote actually. I don't see anything offensive about it, but I assume that you are a Chomsky hater, which is your right. Hell, I read the guy, and find some of his analysis to be intelligent and useful, certainly not all of it, as you imply.

Should I use it here? Would that make it easier for you to fling personal attacks my way? Actually, I enjoy this site because there are some good viewpoints...well reasoned, etc. It's good to take it all in, for me at least.

You're right, I'm one of those goddamned liberals, or at least you would more than likely call me that. Want to hate me? Ok, you can. Hmmm...I personally dont give a damn whether people call themselves conservatives, liberals, whatever. I think it's mostly bullshit, and I dont really have a problem with differing viewpoints, in fact I'm all for it. It's all opinion, viewpoint. There's room for us all here, IMO.

No, it is exactly the point. The allegations are that he received a lower grade due to his political beliefs.

I think it's pretty clear that the grade was deserved. The paper was way off point. The real issue is whether the professor stepped way out of line by making that remark. If so, fire the guy. Clearly though, the paper deserved a failing grade.

I would want to see both sides, know more about the conversation before making a judgment about the teacher. It's hard to tell with just one side. If the prof really did say the alleged statement he was really far out of line.

Notice that I havent made any personal attacks, Julie. Civil debate is nice.

A few points to consider in... (Below threshold)
epador:

A few points to consider in this debacle:

1) student wrote poor paper and got poor grade
student then went to teacher to complain
2) student claims prof told him to get psych help
3) student is Kuwatii, obviously not totally fluent in English, and I would infer that student is equally a fish out of water culturally.
4) it would seem most likely that the culture clash between student and teacher led the teacher to believe that the student might benefit from psychological counselling
5) my own experience with Kuwatii intelligencia suggests this scenario is quite likely.

Wow, I got through that without making one derogatory comment about spoiled Kuwatii teenagers. [they're just trying to emulate their American friends] Ooops.

Yes, the country and its people experienced horrible things. But the money and attitude culturally there still can easily lead to misunderstandings with Westerners. As opposed to dealing with some French folks who are just downright arrogant hemmorhoids.

That you find that pathe... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

That you find that pathetic and denigrating is pathetic.

Ah yes, the old "I know I am but what are you?" defense.

And do you think pointing out that different schools have different standards, or that he was a freshman and a foreign student, or that the true issue was whether he was treated differently than other students, were not legitimate points to be made, but instead, as you put it, “trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument?”

Pointing out what we all already knew? How intelligent of you. Good work! Take a bow. Nice way to move the goalposts Julie. But, I didn't say that your limited debating and pointing out already understood facts of the case was trashy and lazy, I said that your over eagerness to resort to insults was trashy and lazy and a diversion.

I stand by that statement.

And, you must think there is some truth to my statement, or why would you feel the need to point out your "contributions" to the discussion?

Oh dear. Is that a corner you've painted yourself into? How terrible for you.

Then why are you so overly emotional?

If you are referring to my rancorous laughter as "emotional", then you are right.

Do you always project upon people this way? It's quite boring and predictable.

As I stated, the onus for launching into ad hominem lies entirely upon your shoulders.

I simply asked if you could be decent. (Based upon your confrontational language and denigrating tone.) Comments such as this are simply arrogant: In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK. Those are your words Julie. And, uncalled for.

So, when called on it, you have the gall to deny it and attempt to paint me as to blame? AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I was simply calling for some decency from you. That's all. And, you don't have the integrity to simply stand up for your mistake and your indecency. Why am I not surprised?

So, what's next? I get subjected to another thousand words of gibberish?

Not that it would do any good. That much is clear.
Attack the messenger. How open-minded of you.

And, do you have any idea how much 1000 words actually is? Oh. Wait. I know the answer.

No.

I read about this "academic... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I read about this "academic" awfulness a while ago elsewhere, but, haven't yet read the comments here, Wizbang, beyond the first three, four or so, wanted to add one thing only and that is:

as to any of us who grew up after the 60's and who received an American college education, it now appears, retrospectively, to have been impossible to avoid the influences (perhaps, requirements) of Marxist induction, given that the Frankfurt School (earlier reference, this thread, about which I direct people to this if they're interested) --> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:jGvmpeOlAAQJ:www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html+frankfurt+school+%22antonio+gramsci%22&hl=en

And, most of those became 'academics' and fostered others, a self replicating process, and today we have "the American left" and many in our media who persist in the cultural insistence that American media is what it is (and otherwise quite Marxist influenced and source to many of the rest of us).

Academically, I have several experiences, also, from particularly the University of California, whereby the academic culture there fosters Marxism and penalizes other ideologies, by subtlety or by direct academic penalty (a few particular instructors come to mind here as does the administrative structure of the place itself).

I had no idea in retrospect that many of my earlier academic experiences were quite so heavily influenced by such offensives, but I do now.

As to academics as process,... (Below threshold)
-S-:

As to academics as process, however, I do know that for most who complete course requirements, you reach a point where you just do what is required of you even when it's vile intellectually and even culturally to just get through and get out.

Then you can write all you want about what you experienced from the safe resting spot of being no longer vulnerable to destructive faculty and/or careless administrators. You just do the work, eventually, and get through it. Doesn't make it right, acceptable even, just that as a student, I do know that once you start asking questions, posing issues, you get a heavier load and often stumbling blocks in your academic progress that wouldn't otherwise be there.

I don't know what the answer is other than to just get through and make corrections afterward from a better position.

But, about the student's wo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, about the student's work, it's very poor. I don't know to what degree any political affiliations are affecting either student or instructor, but they've both failed at communicating both requirements and evaluation process.

The student continued to migrate into nonsense, perhaps, by associating certain political motives to an instructor's presentations and requirements -- I'm not sure that that's even the issue here but it became affiliated after this testing process by both student and instructor so there appears at least a suggestion that there's a motivating factor of a political sort, is my point -- and the instructor's retorts are utterly and completely unacceptable.

EVEN IF a student demonstrates perceptual problems, requires medical care, it's irresponsible for any faculty to make that a public issue as has taken place here, and including those comments about that in an academic testing process accomplishes that (and, it indicates an instructor's abuse of his position with access to a student).

The academic work, however, I agree with what I later read here written by "julie" and that is that it's a situation of whether or not the student was treated fairly, or not.

But, from what I read from the instructor about this, he's indicating deficiency in his practice, something that exceeds a moderate deficiency, approacing instead an indication of him as irresponsible, particularly with, for Heaven's sake here, a marginal student at best.

I'm not going to address al... (Below threshold)
julie:

I'm not going to address all your gibberish, snafu (boy that name fits you) because I have neither the time or interest. Nor do I want to be responsible for you sharing another one of your long tedious posts with us.

In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK. Those are your words Julie. And, uncalled for.

Cute editing, but let's examine the begining of the exchange. I stated: I heard this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured. For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK. Or, are you and UK one and the same? Nevertheless, if you (and/or UK) can't take it, don't dish it out. Don't attack people and cry foul when you get it right back at you. Hypocrite.

Meaning, last paragraph I w... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Meaning, last paragraph I wrote, if you've got a class or a group of students with already established limited capacity, or other deficiences whatever they may be as compared to others academically, perceptually, emotionally, then you have a respective responsibility to instruct within those characteristics.

I guess in this particular case the reality upon which any fair evalution could be made remains hidden: what are the 'averages' within the peer group, what were the students instructed to accomplish based upon what instruction, how were they admitted into what courses (standards exist for any institution, or can be expected to exist, at least)...so, unless the very specific characteristics of the institution, the class itself and prerequisites and all are available to examine, everything else is speculation.

I do think, overview here, that the instructor lost the ball. And there's room to consider here whether or not he ever had it.

The work is marginal, at best, yes, by that student, but we just don't know as yet what the standards and performances within those standards were by peers in that academic environment. Perhaps the school admitted someone not capable of performing as per institutional requirements, perhaps the instructor, but, unless those standards are known, the whole discussion about this is one of those "apply your fears here" line of speculative pieces by all the rest of us.

Everyone has experienced ju... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Everyone has experienced just what a trial it is communicate within a class, even greater institution, when there are a few others who don't accelerate in awareness over time. School isn't about who is nice and who isn't, who is "good natured" and who isn't, it's about doing the work. And measurements of who does what in response to what.

Faculty who fail to communicate their expectations and then fail students who bypass or fail to meet those expectations bear a responsibility in the process, as do institutions who foster enrollment from among those who don't pose the capacity to complete the work, however presented.

Academics is communication. If you're determined to avoid learning the language of an instructor, or, if an instructor is determined to perform in a language he/she's aware that students don't comprehend, or cannot comprehend even if willing, then there's a problem.

This one student's situation, however, appears to be now a cause of convenience for many and it's not even possible to analyze with any specificity what actually took place, without knowing the person's capacity, the faculty member's capacity and the institution's capacity.

I attended a Big Ten school... (Below threshold)
julie:

I attended a Big Ten school. For an entire semester of Pol Sci 101, all we heard was that communism was a better political system and that Africa was a better place to live. And you couldn't argue with the guy. I really didn't care. I was bored to tears and just wanted to finish the class and never take another poly sci course again.

School isn't about . . .... (Below threshold)
julie:

School isn't about . . . , who is "good natured" and who isn't,

I said he "came across as good natured" on the radio because he "came across as good natured" on the radio. It was a good interview, Medved kept him on for a second segment.

I take issue with the quest... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I take issue with the question as well.

The question assumes that the position of the two guys (can't remember their names, and I am not scrolling back up to figure it out) is correct, and asks for examples to support their position.

In a class that would include critical thinking skills, instead the question should have asked for examples the did or did not support their position.

Or the question should have been-List and explain the various support for their position.

But the question seems to assume that their position is correct and the only correct one. Which takes me back to the US turning schools into places of indoctrination rather than teaching them to think critically.

I really don't care if the ... (Below threshold)

I really don't care if the student passed or not based on the quality of his writing...I am aghast by the question, and the fact that there was no room for disagreement with the premise. It is still an example of doctrinaire teaching, even if the student's essay was that badly written, and telling him to get mental help was not appropriate.

The saddest thing on this d... (Below threshold)
beetroot:

The saddest thing on this discussion thread is the mindset revealed by Julie's comment:

"one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive."

This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of academic inquiry. It isn't like studying the Koran in a madrassa, or the Bible at Bob Jones. The purpose of study isn't to learn the holy words of holy texts. The idea is to read and learn what others are doing, in order to better formulate and defend your own opinions.

In this case, the instructions called for the student to demonstrate that they understand the arguments made by two writers, Dye and Zeigler. Those arguments are widely accepted (Constitution was not "populist") but certainly subject to debate. In order to debate them, however, a student must understand them first.

The student's essay fails because it fails to show that he understands what Dye and Zeigler were arguing.

Julie's comments suggest that the student failed because he failed to agree that D&Z were right (as a Bob Jones or madrassa student would be failed for challenging a holy text). Her suspicion appears to be that academia is a kind of religion, and that the student was punished for struggling against its mind control.

But the student just failed to answer the question, and in so doing, failed to position himself to take a legitimate stab at debunking D&Z's theory.

Instead, he just spazzes out with a lot of emotional rhetoric (rather blog-like, actually)that fails to grapple with D&Z's arguments.

Julie may find critical Constitutional theories like D&Z's "offensive", but it's another matter to find offensive a professor's request that students familiarize themselves with such theories, given their prevalence. Once students do that, they can support or attack it from an informed, not ignorant, position.

Which brings us back to the misunderstanding: the professor isn't like your pastor. Just because he or she requires you read and understand something doesn't mean you're required to believe it. You're only required to understand it.

First off, S, your argument... (Below threshold)
Ronin:

First off, S, your arguments are windy and lead to a "poor me" conclusion. Thank you for not debating the point at hand.

Second, The "question" in question is being relayed second hand, by the student. As well, the entire context of the "test" has not been discussed, but, theoretically, this could have been two-sided. Question 3, as stated above, is the true question, and theoretically Question 4 is the exact opposite of question 3.

The basic point about this whole exercise is that there is absolutely no way to understand the entire context of the situation, there is no second side to the "conversation" about the grade and the alleged recommendation to therapy.

Also, I find the assumption that all of acedamia is inherently liberally biased to be indicative of the eventual conclusions most of you have come up with. As with all of real life, there are mixes of conservatives and liberals in everything. For all of acadamia to be "liberal" when the basic population runs 30% liberal, 30% conservative and 40% centrist just disagrees with statistical theory.

The only intelligent conclusion is that defense of the teacher is logical, given that the whole story isn't known. Once the other side is known, feel free to debate the whole thing, but stop stringing him up by his pointards long before the facts are on the table, it only proves your own bias.

Julie wrote:For... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie wrote:

For an entire semester of Pol Sci 101, all we heard was that communism was a better political system and that Africa was a better place to live. And you couldn't argue with the guy. I really didn't care. I was bored to tears and just wanted to finish the class and never take another poly sci course again.

I've had courses like that, where it was clear what "side" the professor was on. Sometimes it's really a pain in the ass, and sometimes in such classes I really learned why I disagreed. Other times I had my views changed a little. Sometimes I got really pissed off and worked harder to get a good grade and sneak my points into papers.

So did you keep taking poli sci classes? Hopefully you did, especially if you really disagreed with what the prof was saying. Learn it well, then refute it with strong evidence.

I'm sure there are lots of students who take what their profs say as the end all truth, and thats sad. To be honest, lots of people in and out of school do the very same thing and follow the ideas of their leaders. It happens in many circles, as lots of people dont critically challenge what is put forth. Not good. But there are lots of people who DO look into things more...

Liberal profs: I hear alot of criticism about a liberal bias in universities. And, to be sure there are lots of liberals who teach. Big deal. If you disagree with them, then learn it better, and challenge what you feel is bullshit. That's what it's all about. Some profs drive me crazy with their views and theoretical leanings.

-r.a. the chomskybot stereotypical liberal

beetroot go back and read t... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

beetroot go back and read the question-second post down.

The question didn't ask for the student to explain D&Z's argument, but to analyze the constitution, and explain how it was elitist. The question seems to assume the position is correct.

The question should have been a "explain what D&Z's position" or it should have been a "analyze the constitution and explain how it supports or does not support D&Z's position."

I do think the context of the rest of the text/assignment is probably important here, but as far as I can see, the question does appear to have a built in bias.

As for academia being liberal-seems I remember some studies on this being done, and it is in fact overwelmingly liberal-I don't recall the exact percentages, I don't think it is quite as bad as the media, but it is still pretty bad.

I for one can say that the majority of proffessors I had in college and grad school were liberals-some weren't so adamant in passing on their bias, but they were liberal.

As for pastors etc. My husband attended seminary-a very conservative one, and they were always told to take a position and defend it, not "hey this guys position is it, read the bible and tell us how he is right."

Will conservatives EVER sto... (Below threshold)
Numb Nuts:

Will conservatives EVER stop whining?

You think you guys would be happy with controlling every branch of the government. But no -- some kid somewhere rights a shitty essay, flunks it, and you find evidence of some grand conspiracy to silence your viewpoint.

What's that? The issue isn't the grade, but the professor telling him to seek psychological help?

Why are you just taking the word of this obvious dumbass kid? He SAYS the professor made the remark, so it must be true? Did it ever occur to you that this kid doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about? If you read the essay, you'll note that this is not exactly the shiniest egg in the carton. Is it possible he could be mistaken?

Maybe the suggestion about seeking professional help was in response to his wingnut whining about liberal bias just because he couldn't write an essay that even remotely addressed the question or made an argument.

<a href="http://www.outside... (Below threshold)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/8841

The posting linked above pretty much says it all. The Washington Times, true to Moonie form, didn't bother to check the essay itself or check the facts on the professor's behavior. Neither did you.

I don't see anything wrong with the exam question. The premise is widely accepted and easily provable. My very conservative high school history teacher said as much as has every history teacher I had in college. The US was founded by the monied elites. Their major complaint was - famously - taxation without representation. When has it been any different? A fact can't be biased.

It seems perfectly reasonable to give the student and F and send him for counseling if he thinks he's the victim of liberal bias. Clearly, he's deluded about being a victim. Counseling might help him.

"Analyze the US constitu... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

"Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.”

Just Me wrote:

The question didn't ask for the student to explain D&Z's argument, but to analyze the constitution, and explain how it was elitist. The question seems to assume the position is correct.

It's a research question, designed to make people think about history. Some professor's class isn't supposed to be the end all truth, it's supposed to make people think and come up with their own conclusions. One of the best ways of strengthening your own argument is by understanding the opposing view thoroughly. That's critical thinking; being able to examine both sides and come to a conclusion.

Do students have to agree with the views of their teachers? No. Do they have to learn skills, sometimes strategic skills, in order to pass a class? Yes. I certainly dont agree with all the essay questions that are thrown at me. Sometimes I severely disagree, but if the question asks for an argument from a certain point of view, then that is my job. It doesnt mean that I will be brainwashed into believing everything that is put in front of me. Often, the exact opposite happens. It's an assignment, not LAW.

The question should have been a "explain what D&Z's position" or it should have been a "analyze the constitution and explain how it supports or does not support D&Z's position."

Thats a different question. The proposed question asked specifically for support of D&Z's contention. I understand that you dont like the question, and I'm not saying that it's my favorite either. It definitely doesnt leave alot of room. But that is the question. And just because some kid writes about that doesnt mean he has to change his/her entire belief system.

If the kid really disagrees then he should hit the books and learn to write a strong counter argument.


The saddest thing on thi... (Below threshold)
julie:

The saddest thing on this discussion thread is the mindset revealed by Julie's comment: "one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive." This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of academic inquiry.

No, it suggests I have the ability to identify and argue both sides of an issue. How sad you don't have the same ability!

The idea is to read and learn what others are doing, in order to better formulate and defend your own opinions.

The kid did formulate his own opinion. How sad you are unable to recognize it!

In this case, the instructions called for the student to demonstrate that they understand the arguments made by two writers, Dye and Zeigler.

And that is why my initial comment was that he did not follow instructions. How sad, that your memory is so short!

Those arguments are widely accepted (Constitution was not "populist") but certainly subject to debate. In order to debate them, however, a student must understand them first.

Oh, you mean this country was founded by old rich white men, therefore we suck argument? How sad you find such an argument profound!

The student's essay fails because it fails to show that he understands what Dye and Zeigler were arguing.

He understood it and he rejected it. How sad that you don't understand what he was arguing!

Julie's comments suggest that the student failed because he failed to agree that D&Z were right (as a Bob Jones or madrassa student would be failed for challenging a holy text). Her suspicion appears to be that academia is a kind of religion, and that the student was punished for struggling against its mind control.

No, I state that the issue was whether he was treated fairly, i.e., like other students in the class. He has certain rights under the college's rules and regulations. It is being investigated. But because you disagree with the student's politics, you would deny him his rights. How sad it is that you believe only liberal students have rights!

But the student just failed to answer the question, and in so doing, failed to position himself to take a legitimate stab at debunking D&Z's theory.

How many other student's, if any, failed to address the question? How sad that you would judge with out having all the facts!

Instead, he just spazzes out with a lot of emotional rhetoric (rather blog-like, actually)that fails to grapple with D&Z's arguments.

How sad that you fail to recognize yourself in this last sentence!

I love the constitution. I ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I love the constitution. I love this country. I'm none too fond of liberals. But why hasn't anyone pointed out the originally drafted constitution gave voting rights only to land owners, and that african-americans were defined as 3/5 of a human? The question by the prof., who may or may not be a liberal dingbat, is perfectly inoffensive. America is great because we corrected these errors in the original document.

Please notice how Julie sim... (Below threshold)

Please notice how Julie simply turns the argument from being about the kids paper and that topic, to an attack on whomever disagrees with her. Her last post is genuinely obsessive in that regard.

That is all.

For that controversial s... (Below threshold)

For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK. Or, are you and UK one and the same? Nevertheless, if you (and/or UK) can't take it, don't dish it out. Don't attack people and cry foul when you get it right back at you. Hypocrite.

No, UK and I are not the same person, nor do I even know UK.

Personally Attacked? Hmmm. Really? Where? Let's see, here's the entire exchange between you and UK up to the point of your insult:

Well, technically, one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive

I head this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured.
Posted by: julie at January 16, 2005 03:38 PM

[...]

Julie, how do you measure intelligence?
Posted by: UK at January 16, 2005 04:14 PM

UK also stated:

I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one.
Posted by: UK at January 16, 2005 04:21 PM

And, your very next reply to UK was:

"Julie, how do you measure intelligence?"

In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK.

"I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one."

Why would you ever think I am here to help you?
Posted by: julie at January 16, 2005 05:37 PM

(Huh. Not only do you insult UK without provocation, but you're an ass as well.)

So, I'm at a loss as to where the actual insult to you would be Julie. Please, enlighten me. It appears to me that you simply insulted UK's intellgience as a matter of denigrating his argument.

It appears that way, because that is exactly what you did, Julie.

From what the evidence above shows, you are a liar Julie.

Huh. Imagine that.

Your next move will be to simply denigrate me some more, since the actual facts don't support your lies.

Your comments about my nickname really hurt. Boo hoo.

It's satire. You know what that is? No. I don't suppose you do know what it is....

"The existence of liberalis... (Below threshold)

"The existence of liberalism as a discussion topic constitutes, in many ways, an unacceptable bias towards liberalism in the eyes of the far right (and barrier between the far and not-so-far right is creeping ever leftward). Daily, we see complaints about the liberal bias of, well, everything, to the point where, as Bill Kristol put it, the rationale for all conservative failures is bias towards liberalism.

It's a weakness, and it's probably going to be the downfall of movement conservatism. Eventually, liberalism can't be blamed anymore. When you fail out of school because you tried to get a Poli Sci degree by writing "liberals are destroying America" for 20 papers a year, you failed because you did a bad job.

Remember personal responsibility?"

Please notice how Julie ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Please notice how Julie simply turns the argument from being about the kids paper and that topic, to an attack on whomever disagrees with her. Her last post is genuinely obsessive in that
regard.

Please notice how snafu, avoids, as usual, the fact, that the poster attacked first.

Please notice how snafu,... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

Please notice how snafu, avoids, as usual, the fact, that the poster attacked first.

Where please? Prove it, because it's not in the comments above now is it?

Okay, after reading some co... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Okay, after reading some commentary by the various Pol Sci proffessors at their blogs, I don't think the question wasn't legitimate, I still think the question, if that was the way it was asked, wasn't very well constructed.

Also, I do think it would be interesting to see how the rest of the class answered the question, and to know what the rest of the class was like.

No, UK and I are not the... (Below threshold)
julie:

No, UK and I are not the same person, nor do I even know UK.

All you moonbats sound alike.

So, I'm at a loss as to where the actual insult to you would be Julie. Please, enlighten me.

I already did, but you are too biased to acknowledge it. Obviously, some people will never attain enlightment.

It appears to me that you simply insulted UK's intellgience as a matter of denigrating his argument.

What argument? That the student did not come across as intelligent and good natured on the radio? Living in UK, I sincerely doubt UK heard the same program, and he/she gave no indication they did. So, without hearing the student speak, how could UK argue whether the student did or did not come across intelligent on the radio program? I doubt you have the intelligence to understand this, but try. And, yes, I just denigrated both you and your argument because you continue to act the fool and your argument is stupid.

From what the evidence above shows, you are a liar Julie. Huh. Imagine that.

Well, one would have to imagine it, since, there is no evidence.

Your next move will be to simply denigrate me some more, since the actual facts don't support your lies.

Right, I didn't lie, therefore, there are no facts to support that I did. Therefore, once again, you deserve to be denigrated. UK attacked me without provocation and with no intelligent point to make and poof, was gone.

Your comments about my nickname really hurt. Boo hoo.

I wasn't trying to hurt you, I was complimenting you for picking a moniker that is self-descriptive.

It's satire. You know what that is? No. I don't suppose you do know what it is....

Irony. You know what that is? No. I don't suppose you do. Now, take Woodcock's advice: Seek help!

Where please? Prove it, ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Where please? Prove it, because it's not in the comments above now is it?

Yes, it is. I can't make the blind (you) see.

Ronin: Allow me to offer y... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ronin: Allow me to offer you some advice:

If comments, any comments -- mine, anyone's -- are offensive to you for any reason, please don't negatively impact your perceptions by further exposure.

I have no idea where and how your "poor me" thing can be applied to or about anything I wrote, but I get the impression that it doesn't matter, since it's not based in reality, nor approaching the planet Neptune, in constructive sense to or about anything. Here or anywhere.

So, was that all?

julie:

I realize what you "said" earlier. I wrote something else, made an entirely other statement that had nothing to do with or about you.

The only sparse relationship in what I posited after writing that "school isn't about who is good natured and who isn't" (close enough) was that the popularity and congeniality factor only goes so far in terms of academic performance. My thoughts about that matter. Not yours.

I'm sure you were making some other point, however.

Julie's "explanation" of ho... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

Julie's "explanation" of how UK attacked her:Cute editing, but let's examine the begining of the exchange. I stated: I heard this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured. For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK.

Again. WHERE is the personal attack from UK? What were the words? Please cut and paste them.

You CAN NOT. Thus, because you are a liar, all you can do is reply with:I already did, but you are too biased to acknowledge it. Obviously, some people will never attain enlightment.

Turn the blame on me.Claim bias! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How pathetic. You have absolutely NO PROOF that UK attacked you perosnally. NONE.

Prove it. Enlighten me. Please.

You are a LIAR, Julie.

And, everyone here can see that you are full of shit.

Queen Julie. Caught in a lie.

Imagine that.

All you have to do is cut and paste the personal attack that UK launched on you.

That's all. Simple.

But, you can't. Because it doesn't exsist!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You are a clown.

blogesta makes a point that... (Below threshold)
-S-:

blogesta makes a point that I agree with, also, and tried earlier to make and thought I had, and, that is that the student displays a problem of the perceptual kind. The faculty may have made an accurate generalized observation about that but was entirely unacceptable in making that observation public, TO ANY DEGREE, either at the point of difference or afterward.

I still tend to think that the instructor isn't qualified to be teaching, particularly and especially teaching people with certain restrictions in capabilities (that's obviously the case in this situation), based upon a clearly and awfully failed interaction with this student (probably others, I am considering), but that, also, a greater societal harping about 'right wing' and 'left wing' is entirely out of proportion to the situation.

Because, again as I wrote earlier and again here, it is impossible and purely speculative to attempt to make this into some greater political complaint without furhter information being considered as to the facility's standards, the class requirements, the instructor's methods and course materials and insight into the student, specifically. Otherwise, again, it is all speculative, another instance of "pin the label on the monkey" issue to fuel all and any and no one at all.

Where please? Prove it, ... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

Where please? Prove it, because it's not in the comments above now is it?

Yes, it is. I can't make the blind (you) see.

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a lame cop out! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You are a piece of work Julie. Truly.

I'd feel sorry for you. But, that means I'd have to actually think about you. And, that is a pretty scary thing to consider.

Julie claims she CAN'T cut and paste UK's "personal attack" because I'm too blind to see it!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That's because no one can SEE WHAT ISN'T THERE YOU FUCKING TWIT.

And, julie, I share your ex... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, julie, I share your experience with that instructor you described (yours was a Political Science person). Oh, the stories I could tell, but won't.

Don't want to upset Ronin. But, the smarter students I knew and still know at least know when they're faced with no recourse and an objectionable instructor and can get throught the class with a good to great grade anyway. You have to just do the work sometimes even when it's offensive and then forget about it afterward but savor your grade otherwise. If that's a "poor me" attitude, then excuse me, I avoided the kids smoking in the hallways and I don't have piercings and tattoos and I even paid for the "ordeal(s)" myself...all eight years of it.

There are many nutty people in education and among faculty but you just as there are in other areas of life, you have to learn inorder to succeed in an educational experience or experiences how to just get through some of it, even when it's offensive. Just get it done, get through, get out and THEN make your various media rounds and political pleas. If I remember correctly (that's a rhetorical statement), Abby Hoffman and those similar didn't end up too well. Same works to the other extreme.

Oh, I forgot: oh, poor me, to satiate Ronin's fine tuned knitting needle.

Ronin: *I* have not been e... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ronin: *I* have not been engaging in "argument(s)." I've been opining here. I asssumed that was evident, as are the similar behaviors of others. I guess you missed that.

Just Me wrote:O... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just Me wrote:

Okay, after reading some commentary by the various Pol Sci proffessors at their blogs, I don't think the question wasn't legitimate, I still think the question, if that was the way it was asked, wasn't very well constructed.

I agree with you about the basic construction of the question: not very good.

Also, I do think it would be interesting to see how the rest of the class answered the question, and to know what the rest of the class was like.

Agreed. I do wonder how the rest of the class performed, and what the overall class was like. It would be interesting to hear from other students as well. I wonder if the whole class had issues with the prof, of if this is an isolated case...

Paul:But why ha... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul:

But why hasn't anyone pointed out the originally drafted constitution gave voting rights only to land owners, and that african-americans were defined as 3/5 of a human? The question by the prof., who may or may not be a liberal dingbat, is perfectly inoffensive.

Yes. Good point Paul. It was a legit question, and the kid wrote a shitty essay that didnt address the question.

The issue with what the professor may or may not have said is another matter altogether. I wonder when we get to find out more about what really went down.

I'm none too fond of liberals.

Oh no! lol

-r.a. the stereotypical liberal chomskybot professor woolcock type (according to julie)

Oh, boy! snafu is really lo... (Below threshold)
julie:

Oh, boy! snafu is really losing it now! I'm bored arguing with a fool, snafu. You are getting a royal ass-kicking all over the blogosphere, today. Ouch, that's got to hurt! It's nice to see I'm not the only one who finds you, well, a twit. You're like that old Kids In The Hall skit where the guy keeps getting his ass kicked over and over again and doesn't have the good sense to stay down. lol!

Huh. Good retort. "Royal as... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

Huh. Good retort. "Royal ass=kicking?"

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You still didn't answer the question Julie.

No. You. Did. Not.

I wonder why?

Cause you are a liar.

Simple that.

r.a. the stereotypical l... (Below threshold)
julie:

r.a. the stereotypical liberal chomskybot professor woolcock type (according to julie)

Identifying with a man who for years lied about the Khmer Rouge and aligns himself with holocaust deniers is not something to brag about, r.a.

Because I can't keep talkin... (Below threshold)
julie:

Because I can't keep talking to a brick wall that talks back, snaffy. And, yeah, you are getting your ass kicked big time. Guess, I'm not the only one who thinks you're an out of control idiot. Not really a surprise, though.

julie wrote:Ide... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

julie wrote:

Identifying with a man who for years lied about the Khmer Rouge and aligns himself with holocaust deniers is not something to brag about, r.a.

look, you were the one who pinned the chomskybot label on me, and i was being sarcastic about the stereotype. you were the one who took the opportunity to try to attack me with your "damning" evidence that i have read chomsky's work. next you will realize that i have read charles darwins work, and will accuse me of being a racist, regardless of how i interpret what he wrote. damn, i have even read thomas jefferson, the slave owning, contradictory, albeit genius, former american president. damn, i may have even quoted him. now what will you say?

my point is this: dont assume that you know what i think, or how i interpret what i read. by calling me a "chomskybot" you have attempted to reduce me to a stupid stereotype, which i find to detract from any constructive dialogue. notice that i dont fling stereotypes at you.

if you were wondering what i think about the chomsky issues that you brought up, you could have asked in a civil manner...something like "hey r.a., i see that you are a chomsky reader, what is your opinion about his involvement in 1979 with a holocaust denier, because i severely disagree with what he writes, and has done" or something like that.

it's true, i have a chomsky quote as a tag line, and i like the quote, which is about questioning what you're being told.

i have read chomsky, not a ton but a good amount, and i have found some of his analysis to be insightful and interesting. but then i also read many other people as well. i dont worship chomsky (or anyone), i read his viewpoint and consider it against and with other viewpoints. all part of the process.

i have been reading more about his past, here and there of late. in fact you brought up the issue with cambodia, and i went to the library and checked out some books from varying sides. they're right here actually (overdue i think). school has started and i get into them when i can, not as much as i wish i could. so far, chomsky has been accused of really hammering on the US about East Timor, while playing down what the Khmer Rouge did relatively. Some arguments say that Chomsky was adamant about the fact that the US was "worse" in some sense. I havent read enough as of yet, but I am working on it. More later.

holocaust: NC maintains that he was all about free speech, etc. his accusors state that he was sympathetic to the ideology of that french anti-semite holocaust denier. i have read a few long articles against chomsky so far. i havent figured it out yet, and am still looking into that as well. there's alot to read.

i suppose that you have already learned all that there is to know, and i am glad to have conversed with such an enlightened individual. when do your lecture tours start?

-r.a. the misinformed stereotype who doesnt think for himself and reads chomsky

I didn't read all the comme... (Below threshold)
farmerje:

I didn't read all the comments because most of them seemed to b ad hominem nonsense. Anyhow, as a college student and occasional grader of other students' papers (though not poli sci), I think my opinion has at least some weight.

Anyhow, here it is. I don't see how this guy has any excuse. He had one of two options: write from the prompt or write whatever he wanted. If he did the latter (and I have done it) he should not be upset when he received a poor grade. His grade reflects how well he argued whatever he argued, and, as everyone here as seen, his paper was atrocious. It might ahve been defensible if he cited evidence to the contrary, but even then, he is *ignoring* the prompt.

Students do not have to agree with a prompt to write about it or to research a particular position. I spent many year in debate arguing positions in which I didn't believe personally, or even positions that I found abhorrent. In my spare time I can write papers about whatever I choose. For class, I write papers about whatever the professor chooses. If the professor chooses crappy topics then I suck it up and write about it, defy him and possibly get a bad grade (though, a thouroughly researched and cogent response in the negative, as I said, is much harder to dismiss), or drop the class.

Really, this kid had no excuse.

It would seem some people a... (Below threshold)
SNAFU:

It would seem some people are simply too dumb to admit they are wrong, caught in a lie.

And, some are too dumb to realize when they are being played.

look, you were the one w... (Below threshold)
julie:

look, you were the one who pinned the chomskybot label on me,

Yeah, well it fits, since you quote him in your sig line everywhere but here.

and i was being sarcastic about the stereotype. you were the one who took the opportunity to try to attack me with your "damning" evidence that i have read chomsky's work.

No, I was attacking you for quoting the idiot in your sig line.

i have even read thomas jefferson, the slave owning, contradictory, albeit genius, former american president. damn, i may have even quoted him. now what will you say?

You love to quote hypocrites.

my point is this: dont assume that you know what i think, or how i interpret what i read. by calling me a "chomskybot" you have attempted to reduce me to a stupid stereotype, which i find to detract from any constructive dialogue. notice that i dont fling stereotypes at you.

If you are going to go around quoting chomski, you are a stupid stereotype.

if you were wondering what i think about the chomsky issues that you brought up, you could have asked in a civil manner...something like "hey r.a., i see that you are a chomsky reader, what is your opinion about his involvement in 1979 with a holocaust denier, because i severely disagree with what he writes, and has done" or something like that.

What on earth for? Why would I need your opinion? If you severely disagreed with him, you wouldn't be quoting him. If you agree with him, you are as dispicable as he is.

it's true, i have a chomsky quote as a tag line, and i like the quote, which is about questioning what you're being told.

Oh, the irony! Chomski never questioned what the stalinists, the maoist, nor the khmer rouge told him. He just acted as their P.R. man. And, obviously, you haven't questioned chomski.

i have read chomsky, not a ton but a good amount, and i have found some of his analysis to be insightful and interesting. but then i also read many other people as well. i dont worship chomsky (or anyone), i read his viewpoint and consider it against and with other viewpoints. all part of the process.

I bet you love the part where he says the reports of the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were lies. Can't get more inciteful than that!

c ive
i have been reading more about his past, here and there of late. in fact you brought up the issue with cambodia, and i went to the library and checked out some books from varying sides. they're right here actually (overdue i think). school has started and i get into them when i can, not as much as i wish i could.

Yeah, not everyone finds the preventable murder of millions in our lifetime interesting.

so far, chomsky has been accused of really hammering on the US about East Timor, while playing down what the Khmer Rouge did relatively. Some arguments say that Chomsky was adamant about the fact that the US was "worse" in some sense. I havent read enough as of yet, but I am working on it. More later.

It's not "arguments" it's all documented. He did not "play down." Chomski LIED! What the Khmer Rouge did relatively? THEY BRUTALLY MURDERED MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE! But, hey, don't knock yourself out. Why should you care?

holocaust: NC maintains that he was all about free speech, etc. his accusors state that he was sympathetic to the ideology of that french anti-semite holocaust denier. i have read a few long articles against chomsky so far. i havent figured it out yet, and am still looking into that as well. there's alot to read.

What a bunch of crap. He wrote the preface to a book where the guy says the holocaust was a lie. It has nothing to do with free speech. I believe in free speech but I'm not going to write a preface to fucking Mein Kampf! And what do chomski and the holocaust denier have in common? They both side with the murderers. Disgusting.

i suppose that you have already learned all that there is to know, and i am glad to have conversed with such an enlightened individual. when do your lecture tours start?

Do you always revel in your own ignorance?

-r.a. the misinformed stereotype who doesnt think for himself and reads chomsky

Nor, cares about the deaths of millions of S.E. Asians because if r.a. did she would have to choose a new sig line. Oh, dear!

I am SO sick to death of ac... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

I am SO sick to death of academic types telling us how to think. They should keep out of politics and TEACH. What makes them think they know any better than the rest of us??

Well Julie, through your po... (Below threshold)
UK:

Well Julie, through your posts, I would consider you are are a right-brainer.
Logical thinking involves two problem-solving styles which individually reflect the way the brain's adjacent hemispheres work: the left side concerntrates on detail and analysis, the right side specializes in lateral and creative thinking. Both hemispheres are linked, but one side usually dominates an individual's way of thinking at any given time.
So therefore because I consider you to be right-brained (by your posts), and the right hemisphere is associated with spatial construction, non-verbal creativity, and visual processing, but has no specialist regions.
If you were to be a left-brainer, however, then this hemisphere is associated with linguistic function, speech production, the ability to write and understand written words, and plays a crucial role in mathematical calculation and logical deduction. I do have boosting tips to help you develop the left side of your brain if you like.

Er, Rob, I can only speak o... (Below threshold)
UK:

Er, Rob, I can only speak of myself of course, but the answer to your question from my view, would be a PhD in Psychology.

Julie, you could also of co... (Below threshold)
UK:

Julie, you could also of course have centered-brain activity, with both sides working in equilibrium. This mental elasticity enables you to comfortably apply either an analytical or a creative approach. You may, however, not be either systematic or imaginative enough, which could indermine your depth of understanding or limit your ability to switch between left-and right-brain decisions.

No thanks, UK. I have no in... (Below threshold)
julie:

No thanks, UK. I have no interest in your psychobabble/pseudoscience. Say what you want, but I make quite a good salary writing in a field that requires detailed analysis. Maybe, you should consider changing your major? Tarot card reading? It certainly would give you greater insight than what you are studying now.

Ah yes, Julie, you would co... (Below threshold)
UK:

Ah yes, Julie, you would consider yourself left-brained? If you do have a tendency toward left-brained activity, you would solve problems by relying on information and facts before reaching a decision. Your major drawbacks are a resistance to new ideas and the potential suppression of creativity by evaluating ideas before they are fully formed. This tells me a lot. If you are left-brained, put together a "mood book." Collect different pictures and objects that appeal to you: a feather, a leaf, a magazine cutout. Paste them into your scrapbook and review your collection. How does it make you feel? Making an emotional - not a logical - connection between objects helps develop right-brain thinking, and help you to become an all-rounder, where your intelligence is concerned.

Hmmm, unsolicited psych adv... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hmmm, unsolicited psych advice to someone you don't know because they disagree with your poltical beliefs, . . . Woolcock, is that you?

Julie, I'm just trying to h... (Below threshold)
UK:

Julie, I'm just trying to help you boost your intelligence, which in my view, needs boosting, anyone just has to read your posts to see that. In its purist sense, intelligence is understood to be the cognitive ability to understand events or information, then process this information rationally in order to respond appropriately to what is happening around us. I'm not charging you, or anything. It's free.

Sorry, Woolcock, I give no ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Sorry, Woolcock, I give no weight to the views of a self-proclaimed psychobabbler. And frankly, why would I seek or follow the advice of someone less intelligent than me? And of course it's free, who would ever pay for your nonsense?

Julie:You can be s... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie:

You can be severely caustic. Goddamn. Are you here to actually engage in debate, or just to insult people?

Oh, the irony! Chomski never questioned what the stalinists, the maoist, nor the khmer rouge told him. He just acted as their P.R. man. And, obviously, you haven't questioned chomski.

Right. Obviously I havent questioned Chomsky. Thats whay I have been reading arguments against his work. Thats what I was telling you in the whole post, I went to library, got books, so I could look into both sides. It's called research. I dont form opinions in five minutes, I try to read as much as I can about it.

I bet you love the part where he says the reports of the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were lies. Can't get more inciteful than that!

Actually I honestly havent read much by him at all about that subject. I went to the library and checked out some books on Cambodia first. Then I have to find Chomsky's stuff on that subject and see what he said comparatively. And then I will make my decision.

Ok. So by your logic, if I agree with ANYTHING that Chomsky writes, I am guilty, by association, for EVERYTHING he has ever done? Is that how it works for you?

I havent ever said that I agree with what he wrote about the Khmer rouge, I said I was looking into it more so I could get a better understanding before commenting. Anything wrong with that?

[I was talking about getting books to research more fully what happened]Yeah, not everyone finds the preventable murder of millions in our lifetime interesting.

Fuck. It's called research. You lit into me a few weeks back about Cambodia, and unfortunately I havent read much about what happened, by anyone. So I went and checked out material to read and learn. And you accuse me of being sympathetic to what happened? That was really out of line. I'm doing what should be done by looking into it all, reading multiple sides, and coming to a conclusion about the matter. Are you against that?

So according to you CHOMSKY LIED about the Khmer Rouge. Got it. As I said I'm looking into it, reading different sides. Any recommendations for really damning evidence? I'll read it. I do know what the Khmer Rouge did, but not in great detail. I know they committed atrocious acts, and killed millions. I dont know what the fuck Chomsky has said about any of that, so I have to look and see.

Holocaust: Chomsky avoids the issue creatively in some interviews, and denies involvement with the guy in some articles. Werner Cohn seems to be the most aggressive anti-Chomsky that I have found, and I have a couple of long articles by him where he is making a case for collaberation. So I'm in the middle of reading that as well.

Actually, I was going to ask someone here for the major reasons why they hate Chomsky, but I think you may have done that for me. That way, I can get another take, look into it, and go from there. Thanks for that.

Do you always revel in your own ignorance?

If you mean do I accept the fact that I dont know everything, that there is always more to learn, and that informed opinions take time to develop...then yes. I even accept the fact that I might learn something from someone like you.

Read this: I am always open to differing or contrasting viewpoints, and if I find that I have been wrong about something I have no problem admitting that. I may indeed find shit about Chomsky that I dont like, or strongly disagree with.

Speaking of being wrong, I used to have this insane idea that if I was civil in debate that others would be as well. You are providing strong evidence to the contrary.

Julie. I can tell you're intelligent, and that you have intense opinions about politics and history. Thats why I reply to you. If you cut the personal attacks and broad assumptions about me we might be able to learn from one another. Imagine that.

-r.a.

Quote from UK:"Er, R... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

Quote from UK:
"Er, Rob, I can only speak of myself of course, but the answer to your question from my view, would be a PhD in Psychology."

The real world has no need of your "phycho babble." Real people deal with their problems.

Such things have stopped parents having the right to spank their child etc. And we no better off now than in any other period thanks to " psychology"

Hey Julie: what's really sa... (Below threshold)
beetroot:

Hey Julie: what's really sad is that you think that D&Z's writers' argument boils down to "white people suck."

It does nothing of the kind, of course, but it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion. Are you white? Do people tell you that you suck? Do you think that white people are unjustly accused of sucking? Why would you connect white people sucking to the Constitution?

I don't understand.

Hey Julie: what's really... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hey Julie: what's really sad is that you think that D&Z's writers' argument boils down to "white people suck." It does nothing of the kind, of course, but it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion.

No, what's sad is that you find it necessary to misquote me to make your lame post.

Are you white?

Why, are you a racist?

Do people tell you that you suck? Do you think that white people are unjustly accused of sucking?

No, but people have told me that you suck. Do you think you are unjustly accused of sucking?

Why would you connect white people sucking to the Constitution?

Why would you?

I don't understand.

Silly, moonbat! People like you never do!

Julie, do you make a good f... (Below threshold)
UK:

Julie, do you make a good friend?

Just a tip: There are three major aspects to achieving success in social relationships. The first is an ability to manage your own emotions and to express them in the right way. The second is an aptitude for empathizing with others: putting yourself in their emotional "shoes" and establishing a mutual understanding. The third skill - handling emotions in others - is the capacity to correctly interpret other people's emotions as directed toward you, deflecting them, if necessary, and is the most difficult one to acquire. If you develop these three abilities, you will know when to speak your mind and when not to, how to change someone's mood for the better, and how to anticipate problem areas in your friendships and be clear about the best ways of working them out.

Julie, you talk about intel... (Below threshold)
UK:

Julie, you talk about intelligence, I would consider you don't know the first thing about it, but why would you? A single definition of intelligence has eluded psychologists for nearly a century, yet this is the area of psychology most extensively researched. It is not simply of academic intrest either, since we have probably all come across intelligence tests of one sort or another at some point during our lives.
Some animal species are naturally "smarter" than others. Dog's, dolphins, and monkeys, for example, can be trained to perform complex and demanding tasks completely beyond the ability of other species like sheep or fish, while humans are more intelligent than even the cleverest chimpanzees. Variations in intellectual ability also occur within humans.
Psychologists have been divided between those who view intelligence as a general core ability, and those who believe it to be composed of a number of distinct and seperate factors. Intuitively, we recognize that some people are more intellectual, verbally adept, musically gifted, or artistic than their peers.
Our brains represent the source of intelligent thought and action. An individual brain consists of between 8 to 10 billion nerve cells, each of which has between 1,000 and 10,000 connections to other neurones. What is unusual about human brains is that a large proportion of these connections are not devoted to physical or physiological functions, and are therefore left "free" for learning, communicating, thinking, remembering, and reasoning. The brain is divided into 3 concentric layers.
The central core, which controls balance and smooth muscle movement, the sense organs, and regulates metabolism.
The limbic system, which is concerned with satisfying basic needs and instincs; The cerebrum, where sensations are registered, is also dedicated to the processing of higher mental functions like voluntary actions, decision making, and the formulation of plans.
Julie, although each brain area has specialized functions, it still interacts with other sections. The cerebrum wraps around the central core and the limbic system, and is more developed in humans than any other other species. Its outer layer is called the cerebral cortex. It has a folded and wrinkled appearance and the term "gray matter" comes from its color. It is divided into two seperate hemispheres, which i've previously mentioned, which look like mirror images of each other, yet have very different functions.

Continued from above......S... (Below threshold)
UK:

Continued from above......Sight, hearing, smell, and taste are processed by specific areas of the central cortex present on both sides of the brain. The remainder of the cortex (about three-quarters) is concerned with intelligence, memory, learning, and language, but such functions are hemisphere-specific. Here's just a reminder for you Julie. The left hemisphere generally controls written and spoken language, mathematical calculation, and complex logical and analytical activities. The right hemisphere has limited language and mathematical capabilities, but excels at spatial ability and non-verbal reasoning. It can construct geometric and perspective drawings, and identify faces and facial expressions.
In reality, all parts of the brain interact with one another as one unit. The brain is an extraordinary tool, and humans, even you Julie, have been granted the gift of supreme intelligence over all other species. The opportunity to maximize this potential lies ahead of you and is well within your control. My observation of your posts, is that you need to boost your intelligence, to help you interact with others while your here online. Intelligence is far more complex than you Julie can imagine. It would be helpful if you could support what you have to say with facts, otherwise they are just generalizations and sweeping statements, and that is no use to anyone.

Julie one more thing:... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie one more thing:

I was wondering if you could give me Chomsky examples, specifically, that you really disagree with. That way I would know exactly what writings you are talking about, and I can read those and see what I think.

Also...who was your source for the holocaust denial ordeal...was it Cohn or someone else?

Thanks. Good day.

r.a.

UK: Thanks for demonstrati... (Below threshold)
julie:

UK: Thanks for demonstrating once again your abysmal lack of insight. I, and no one else I know, have any interest in cut and paste jobs from your psych 101 textbook. You're boring people to death, which I assume you also do in real life.

r.a.: Do your own research.

Evidence, please Julie, onc... (Below threshold)
UK:

Evidence, please Julie, once again your are demonstrating your ability to bring forth generalizations/sweeping statements. Are you in denial? I would consider you are. Julie, you need to think straight. You're probably barely aware of the inner dialogue going on inside of you, those private thoughts that pass through your head. They are useful for assessing progress, development, and improvement within yourself. If unchecked, they can be psychologically corrosive and undermine your chances of success. You do not have to accept self-talk as gospel - the ability to monitor and challenge these thoughts is part of good personal intelligence. You don't have to believe such thoughts; try to call on yourself to find evidence to support them though.
I would also consider, you have a problem with your emotional intelligence. You do have everything to gain from developing your emotional intelligence. Focus on improving empathy by trying to understand the motivations behind the behavior of others. Learn to resolve conflict by picking up good negotiation skills: effective listening is as important as effective talking. Develop your knowledge of group dynamics by watching and learning from socially skilled people in action.
This will lead you in good stead.


Julie wrote:r.a... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie wrote:

r.a.: Do your own research.

You started the argument. You brought up the whole chomsky argument. I am asking for what sources you used against Chomsky. Notice that I asked what chomsky writings that YOU disagree with. Do you read the material yourself, or just spout the opinions of others?

Don't give me that bullshit about doing my own research. This is debate. You have told me that Chomsky dismisses the deaths of millions of S.E. Asians. Fine. I am asking where you read this, what was your source. Also, about the denial of the Holocaust I have asked for YOUR source. What did YOU read? Isnt that fair?

Tell me specifically what you're talking about. It's funny how you retreat when I ask you for sources, or specifics. It makes me think that you dont know what you're talking about. However, I'm sure that I am mistaken, and that you do actually read and form your own opinions...

Can you provide evidence, or do you just like to stick to insults and stereotypes?

r.a.

Pile on Julie! She's insecu... (Below threshold)
beetroot:

Pile on Julie! She's insecure! She's angry! She thinks we're moonbats!

But she's the moonbat, right guys? Nyah, nyah, nyah, julie is a mooooonbat ....

Psychobabbler: Wait, I thin... (Below threshold)
julie:

Psychobabbler: Wait, I think I can hear my inner dialogue . . . it says you are a real nutjob. Get help, psycho.

r.a., Let me rephrase it for you: DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH. There. hth.

Julie:I am just as... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie:

I am just asking for what you have read, and where you read it.

Why would you hold back on that? It makes no sense.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy