Why does everyone in academia seem so liberal? It's like they think they're smarter than everyone with their education.
From your conclusion, are you suggesting being Liberal means being smart? Maybe just because people in academia tend to think more, critically thinking, and tend to ask more questions, and analyze more. Then, they form their own opinions based on those exercises. I guess it's just a coincidence they all ended up being liberal. Speaking of republicans, it's funny how they now are claiming that Dems don't have a winning plan in Iraq and they want to "cut and run". Looking at current situation, a lot more terrorists in Iraq than pre-war, tens of thousands lost life in Iraq if not hundreds of thousands, hundreds of billions of American tax payer money spent to create such turmoil, thousands American soldiers lost lives, US image is at an all-time low in the world. The list can go on and on, by ANY DEFINITION, this is NOT winning. By SIMPLE LOGIC, there are only 3 possibilities: 1. Republicans didn't have a winning plan 2. They had a winning plan, but the troops didn't execute it correctly. 3. They had a winning plan, but intentionally hide it from the troops and public for whatever reason. If the answer is 1, which means they need to go, they should be replaced by other people, and let others come up with a new plan. It's silly to show them a "winning plan", because if they could judge what's winning, they wouldn't be here in the first place. If the answer is 2, they need to point out in which part that the commanders and soldiers executed their master plan wrong, then they can go ahead to blame the troops. If the answer is 3, it would be unrealistic and impossible, but from a pure logical standing point, they will be prosecuted. None of the above qualifies them to ask Dems or any other to show them a winning plan, none of the above qualifies them to judge whether "cut and run" is bad or good. The only logical way out is to bite the bullet, and pick No. 2, to find a way to blame the troops, then wait and see public reaction. Unless, the public doesn't care whether they fail or lose, just doesn't want to try anything different than losing and failing, then the public deserves them.
I'm going to assume that this was intended irony, although it came across very weakly. Even so, academia's liberal leanings has nothing to do with education and/or intelligence. Most academics work for the government. Even those who don't work for the government typically want money from the government. If your livelihood is tied up in government, you want big government. It's the same reason that Washington is 90% liberal.
People in academia work in theory (the essence of research), but many don't deal with reality and productivity.
If you are talking about Democrats versus Republicans, I agree. But my statements were about Conservatism versus Progressivism. As we've learned from the last two administrations, Democrats don't have a monopoly on Socialism any more than Republicans have a monopoly on Conservatism.
Even for those of us who believe a change is necessary because the GOP has failed to keep its promises, here are the reasons for voting Republican: 1) Nancy Pelosi is kept at bay. 2) Harry Reid finds he has to be more responsive to his constituents. 3) Ted Kennedy doesn't get a chairmanship. 4) Immigration and border security reform are kept on the front burner. 5) The Democratic Party finds it has to become more centrist to win in 2008. However, I am leaning toward a number of moderate Democrats here in Texas and keeping my fingers crossed for Republican and Democratic moderates in states where I have no voice.
On a completely unrelated note, That Graceful Girl of Texas recently passed on after 14 years of perfect friendship. I am in no hurry to replace her, but I am thinking about a rough coat Parson Russell. After 50 years of Springers, I don't think I can look at another without an unfair comparison to Gracie. If you would, send me your thoughts at thumbs@email.com.
I always do -- independent of the Democratic Party, independent of the Republican Party and even independent of the Independent Party! I'm one of those kooky extreme centrists. (LOL)
Because there could still be appointments made under the Bush administration and it would be nice if they could get confirmed, or at least have the Democrats embarass themselves by filibustering.
Yeah, when they're not busy designing the atom bomb, building the space program, the world-wide-web, or performing every bit of medical research on the planet.
This always irritates me and I just feel like bring it up right now. Bush and his junta did not lower taxes. They deferred debt payment while spending more than ever. Any economist will tell you that this combination will RAISE the overall taxes one pays in his/her lifetime. What Bush gave the public (the rich public, anyhow) was a short term loan that will be paid for over and over again. Lowering taxes while increasing spending is not fiscal policy, it's fiscal idiocy cleverly disguised as a "gift" to the common hardworking American - aka: suckers.
Just cut welfare, military spending and earmarked appropriations and you can lower taxes all you want.
The same reason Hollywood and the music industry are, because they do a better job than anyone of employing, promoting and empowering women, minorities, immigrants and young people in influential, high-paying and/or personally fulfilling jobs that actually prioritize their abilities over their age, race, gender, social network and/or family connections.
