are not compatible. Besides, no true conservative would put in the hours required to succeed in academia, given the relatively low pay. Also, it's just not what conservative dads would "advise" their sons.

Never mind that on a trivial level much of what's quoted is bullshit. I'm thinking of people interested in computer science. Prior to Bill Gates it was generally thought that computer programs shouldn't be owned but instead given away. If there was money to be made it was in support of some hardware. There's also something called the Internet, which only now, with the mega-multi-national-corporate entities moving in, that the Internet is taking on qualities of Big Brother. We used to think of the Internet as empowering equally. The very strength of the left blog world is that its users tend to be more free thinkers than followers.

But the fundamental bullshit is the meme that colleges and universities don't have enough conservatives and should be forced to correct that flaw. Why is that? Why don't we recognize that corporate directorships don't have enough liberals and have repeated calls for correcting that real flaw? Is it any coincidence that the current corporate habit of eating its own, devouring its income producing sections in trimming down to increase profits, is not only not liberal, but not logical or good business?

News organizations with 20% profit margins are considered to be bad investments and must be sold and have the heart, soul, guts and muscle of their existence removed in some supposed necessary correction to produce better profits. The only ones that benefit are the board members who conveniently provide for themselves golden parachutes that are even insured in case the business should go bankrupt. I wonder what they do when the insurance companies go bankrupt, but then it's not as if the tens or even hundreds of millions they pay themselves leaves them all that dependent on their pension plans.

But let's continue to accept the meme that academia is too liberal. Time to recruit children to report every thought that isn't self-centered. But then who would be left to raise and nurture children? The state? Nah. That could be privatized too. Brownshirt University?

That was downright righteous! I almost came outta my chair.

This idea was touched on in Bill Moyers interview with Susan Jacoby:

BILL MOYERS: You claim that right-wing intellectuals are dangerous because they have command of the vocabulary that makes wishful thinking sound rational.

SUSAN JACOBY: Uh, first of all, there are right-wing intellectuals. But one of the great successes of the intellectual right, is that they have succeeded brilliantly during the last 20 years at pinning the intellectual label solely on liberals so that a lot of people think that to be an intellectual means that you are a liberal alone. And one of the reasons that I think that right-wing intellectuals are so dangerous is they've been so clever at doing this. They've been much more clever than liberal intellectuals have been.

There is much more, of course. About many subjects. They are disussing her new book,THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON, in this video.

a huge part of the conservative takeover has been just this kind of 'organized socialism' i.e. propping up a coterie of ne-er-do-wells in the thinktank sphere so that they can fill all available slots, get chits for security clearances and so forth.

they have all these little programs set up all over the place to train up more conservatives, from the high school level onwards. the Left only has a bunch of strings-attached foundation-financed slots available, and not surprisingly those generally go to the squares (peter Beinarts and so forth). This is typically labeled the Soros-sphere or whatever. Soros-bankrolled thingys definitely have some impact in minnesota (minnesotamonitor.com).

that my friends is where left gatekeepers and right wing hordes come from. Roughly.
--
Hongpong.com

...that bastion of scholarly integrity, the American Enterprise Institute.

Proceed with caution.

Here's a little good news on this.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/MNABV5LHM.DTL
Yes the Hoover is there but this campus is anything but Con.

for college republicans :D

Interesting right -left continuum represented in the Woessner's marriage. He is a Rush Limbaugh lover,and gets his news from Fox. She is a Democrat. Not a Noam Chomskyite, someone who gets her news from IndieMedia or Democracy Now. So their great compromise is to tune out Rush (and he is a professor?) and videotape Fox? Get real, it is obvious who is running the show in this household. Why not alternate Fox with Democracy Now?
There is no mainstream left equivalent to Fox and Rush. Thats what clues me in that these people are full of the proverbial hot air.

in divergent as opposed to convergent thinkers. Definition of divergent thinking, “What people rely on when an answer is not known as opposed to convergent=learned responses.” So if people are needed that are able to think outside the box, Liberal ideologies more closely fits the bill for novel ideas, offering ‘many’ and unique solutions to complex problems. When you need to get solutions to financial problems, those with conservative ideologies will supply answers based on known solutions. Just don’t expect those attracted to Conservative ideologies to come up with ‘flexible’ solutions.

maybe you can help me understand somethig that confused me to no end. why are republicans (most politicians actually, but republicans in perticular) so afriad of the S word? their idea of socialism is welfare, which doesn't work at all because it's not a socialist idea...it's white guilt.

why are they so afraid of injecting socialist ideas into our form of capitalist democracy?

i think there are two reasons, but i may be way off here;

1) most of those types are too close-minded, short-sighted, and have an extremely limited point-of-view to introduce change into a system that's clearly falling down around them.

2) those who know how well we would do as a people under a more socialist government also realize that their riches would be spread among the population as that would be the only fair thing to do. while most decent humans have no problem with that idea, the greedy dislike it very much.

ideas? other reason socialist thought is concidered poison to democracy?

Skulls in the Sky :)