« The Best Intentions | Main | Munch, Munch »

Comments

JFP

Recently, I re-read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." The author, Robert Pirsig, noted that in the 1940s and 1950s, the University of Montana was so dominated by the right that Eleanor Roosevelt was deemed too controversial to be invited to give a talk.

It's pathetic the way that leftists have stooped to this level.

Greg

"Plenty of academic departments and research centers are overwhelmingly left-wing.

I am curious to the fact if you could name or cite any of these overwhelming left wing departments and research centers? When I ask to cite them, please if you can list them and give an example as to their left wing bias. I can understand how you might disagree with the findings they make, but if you cannot point to where their methodology is incorrect or bias, then you are as usual just whistling 'Dixie'. Last I looked, even a liberal bastion such as UC Berkley has employed a neo-con such as John Woo.

I know how the Right likes to label most scholastic institutions as liberal (probably because they deal with matters such as facts), but I would love to see some examples of these left wing educational bastions that you so despise, and if so possible give examples of their bias studies. As usual the proof is in the pudding, so let's see if anyone can give clear examples of these biases or are we just ranting as usual??

Peg

Gee, Greg. The evidence is right above.

That ONE HUNDRED professors at the University of Chicago would wish to deny an institute named after Milton Friedman, winner of a Nobel prize in economics, and viewed by many as one of the top economists of the 20th century - if not THE economist of the 20th century - ought to be evidence enough!

Greg

First of all this is not evidence of anything. What it is, it clearly demonstrates a difference in opinion on Milton Friedman and perceived yet unknowing possible direction of this economic institute. Does someone not believing in Friedman's value instantly merit the label of "leftism" in academic institutions? These people have a different opinion in Friedman's work, and the direction of this department that is being created. Last I looked, this was America and people were entitled to a difference in opinion. Why is it when their opinion differs from you or anyone on the Right it is some kind of conspiracy? Basically this proves nothing and is nothing more than chicken little saying the sky is falling.

Secondly please spare me with the Nobel prize thing. When 10 Nobel Prize winning economist among many other economist came out against Bush Administration economic policies you scoffed at it. Al Gore and Jimmy Carter have Nobel Peace prizes and you scoff at everything they say and do. So can one not ask about how much credence you give to those that have won a Nobel Prize in the first place? I am amazed at how the Nobel Prize means something when it toots someone you support, yet it is nothing when it is someone who counters your political ideology. To be honest this does not surprise me at all, it goes right along with Right Wing Hypocrisy. So just to illustrate my point further, let's examine your thoughts on these Nobel Prize winners:

* US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm

* Nobel Prize Winner Calls Bush Economic Policies ‘Worst in 200 Years’
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/newsarchive/ns08132003.cfm

You see the important issue is not the prize that is won, is the thinking and work that goes along with the Nobel prize that has more statue with me. I actually have no issue with the center being named after Friedman as long as the work that is being done is done in a honest manner. Far better it be in Friedman's name than Greenspan's. Once again the point for me, is as long as it is doing credible work I could care less who it named for. It could be named after Homer Simpson if the work is done accurately and without a political slant. But if it is just an economic version of The Heritage Foundation (which I have no proof) then that is where a problem exists. I only say this because The Heritage Foundation has been the center of some of the worse data and reports in the last 10 years. Their work is total garbage and much has been clearly debunked as hackery.

The comments to this entry are closed.