Saturday, February 28, 2004
Sure why not?
I won't review Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, because I am not eloquent enough. I can't do the movie justice.
I will link to the best review of it. Here it is.
This one is done by Science Fiction writer Orson Scott Card. A better, more thoughtful review does not exist anywhere else in cyberspace. This is closest to what I would have said if I had a better way with words.
I won't review Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, because I am not eloquent enough. I can't do the movie justice.
I will link to the best review of it. Here it is.
This one is done by Science Fiction writer Orson Scott Card. A better, more thoughtful review does not exist anywhere else in cyberspace. This is closest to what I would have said if I had a better way with words.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Here is why expelling conservatives does not bother liberals in the slightest.
From an essay by Susan Crowley (in Contending with Words, New York:MLA ,1991; pages 196-197:)
"Because . . . students are in some sense our captives, we must give up our traditional subscription to liberal tolerance if we are to bring about social change through them." (emphasis mine)
Now, before you go and say I took it out of context - I didn't. Yes, she admits later that teachers should "admit that we enact our own hegemonic desire" when trying to enact social change through them. That doesn't change the initial comment. Clearly she sees the "hegemonic desire[s]" of the liberal teachers as superior to whatever hegemony the students might be under. Therefore it doesn't matter. She still says tolerance must be abandoned!
Of course I see the concept of "Hegemony" as merely another conspiracy theory along with the Illuminati and the like - fungible and irrefutable. (More on this next week).
It is part of the plan. Liberal faculty do not consider conservative ideas worthy of respect, and students must be indoctrinated for their own good. It's fascism, but most will never admit that.
From an essay by Susan Crowley (in Contending with Words, New York:MLA ,1991; pages 196-197:)
"Because . . . students are in some sense our captives, we must give up our traditional subscription to liberal tolerance if we are to bring about social change through them." (emphasis mine)
Now, before you go and say I took it out of context - I didn't. Yes, she admits later that teachers should "admit that we enact our own hegemonic desire" when trying to enact social change through them. That doesn't change the initial comment. Clearly she sees the "hegemonic desire[s]" of the liberal teachers as superior to whatever hegemony the students might be under. Therefore it doesn't matter. She still says tolerance must be abandoned!
Of course I see the concept of "Hegemony" as merely another conspiracy theory along with the Illuminati and the like - fungible and irrefutable. (More on this next week).
It is part of the plan. Liberal faculty do not consider conservative ideas worthy of respect, and students must be indoctrinated for their own good. It's fascism, but most will never admit that.
Some people have questioned why I post semi-anonymously. Well - if you want to find out who I am, it ain't hard at all. But check out this tale and then see why I am a bit worried.
I am not attending SF State, and Tatiana Menaker made some ill-advised public comments I admit - comments I avoid making by staying out of the spotlight. We all deal with it in whatever ways we can.
Still, this story should bother conservatives. And liberals actually. But it won't bother liberals and I will tell you why in my next post.
I have a family and kids to support, so getting a PhD and getting a job is my first concern. I can worry about whether I am a hypocrite because I don't speak out enough after I have tenure. If I don't get expelled just for being a conservative. Which may happen. As I said - read the story and be worried.
I am not attending SF State, and Tatiana Menaker made some ill-advised public comments I admit - comments I avoid making by staying out of the spotlight. We all deal with it in whatever ways we can.
Still, this story should bother conservatives. And liberals actually. But it won't bother liberals and I will tell you why in my next post.
I have a family and kids to support, so getting a PhD and getting a job is my first concern. I can worry about whether I am a hypocrite because I don't speak out enough after I have tenure. If I don't get expelled just for being a conservative. Which may happen. As I said - read the story and be worried.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Yesterday in class I was informed that ALL arguments against gay marriage are by definition bad arguments. There can be no good arguments against gay marriage at all. None whatsoever.
Actually, there are lots of bad arguments against gay marriage - but there are lots of bad arguments for it as well. The main problem as I see it is that both sides are speaking different languages. They may be using the same terms like "marriage" and "morality" and "family" but they mean vastly different things.
In every debate on gay marriage I have participated in or observed, the participants might as well have been speaking Esperanto and Klingon for all the actual communication that went on.
I tried bringing that up, showing how the best conservative arguments against only fail when interpreting their terms from the left wing dictionary, but that just got comments about how conservatives obviously have no idea what these terms "really mean."
I gave up at that point. The liberals in the academy have decided that conservatives are dumb by definition, because they see conservatism as the default position of stupid people (anyone following the recent problems at Duke will be aware of this).
I could argue that since liberalism is the default position of high school students and college freshman, it is just as suspect. But I won't. Not today, anyway.
Actually, there are lots of bad arguments against gay marriage - but there are lots of bad arguments for it as well. The main problem as I see it is that both sides are speaking different languages. They may be using the same terms like "marriage" and "morality" and "family" but they mean vastly different things.
In every debate on gay marriage I have participated in or observed, the participants might as well have been speaking Esperanto and Klingon for all the actual communication that went on.
I tried bringing that up, showing how the best conservative arguments against only fail when interpreting their terms from the left wing dictionary, but that just got comments about how conservatives obviously have no idea what these terms "really mean."
I gave up at that point. The liberals in the academy have decided that conservatives are dumb by definition, because they see conservatism as the default position of stupid people (anyone following the recent problems at Duke will be aware of this).
I could argue that since liberalism is the default position of high school students and college freshman, it is just as suspect. But I won't. Not today, anyway.
Thanks to the very cool blogger over at Metrosophical I have just discovered a slightly scary fact.
I am not sure how Google decides to rank websites (I understand they recently changed the algorithm used) but:
if you type in English Major I come up third. AND - if you type in "English Major" with the quotation marks (an exact phrase search) I come up first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (so if you hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, you get me).
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
I am not sure how Google decides to rank websites (I understand they recently changed the algorithm used) but:
if you type in English Major I come up third. AND - if you type in "English Major" with the quotation marks (an exact phrase search) I come up first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (so if you hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, you get me).
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Today, I was told that since I was religous, I knew nothing about the Bible, since I could not read it objectively.
Then the speaker went on to talk about how Noah ate the apple in the garden.
No further comments are needed on my part.
Then the speaker went on to talk about how Noah ate the apple in the garden.
No further comments are needed on my part.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
"Morality" is a bad word.
So is "Ethics."
In my theory class the other day, we read a theorist from the 1970s who used the words morality and ethics a lot. What was the near unanimous opinion of the class?
In the words of one of the students, to which the teacher and others agreed "That was creepy."
I asked why, and they gave me odd looks (I'm so used to that, I wonder if they can really be considered odd anymore) and patiently explained how morality is a word that functions as a tool of the patriarchal hegemony (or some such nonsense) and that anyone who talks about morality in the 21st century must be a Jesus Freak of some sort.
Some days I really wonder why I put up with this abuse, day in and day out. But I'm a bit perverse that way. I refuse to give up just because I seem to be fighting a losing battle.
When I was in High School, I was never a very good athlete, but my favorite sport was Wrestling. I won a few matches and even placed (or won) at a few tournaments, but my reputation (such as it was) was that I was unpinnable.
To explain to the uninitiated to collegiate style wrestling - a pin is when you hold the back part of both shoulder blades of your opponent on the mat for three seconds. If you do that, regardless of the score, the match stops and you win. Otherwise, the match must go the full six minutes (which seems like forever in wrestling - and there is the exception of a technical pin that ends the match if you are a certain number of points ahead of your opponent).
State and nationally ranked wrestlers got very frustrated because even when I was clearly outmatched by them, because I refused to be pinned. I made them work for every second of that match. They couldn't pin me, no matter how hard they tried. I would not stay on my back.
That's how I spent my freshman and sophomore years in high school. What was interesting was that my junior and senior years, I started winning more than losing. I was even headed for the state tournament when I broke my ankle in a freak accident and was unable to compete.
That's how I feel in this PhD program. I refuse to let them pin me. I will make these liberals earn every inch. Then hopefully, after a while, I will start winning some small victories here and there. By the time I graduate and get a job, I hope I will be actually considered formidable instead of just unpinnable.
As long as I don't break my ankle before I get tenure, I guess.
So is "Ethics."
In my theory class the other day, we read a theorist from the 1970s who used the words morality and ethics a lot. What was the near unanimous opinion of the class?
In the words of one of the students, to which the teacher and others agreed "That was creepy."
I asked why, and they gave me odd looks (I'm so used to that, I wonder if they can really be considered odd anymore) and patiently explained how morality is a word that functions as a tool of the patriarchal hegemony (or some such nonsense) and that anyone who talks about morality in the 21st century must be a Jesus Freak of some sort.
Some days I really wonder why I put up with this abuse, day in and day out. But I'm a bit perverse that way. I refuse to give up just because I seem to be fighting a losing battle.
When I was in High School, I was never a very good athlete, but my favorite sport was Wrestling. I won a few matches and even placed (or won) at a few tournaments, but my reputation (such as it was) was that I was unpinnable.
To explain to the uninitiated to collegiate style wrestling - a pin is when you hold the back part of both shoulder blades of your opponent on the mat for three seconds. If you do that, regardless of the score, the match stops and you win. Otherwise, the match must go the full six minutes (which seems like forever in wrestling - and there is the exception of a technical pin that ends the match if you are a certain number of points ahead of your opponent).
State and nationally ranked wrestlers got very frustrated because even when I was clearly outmatched by them, because I refused to be pinned. I made them work for every second of that match. They couldn't pin me, no matter how hard they tried. I would not stay on my back.
That's how I spent my freshman and sophomore years in high school. What was interesting was that my junior and senior years, I started winning more than losing. I was even headed for the state tournament when I broke my ankle in a freak accident and was unable to compete.
That's how I feel in this PhD program. I refuse to let them pin me. I will make these liberals earn every inch. Then hopefully, after a while, I will start winning some small victories here and there. By the time I graduate and get a job, I hope I will be actually considered formidable instead of just unpinnable.
As long as I don't break my ankle before I get tenure, I guess.
