Bias In Academia

From a deeply closeted college professor's confession at Instapundit. His embarrassing secret - he is a conservative:

You hide yourself in plain sight. You make comments that are carefully crafted to allow you to make small talk, and which will allow your colleagues to think you’re in agreement with them, but which nevertheless satisfy your own sense of integrity. You never lie. You just make comments and allow them to draw their own conclusions. A classic example is the way I’ll make comments about politics, saying things like “I don’t trust politicians, period.” My liberal colleagues will nod and agree. We’re all in agreement, they believe. It gets easy after a while. You make comments about Marxist ideology that are really rather neutral, such as how you see similarities between Marx’s views, and something else. You leave it unstated that in fact you think this is appalling, while they nod and smile at the continuing relevance of Marxism in today’s society. Everyone is happy. I don’t feel quite so happy when someone says something about “stupid fucking conservatives” (I’m quoting exact words here), but I just nod, and say “ugh-huh”.

I’ve just been watching the first series of Mad Men, and I’m struck by the gay guy Salvatore Romano, and how similar his behavior is to me, only I’m hiding my politics, not my sexuality. There are also the classic moments, whereby fellow believers in academia carefully try to work out if you are one of “us”. I remember one guy who heard me comment on how some architecture reminded me of something I read in The Fountainhead, which was enough to alert him. Later we went out for a drink. I remember the nervous moment (for both of us) where he finally came out and asked me, “so what are your political / economic beliefs?” I chickened out, tempered, and said, “well, perhaps more to the center than most academics” and countered, “what are yours?” Reassured, he was willing to admit to conservative leanings. Then I was willing to admit it too. Then at last we could talk about our true feelings, with it clearly and openly stated that (of course) none of this was ever, ever, ever, to go beyond our own private conversations. (I also learned to never ever, in future, mention Rand within hearing of any academics, in case I accidentally revealed myself again.) In another case, the vital clue was our shared interest in science fiction, and over the weeks there followed careful probing concerning which authors we liked, until we eventually discretely revealed ourselves. Now he lends me books saying “don’t let any of your colleagues see you with this.”

When (if) I get tenure, I toy with the idea of coming out of the closet. I don’t think I will though. Perhaps my job will be more secure, but I have to live and work with these people for years to come. I prefer to work in a friendly environment. I don’t want to be the token conservative, and I don’t want to be the one who speaks at meetings while everyone else rolls their eyes and exchanges meaningful glances.

Needless to say, don’t under any circumstances use my real name if you choose to refer to my email. Thanks!

I suspect this is only temporary. Next thing you know, they'll be out of the closet, demanding equal rights and agitating for conservative marriage.

Read More...

Summary only...

The NYT Counterattacks On The One's Behalf

The electoral clock is counting down. The candidate you are actively pushing for the White House is holding a slim to none lead in the polls. You are cheerleading him towards victory.

Suddenly, catastrophe strikes.

There is a foreign policy crisis. Your candidate looks weak, equivocating, unsure of himself. His spine has left his body. His opponent looks strong, knowledgable, prescient. This is bad. What to do?

If your the NY Times, its to write an opinion hit-piece on McCain, ignoring McCain's response to the crisis in Georgia and instead, concentrating on cherry picked facts in an attempt to show that McCain is a war-mongerer too dangerous to be given the reigns of power. And, of course, you run it as front page news.
______________________________________________________

The NYT front page hit piece of the day is "Response to 9-11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine." I won't recount the whole piece. You can read it here.

Just a couple of points worth mentioning. One, the NYT spends the first several paragraphs pointing out that McCain was the first person to call for attacks on Iraq, believing it would pay dividends far beyond the borders of that country. What the NYT studiously ignores is that, in fact, that has turned out to be right. Success in Iraq has been bad news for al Qaeda who have watched their stock value tumble in response to defeat in Iraq almost as much as the NYT has seen its own stock value tumble since 9-11, now near the single digits after a high of $52 per share. Instead what we get from the NYT is:

[McCain's] critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

Whoa. Let's pull that apart. One, to claim that there was not a clear national interest in attacking Iraq as seen in 2002 is the penultimate rewrite of history. Two, McCain was out in front of Bush on the call to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Three, what is it with the left that we can only send troops into battle with a clear plan for surrender and retreat. Our post modern left just have no contact with reality. Actually, the NYT does in fact quote someone with sense on this last issue - McCain's younger brother, Joe:

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops”

I won't go into the rest of the article. Basically, its a litany of everything the NYT can spin in an effort to show that McCain acted decisively while not always acting under the correct information. They do so largely out of the context of the time, and instead evaluate it all in the 20/20 hindsight of today.

That the NYT is in the tank for Obama is no secret. That the NYT stock prices are plummeting is likewise no secret. Could it have anything to do with regularly running biased and unfair opinion pieces as front page news? Just asking.

Read More...

Summary only...

As Obama Ducks TownHall Debates, One Wonders Whether The MSM Will Carry This Coward To The Presidency (Updated)

We are supposed to be choosing a President, not annointing the left wing MSM's chosen messiah and Chris Matthew's personal viagra.

McCain offered to do ten town hall style debates with questions coming from the people and no time limit on answers. Obama offered up July 4 and one other date - in essence, ducking the offer. Military families offered to set up a town hall debate and hold it on a date of Mr. Obama's choosing. It turns out he's busy with other things every night between now and the election. Just how craven is Obama?

Obama has now agreed to only three debates - all before the MSM moderators which, if in typical format, will allow for only short, timed responses. This will allow Obama to limit his exposure and maximize his ability to get away with his daily rendition of outrageous assertions. It will also insure that the questions come from a group so thoroughly attached to Obama it is a wonder they don't come down with e-coli poisoning.

McCain needs to refuse and restate his offer of ten town hall style events - one each week until the election. Let Obama continue to duck and rely on an over the top biased MSM to protect Obama's back while the nation looks on. It does not seem to be working out quite according to plan so far. McCain should be hammering home on Obama's cowardly machinations every day. He should begin and end every speech talking about Obama's refusal to engage in any substantive debate.

Update: The McCain Camp has responded to Obama's decision with appropriate sarcasm:

“We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider.”

Hot Air has a take on this similar to my own:

This news will surprise no one that has followed the number of gaffes Obama makes when speaking off the cuff. When the press finally got embarrassed by their fawning attitude and asked him tough questions in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama folded like a cheap suit against Hillary — and immediately stopped appearing in debates. He has provided an almost endless series of gaffes when speaking extemporaneously, and obviously wants no part of McCain in this format.

Either way, McCain can use this response to his advantage. He can continue appearing in town-hall forums and openly question why Obama lacks the courage to join him. In the traditional presidential debates, McCain can remind the national audience that Obama needed to hide behind the skirts of the media moderators rather than face voter questions directly. It’s a bonus for McCain in that sense, although he would have preferred getting Obama into his preferred format and watching him get exposed for the inexperienced naïf that Obama clearly is.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News – 10 January 2008

The top three Republican candidates appear to be in a tie in Michigan. I wonder if we will see a Republican nominee emerge before the convention. Rick Moran is asking for our support for Fred Thompson.

Some thoughts on McCain that mirror my own here. McCain is hardly a die hard conservative, and his votes on tax cuts and immigration are hard to swallow. But he has vowed to end earmarks and he makes the highest marks on national security, both of which make him an attactive candidate to me at least. In terms of bipartisanship, he is also the real deal – a true thorn for conservatives on many issues, but he would likely appeal to many independents. Bookworm Room wonders if he isin’t trying to position Lieberman as his running mate.

Remember the Lancet Report claiming 655,000 Iraqi dead issued just before the last election? The World Health Organization has released its own, much lower count based on a much larger sampling. Laer has the story here.

I am regularly amazed by the arguments against using picture I.D.’s to combat voter fraud. Of particular note is the argument that it would harm the indigent and prevent them from voting. That seems a canard. Anyone who can make it to a polling booth on election day can just as easilly make it to a government office, show proof of their identity and get an i.d. card. Contrary arguments appear to be an invitation for fraud. More thoughts here.

The People’s Democratic Republic of San Francisco wants to be a gun-free an island unto itself. And in some ways, they are making progress towards that goal.

Al Sharpton smells some race-geld to be had in the inadvertent comment of a TV golf analyst. He has started mining and much to its shame, the Golf Channel has caved.

And from Across the Pond . . .

Europe has discovered democracy. They want to vote and have their say . . . in the U.S. elections.

Democracy does have its limits, however. The governments of Europe want a "mature debate" on the EU, but no vote on the same. And on this most important issue facing Britain since 1939, Labour is being assissted by the Tories. Scandalous. When the Queen took the oath of coronation near half a century ago, it was clearly not the EU Constitution she was binding herself, along with the people of Britain, to uphold. At least some people are attempting to expose the government’s deceit in their own way.

The BBC knows where its bread is buttered – its Brussels, not Westminister. EU Referendum ponders whether this might explain the BBC’s fawning coverage of and deference to the EU. I think that the EU is simply the ultimate leftist construct, and given the bent of the BBC, that explains the affinity.

And the MCB responds to the comments of the Bishop of Rochester that there are no-go areas in Britain. Sheik Yer Mami notes that most Britons seem to disagree with the MCB.

"Millions of children are being raised on prejudice and disinformation. Educated in schools that teach a skewed ideology, they are exposed to a dogma that runs counter to core beliefs shared by many other Western countries. They study from textbooks filled with a doctrine of dissent, which they learn to recite as they prepare to attend many of the better universities in the world. Extracting these children from the jaws of bias could mean the difference between world prosperity and menacing global rifts." This is a quote on education in French and German public schools. Read this exceptional post at DWM.

Read More...

Summary only...