PN-G bamatex

Can we keep this Crenshaw guy?

This is slightly off subject, but it's a memory the topic of this thread brought back to me after some thought that I felt would be of interest to some of the other posters.   I tend to dismiss a lot of the conservative claims about the pervasiveness and abrasiveness of liberal professors on college campuses. There's no doubt in my mind that professors are liberal more often than not - that's just shy of a statistically proven fact. But there are many out there who would have you believe that those professors treat every student who walks into their classrooms as a target for indoctrination. My own observation suggests that this is a gross exaggeration. I've met more than my fair share of liberal professors, only one of whom has ever been dogmatic; the rest have been either reserved with their political opinions or respectful of differing opinions.   The reason this comes to mind is the most glaring example of that one professor's close-mindedness, which was a debate over spanking. It was a communications class, in which each student was expected to give a series of presentations, either informative or persuasive, over subjects they chose to explore themselves. One of the students, who was a mother of three young children and was pregnant with a fourth, chose to give a persuasive presentation in favor of spanking as an effective means of disciplining children.   She gave what was, in my opinion, the best presentation of anyone in the class, myself included. Her presentation was very well researched and discussed a number of studies on the subject. She had anticipated the points in opposition to her platform, and more than adequately countered them with verified data in the actual presentation, before they could be brought up in questions. When the discussion period came after the presentation was finished, she was prepared for every question that was asked. Bottom line, the girl did her job, and did it well.   The professor liked to do his reviews orally in front of the class after each presentation, and then announce the grade to the entire class. I remember looking over to where he was sitting expecting an impressed demeanor and a positive review. What I saw instead was a look of appallment, and everything he said after that was confirmation of what I knew the moment I saw his face. The professor never once critiqued her delivery, her research or her preparation or any of the objective components on which the grade was supposed to be based, and instead focused entirely on the content and the position she took, which was never supposed to have anything to do with the grade at all.   After he had spent several minutes berating her, his focus turned to the class. He asked us to indicate by show of hands how many of us thought spanking was perfectly appropriate. When all but maybe two of the thirty or so students in the class raised their hands, that same appalled look returned. He proceeded to berate us the same way he had berated the presenter, making the same points about spanking essentially being abuse, and how children who are spanked growing up to have psychological problems. He never cited a single study, and several of the studies mentioned in the presentation had preemptively contradicted this, but he nevertheless continued to focus on them.   The most revealing point he harped on, though, wasn't even really about spanking. One of the things he kept saying was how shocked he was that "educated people" could tolerate spanking and not demand an outright ban on the practice. That stood out to me the most because it was outspoken confirmation of a belief he had already implied in previous classes: that all educated or rational people should hold the same or similar opinions on various issues.   That, in itself, is an irrational, and frankly arrogant, belief. Two perfectly rational people are capable of looking at the same information about the same issue and arriving at different opinions or decisions simply because they have different experiences, values and beliefs that result in different perspectives. While not every opinion is rational, to assume that no opinion besides your own is rational is naive, and I was incredibly surprised that a man with a doctorate in his field either hadn't yet grasped that concept, or simply couldn't. I suppose that's why the incident still sticks out in my mind.

[Hidden Content]   Apparently so, according to this study.

They act like it's such a big deal that the kid could have been spanked with a belt. I don't think I ever got spanked without a belt.

[Hidden Content]   Forgive the use of an obviously partisan site to provide the data, but I think it illustrates the point very well.

I guess I have to start rooting for the Longhorns now....  :(

Mat, do you compete?

  If you're looking for a direct connection, I have an aunt who taught in BISD and a cousin who currently teaches in BISD. I have two more cousins who are BISD products and several friends and family members who currently live in BISD or went to school at a BISD facility.   But you could take all of that away, and I would still be cheering this on. I would go into further detail, but the points I would make have already been made in this thread. Whether it's the moral gratification of seeing corrupt leadership finally come down that tvc pointed out, or the economic development issues and statewide embarrassment the BISD issue has created that North brought up, or the fact that the first steps towards justice for the BISD students and taxpayers have finally been taken that virtually everyone has brought up at some point, all of those are perfectly legitimate reasons for us to be very, very happy that this takeover is finally occurring. I know I've personally been saying that this would eventually happen for five years now.

  I suspect that once TEA has taken things over and has full access to the district's records, there will be many things that come forward dating back to long before Timothy Chargois took over as superintendent. However, even if that's the case, Chargois's hands are just as dirty; willful ignorance is tantamount to complicity in this case.

The day of reckoning is upon us.

  Would you like to ask that again now?

I am very happy to see Jimmy Simmons listed in that document.

  Don't believe everything you read.  :D

Exactly what it said.

For the time being, you can find short biographies on all of them here:   [Hidden Content]

  Southern barbecue is a different animal than Texas barbecue. Brisket isn't served at most establishments, just ribs, sausage and chicken. They believe everything's in the sauce, whereas Texans put more emphasis on the rub and many don't like any sauce at all. Plus, their sauce is normally vinegar based, and it leaves that strong vinegar taste.   Some of it's pretty good, but I prefer my native delicacies.

  This is what I said:       See that "as much" part? That means that they get the same amount of credit for it.   I never said that Newt did it all himself. What I said was that he contributed every bit as much as Bill Clinton. The truth of the matter is that nothing would have gotten done had it not been for both of them working together. We had bipartisan balanced budgets and entitlement reform during a period where Congress was republican and the White House was democrat. That means both parties, and the leaders of both parties at that time, get the credit for the accomplishments.

  It depends on the circumstances inherent in the situation. I've said on here before that I blame Harry Reid for a lot of things a lot of other people peg on Obama. For instance, I actually think he's more to blame for the debt than Obama is; it was Harry Reid, not Barack Obama, who spent five years refusing to allow a budget to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.   In any case, Newt Gingrich never controlled the Senate, so that's kind of irrelevant to the conversation to begin with.

Not to mention that many of the Clinton administration's signature achievements are as much a result of the Newt Gingrich's work as they are Bill Clinton's.

It probably is.   UT is facing a scandal over the admission of friends and family connected to prominent legislators. It extends from undergraduate admissions all the way up into otherwise prestigious UT graduate programs, most notably the law school.   Truth be told, that happens everywhere. And it's much worse in many other states. If anything, the fact that someone is trying to expose it here in Texas, I think, is a sign we still have some ethical code; in many other states, this would simply be dismissed as par for the course and too minimal to be considered a legitimate issue.   That's another reason I will be very happy to return home in a year.

He was right about Kanye.

Are you aware that George H. W. Bush, fully cognizant of the bill's opposition in his Houston area congressional district and the threats his biggest political backers had made against him, sacrificed his reelection bid by voting for the 1964 Voting Rights Act, because he preferred to preserve his conscience and lose his election rather than vice versa?

LBJ did the right thing for all the wrong reasons. He was more interested in recruiting democrat voters than he was giving said voters rights.   I'm curious, though. What's your opinion of George H. W. Bush?

  I've stopped there before. That place is pretty good, too.

  Did you bother to read the entire example, or did you read the first two sentences and quit?       Did you bother to read my last post on the subject? The one with the emboldened, underlined and highlighted statements? If you did, you would know that Clapper, a current Obama administration intelligence official, made his claims in 2003, that Sada, former Vice Marshall of Saddam's air force, made his statements in 2006, and that Ya'alon, former director of Israeli military intelligence, provided his assertions in 2002. So no, it didn't take eleven years for people to draw these conclusions. You're just hearing about it for the first time after eleven years.       Yes, he did. And that is often the result of strategic miscalculations in situations like these. But that doesn't change the fact that he was still in the country. So, I reiterate, why do you think Saddam, who only had his own interests at heart, would stay in an active war zone where the most advanced military force in the world was looking for him if he thought they would be there for very long?