Iaculus said:
Sorry for the delay - busy day again.
Looked that thing up - consensus seems to be that the book's compelling but poorly-sourced (for instance, its assertion of a 93% literacy rate mid-nineteenth century was only accurate for adult white males). I'd treat it with caution. Also, your more relevant assertion of a 'liberal takeover' - mind going into that further?
It is so well established as to be bordering on trite that academic institutions are overwhelmingly populated by those whose political proclivities tend toward the liberal. Suggested explanations for this come from every angle and are all over the map, ranging from "conservatives just aren't very interested in concepts that don't have a direct financial appliance" to "the shelter of academia protects fragile liberal ideas from being shattered by the reality of the world" to
some ideas in between. What is never in doubt from any source, however, is that academia is comprised of many more liberally minded faculty and staff than conservative. As for K-12, the educational system is caught
in the maw of the NEA and the AFT, which as you might guess (being unions), are not particularly conservative in nature.
Your analogy of 'gay' as 'happy' is invalid. Liberalism worldwide averages out as being closer to its classic, European definition - a centrist ideology promoting individual freedom (consider the ideologies of organisations such as Liberal International and its affiliates) - and liberalism as a pejorative indicating big-government oppression and the erosion of the individual largely occurs only within the heads of rabid right-wingers such as Ann Coulter. It's like saying that 'gay' means 'marshmallow' because that's how it's used in China (not a perfect analogy, I'll admit).
Actually, "liberal" being a dirty word is more the work of Limbaugh than Coulter.. Coulter's strictly coattails material. It is not, however, "all in their heads." One of the US's most visible liberals, Teddy Kennedy, upon the victory of the Patriots in the 2002 super bowl, said "At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."
Within the United States, liberalism is no ideological monolith either. Though social liberalism is currently ascendant, equating all liberals (be they neoliberals, conservative liberals, paleoliberals, ordoliberals, or whatever) with them is just as daft as asserting that all conservatives are either neocons or members of the Religious Right. I note that you have often railed against those you deem not to be 'real' conservatives, who are currently ascendant on that side of the fence - would you therefore assert that those who occupy a rapidly-thinning majority are relevant for discussion of a very broad ideology?
Look, I applaud you trying to "take back" the terminology for sake of correctness, but the fact of the matter is if you want to take part in a discussion/debate of this magnitude already well underway you have to use the terminology as it is established.
This is what has been largely defined by the applicable players involved as conservative and liberal. Yes, by that definition canada and the vast majority of europe are waaay liberal. But you know what? They are.
Then you have no right to complain about the activities of either side in that debate.
That's silly. Of course I do. Because they're claiming their decisions come about from untainted science and the best of intentions, when in fact it comes mostly from junk science, tainted or selectively picked data, and from an ulterior desire to harm capitalist industry.
Oh, and for all the people saying
Several Boneheads said:
Gas Bandit says science is evil! Hur hur hur.
I never did. And in fact, for quite a while now, science has actually had very little to do with the global warming debate.