And what might he say about his brother, finn?
bethie
You're quite right...I didn't look at that link.
finn
It is grand indeed. Though I'll certainly never love you. Casual sex, maybe.
Let me help you out...
Wilde..."A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
Bryant..."I am disgusted by the very sight of a penis. Particularly, those big black ones."
Hannity & Colmes, Horowitz ignored facts undermining GOP student's claim that professor failed him for "pro-American" paper
Foothill College student Ahmad al-Qloushi -- who claims that he received a failing grade on a term paper about the U.S. Constitution because it was "pro-American" and whose allegations have been publicized by right-wing pundit David Horowitz -- appeared as a guest on the February 17 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes. But no one on the show mentioned that al-Qloushi's professor disputes his version of events, that al-Qloushi's claims were originally publicized by the Foothill College Republicans (of which al-Qloushi is president), or that al-Qloushi has been touted by Horowitz to promote Horowitz's right-wing university campus initiatives.
"The Foothill College Republicans blasted faxes to reporters this month complaining that a professor had forced a student to see the college therapist merely because the student wrote a pro-American essay," the San Jose Mercury News reported on December 26, 2004. On January 6, Horowitz's right-wing website FrontPageMag.com posted an article by al-Qloushi about the incident. The Washington Times ran an January 16 article titled "California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay," in which it relayed al-Qloushi's claims and noted only that "Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries." On February 1, al-Qloushi appeared on a segment of ABC's World News Tonight about "conservatives who claim they are victims of a double standard on college campuses," where his assertion that "I was attacked and intimidated because I love America" went unchallenged.
On the February 17 edition of Hannity & Colmes, al-Qloushi reiterated his story, claiming that his professor, Joseph Woolcock, "threatened [him] into seeking regular psychological treatment ... by threatening [his] visa status." But in a statement responding to al-Qloushi, Woolcock provided his version of events, which was ignored on Hannity & Colmes. According to Woolcock, he never "threatened" al-Qloushi's visa status or "threatened" him "into seeking regular psychological treatment," as al-Qloushi claimed. Woolcock also noted that al-Qloushi had "failed to write the mid-term assignment" and had turned down offers of assistance before turning in his final term paper:
When I read the paper, it became clear to me that it did not respond to the question. In late November, after grading all final papers, I asked Mr. al-Qloushi to come and discuss with me the grade. ... [H]e expressed in great detail, concerns and feelings of high anxiety he was having about certain developments which had occurred over ten years ago in his country. Some aspects of his concerns were similar to certain concerns expressed in his paper.
Based on the nature of the concerns and the feelings of high anxiety which he expressed, I encouraged him to visit one of the college counselors. I neither forced nor ordered Mr. al-Qloushi to see a counselor; I have no authority to do so. My suggestion to him was a recommendation he freely chose to accept and which he acknowledged in an e-mail message to me on December 1, 2004.
Foothill College counselors are competent and highly respected professionals capable of providing professional services to students, and faculty members are always encouraged by the college administration to make such referrals to college counselors as the need may arise.
In my conversation with Mr. al-Qloushi, I did not make any reference, explicitly or implicity [sic], to the Dean of International Students or to any other Dean. In my conversation with Mr. al-Qloushi, I did not make any reference, explicit or implicit, to Mr. al-Qloushi's status as an international student. At the time of our conversation, Mr. al-Qloushi was still enrolled in my class, but after he met with the counselor, he never returned to the class.
I deny unequivocally all the allegations Mr. al-Qloushi has attributed to me regarding my suggestion to him that it might be helpful for him to discuss his long-standing concerns with a college counselor, as I have described here. All the other allegations made are false and have no basis whatsoever in fact.
Al-Qloushi's essay, which is posted on Horowitz's Students for Academic Freedom website, has been described by conservative blogger and political science professor James Joyner as "an incredibly poorly written, error-ridden, pabulum-filled [sic], essay that essentially ignores the question put forth by the instructor." Another conservative blogger, political science professor Steven Taylor, concluded: "I can see how this essay resulted in a failing grade."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Horowitz is president and co-founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) and the editor-in-chief of FrontPageMag.com, which serves as the CSPC's online journal. The center's agenda includes right-wing campus organizing and opposing affirmative action programs. At the end of al-Qloushi's FrontPageMag.com article and in a February 1 interview with the website, al-Qloushi expressed his support for Horowitz's "Student Bill of Rights," a campus initiative seeking to prevent professors from "forc[ing] their opinions about philosophy, politics and other contestable issues on students in the classroom."
Editor's Note: Below you can read Ahmad's essay which led Professor Woolcock to suggest he get psychiatric counseling.
Topic:
3. Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not "ordained and established" by "the people" as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.
Ahmad Al-Qloushi
Poli 01.02
Fall Quarter ?'04
Prof. Woolcock
T.A Travis Boetcher
Meghna
Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not "ordained and established" by "the people" as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. This paper will CRITICALLY analyze the US constitution and how it was a progressive document FOR ITS TIME. And how it symbolizes and embodies what America is today a just and democratic society where all men and women are created equal and that men and women are free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment.
I completely disagree with Dye and Zeigler's contention that the founding father had ONLY their best interests at heart and that that the constitution of the United States was a progressive document for its time compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe (excluding Britain). The American constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world. Yet in a young country which freed itself from the shackles of the greatest empire of the time. The founding fathers were stalwart heroes who led the brave young men of this great land and in order to establish a democracy maybe not a direct or perfect democracy but one that guarantees the freedom of its citizens. It is ludicrous to assume that a direct democracy can succeed in the United States. Yet in the last ballots of November 2nd 2004 the people of the United States DID get a chance of influencing their political decisions in their country and that is thanks to the US constitution established by the great men of America like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
These men paved the way for what America is today the country of opportunity and freedom. These men were men of nationalism and men who took great pride in formulating what is today the greatest country in the world and thank god that it is so. Because of America the world is free. America vanquished Nazi Germany. America helped establish the great nation of Israel a democratic society in a troubled region. America freed Japan and South Korea. America freed Kuwait and now is currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25,000,000 residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein. The US constitution and the Founding Fathers helped build the foundation to which all this was established.
It is through the efforts of America's great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Delano Roosevelt, John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, current President Bush and most importantly the American troops who risked their lives for the freedom of America and the freedom of others that this country is so great and prosperous.
The US constitution might have required many amendments for its to catch up with modern times but no nation had a constitution which challenged the US in terms of equality and freedom at that particular time which made the document a very sophisticated one for its time a document which was feared by monarchs as being "too progressive". It's because of the American constitution and the American "elites" that Dye and Zeigler could critique this constitution and Americas Founding Fathers. It is because of America's constitution that thousands of people wish to live there and walk amongst the free. "The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest."
President Thomas Jefferson.
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history.
It is the American constitution that helps the American government to solve its problems in legal ways and in ways that will bring true American justice and resolve. The American foundation was built by the American constitution and the Founding Fathers and nothing can destroy these foundations.
"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve." President George W Bush.
America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution.
If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States' accomplishments to date.
Quotes By
Thomas Jefferson
George W Bush
Several posting in this thread have asserted there is no evidence of leftwing bias at American universities, and more than a few carried this further that even if there is bias, it isn't a problem.
Thomas Sowell puts it into perspective with the analogy of the jury arriving at a verdict after hearing the case from the prosecution only or the defense only. He reports that at least one of his readers found that acceptable.
Do a lot of A2K readers think that would be acceptable if the side you heard was prepared by the side you trusted implicitly? Is it a given that one's mind will be made up without hearing from the other side? Especially if the 'other side' is the hated 'them'?
Vengo,
Did you mean to post here(http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1240650#1240650)?
An Academic Question
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?
Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.
Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?
One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.
But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."
Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.
In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."
The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.
Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.
Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.
Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.
And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.
If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.
Okay, thanks to information on another thread, here's new ammunition for this one. I doubt any who are convinced the liberal swamp on U.S. universities is natural and normal will be persuaded otherwise. But perhaps it will be comforting for those who still think.
<snip>
The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.
<snip>
"Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer our country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"... Randall Terry, Indiana News Sentinel
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."... Pat Roberston, Washington Post
"The Vatican should get behind America"...Bill O'Reilly, two nights ago on his show
The Supreme Court should be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people"...Senator John Cornyn, Texas
My goodness. Are you going to keep promoting this simple-minded and uneducated idiocy, foxfyre?
