Hello, Liberal Idiot, this is the Real World; have we met before?
As if the Krugman koolaid-drinking isn't evidence enough, we get this gem with respect to why liberals tend toward "academia" and conservatives tend toward "corporations":
To generalize: liberals like studying and discussing and learning; conservatives like making money, and sometimes stealing money.
So close, yet so far away. TO quote someone much wiser than either LeftCoastBlog or me:
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work withy your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
I Thessalonians 4:11,12 (NIV)
and again:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
II Thessalonians 3:10 (NIV)
Perhaps it is that conservatives tend toward gainful vocations through which they can provide for themselves and their families, and contribute to the good of society. (Those evil "corporations" pay the majority of taxes, provide jobs for the majority of working Americans, and provide the grants that allow high-and-mighty liberals like LeftBankBlog to sit around on their duffs all day, consdescending the utterly inferior conservatives in their midst.) Liberals may like "studying and discussing and learning", but those alone, unless put into action, contribute nothing to society. Nice jab, by the way, with this statement:
Meanwhile, the conservative students are all eagerely working on their economics or business majors in preparation to go off and be the next Ken Lay's and Bernard Ebbers' of the world.
Yet another shining example of liberal tolerance and open-mindedness.
Next we come to this little gem (the one Conservative Dialysis referenced, which led me to the original:
Let's face it- Liberals are smarter and therefore more likely to have the PhD qualifications needed to teach at universities. I know it sounds arrogant, but there's some truth to it.
So, which is it? Is the fact that liberals are smarter than conservatives so ubiquitous that the statement needs not be defended with evidence, and we should just "face it", or is the generalization so incongruous as to have only "some truth to it", and to sound "arrogant"? Apparently, LeftBankBlog believes the latter, and uses the former - an incredibly pathetic logical fallacy to bolster such an indefensible claim.
He then goes on to quote from a recenk Krugman screed in which, among other things, Krugman states the folowing:
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.
Now, since our liberal friend admits his areas of study are "Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies [and] History" (which, should he ever decide to leave the Ivory Tower, will inevitably be followed by, "Would you like fries with that?"), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does not understand the basic concepts of the Scientific Method, which Wikipedia defines as follows:
The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.
The Scientific Method is a process involving four basic steps: Characterization, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment. The problem with macro-evolution (that is, speciation) is that it has never been 1) observable, or 2) reproducible. These criteria are the burden of proof necessary to consider a hypothesis as scientific "fact." I have no problem at all with presenting evolutionary theory, as long as it is rightfully presented as theory. To the contrary of evolutionary theory, the more we learn about our universe and the intricacy of the physical laws that govern our existence, the more the application of Occam's Razor points to intelligent design as the explanation of Origin in preference to chance and random selection.
Of course, liberals, in their own tolerant and inclusive way, insist that such viewpoints merit no discussion, and instead stifle that discussion in the name of "tolerance."
But then, what would I know? I'm just another intolerant, religious-right, Republican scientist.
Glad to see another conservative elected as the next Pope. And a fairly speedy election, as well:
PHOTO: Ish with his mother at the Bharaat.
PHOTO:Ish and Pritee during Anand Karaj
PHOTO: Traditional Indian garb with Punjab turban
PHOTO:Ish and Pritee after the Anand Karaj