Equal representation in the media, in Hollywood, in academia and in public unions...?
By all polls, the American people is approx. 40% conservative, 40% liberal and 20% moderate. Yet 90% of academia professors are liberal. How come?
Because youth (where the professors are) are primarily liberal? Because most universities are in urban environments, where liberals are dominate?
If you're thinking there should be an even mix in every American social environment you are sadly mistaken. Just the difference between urban and rural should tell us that.
That doesn’t answer my question. Why are liberals so dominant in college campuses? Don’t they have diversity policies? Aren’t they the one telling us we need a diverse of opinions and diverse cultures and diverse races...
It seems to me they are being selective in their treatment of various groups .
It's funny when I meet an American Republican of colour, they seen white in the inside. When I go to China I hear them call an American Asian a banana, yellow on the outside, white in the inside. Or blacks acting white because they need a job.
I am all for diversity, and live and let live. I could never live a lie.
It's not about the colour of your skin, it's more about the culture structure and love you create for your own personal growth.
That's truly a shady statement Castle , some would call out the very racism within it .
What? I just said someones culture background is more important than the color of their skin. I personally spend more time with people of colour than whites, so me being racist is nonsense, I'm color blind.
It's an observation, like in Rome people do what the Romans do. If your in the largest population of whites in the world. People of color act like white, so to socially and financially survive. When whites by far they have the vast majority of the money. When your in a Republican Trump rally that is 95℅ white, you really got to act white.
Given that cultural background is far more important than color of skin (just as you say), I have to wonder just how "whites" act. Or "blacks" or Asians, for that matter.
One "acts" according to the culture they grew up in and live in. Not according to their skin color, and to imply that that color determines how they act is indeed racist. (Not that I believe you meant it that way, but it DID come across that way.)
They are dominant because their customers (students) are primarily liberal. They are dominant because they live in a liberal environment. That's what I said!
An no, I'm as sure as anything in life that colleges do not hire based on political leanings. There is no requirement, and they do not try to balance the university politically.
you have it backwards. the students are there to learn. It is the professors that are liberal and they indoctrinate these new students into their thinking and bias.
What on earth is this based on?
I spent 8 years in university and I don’t think I could tell you the political leanings of a single professor I had.
I also think it’s pretty dismissive of youth in general to assume that they’re being “indoctrinated” so easily by their professors.
Interesting, so how do you explain so many millennials thinking Socialism is a better form of goverment than capitalism? They got that idea from some where...
In more that a few aspects perhaps it is better.
And there are plenty of people who are not millennials that believe that as well.
But, you have nothing to fear, Jack, my issue is not socialism, but keeping Capitalism and it potential abuses on a tight lease. You would not say that is socialism now would you?
Any system can be abused and corrupted. Keeping Capitalism on a tight leash is fine by me. The more telling news is when some of these millennials graduates and start working in the real world, they slowly turn and embrace free enterprise... and reject socialism.
My comments and question were a result of watching the Emmy awards last night. The opening number was about diversity in Hollywood...
Yet, we all know they are not diverse in their political leanings.
We know, Jack that when people choose their professions that equal representations cannot be expected. Liberals, as Creative, artistic people are avant-garde, the very contradiction of what it means to be "conservative", clinging to the status quo. So, what kinds of people are entertainment industry going to attract? Besides, I would not want some old, stodgy, albatross teaching my kids
Maturity and experience lead one toward conservatism. I'd rather have a wise and introspective person teaching my kids than an indoctrinated ideologue who lost the ability to think for themselves somewhere along the way.
I'd rather the news be balanced.
I don't expect anything from entertainers, other than entertainment. I think they tend to be more liberal because of their trade. They have to learn to not only walk in the shoes of another, but embrace their perspective for performance purposes. They tend to be confused and troubled people. Not suited for paying too much attention to their opinions.
I rather watch those entertainer perform than to watch the ugly and boring show of politicans. Politics ugly show is even more filled with fiction.
Funny about your statement regarding maturity and experience, I became more liberal with age, once I expand my horizons beyond all the "packaged BS" we were taught as youngsters. Learning that the "truth" was something that is intentionally being concealed from the inexperienced.
I rather that the news be balanced as well. It is only conservatives who seem to think that any reporting and reporter is biased against them. Why would that be?
Since when are entertainers not allowed to have opinions and express them? If I have to suffer through the rants of Hannity or Limbaugh, the rightwinger will have to listen to Barbra Streisand and Danny Glover.
They are all entertainers, are they not? I think that because of their selected trade, entertainers tend to be more liberal. I think that Rush Limbaugh is confused and is mad as a hatter. If the conservative can dismiss the views of a Barbra Streisand, why cannot I ignore the views of Hannity? What are Hannity's credentials so that his opinion is any more valid than that of a Danny Glover, for instance, outside the fact that he says so?
Do you have to suffer through Hannity and Limbaugh? I've never listened to either. You do understand what the off button on the radio can do? It works for shock jocks and hypocritical entertainers. Whichever need to be silenced.
I have no problem with right or left, as long as it isn't used to indoctrinate. It has been my observation that the left attempts indoctrination more than the right. But, either is bad.
Isn't it true with all speech, that if you don't like what you hear either turn it off or change the channel? No one NEEDS to be silenced, but we all are selective in what we listen and pay attention to. I could not complain about Hannity or Limbaugh if I never took the time to listen to them and their perspective on things.
In my opinion, as far as indoctrination, it is just the opposite. In a non official capacity, I am not intimidated by words and what people say and allow them every right to say it.
"It has been my observation that the left attempts indoctrination more than the right."
True, but only if religion is removed from the equation. As most people associate the right with religion (rightly so, IMO), and religion makes massive attempts to "indoctrinate" I'd question the statement.
I'd disagree, unless you are talking about the religious right. I was raised in a Christian home; no attempts to indoctrinate. Unless you believe a simple belief in the existence of God is indoctrination.
Fights over teaching creationism as a scientific theory. Erection of religious icons everywhere, including on public lands. Handing out bibles in schools and motel rooms. Door to door proselytizing. Required prayer at public events. Church "Sunday schools" for small children that fail to differentiate between fact and belief. "Sin" laws, such as prohibition.
The list is nearly endless of the attempts to indoctrinate people into religious beliefs. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - it makes no difference and ALL attempt to indoctrinate. Labeling it as the "religious right" does not change what is attempted.
Belief in the existence of a god - any god - is not indoctrination. Presenting that belief, especially to young, impressionable children, as factual IS.
I think that Rush Limbaugh is confused and is mad as a hatter.
Really? Immensely successful, with a huge collection of dedicated followers, he is "mad as a hatter"?
As you rightly pointed out, Limbaugh is an entertainer, and he is smart enough to give his audience what they want. That hardly indicates he is mad; it indicates that he is very smart and understand his audience to a "T".
Yes, he gives HIS audience what they want, more red meat....
It doesn't mean that the rest of us are daft in the head because we don't agree with his diatribe.
Rush Limbaugh is the smartest political commentator today. On most issues, he gets it right before all others. That is why he is the most successful radio talk show host for 20 years.
Credence, I am disappointed by your comment. With all the discussion we’ve had in the past, you are still clinging to your own interpretation of conservatives. I have demonstrated and written about my conservative philosophy and principles. It is nothing like what you said “clinging to the status quo”. It matters little. Conservatives are winning both elections and local governments policies. Let the people choose.
In case you missed it, my latest article can be found here.
Sorry to disappoint you, Jack. But, it is not as if you don't have rather rigid opinions of liberalism and the left, is that not right? From where I sit, the status quo is never good enough...
The very definition of conservatism is resistance to change, I mean if we get down to the brass tacks...
Yes, the people will decide, but will you accept the outcome without any handwringing if your vaunted conservatives take a drubbing this fall?
If you understand my position, I have always said I have no problem with change or progress... I just want it done in a stead fast and slow and deliberate fashion, one that follows our Constitution. That is the definition of a conservstive. We want people to vote on major changes like abortion and gay marriage and so many other social issues. It should not be decided by unelected judges in 5-4 decisions...
Jack, that is why the court exists, do you think that we as Blacks would have ever attained any civil rights if we waited on Southern Legislatures or white folks voting to ever attain to rights of equal accommodation or the franchise?
There are fundamental rights that belong to every citizen that cannot be just legislated or voted by a majority away. I prefer the courts as a protector of this rights. The "Left" is obviously making their desired changes from "within the system", who is saying otherwise? Is the political right the only entity that can wrap the flag around themselves and say they adhere to the Constitution, while the Left advocates anarchy?
"Jack, that is why the court exists"
Not any more. Now it exists to support the political agenda of one party or the other; witness the 9th circuit court and the huge percentage of their cases that, when sent to SCOTUS, are overturned. Witness the furor and circus on finding a new SCOTUS judge - they simply must fit into the ideology of politicians or are unacceptable.
Not so much unlike the hassle and obstruction Obama received when he was to execute his responsibility under the Constitution for a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia.
The court, in the ideal should not be partisan, but they can't not be influenced by ideology of each individual member as to having a liberal or conservative view in regards to their jurisprudence. That is why each President selects jurors that lean toward their ideological temperament in combination to being otherwise qualified to sit on the bench. So, they all do it. I did not want a Robert Bork, no more than you wanted a Ginsburg, even though they were both qualified to sit on the court.
Yep - just so, and the garbage over Scalia's replacement was beyond anything even approaching reasonable. But I DO blame presidents for being as conscious of political leanings as they are, for it should never be a factor in either the choice of a judge OR the judgements rendered.
I understand a President choosing a judge they respect and like, and it is unreasonable to choose applicants according to political ideology and I understand just how easy it is to allow that respect to come from ideology...in a judge that renders verdicts from that ideology. But that's something a President should put great thought into - are those verdicts and opinions coming from a valid legal base of political ideology. Personally, I find that Trump has done well with this one - that he speaks from the law, not personal opinion of what should be rather than from what is.
You are making my point. Our courts are filled with judges who does not abide by our Constitution. Our schools are filled with liberal professors who doesn't teach our civics.
Except you cannot equate the two: a judge that does not render verdicts according to the law is fraudulent and illegal, while a teacher that teaches only what they want the student to learn is accepted everywhere in the country.
How is that different? We have liberal judges that rule in favor of statues that are unConstitutional. We have teachers that teaches socialism as an ideal way to govern. Why are they even teachers in our schools?
In both cases, I see people who are unqualified to do their jobs.
If this continues, how will our next generation understand our system of government?
You picked a bad example. Don't forget, we fought a civil war to free slavery. As with most big items, I don't want the public opinion to rule the day. That is exactly why the founding fathers had the insight to put in the Amendment clause. They wanted the PEOPLE to debate and vote on it by a 3/4 majority...
I am not talking about slavery, Jack, I am talking about the century after 1865, when Jim Crow was the rule and blacks were deliberately disenfranchised. It is a perfect example.
the basic protections are found in the Bill of Rights. This says that there are certain protections that are not subject to public opinion. Adding an amendment requires yes votes from 3/4 of the Congress (Senate?). There are some basic rights and principles that are not open to debate or majorities.
So would you say the right to vote comes under that category?
Giving women the right to vote took an Amendment. It was a long fought battle. However, it was the right way to go about it. The last thing our country need is to give everyone the freedom to vote but they are not prepared to understand the voting process or their civics duty...
Jack, who decides that people are not prepared to understand the voting process or their civic duty? The right to vote is part and parcel of being a citizen and shall not be abridged. If you are over the age of 18 registered in the locality where you live and are not undergoing judicial punishment, you are eligible. No literacy tests are required.
But, I do understand your point about the deliberation through the Amendment process that made the situation in a handful of states, Women's suffrage, prior to the amendment, a requirement to be observed by all
credence, I don't know if you follow the current situation in South Africa. I have some relatives from there and they tell me that after apartheid ended, the local elections voted out all whites and voted in all blacks whether they are qualified or not. Noe, they have rolling blackouts and water shortages... because the people in power does not know what they are doing. The solution is to take it slow. Giving people the power to vote is not sufficient. you need an educate population in order to have a functioning society.
I can't speak for politics in South Africa, the rip-off that was part of the apartheid system will require that a great of atoning is necessary. I have to balance that need of having knowledgeable people running things as opposed to the threat of returning to white supremacy which is just as bad or worse.
That is if I were living there, those circumstances do not exist in America. Conservatives say that it does because the Left will not abide with their ideas as to how things should be run.
Atonement is fine but what about a functioning society? Who gets hurt when the power stops and water dry up? Aren't they all in the same boat, whites and black South Africans?
"Besides, I would not want some old, stodgy, albatross teaching my kids"
And others do not want some young, inexperienced, ignorant socialist teaching their kids!
Works both ways, doesn't it?
Well, to each, his or her own. That is why we debate and forums exist.
Not really. You can teach our history and our Constitution, and our government and civics without any bias.
Last I heard the Texas outfit supplying textbooks were removing all references to anyone they decided was not Christian, or changing history to indicate the big names WERE Christian when they were not. Textbooks used country-wide. And it was not only accepted but actively pushed by the religious community.
Teachers, whether teaching in a class or writing books, have changed history as long as there have been teachers. (Did the holocaust happen?)
I have heard this too. When we talk about left "indoctrination" what is this and what is the source?
Try common core for starters. This is the left attempt to take over education of our kids.
But, I can't think of anything 'dirtier' than Texas rewriting textbooks to accommodate ridiculous and inaccurate rightwing dogma.
Look at the record for hollywood or in the news media for instance CNN has suffered a 41% drop in the last twelve months . From the NFL seat sales to fake news , I don't know how hollywoods polls can be measured except in my opinion of how the quality of acting , movie sales etc....is tanking . Let hollywood die I say,the next liberal president can bail them out with a "stimulus "perhaps .
Funny, at many world fairs. American culture is represented with Hollywood. Often a rip off of everyone else's culture and food too. Then what is truely American beside native Americans.
You are so off the wall. American culture is a melting pot of all immigrants from all over the world. Get it?
It started with the American indians, then the pilgrims and every other group that followed...
You need to study our history before making such comments. It just show your ignorance.
My specialty has been for natural and ancient cultures of North and Should America for 54 year. Much of Professional trade has been for 44 years through a form of three dimensional displays of natural or cultural history.
100s of top cultural events hired me to build mostly American history displays or some fantasy's, there is a fine line between them.
Build several dinosaurs for museum and pirate treasure museums, top feature was C. Columbus. Several native displays and traveled 49 states. Congratulate by 3 Presidents and refuse GW Bush a war sculptures. Because the greatest mother load of ignorance and hell on earth is war.
Unless you can reach an approval of 10s of millions of Americans like my American history displays. Or you can't find a way to discredit my approval of these three Presidents. If you fail again, try proving all these millions of American are ignorant as me, for praising my work. If you fail again, then check your own ignorance about America
I've built many museums applications worldwide including the Vatican library, The Hermitage museum, LOC, NGA, Smithsonian Yale Beineke Library and I know my history. I will match my understand of American history with you anyday.
Moreover, knowing about dinosaurs is not really American history is it?
Our current discussion centers on American politics in 2018.
BS, take the age of the world into one calendar year. Dinosaurs have been here for 3 months and man has been here for 10 minutes.
Octopus and jelly fish compare the Creationism Museum records have lived 36 million times longer than Creationist.
Who is more successful in life? Certainly not the young Creationist.
Don't know how you operate your museums applications with your computer technology.
What ever it is, it's highly likely your an Academic of second, third and several hand me down nature of information from the physical things. Pass down from people like me, who has first hand experience working directly with the physical artifacts and fossil remolded or reconstructed from first hand location around the world. Working with scientist or inheritant cultures of people. Basicly creating and guess-timating stories from bits and peaces of life on earth before us.
Built the world largest 3 dimensional display of ancient Greece, Babylon and Egypt in Canada. Part the worlds largest 3D dinosaur display in Calgary. Had a full time staff of 20 people and a 100 contractors and hired over a 2000 in my lifetime. Had the world largest sand and snow sculpture company for 30 years and first to create that fulltime industry of it in America and the world. Largest TV children characters costumes and displays in Canada. 185 international sculpture awards, 25 sculptural structure world records. I won't go on forever.
Don't know how people you directed, or how physical did you connected to the actual objects you were promoting. What actually international achievements or awards you can claim.
How big a box did you work in and how many bosses did you have to dictate to you?
Out with it man!!!!
Apple pie, baseball and hot dogs. That's what is truly American, not some idealized Indian diet from 200 years ago.
Oh, and pizza. Done correctly, not as Italians make it.
You forgot potato salad. Nobody makes it like we do.
Baseball and basketball was invented in Canada.
I thought the American national meal is a hamburger, fries and a coke. Germany started the hamburger, Belgium the fries. I give America the coke, base from a cocaine medicine. Then later came from coke, the invention of North America's Santa Claus, a rip off from Dutch Saint Nicolas.
Hot dog came from Germany, apple pie from England and Dutch. Pizza is Italian. I give America credit for junk food markets and fast food. The greatest killing weapon for humans to date.
From all the international culture event I go to worldwide. The greatest American decency and treasure that's come out of the US. Is the influence of American natives for nature. It's like a one world Religion that 193 countries can agree on.
Native American were a great influence on the American Constitution. Also natural foods that helped the early settlers survive: potatoes, beans, corn, peanuts, pumpkins, tomatoes, squash, peppers, nuts, melons, and sunflower seeds. Plus tinpsula, choke cherries, buffalo berries, wild currants, gooseberries, wild turnips, and corn. From Peru potatoes.
All monotheism Religions can only agree on, is their God is the right God.
Wish I could put all these religious people together to fight it out to the last man. Then non religious can inheritant the earth. Just kidding.
American invented electricity, telephone, automobile, airplanes... and thousands od patents...
Karl Benz from Germany. Many suggest that he created the first true automobile in 1885/1886.
In 1752, Ben Franklin, This simply proved that lightning and tiny electric sparks were the same thing.
Italian physicist Alessandro Volta discovered that particular chemical reactions could produce electricity, and in 1800 he constructed the voltaic pile (an early electric battery) that produced a steady electric current, and so he was the first person to create a steady flow of electrical charge. Volta also created the first transmission of electricity by linking positively-charged and negatively-charged connectors and driving an electrical charge, or voltage, through them.
Allex Graham Bell invented the phone in Canada.
Yes, the right brothers were first with the plane and Thomas Edison was the greatest inventor for industrial connections in modern times history.
Hey, Canada invented America football in 1874 and ice hockey. That seem to cover all the major pro sports. Unless you call golf a sport invented in Scotland.
America invented world protections like NATO for the peaceful proliferation of all the nations you listed as inventors , still bowing to the queen up there in Canada Castle ? Let us know when you get tired of that .
by ga anderson 4 years ago
this is the discussion I have wanted for a long time. Greetings, Old Poolman and when I am done I hope to get the frog out of the prince's throat. _______________________________________________--Excerpt from the link provided here:http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677 Some conservative...
by jiberish 9 years ago
Forget about your party affiliation for a minute and consider your upbringing, and your present views, are you more conservative in your thinking, more liberal, and why? How does this effect your take on the current happenings in Washington. I came from a very strict back ground, I lean...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
What are the ways that American society will become even more liberal, universalist, and enlightenedthan ever before, particularly socio-politically? Do you furthermore strongly contend that conservatism will eventually die out?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Within the next 50 years, do you believe that America will become more conservative or more liberal?Why? Why not?
by Scott Belford 4 days ago
Having taken 10 years to publish my first book, "A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics" (Authorhouse, 2019), I am starting on a second whose working title is "Conservatism in America: History and Impact". This will be a Hub as well.One...
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
Less than half of the Repubs polled by CNN said they might support Palin in 2012. 59% said they might support Romney, and the winner was Huckabee, with 67%So now that these numbers are out, the far-right blogosphere is attacking the Huck, saying he's not conservative enough. I say good - we need a...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|