She bobs and weaves better than I ever did *g*.
Monthly Archives: January 2013
because he posted this.
If you still advocate for background checks for firearms I can only think of two possibilities:
- You have a motive other than reducing the misuse of firearms.
- You also get confused when your caretaker is reading Dr. Seuss books to you.
What’s not to like about that? Go read the whole post – as usual he makes sense.
often go together like oil and water. If you don’t want to be critiqued don’t publish or present. Except, of course, that in today’s tenure-based publish-or-perish environment that isn’t an option. Perhaps growing a thicker skin (and paying some more attention to how the internet works *g*) might help.
Accuracy in Academia post: “You can find unparalleled wisdom at the Modern Language Association (MLA). Unfortunately, it is usually presented in the type of jargon English professors like to use.”
I’ve railed against the use of academicspeak many, many times.
English Professor’s response: “A colleague sent me your little article…The anti-intellectualism is of a very common sort. I won’t comment on that. But as a journalist perhaps you value thorough research. I was speaking to a group of academics at MLA for whom these terms mean something…“Are you at least consistent in your opposition to specialized language? Do you, for instance, complain about the language that physicists use in their technical papers?…Best of luck with this simple ax you wish to grind and grind.”
A: he is not a physicist (I’ll give the math types their technical language as a necessity – the humanities, not so much), B: neurocosmopolites and neuropostcoloniality ARE NOT WORDS, and C: If you don’t want to be critiqued don’t publish or present.
What is often labeled as “anti-intellectualism” can many times be better characterized as “use plain language, you overly prolix pedant”.
I’ve heard it said many times that academics take everything so seriously because there is so very little at stake ;-).
though I’d have to read Popehat’s entire archive to be sure *g*.
H/T to Peter.
that was the definition of a democratic republic. Wait – let me check…yup, I was right. The public elects representatives who are empowered to – wait for it – REPRESENT their constituents’ interests.
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they’re really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,”
THAT’S THEIR JOB. Representing their constituencies. I, for one, will actively work to vote out any elected official from my district that doesn’t work to represent my best interests. I’m also pretty vocal about contacting them when they do something I don’t approve of (I try to remember to do the same when they do something I DO approve of – need to be more proactive about that).