…[Greg Smith, the CIO at George Fox] said that having to adjust to new technologies — regardless of whether students are likely to want them — gives professors everywhere jitters. “The biggest fear starting to grip [professors] is that… e-textbooks might actually become reality,” Smith said — acknowledging that there are exceptions, but they are the minority. “If you know higher ed, you know that the biggest fear of a professor is having to change how they deliver their course.”…..When Professors Get Their Politics (Inside Higher Ed)
Theories abound about why academics are more liberal than are average citizens. Some blame bias, arguing that conservative scholars are denied positions. Others see self-selection at work, with academe attracting more liberal individuals, while conservatives are more likely to opt for other careers. Still others see some sort of socialization going on in graduate programs or early faculty careers, such that the young academic emerges on the left. And there are numerous other theories.Philippines Commencement Speaker Resigns After Plagiarizing Oprah and Obama (Chronicle of Higher Ed)
One of the leading scholars on the issue has just finished a series of in-depth interviews designed as a preliminary test of the self-selection theory – and the resulting research finds that academics tend to form their political views early in life, backing some theories (including self-selection) but not others.
. . .
In that study, Gross and Fosse noted that some demographic and personal characteristics of professors explain why they are more likely than others to be liberal. For example, professors are more likely than others to have high levels of educational attainment, to experience a disparity between their levels of educational attainment and income, to be either Jewish, non-religious, or members of a faith that is not theologically conservative Protestant, and to have a high tolerance for controversial ideas. While these trends may explain some of the differences politically between academics and others, Gross and Fosse also argued that faculty work may now be "politically typed" in a way that attracts more faculty members from the left than the right -- and that this typing may explain the rest of the gap.
Admitting that passages of his commencement speeches were lifted from several celebrities, one of the Philippines' wealthiest businessmen has resigned as chairman of the board of the elite Ateneo de Manila University, the Philippine Daily Inquirerreported. The March 27 speech, as well as well as Manuel V. Pangilinan's apology, appeared on the university's Web site after accusations of plagiarism surfaced on Facebook. Comparisons revealed that several phrases had been taken from acommencement address delivered by President Obama. In one section of his speech, Mr. Pangilinan managed to use passages from the author J.K. Rowling and the television personalities Oprah Winfrey and Conan O'Brien practically back-to-back.
19 comments:
Any theories about why conservatives, generally speaking, are not funny? The only right wing comedian (and using the term loosely in this instance) is Dennis Miller, who is more of a petulant little prick than anything else.
There have been funny conservatives (Malcolm Muggeridge?), but the familiar "conservatives" of our own time (the politicians, columnists, and talking heads) are not particularly verbally accomplished and do not enjoy the pleasures of good writing, especially writing that is playful, dangerous, or ironic. Why it is that (with few exceptions--though none come to mind) today's "conservatives" do not play with language (atop a mastery of it) is a mystery to me. I suppose that George Will writes well, but he is not funny or lively. He is corpse with mastery of language. A dead and useless thing. --RB
That ain't true. Ever watch Red Eye on FOX? Those guys are very funny IISSM.
What's "IISSM"?
I've never heard of Red Eye on Fox, but I checked out the program via YouTube.
It's funnier (or livelier) than I expected it would be. But, after a few clips, I noticed a tendency on the program to go for mean-spirited humor. Rosie fat jokes. Torture "looks like fun." Two girls and a cup?
So, no, not funny. Not to me. Much of the time, "funny" shows offer a team of characters, but they mustn't be ugly. People who think torture is funny are ugly. People (I don't care who they are) who fixate on their opponents' fatness or unattractiveness are just idiots.
I'm not a fan of Bill Maher. I'm not particularly offended by anything he does (I've seen his show maybe half a dozen times). I don't like his shallowness. I forgive a funnyman (or funnywoman) for shallowness if he understands his shallowness. Such a joker just plays with political icons and phrases and newsbits and mixes his goofitude with them, producing humor, as he might do wandering into, say, a pumpkin patch or outhouse. Maher seems to want to be taken seriously. That kinda pisses me off, 'cuz I don't think he offers any insights--though he occasionally pauses to be applauded for bullshit insights. Who always goes into his "now I'm serious" pose. I dislike his audience (at such times) more than I dislike him. That's why I don't watch his show.
I've never found Dennis Miller to be funny, starting with his SNL gig. It isn't easy being snide and funny. To me, he just seems like a drug casualty who swallowed a College dictionary. He says "eschew" and the rubes think he's a genius. ONe day, he'll refer to "Zoroastrianism," and the rubes will shit out their brains.
I think John Stuart is funny and manages to intimate insight-like perspectives. Pretty impressive, though I can't watch him often.
I have a mystery for you all: why was Bob Hope funny? He was, I think, despite his conservative politics. He wasn't very funny (except in his early pictures), but he was funny. How come?
Was there ever a very funny conservative?
Offensive comics are sometimes hilarious. Sam Kinison's screaming rants always killed me. He seemed like a kind of guy I wouldn't like at all. But the setup and payoff with that scream always killed me anyway.
Some people are great natural clowns. Belushi seemed to be one of those. Maybe that's what Hope had in his heyday. That kind of humor seems usually to be apolitical. Like the best of the Three STooges: no politics at all. But hilarious. Whoo-whoo-whoo-whoo!
Woody Allen has said that Hope was funny because of his perfect sense of timing, sort of like Jack Benny. Hope may have been a conservative politically, but I don't recall his providing polemics on stage.
I disagree about Maher; he has an ability to get right to the heart of issues (especially with the nature of the uninformed, unedcated electorate) and says what needs to be said. Sure he can be pompous, but he is also a voice for rationality.
Hulu has a Charlie Rose segment on the iPad that pretty much says all there is to say. Good segment, full of enthusiasm and whizzbangery. BvT
11:06, I agree that Maher is relatively "rational"--at least compared to most of the competition (God, that's not saying much!), although I think that John Stuart and gang do a far more respectable job with issues, albeit with a very indirect style (a species of satire). Rachel Maddow, who does not claim to be funny, is actually an honest and careful thinker, which puts her not only in a higher league, but in a substantial one.
Have you seen Maher's movie about religion? I've seen several clips, enough to know that the movie presents a Straw Man attack on religion. Now, I'm not religious, but I do think that there are many theists out there that condemn Maher's embrace of sophistry in that movie and do so with justice. In my own view, alleged Voices of Reason who embrace classic fallacies as though they were powerful arguments do more harm than good to their cause. Maher is insubstantial. And I simply cannot forgive his willingness to be the "go to" guy for the likes of Larry King and others if there is a need for a funny "liberal voice of reason." He shows up, willing (evidently) to opine, with great snidery, on everything and anything, as though he is Enlightenment (and humor) itself. I would not mind this if he were to occasionally draw attention to how utterly absurd that is. But I've never seen him do that. Maher is a funnyman who has cornered the market on entertainment for people who took debating in college but who (therefore?) never learned how to approach issues logically and honestly. What we need is a substantial thinker who manages to be charming and entertaining to many. Maddow is too bland, I fear. Stewart is too indirect and embarrassed. I propose kidnapping Stewart, making him bone up on logic and science, and then making him do the Daily Hour and a Half every goddam day. Maher and Miller can do a Punch and Judy show off to the side.
IISSM = If I say so myself.
I don’t think one could really understand Red Eye after watching only a short snippet on the web.
I think Red Eys gives the left’s conventional comedy along with their networks, a run for their money! Finally a refreshing change! You’ll need to watch several full episodes to actually “get it.”
It consists of the leader, Greg Gutfeld and Bill Schultz, his metro sexual sidekick. FYI: Gutfeld harbors a certain affinity for unicorns and fluffy McNutter. They rotate FOX News anchor-babes, my favorite being Patty Ann Brown. They have special guest babes, politicians, pundits, great pro comedians, and the CIA guy. They have Andrew Levi’s pregame, halftime and postgame reports, and my favorite part of the show is Gregg Gutfelds’s “Gregalogue,” which usually ends with, “and if you disagree, you’re probably a racist homophobe.”
Other features are Gutfeld’s self homoeroticism, his gay robots and amusing funny animal clips. The humor is very quick-witted, so you really have to be on your toes to keep up. Watch several episodes then tell us what you think.
Much of this was done much better, and years ago, with Ackroyd and Curtin. "Jane, you ignorant slut." Priceless.
Well, if you take a look at Maher's show on HBO, you'll see that he regularly has a panel of interesting and well spoken people (along with some occasional clunkers) and actual conversations take place, many with vehement disgreements but often with an exchange of interesting points of view. Maher is good at getting to the point and allowing people to finish their thoughts, not like most of the other political presentations that populate cable.
Just took a look at the vaunted "Gregalogue," hoping for some quick witted repartee. Instead, this guy is a cross between O'Reilly and Palin, (and less funny than either one); he just bleats repetitively about how tea partiers are not racist, really, they're not, and they're good old plain folks like you and me.
Remember the line in "Blazing Saddles"? Gene Wilder discusses the average American, the common clay of the country, etc.--"you know, morons." Now, that's funny.
11:23, if you are responding to me (12:29), then you are doing so by ignoring my points. I don’t deny that Maher’s guests are often interesting and well spoken. And I do not deny that these conversations/debates are entertaining. My point is that Maher is logically/intellectually insubstantial and that he should not be offered as an example of how to discuss issues intelligently and honestly. I rested this judgment in part on his embrace of a classic fallacy (“Straw Man”) in his movie about religion. That is, he spent a great deal of time and effort on a contribution to the discourse regarding an important issue, and, at its heart (or at least at many points within it), we find a fallacy of irrelevance. Trained thinkers know that, in entering a controversy, one must find the best of one’s opposition, not the worst. If one is willing to target the always-plentiful sitting (and foolishly yammering) ducks, one can claim victory against any view at all. (Rush Limbaugh’s career is largely based on the same fallacy.)
So are you saying that in a documentary about foolish beliefs and the trolls who use the foolish believers, that exposure of said foolishness is off the table? Are you suggesting that there be, instead, a serious discussion of how Moses could have parted the Red Sea? Maher was not presenting a doucemntary on the funding of Medicare, after all.
12:06, I shall assume that you are addressing me (I'm 11:51). I cannot imagine why you suppose that I am urging a discussion of whether Moses parted the Red Sea. I am not. You defend the practice of pointing at theists and declaring them to be foolish. I suppose I can find a time and place for that, but not as a form of discourse with them.
I have a view about Maher and his film Religulous. I give him and his film low marks because he takes fallacy to be argument. Just now, I viewed a few clips from his movie and from interviews and I find that I have been far too generous with him. He is profoundly unsophisticated. For instance, he often refers to the theist’s belief in a “talking snake” in a garden—often imposing a pregnant pause, to be filled, of course, with the incredulity of “all rational people.” It seems to me that this is an instance of “begging the question.” One does not show a view to be ridiculous by looking at it and reporting that one finds it to be ridiculous. One needs to provide an argument.
But in fact it is by no means clear that the authors of these Biblical tales offered them as documentation of historical events, like newspaper reports. They are literature, and they are very old, and it is by no means clear how they are to be taken and in what spirit they were offered—a point that many theists are prepared to recognize. Does Maher have any idea about this?
Maher views reason in the way the 18th Century intellectual often viewed it: as a simple faculty shared my all humankind. (Any cultures who didn’t see things “rationally” were judged to be benighted and immature.) It is by no means clear that that view is correct, and though I do not endorse the more extreme forms of skepticism here, I do recognize that there are genuine issues about the nature of reason. Does Maher have any idea about these issues?
There are many ways to stand outside of the Academy, and some are more foolish than others I suppose. Bill Maher stands outside but doesn’t bother to find out what actually goes on inside. I suppose that makes him better than the rubes who simply want to burn the place down. It’s hard to say.
Yes, I fondly remember the SNL "point counter-point" paraody with that inevitable "ignorant slut" line. Very funny. For me, what made it work is Akroyd's total commitment to his character--he in no sense winks to the audience; he plays it totally straight. Curtain was good but far less memorable. This bit is a good example of how a momentary joke can be so good that it justifies a great amount of setup, and Jane always provided that setup with a mere simmer, always to be utterly undone by that one hot line--again, delivered with awesome commitment and straightness. No "look at me, I'm funny." As i recall (I could be wrong) the content of these "debates" was always pretty even-handed, politically, not used to make a subtle (or unsubtle) point against conservatives or for liberals, although nobody doubts the liberal slant of that series. There was an unexpressed recognition that the political rhetoric of both liberals and conservatives was, in the end, hyperbolic and even absurd. Nowadays, the bit would be confusing, for the "right" side of the debate would involve remarks indistinguishable from what contemporary conservatives actually say on a daily busis.
"Katie, you ignorant slut." BvT
SHIT! I just thought I posted a long comment here, only to see that it didn't "take."
I'll do it again, vain thing that I am.
MAH
Love this thread of comments! First, 12:02, thanks for Dennis Miller as "petulant little prick." PERFECT! AND TO 12:29: Great proposal about kidnapping John Stewart for remedial training in logic and science, and then making him do 90 minutes a night. (NO ONE is more good-looking, by the way, IMHO.) And BvT, thanks for reminding us of the brilliant Dan Aykroyd's "Jane, you ignorant slut." I use that to this day as the classic ad hominem attack in my classes, and thanks to Hulu, my students actually know the reference! They get it and laugh like hell, too. Also, thanks for any mention of The Three Stooges, whom nobody can top.
How did Curly think of that thing of throwing himself down on the floor, spinning himself around, and saying "whoo-whoo-whoo-WHOO!"? Genius. Has anyone besides me noticed that in the old Seinfeld show, Michael Richards was often doing tributes to Curley? Pretty cool.
Why are there no funny conservatives nowadays?--My little contribution to the topic: self-righteousness and plain meanness do not lend themselves to adult comedy.
MAH
Yeah, Blogger has been hinky lately. Usually, when you think it hasn't taken, it has. IF you give it a few minutes, you can tell. Maybe the world is finally disintegrating. Could be.
MAH, I have found that many comics and actors refer fondly to the Stooges and especially Curly and his antics. Little homages are pretty routine, I think, so I'm sure you're right about Richards. You're wrong about Stewart being so good looking, of course. (Just kidding. I don't get it, is all.) I wasn't the one who brought up Dan Akroyd and the "slut" line--I was responding to someone who had done that. I agreed with his assessment. You're right about some conservatives--they can be pretty self-righteous--but surely there are some conservatives who aren't. W. F. Buckley never struck me as particularly self-righteous. He could be funny, too, though he could be nasty at the same time. Maybe he regretted that. Hope so. I would suggest that Sam Kinison was a kind of conservative--he seemed to be pretty homophobic and into guns, etc. But gawd was he funny. Killed me every time. Hey, I'M CONSERVATIVE! And I've been known to be funny (among friends). --OK, OK. My conservatism doesn't seem to count, I guess. Too eccentric, I guess. (The world is eccentric; I am perfectly centered!) I think the problem is the audience. Conservative people as a mass aren't very open minded and tend to be conventional and corny. Individually, there are plenty of exceptions, I think. But a crowd of 'em is a buzzkill every time. And so a conservative comic has no audience, unless he can count on the open-mindedness of non-conservatives. Fat chance.
Post a Comment