Just in case you missed it, we have yet another tale of Liberal Extremism in Our TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED Universities. The most recent butthurt concerns the outrageous, unthinkable claim in a social work textbook that -- hope you're sitting down, folks -- Ronald Reagan was not much of an advocate for women. More specifically, the furor started with one brave sophomore at the University of South Carolina, Anna Chapman, who was so outraged by passages in her Social Work textbook,
I was actually <i>in</i> social work school during the first couple of years of Reagan&#039;s presidency. The policies advocated by the Reaganauts were given due consideration and vigorous discussion in policy-oriented courses. Far from being simply dismissed, they were subject to serious discussion and evaluation on a level playing field right along with liberal alternatives. This isn&#039;t to imply that they had a lot of fans in the school (they didn&#039;t), but we did take them seriously and we did do some self examination as a result. Despite all the rhetoric that was flying around at the time, the ascendancy of the conservatives didn&#039;t instantly produce drastic changes in social welfare policy. The things that the profession was dealing with reflected changes that had been unfolding for some time.
I well remember one conversation that I had with one of my supervisors at the psychiatric hospital where I happened to be working at the time. He was a Reaganaut true believer, and he told me that I was a fool for choosing to attended grad school in social work. He said that Reagan&#039;s policies were going to cause social work to cease to exist as a viable profession within the next five years, so I was wasting my time and money studying for it. Subsequently I went on to have a 25-year career in the profession.
Now that organized help for people or even the study of how may need help in our country is under suspect it may be time to consider how America is run. The poor are obviously to blame for their conditions so they should receive nothing at all. The people at the top create everything so they are in effect monarchs. The richest and most powerful undoubtedly get their rights from God to rule in His place and the lesser wealthy should pledge allegiance to the higher royalty. To keep the unwashed toiling in their jobs and content enough or afraid enough not to challenge the established order we need a religious institution to create rewards and punishments for the non-royals. This institution would of course work with the rulers to their mutual benefit. I&#039;m surprised this hasn&#039;t been tried any where before.
No kidding. I was actually in college while Reagan was in office for the first term.
My experience with 19-year-olds is that they are just maybe starting to think for themselves and most of their political enunciations are either parroting parental beliefs, or are designed to be completely opposite parental beliefs.
Which college? There were plenty of young Tories at mine, although the party on &#039;97 election night is something I&#039;ll never forget, especially the cheer from the guy in Portillo&#039;s constituency when it was announced he lost.
Would it be possible for Wonkette to have a weekly (or less frequently) collection of butt-hurt from the full spectrum of hyper sensitive twits around the world ? I refer to this sort of thing as &quot;Le Cri du Butt-hurt&quot; .
Ah yes there&#39;s the difference. I was at Trinity, amongst a large contingent of Public School toffs, some of whom were actually cool, some were unbearable.
Maybe she is getting degree in Social Work so she can tell those slacking poors to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop complaining. She can work for a for profit religion based agency. And yes, I know &quot;for profit private sector religion based agency&quot; is redundant.
It&#039;s the textbook author who has the hyphenated last name.
&quot;the staging ground for debates of one doctrine vs. another, regardless of their closeness to truth, practicality, overall humanity&quot;
Or, as Fox News puts it, &quot;fair and balanced.&quot;
And let&#039;s not forget Reagan&#039;s most outstanding woman appointee, That Fuck Jeane Kirkpatrick, originator of this handy definition:
Totalitarian = badguys we are not in bed with Authoritarian = totalitarians we are in bed with
I&#039;m going to assume that Ms. Chapman is not planning to pursue a career in social work.
Which is a good thing all around, so there&#039;s that.
I was actually <i>in</i> social work school during the first couple of years of Reagan&#039;s presidency. The policies advocated by the Reaganauts were given due consideration and vigorous discussion in policy-oriented courses. Far from being simply dismissed, they were subject to serious discussion and evaluation on a level playing field right along with liberal alternatives. This isn&#039;t to imply that they had a lot of fans in the school (they didn&#039;t), but we did take them seriously and we did do some self examination as a result. Despite all the rhetoric that was flying around at the time, the ascendancy of the conservatives didn&#039;t instantly produce drastic changes in social welfare policy. The things that the profession was dealing with reflected changes that had been unfolding for some time.
I well remember one conversation that I had with one of my supervisors at the psychiatric hospital where I happened to be working at the time. He was a Reaganaut true believer, and he told me that I was a fool for choosing to attended grad school in social work. He said that Reagan&#039;s policies were going to cause social work to cease to exist as a viable profession within the next five years, so I was wasting my time and money studying for it. Subsequently I went on to have a 25-year career in the profession.
Hmmmm, where have I seen that particular image of saint Ronnie before?
Oh yea! <a href="http://www.shadowlocked.com..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/featur...">http://www.shadowlocked.com...
Now that organized help for people or even the study of how may need help in our country is under suspect it may be time to consider how America is run. The poor are obviously to blame for their conditions so they should receive nothing at all. The people at the top create everything so they are in effect monarchs. The richest and most powerful undoubtedly get their rights from God to rule in His place and the lesser wealthy should pledge allegiance to the higher royalty. To keep the unwashed toiling in their jobs and content enough or afraid enough not to challenge the established order we need a religious institution to create rewards and punishments for the non-royals. This institution would of course work with the rulers to their mutual benefit. I&#039;m surprised this hasn&#039;t been tried any where before.
What do her parents give, exactly ? Lectures berating other people and donations to their pastor&#039;s mega-chuch building fund?
Of course. She&#039;s a conservative.
Trade Guilds also
No kidding. I was actually in college while Reagan was in office for the first term.
My experience with 19-year-olds is that they are just maybe starting to think for themselves and most of their political enunciations are either parroting parental beliefs, or are designed to be completely opposite parental beliefs.
Which college? There were plenty of young Tories at mine, although the party on &#039;97 election night is something I&#039;ll never forget, especially the cheer from the guy in Portillo&#039;s constituency when it was announced he lost.
Would it be possible for Wonkette to have a weekly (or less frequently) collection of butt-hurt from the full spectrum of hyper sensitive twits around the world ? I refer to this sort of thing as &quot;Le Cri du Butt-hurt&quot; .
Ah yes there&#39;s the difference. I was at Trinity, amongst a large contingent of Public School toffs, some of whom were actually cool, some were unbearable.
Maybe she is getting degree in Social Work so she can tell those slacking poors to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop complaining. She can work for a for profit religion based agency. And yes, I know &quot;for profit private sector religion based agency&quot; is redundant.
Cuts at the Kremlin so bad they&#039;re using the same cover identity?
I buy it.