Employees of America's oldest college, Harvard, have given 97 percent of their donations this presidential election cycle to the Kerry campaign and about three percent to the reelection effort of George W. Bush. At America's second oldest college, William & Mary, employees have given 100 percent of their donations to John Kerry. The uniform support of John Kerry by college professors and administrators, as my article on NewsMax demonstrates, evokes the lopsided vote tallies in Castro's Cuba or Hussein's Iraq. Folks, where's the diversity?

Great article.

Excellent offering in NewsMax Dan.

Seems like Dan Rather would fit right in. In fact, the 'Intellectual Ghetto' is probably where he'll end up as they will be the only ones to have him.

97% at Harvard & 100% at William & Mary give money to a man who's only consistent positions involve raising taxes and not supporting the military. What more does one need to know about academia today?

You people are sad.

Say something substantive DB.

And . . . . begin,

Where's the libertarian perspective that people who work at Harvard should be allowed to give to whoever they damn please?

There is a well established link between one's level of education and thier party affiliation. People who have graduate degrees and higher vote democratic at a greater rate then those who don't. Don't blame "liberal bias" for the fact that well-educated people are more capable of discerning the issues and making reasoned choices.

Conservatism is the religion of the ignorant, uneducated peasants, who are too afraid to offend thier diety, GW Bush, to think clearly.

DB,

Stop swearing in your posts.

Academia is a haven for losers who can't deal with real life. At least that's what it was like at my college. Most of the profs I had wouldn't last five minutes outside of a university setting.

I think we all know what "DB" stands for! This guy is a troll, all his posts should be deleted. He's been asked several times to refrain from using profanity, yet continues to do so. 86 this loser.

DB is a typical p'ed off immature liberal who can't control himself.

They talk about supporters of the Right being Angry White Men??!!

Most of the lefties are out there on the lunatic fringe.

A dissenting and opposite point of view can be refreshing and challenging. But most of the leftists eventually resort to swearing or calling you the 'ist' or 'phobe' of the day when they can't make headway with their arguments when confronted with that dirty word: FACTS!

Tedious man.

That's right. Steal the presidency, yet fiegn indignant when someone uses a four letter word. People are dying in Iraq thanks to losers like you who voted for Bush, but that's not an outrage. It's an outrage to type the collocquial word for excrement into a computer.

I fail to see the logic.

DB,

Search engines track foul language and characterize sites that contain too much of it on "adult"--the result of which is that those sites become forbidden within certain computer systems at offices, homes, and elsewhere. There are people who go to the comments board of sites they don't like and intentionally insert a lot of swear words in their posts to harm those sites. I'm not accusing you of doing this, but realize that my site will be harmed--through loss of traffic--if people continue to use foul language. Stop swearing or you are going to have to frequent another comment board.

I think it was the use of For unlawful carnal knowledge that raised the eyebrows. I bet that less than half of the people on this site have voted or would vote for Bush. If you took the time to read some of these posts before you started talking like Luther Cambell, you would realize that many are against the war.

Dan, you could move to a system where you have to register in order to post. That way you could ban unruly users, and even IP addresses, to control the content. (this may come back to haunt me, though)

Thanks, Homer. I can control the content right now. I have the power to change anyone's post, delete, anyone's post, or ban any IP address. I delete spam, but other than that I've pretty much chosen not to exercise any of these powers since I'd like--as much as possible--an uninhibited conversation occurring on the comments board. So, I make the announcement about the swearing in an effort for people to police themselves. If they can't, I may decide that I've had enough--as swearing hurts site traffic because of family-friendly ISP's banning the viewing of sites that have too many swear words--and ban users that can't control the words they use in their posts. Everyone: let's not let it get to that point. Stop swearing. Police yourselves.

DB, what are you talking about? What are you reading? Who is saying people who work at Harvard shouldn't be allowed to give to whoever they please.

"Where's the libertarian perspective that people who work at Harvard should be allowed to give to whoever they damn please?"

"Libertarian perspective"? Take a sec and think about what you might be trying to say. The author simply stated that academia is very liberal, which you have said is untrue, but when you seem to suggest and conceed that Harvard may indeed give all of their money to liebarals, you say that it's matter of them giving to who they damn well please. Well they can and they do, all to liberals.

The same goes for your take on Bush and Iraq. When Bush's policy is to go to war in Iraq, and the claims of WMD's you seem ot call Bush a liar, but has those same policies and same WMD claims, it's a matter of opinion for him.

I like how you attempt to offer a scientifically demonstrable way to explain intelligence as it relates to liberal/conservative leanings. Good one, it's par for your course.

Say something substantive take 2, and . . . begin.

Actually, forget it, just start swearing . . .

First off Dan, I didn't realize it was such a problem for you. I'll refrain from swearing in the future.

Now Finbar, I never argued that Acedemics didn't have a liberal bias. I argued that such a bias shouldn't matter because its not institutionalized. It's not as if Harvard refuses to hire conservitive faculty! Two things make it so that there are more liberals in acedmeia. One, people with conservative bents usually prefer to go to work in the private sector, while those with a liberal bent prefer to work in government or acedemia. This isn't a conspiracy!! Right wing beliefs value private enterprise and making a buck. Left wing beliefs value cooperation and active government. It isn't surprising that the conservatives go into bussiness and liberals go into education. These professions fit thier beliefs. ITS NOT A CONSPIRACY!!!

As to your arguement about Bush, I have to say that the one you put forth is the most poorly thought-out, poorly constructed, and poorly articulated argument I have ever had the pleasure of rebutting here on this forum. A professor at Harvard has every right to give his money away recklessly to whoever he pleases because ITS HIS MONEY!!! George Bush is more than just and individual he is the Pesident of the United States. HE SPENDS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY!!! As such, he his held to a higher standard of accountability , just like CEO's as they handle thier investors' money. Georege Bush may be an individual, but when he goes to war he is acting on behalf of the entire nation, and therefore his actions are not "opnions" that he is "entitled to" they are an expression of the people's will. Don't campare apples to oragnges. And don't you ever put such a debasing, simple-minded, narrow argument before me again.

If you care to rebutt, you're welcome. But I highly doubt your ability to do so.

You have no clue what you're talking about. about academia. Yes it is institutionalized because they don't hire conservatives. You have a pretty remdial understanding of the dynamic in academia as the whole "oh Conservatives = private sector" explanation shows. I really haven't offered any articualted arguement as you can see I've simply called you out on your inconsistencies. I just want to know what it felt like supporting a pro-war candidate who has a record of being hawkish on Saddam. Kerry's your guy. I'm simply calling you out. I'm glad this excercise is giving you intellectual stimulation I guess. Nonetheless, you have never offered a substantive point on this website., and you won't. I'm beginning to think that your increasingly annoying and intellectually bankript presence on this site in recent weeks, and juvenille arguing ability is fortuitous insofar as it coincides with the release of the author's new book, Intellectual Morons. Keep entertaining us, and yourself.

Thanks for awnsering the question.

You didn't ask a question. I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. . .

As for comparing apples to oranges, do you think that comparing a professor's political contributions to federal spedning is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. You're the one comparing the two. I never compared the two. I simply made a couple of observations on your angry, ranting posts.

You're simply wrong about liberal academia and now you're insconsistent. You're supporting a loosing candidate too.

--article--

INSIDE THE BELTWAY
By John McCaslin
Published September 24, 2004

Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned. -end-

You're right.

Because you say you are.