Palin essay assignment stirs uproar at Metro
Cbs4 News
Published September 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Metropolitan State College of Denver is investigating an instructor who asked students to write an essay critical of Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska's governor.
One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.
"I was shocked. I was 'Holy cow, this is just an open door for him to discuss politics with us,' " said Jana Barber, a student in the class.
Barber shared the assignment with CBS4 on Wednesday. Instructor Andrew Hallam asked students in an English course to write an essay to contradict what he called the "fairy tale image of Palin" presented at the Republican National Convention. Hallam declined an interview with CBS4 News on Thursday.
"The faculty's responsibility is to provide opportunity for critical thinking and civic engagement, so bringing something of relevancy into the classroom was the faculty's goal," said Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for Metro State. "Should he have broadened it and included all the political figures? Yes."
Metro State officials said they are investigating claims of bias, harassment and bullying.
Hallam is in his first semester at Metro State.
A former student of Hallam's e-mailed CBS4 on Thursday and said he could understand how the professor's style could be misunderstood. Hallam often picked a topic for students and asked them to write from a specific viewpoint as an exercise in critical thinking, the student's e-mail said. Hallam has since revised the assignment. Students may now write about any of the candidates.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 19, 2008
5:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hambone writes:
Probably a bad idea for the professor. I think that this little girl is ridiculous as well. It's college, not high school. Instead of running to the media how about talking to the chair of the department or the dean?
September 19, 2008
5:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
This first-semester prof clearly made a mistake, but the "innocent student" in this article is more correctly identified in the Denver Post as a conservative activist from a family of same.
Hallam's assignment was silly, but the opening it gave the Davey Horowitz thought police for fresh pearl-clutching hysterics is not.
September 19, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lemmingsfollowidiots writes:
As always the Lemmings on the Left blame the dang conservative for voicing her concern about a teachers injecting their political beliefs into school work that affects grades and futures. But lets blame that dang conservative to standing up to the idiot that can't keep their personal opinions out of their job.
Of course if it was a conservative teacher asking the lefty lemmings to write about what a fairy tale Obama's vote for me because I'm black campaign you all would be foaming at the mouth. Keep following the racist malcontent community communist organizer right over the cliff of ignorance!
September 19, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
marine76 writes:
The Messiah!
September 19, 2008
6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
"The Messiah!"
John McCain and Sara Palin
September 19, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
DahmersCookbook writes:
"Fairy tale rhetoric of (word artist-freshmen) Hussein". The instructor could have gone the other way just as easily. Lesson: 'Metro' is full of refuse, CSU or bust in CO!
September 19, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Kid went to the media because you can bet the farm it would have been covered up. where do these colleges get fanatics like this? I'd make it this guys last semester.
September 19, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
I don't think he should have changed the assignment. I often ask students to take a viewpoint and argue for it. As for the "ridicule" Republican students received- that is very subjective. These are college students- grow up- if you can't handle hearing someone disagree with your political viewpoint AND/OR if you are unable to even consider a different viewpoint you probably shouldn't be in college.
September 19, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
nicolec- "I often ask students to take a viewpoint and argue for it" I challenge you to ask your students to write a paper on why Mr. Obama is unqualified to be President. On why his only 'major' qualification is being black, and then ridicule the "progressive" students for disagreeing with that position. Then see if they don't go running to a higher authority than your small courtroom.
You liberals are lemmings, you have no idea outside your own worldview. You're not tolerant, you're bigoted but sadly, you don't see it.
September 19, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mighty_Mile writes:
Can someone translate what YIOTA_LIVES for me? He needs to go take some writing classes at metro so he can learn to express his retarded opinions better.
September 19, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mighty_Mile writes:
Lemmingsfollowidiots- that's rich comparing liberals to lemmings. You're clever. You should teach creative writing at metro.
"the cliff of ignorance"- amazing stuff. Have you been published?
September 19, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
it would be nice if republicans actually used Critical thinking skills when assessing the Palin/McCain ticket... (Thats how she referred to it yesterday) as if you use critical thinking skills, you can not find a reason to vote for this band of incompetence. incompetence that rivals and even surpasses the current administration.
September 19, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
If they were asked to write an essay on the "fairytale image" of Barack Obama, the professor would have been fired. He would have also been called a racist for insinuating that Obama (who is black) is a fairytale character in which we all know are "white" characters. If you call him a fairytale figure you are in effect calling him an uncle tom or insinuating that black people can't have fairytale lives. The list of things people can read racism into could go on forever.
Obama played his race card. Palin should be allowed to play her female card. All's fair in mudslinging political races right?
As for the professor, welcome to the reverse world of politics. We have heard for at least a year now ,that anyone who criticizes or asks a question of Obama harder than, Do you think your Mom would be smiling at you right now?, is a racist.
Now the Republicans have their candidate that if you ask hard questions of gives them a reason to play the "gender" card. Not as powerful as the "race" card, but very strong.
In this strange political climate. Anything you say will be held against you and twisted. I have never in my life seen PC used so outrageously. Sheer madness.
September 19, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
Oh_Wise_One- I'd have no problem with that assignment- and it has nothing to do with my politics but rather with my desire to help my students develop critical thinking skills. Students are more likely to become critical thinkers/decision makers when we ask them to discuss a variety of issues and viewpoints. I often play devils advocate in class- which entails sometimes arguing in favor of something I am not personally for.
If that makes me a lemming I suppose I need to rethink the definition of the word.
September 19, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Big-D. You are right on the money. I had to argue the conservative economic point in an economics class in college tought by a conservative proffessor. As a liberal I hated it, but I did not go whining to the dean or the media about it. Not only that it turned out to be a tremendous learning opportunity. The conservative thinkers in the class were asked to argue in favor of the liberal line of thought. I'm sure they hated it also, but I'm also sure they learned a tremendous amount themselves. I can tell you that even though we all disagreed, we walked away from the class with at least an understanding we did not have before. It's called education, critical thinking and learning. This spoiled little college girl needs to get over it and complete her assignment. Granted this proffessor was one sided, but she will find one down the road who is a conservative that will ask some spoiled little liberal kid to do the same, so she needs to get over it.
September 19, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
LuvAmerica writes:
"White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action."
"White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re 'untested.'"
-Tim Wise
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/...
September 19, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
peter303 writes:
This article is a little confusing because "critical" has two meanings. First is rhetorical- that is cite arguments for and against a topic and defend a thesis. Second is to be critical is to be negative.
The first meaning is proprer and welcome in a classroom, while the second meaning is not.
September 19, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
Conservatives don't believe in critical thinking. They believe one thing was written, they believe it and that settles it. Typical narrow mindedness.
September 19, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Conservative means, profit is privatized, failure and bankruptcy is socialized.....
September 19, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
Simply, the good professor should have employed some "critical thinking skills" when designing the assignment. Because he didn't, it appears that pushing his political agenda was his actual goal.
According to accounts, Republicans in the class were asked to identify themselves and then another "critical thinker" in the class directed the F-bomb at them. The professor "smiled" according to the account, but said nothing.
"If those darn Republicans could ever possibly employ an ability to critically think they would be Democrats, and achieve enlightenment."
September 19, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Retread; It's sad but unfortunately, I bekiev your statment is basically correct. What we are seeing is socialism in reverse. The American tax payer is paying for the unrepentant unregulated greed of Wall Street. The only bennefit the taxpayer will see is a short term protection of his/her retirement. There is no way this much money can be printed without devalueing the dollar even more and inflation rising. This is the Rothschild book of economics. The extremely wealthy will weather the storm and get even wealthier from this while the rest of the country will suffer.
September 19, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Here's yet another instructor (probably tenured & incompetent) who is using his pulpit to pontificate an agenda to a captured audience...rather than teaching English.
The school should fire Andrew Hallam. Until bold actions are taken, this kind of nonsense will continue.
September 19, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
LuAmerica,
What percentage of college freshmen actually are successful through their first semester? Many don't have the maturity and self-discipline to handle the freedom of college. How many who grow up, finish their education and become successful should be held accountable through the rest of their lives for teenage and early 20's immaturity?
I guess it might be quality of experience. Obama might have experience, but his choice of associates makes me suspect of what he now owes them and how he intends to repay them if elected president.
Palin's asset is that she has not been a patsy of a huge political machine.....yet, and appears to hold on to some values that don't change as a result of some new opinion poll. She publicly disagrees over ANWR with McCain. Pull the string and Biden mouths Obama and the Democratic party-line.
September 19, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Why is this at all surprising? When the faculty and administration is 95% liberal, this sort of assignment is standard operating procedure.
Take my advice kid - transfer to a REAL college.
September 19, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Too bad she didn't quote Sandra Bernhard calling for Sarah Palin to be "gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers". She probably would have got extra credit for that one from this pasty-faced, hack professor.
Welcome to the new low in this campaign:
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/...
September 19, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
any facts to support your "95% liberal" stat cowboy? Or just spouting off again.
dumb, biased and probably soon to be unemployed professor and a media grabbing kid looking for attention to make a political point. No good guys here, just a bunch of posturing.
And just one pointmtnsjohn, McCain campaign is run by old school corporate lobbyists and Palin's is run by former Bush staffers. Those associations do not fill me with confidence either.
September 19, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Allseasonsfan writes:
Everybody is clammering for change. Change Washington! You expect your leaders to change but take no accountability in the process yourself. People on the right, admit that this could be just a critical thinking paper. People on the left, admit that there is bias in our colleges and that critical thinking does not have to be political, unless your in a political science class.
People on the right, most people on the left are not anti-american pro socialist. They are hard working Americans.
People on the left, most conservatives are not the religeous right that you portray. They are hard working Americans.
I recently saw a Obama commercial calling for real change, and that means both sides coming together. McCain has be calling for this too. We have an enemy right now just a big as the Nazi's or the Japanese in WWII, it is ourselves. It's time to stop the finger pointing and the blame game and get to work on the future!
September 19, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
r0ckyAurora writes:
This crap is why I don't want to raise taxes on oil wells to help "higher" education. Too many profs are "high" enough already.
The names Churchill, Bennish, and my kid's HS "history" teacher come to mind when I read this.
September 19, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverbulldog writes:
I’d say that part of a college level writing class should be learning how to argue a point you necessarily don’t agree with. Learning the ins and outs of the other side of an argument will only help you to solidify your argument. It’s a common assignment for a class that is taught all over the country in freshman year. As long as the prof switches up the political views throughout the class, I see no problem with the assignment.
September 19, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
bph writes:
I say write the paper and laugh the whole time you are writing things you disagree with. Let the professor think you are a flaming liberal and get the "A" you are paying for. I had the same thing happen when I was in college. I wrote some of the most obsurd things that played into the profs twisted liberal views. I got an A and laughed all the way to graduation.
September 19, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Geez...did any of you NEVER go to college and take a class like this where you were asked to write an essay from a specific viewpoint..even if it wasn't one you agreed with?
I sure did.
For example, I was assigned to write an essay that supported the overturning of Roe v Wade, even though I consider myself to be pro-choice.
As the other student pointed out..it's an exercise in critical thinking. It teaches you to consider all sides of an issue so that you can better prepare your own arguments in support of your own positions.
Seems to me like the student, Jana Barber, is the one with an agenda here. I hope other students have the integrity and sense to come to this teacher's defense since Barber obviously doesn't.
September 19, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
This kind of story brings out the right wing dopes like nothing except a good race story. Like Pavlov's dogs, they woof and howl on cue, caring not a wit for context, or evidence, or (particularly) the adult notion that there may be more than one perspective on any given matter. As conditioned to do, they raise known villains like Obama, ask "what if" he were the topic, and then speculate about outcomes, throwing in whatever fantasy about law they can think of to support their conclusion. All in the cause of the very juvenile notion that this, like anything else, is about us v. them.
Some people need to grow up, get with reality, and stop turning every picayune matter into a war between the left and right.
The students are there to learn how to think and argue, not to be coddled on whatever pet views they hold.
Ironically, the instructor's assignment appears to be about media. Maybe we should all be doing the assignment.
September 19, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
All the rants from people claiming liberal bias...I would venture that none of you ever went to college..or at least didn't pay attention while you were there.
Well, like I already said..anyone who has taken classes like this has had similar assignment.
The teacher takes a current topic and asks everyone to write an essay from a specific viewpoint.
For some it's easy because they support that viewpoint.
For some it's harder, because they have an opposing viewpoint.
When the assignment is complete there is usually a class discussion where everyone explains their essays.
Interestingly enough, it's often the people who are opposed to the topic viewpoint who come up with the more reasonable arguments because if they take the assignment seriously they approach it from a logical point of view rather than a passionate one.
This isn't some liberal conspiracy..no matter how much some of you would like it be so that you can continue to play your victim card.
But if education truly is a liberal bastion as some of you insist..which I don't believe..what does that tell all of you?
That people who invest their lives in learning and thinking are more likely to be more open minded.
And the flip side of that is that people who don't invest in learning and thinking...are NOT.
lib·er·al
. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
September 19, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
DC82 writes:
Clearly the issue here is not that the professor asked students to write from a specific viewpoint, whether they agreed with it or not. The issue is that the professor chose a topic that is clearly biased and politically motivated. If the professor had made the assignment to write an essay critical of a candidate and left the choosing of that candidate up to the students, that would have been fine. Had this been the other way around and the assignment was to write critically of Obama, you better believe that the liberals would be outraged. This student had every right to call attention to this professor and his biased teaching strategy. Good for her for standing up for her beliefs and her right to an education free from political bias, especially at a state funded college.
September 19, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Okay, it may benefit college kids to learn how to argue for a point they don't personally agree with. Then when they're blogging someplace like this, they can anticipate their opponents' arguments, and set them up to eviscerate them. Very useful. ;-)
But these are voting-age students, the election is imminent and undecided, and the instructor has authority over the students. The instructor showed bad judgement and bias, and from reading other students' comments yesterday, apparently it is consistently one-sided, liberal bias. This is intellectual laziness on his part, and he should be evaluated accordingly.
September 19, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
davies, I held pretty conservative views through many years of undergrad and grad school in the liberal arts and never once did I feel picked on by an instructor. But, then (80s and 90s), not everything was framed as a war between liberals and conservatives, and Horowitz hadn't yet come up with his business model and I just wasn't aware of how unfair the classroom could be.
September 19, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Also, when I was in college, I didn't assume I knew everything. Still don't.
September 19, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
rdmartin writes:
Gee, we wouldn't want people doing any critical thinking during a close election, would we. The power mongers might not get the outcome they want. Shudder....
September 19, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jvb writes:
Palin, who says: "I told Congress, 'thanks but no thanks,' is a lie on the bridge to nowhere, still she keeps the $millions sent her: that is theft. The odd couple: One hates pork; the other loves pork. The piggish one alludes to the Iraq war as a "task from God;" while, the old guy alluded to as an American hero for fighting in a war similar to Iraq, an illegal war, dropped bombs on babies and was captured and tortured as a baby killer. Someone explain how hero status is attached. ~~~ "McCain’s "horseplay" cost the lives of a hundred and thirty four sailors on my aircraft carrier http://www.n-n-a.com/recreational/pto... " ~~~ I am anxious for Palin's email to become public so I will learn of more lies and theft, e.g. does she brag about not paying taxes on her per diem pay from the State for staying home? Whereas, I don't care if she got pregnant at age 17 without benefit of clergy. Clergy is composed of pedophiles called by god to mouth his words and will. Let the Pentecostal extremist Christians resolve sin. I side with the professor's assignment essay on Palin/McCain candidacy for President in which she now describes McCain as the Vice Presidential candidate.
September 19, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
while it may be easy and amusing to ridicule folks who base their votes on "feelings" rather than facts...this prof should have given the students a choice between biden and palin.
September 19, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
"Jana Barber is the sister of Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for the conservative Liberty Counsel legal organization. Until June, Matt Barber held a similar title with Concerned Women for America, another conservative Christian organization."
Hmm...wonder why the Rocky didn't feel that this information was relevant to the story?
September 19, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Well, the RMN's editor, as long as I can remember, has been highly critical of whatever goes on in the universities. Maybe those views are being projected on this story.
September 19, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
As a Metro graduate ('97), I know exactly what happened here. The class is the first of two mandatory freshman English courses, in which students write several 3-5 page papers that state and argue a thesis. (The second course is a 10 page research paper.)
Mr. Hallam is a contract instructor, probably a recent graduate with an MA in English. He is no "professor" and has little chance to get on the tenure track at Metro. Because Metro has a wide variety of students, with an especially large body of older students, instructors are generally more prudent about bringing their biases into such general studies classes where they might face rather strident disagreement. This is Mr. Hallam's first course at Metro and it is unlikely that his contract will be continued.
This ought to be a learning moment for everybody. As some have commented here, it would have been different, and more courageous, if Mr. Hallam had directed the students to criticize the fairy tale of Senator Obama. (Didn't Bill Clinton use exactly the same rhetoric?) Of course, the left would have decried the racism. But, many on the right would have applauded, and would have said exactly what some have said on this forum: "Grow up!"
What disturbs me about this story is not that the instructor gave the assignment, he has some difficulty finding topics that excite the little darlings. That he apparently joined the vocal majority in browbeating the minority in an institution of higher learning suggests just the kind of group-think that academic freedom is supposed to innoculate us against.
Even as we cheer/complain about which ox is being gored, we stand by and allow ever more aspects of our public life become politicized. Even worse, it's not a politics of ideas that afflicts us, but one of partisanship and personality. My team rules, your team suks; my guy's cool, your guy's a loser.
Mr. Hallam just learned the lesson that you can't casually disregard the opinions of people that disagree with you. I would suggest that posters to forum take a moment and ponder ...
September 19, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Freaknut19 writes:
Kudos to this student. I graduated from Metro State last year, and while in one of my English classes was asked to write a similar essay about President Bush. I choose to take the essay down my own path and write about good that he has done. Needless to say, I received a bad grade.
It sickens me that colleges and so onesided, and that students must adhere to the styles and viewpoints of the professors.
Communistic University, here we come.
September 19, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
This story should prompt everyone to vote "NO" on Amendment 58 which is Gov. Ritter's proposal to tax the oil and gas industries to the tune of $ 321 million and send it over to the state's higher education system to subsidize leftists like this guy. Just say "no" to this outrageous liberal bias at our colleges by voting no, no and no on Amendment 58.
Tell all your friends and relatives to vote NO.
Excerpts below from the Pueblo Chieftain:
Governor proposes $321 million tax increase
By PAM S UCKLA and JOE REORDA
Amendment 58 is a $321 million tax increase that would seriously disrupt our local property tax base, impair the ability of local governments to deliver important services and result in higher fuel and heating costs for all of us.
This proposal will harm the numerous Colorado school districts that depend on the property tax base in our energy-producing counties.
Gov. Bill Ritter and his fellow Amendment 58 proponents claim that it simply does away with an old tax subsidy for oil and gas that was created in the 1977. A few days ago, a bipartisan group of nine legislators from the 1977 General Assembly stood up and warned the proponents behind Amendment 58 that their subsidy argument was factually inaccurate.
The truth is that Amendment 58 alters a critical piece of the state tax code, in place for decades, to stabilize the property tax base in a thousand taxing districts across Colorado.
Will the industry leave Las Animas County if Amendment 58 passes? Of course not. But we believe they will cut back production. Without doubt, the local economy will be hurt; schools will struggle to cut back their classroom budgets while local homeowners and businesses face a tax increase to partially make up the difference.
And who pays the $321 million severance tax increase? Certainly not the oil and gas companies; they’ll just push it off to all of us.
Already we’re seeing the high cost of energy turn into higher prices at the pump. Xcel Energy announced a record number of 72,000 customer shutoffs this year for Coloradans who are already struggling to pay their utility bills. Everyone knows how we’re paying more for groceries now because of the high cost of energy.
Now they want us to pay more - $321 million more. And for those in Southern Colorado, they’re making us pay twice.
We say enough is enough. A tax is a tax.
No on Amendment 58.
Pam S Uckala of Cortez, Colo., is president of the State Board of Education and Joe Reorda is mayor of Trinidad.
September 19, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Redneck_Joe writes:
i luv mccane and that purty yung thang from alaska.
she is qualified to give wether reports about rusha, cuz she can see them on the other side of the oshen.
sara, you keep tellin em "thanks, but no thanks" about that bridge to nowhere, cuz if you repeat it often enuf people will start to think it's the truth.
an don't you worry none about troopergate, jus cuz family feuds can get real nasty.
don't worry about explain'in yur forin travel experience either. i pee'd in a river once, that carried down to the gulf of mexico, so i tell all my buddies that i've been all over the carribean.
maw says to say yee haw from colorado springs!
September 19, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
anderson writes:
"This kind of story brings out the right wing dopes like nothing except a good race story. Like Pavlov's dogs, they woof and howl on cue, caring not a wit for context, or evidence, or (particularly) the adult notion that there may be more than one perspective on any given matter. As conditioned to do, they raise known villains like Obama, ask "what if" he were the topic, and then speculate about outcomes, throwing in whatever fantasy about law they can think of to support their conclusion. All in the cause of the very juvenile notion that this, like anything else, is about us v. them."
So, you deplore 'us vs. them' partisanship. But read what you write. You show no evenhandedness whatsoever; you rip and belittle only one side's viewpoint. "Like Pavlov's dogs" is a trite and tired, pseudo-intellectual put down, meant to convey contempt. You're just as "us vs. them" as anyone.
No need to reply; we get it. You're completely right, and we're all completely wrong.
September 19, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
screamin_mimi1969 writes:
Excuse me, but I'd like to point out here that Palin and Obama are not counterparts in this election, despite Sarah Palin's "Palin and McCain" slip. Sarah Palin is running for vice-president, and her equivalent in that race is actually Joe Biden. Obama is running for president against John McCain. That said, it sounds as if this instructor was merely offering his students some experience in debate. How can we know that his next assignment was not to be to write a critical essay about Joe Biden? Then Obama? Then McCain? College (if we can afford it) offers us the opportunity of healthy challenges to our smaller world view, regardless of our backgrounds or experience. Unfortunately, this young woman chose to react, rather than to respond, to a perceived threat, which is exactly what I have come to expect from the Republican party in general, and why I'll vote for Obama/Biden in November rather than Palin/McCain (oops, I meant McCain/Palin).
September 19, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
zivo24 writes:
lib·er·al
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I felt I had to complete your (unwritten) thoughts regarding the above:
5. "Permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression" -
EXCEPT when conservatives offer a different viewpoint. They are to be disregarded as pure hogwash.
7. "Tolerant" -
EXCEPT when conservatives offer a different viewpoint. They are to be disregarded as pure hogwash.
8. "open-minded or tolerant" -
EXCEPT when conservatives offer a different viewpoint. They are to be disregarded as pure hogwash.
You're welcome
September 19, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Freaknut19 writes:
Way to go Davies. Tell it like it is.
September 19, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
Feel put-upon and disadvantaged by Liberals running higher education?
Suggest ya'll keep clinging to religion and guns... And send your kids to BYU, SMU, Temple, Notre Dame, Holy Cross, Loyola ...
September 19, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
p, i think it's fair to say that this issue is about tolerance for "feelings" rather than facts.
i don't the former needs to really be tolerated in the same respect as the latter.
September 19, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
screamin_mimi1969 writes:
Thank you, Jay, you seem to have noticed this odd comparison before I posted.
September 19, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
kalonblake writes:
Maybe if McCain had picked a running mate that was qualified for the job, this sort of derisive reaction.
September 19, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
j
I'm just having fun with zivo.
You were right by the way - the teacher could have opened up the assignment and made it better all around.
Have a good weekend.
September 19, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Freaknut19 writes:
4gColoNative, its people like you, acting sterotypical, that make this country so....naive. That would be like me "suggesting yall go march in your hippy parades, supoprt anit-government, and smoke pot all day while attending Berkeley and majoring in Art". Way to be judgemental.
September 19, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
It looks like maybe you've strayed a bit from the reservation during my absence. That's a good thing. We don't always have to agree, but we do need to be alert to that little piece of the truth that the other guy just might have.
You are drawing a distinction between feelings and facts. Does this distinction extend to racial sensitivities? How do we reconcile opposing feelings of equal passion? How do we arbitrate the facts?
The central fact in this story is that Mr. Hallam is in a position of authority. He grades the students. There is more at stake than just the political sensibilities of the students, there is also the fear that the instructor will use his authority to punish the students for having the *wrong* opinion. If Mr. Hallam joined rather than moderated the classroom discussion, as the story suggests, then those fears of the students are validated that they might be graded by criteria other than the quality of their work.
This is why academic freedom has traditionally been understood to be linked to the goal of detached and even-handed objectivity.
September 19, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
jvb writes:
"Palin, who says: "I told Congress, 'thanks but no thanks,' (told) a lie on the bridge to nowhere, still she keeps the $millions sent her: that is theft."
jvb, allow me to explain: Governor Palin was initially FOR the Bridge To Nowhere, but only because the evil partisan liberal Democrat Senator Stevens told her that it was going to be a Bridge to Somewhere. When the altruistic, honest, and frugal Republican Governor Palin subsequently discovered that it would actually be a Bridge to Nowhere, she withdrew her support, out of fear that her good citizens would get lost if they drove on it.
As for keeping the money, well that was what you call compensatory and punitive damages for Senator Stevens' attempt to deceive the Good and Noble Governor.
I think I'm going to get a 'F' from Professor Hallam ;-)
September 19, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
konyok, the point still stands...facts get more respect than "feelings"...thus the absolute disdain many of us have for those who can't support their political positions with facts...but rather rely on "feelings".
September 19, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"evil partisan liberal Democrat Senator Stevens "
did you mean Republican Senator Ted Stevens, davie?
she actually supported stevens...kept the money...then lied about it.
not really breaking news here, people.
September 19, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mighty_Mile writes:
slouchingtowardboulder must be concerned about the slight dip in his exxon mobile's stock this month. Thanks for the info, you've helped me make up my mind- yes on amendment 58. I'll tell my friends and relatives.
September 19, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
I wonder why the Obama camp feels so threatened by Palin?
September 19, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Ted Stevens is a Republican?!? What I meant to say is:
"Senator Stevens, the fair-minded and fearless advocate for the 53 residents of the island of Nowheria, Alaska, boldly advocated for federal funding of the bridge which would not only benefit his constituency of red-blooded American citizens residing on the island, but which would also serve as an official Hurricane Evacuation Route for helpless evacuees from the Gulf Of Mexico, thus mitigating their effect on the Yukon Territories of Canada, and promoting enhanced international relations, goodwill, and World Peace."
September 19, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Jay,
A conservative commenting on open-mindedness is like a blind man asking, "Is it dark in here?".
Do you believe in personal freedoms, Jay?
Do you believe that women should have reproductive choice?
Do you believe that marriage is a legal contract that should be available to any couple without regard to their gender?
These are just a couple of examples of situations in which conservatives believe that their beliefs have precedent over other people's rights.
Please give me a COMPARATIVE example of liberals trying to exert their beliefs on others.
I know that liberals want programs and support laws that conservatives and some independents hate..but I can't think of any thing where they are actually trying to take away other people's rights for things that have no direct effect on anyone but the actual participants.
September 19, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
zivo, i'm a lifelong moderate democrat...which considering i'm only 34 isn't that long.
did you have the idea that i was a conservative?
September 19, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Fascinating.
jay @ 12:45 pm
"...thus the absolute disdain many of us have for those who can't support their political positions with facts... "
jay @ 1:05 am
"(she) ...kept the money...then lied about it."
Are you accusing the governor of Alaska of embezzlement? Did the money go into a numbered account in the Grand Cayman Islands? What? It was spent on state projects other than the Ketchikan bridge? The money is all accounted for in the state budget?
Oh, she lied about her "feelings" about the famous "Bridge to Nowhere."
jay, is it your devotion to the facts that motivates such posts? Or, is it your "feelings" about Sarah Palin?
I didn't miss anything around here ...
September 19, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Redneck_Joe writes:
Professor, here's my Sarah Palin homework assignment;
Chapter 1 - If you tell a lie often enough, people may begin to believe it. "I said 'Thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere'".
Chapter 2 - My travels to Ireland without ever leaving the plane.
Chapter 3 - My foreign policy experience, because I can see them across the Bering Sea.
Chapter 4 - 'Troopergate' and how to keep your staff in line.
September 19, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
roger44 writes:
I wonder why the Obama camp feels so threatened by Palin?
******************************************************************
Hmmmm...
I've been wondering why the republicans are trying to make this into an Obama/Palin race instead of an Obama/McCain race.
And I don't think they're afraid of her..I think they just recognize the real reason why McCain was forced to put her on his ticket...because she appeals to people who care more about divisive wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, a candidate's faith, etc..than things like the economy, health care, the war.
Those voters who played such a role in getting Bush elected were being sidelined until McCain was convinced that he couldn't win without them..even though it goes against his grain to pander to them himself...so the GOP forced him to select her in order to wrap up those "values" voters.
How else do explain him choosing a VP candidate who he had only met once for a couple hours and whose background he didn't check out thoroughly...hence the backlash he is getting now..from all sides..including republicans.
September 19, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
jay writes:
zivo, i'm a lifelong moderate democrat...which considering i'm only 34 isn't that long.
did you have the idea that i was a conservative?
*************************************************************
Sorry, that was directed at P_Denver...I just read the wrong line.
My apologies.
September 19, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
zivo24,
I'm no gun nut. I don't even play one on TV.
But, the foundation of all personal freedoms as evolved in the United States constitution is the right to bear arms. The implicit threat of insurrection is the constant limit on the ambitions of the government, regardless of ideological orientation. Which political philosophy most favors gun control?
Freedom of speech is the primary political right of this nation. Which political philosophy most favors speech codes, hate crime legislation and "the fairness doctrine?"
Sidenote to jay: Do you support speech codes? If so, please explain the contradiction with your facts vs "feelings" rhetoric?
Democracy is hard work. We have managed it this far because we usually find some common ground. This "your team, my team" stuff is the greatest threat to our republic since slavery.
September 19, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Konyok,
You're missing the point of Jay's assertion..perhaps by choice.
Palin has given the impression that she said "Thanks, but no thanks" not just to that bridge but to federal funding.
But the facts are she supported that bridge until it became a political embarrassment...and more importantly until she was advised that she could keep those federal funds on something else.
She took the pork money that was intended for the bridge and spent in on other projects, which leaves the question..if those projects were so vital to Alaska..why were they not included in the same highway funding bill that the bridge money was tacked onto?
The bridge was pork and the projects she directed the funds to were pork.
She and you are being disingenuous.
September 19, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Are you accusing the governor of Alaska of embezzlement?"
not at all.
apparently someone isn't keeping up.
always happy to tutor the willfully ignorant, kon.
"I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves."---palin, 2008
"Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."---palin, 2006
"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."---palin, 2006
were you unaware that she accepted partial funding for the bridge to nowhere, kon?
September 19, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
zivo24 writes: "I've been wondering why the republicans are trying to make this into an Obama/Palin race instead of an Obama/McCain race."
I wish I could vote for only McCain, which I would do. Don't care for Palin very much though. She seems nice enough personally, and the feistiness is entertaining, but I don't care for her politics too much. Haven't made up my mind yet, and if McCain keeps hitting the "earmark" issue hard enough, I could go back his way. But right now I'm thinking of holding my nose and voting for Obama, even though I think he's too naive, liberal and even a little self-absorbed. He did show some maturity recently on his FISA bill vote, and he's unquestionably a smart cookie, so he can learn on the job.
In our two-party system, in the long run it seems best if the pendulum of power swings back and forth a little. That's my "feelings" about it anyway.
September 19, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
zivo
I thought it was kind of funny that you tee'd off on jay instead of me. But I don't know if you see the humor in it.
My commentary was nothing personal. I like to tweak anyone on either side when I see a post that's basically "We're perfect, you're scum."
Although I have answered your questions to me (via jay) many times in these posts I will repeat them for your reading pleasure:
zivo24 writes:
Do you believe in personal freedoms?
--- Yes, I do. I prefer minimal governmental intervention. I believe in a "freedom from religion" stance in government, so that I am not subject to changing rules if (when) the majority religion in this country changes.
Do you believe that women should have reproductive choice?
---Yes, I do, with limits. In my opinion abortion as a means of birth control is neither moral nor ethical - or necessary. There are many alternatives that are less invasive and destructive. I absolutely believe in abortion as a legal option in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.
Do you believe that marriage is a legal contract that should be available to any couple without regard to their gender?
---I believe such unions should be legal, although I prefer "civil union" to "marriage". Many disagree, but I see it as a camel's nose under the tent -- the beginning of a legal-rights movement to force churches who do not condone such unions to allow them. I have no problem with equal rights for everyone.
Happy to share ...
September 19, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
So, the relevant facts refer to impressions, not actual, uh, facts.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I've been out of country for the last month, so, obviously my "willfull ignorance" of your talking points, er, evolving *facts,* disqualifies me from having an opinion on the implications of university instructors injecting their political biases into classroom assignments.
Jeez.
Facts, as I understand them, are durable, verifiable things.
I think what you guys are talking about are factoids. Little bits of information that have been hand fed to you by the mighty opinion makers. (This applies to our conservative friends, as well. All of y'all have this warm, comforting mug of mush that you call *truth.*)
Like I said, Democracy is hard work ...
September 19, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
To drive a car, you must demonstrate you can safely operate the vehicle, to avoid having accidents and hurting someone.
To have a gun, you must demonstrate you can safely operate the weapon, to avoid having accidents and hurting someone.
To vote, you are allowed to do so without any demonstrated ability to think, any minimum IQ, or even any ability to point out Europe (or even Alaska!) on a map. It's a "citizen's right."
And yet, your vote counts the same as someone who consciously studies the issues and makes informed choices.
And the irony is: the person who gets elected has much more power to have accidents and hurt people - via their decisions - than any gun or any car.
Yes, indeed. Democracy is hard work.
September 19, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
konyok, surely you're not saying that you believe in some conspiracy theory in which palin didn't say those things about the bridge to nowhere?
you know you've got the loyal rushian footsoldiers cornered when they bring out the tinfoil hats.
any questions about the facts, kon?
they seem to be at odds with your feelings yet again.
September 19, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Regardless of the politics this was a good excercise.Better if it had been focused on both partys and all the candidiates..........
September 19, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Malachi_Constant,
No, I don't assert that partisanship is categorically bad. We have political parties because we have divergent interests and beliefs.
However, I do believe that we have institutions that ought not be partisan. We can all agree that the military serves the nation at large, not one or another party. I think that we can also agree that government agencies that serve the public ought not evince a partisan position. This would extend to public institutions of higher learning, IMHO.
The problem, and especially in a forum like this, is that we are losing our ability to discuss the merits of any issue because we are so caught up in keeping score.
The right reverend jay chortles at his chance to use the "tin foil hat" line on me because I'm not so excited that Sarah Palin lied, lied I tell ya!, to somebody, somewhere at some time about when she held some opinion on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." I would be a bit more interested if I thought that jay's comments were motivated by a critical interest in Republican notions of federalism or a specific discussion of the fiduciary responsibilities of states' governors when spending federal money. No, jay is capering with his gotcha in his hand ...
Of course rancor is a constant in politics. The whole point of the exercise is about power and interests. What I see here is rancor without content. The recent Kenyan election between a Luo and a Kikuyu was a bald example of rancor with a great deal of content. In the Kenyan context, it is almost a matter of life and death, hence the recent communal violence.
I'm sorry, but not so in the American context. Because of our system of checks and balances, no branch of govt has such concentrated power.
The two parties distort and spin the issues to create urgent narratives to win votes. This is normal and expected. The media have found the sensational lowest common denominator to maximize ratings and circulation. What dismays me is that We the People, in this age of the internet and instant communications, have by and large abdicated our responsibility to be anything but passive recipients of the pundits that reinforce our warm intellectual comfort zones.
A forum like this ought to be a great resource for us all to hear from a wide range of perspectives and to hone our knowledge and communications skills. This is not Daily Kos, neither is it FreeRepublic. It is a community site with a mixed crowd.
Instead of interesting conversations, what I see is the two sides tossing coprolites at each other in a sterile, puerile, pointless ritual of misinformation.
Compromise is indeed what keeps a Democracy going. Ideally, an informed public participates in creating that compromise.
September 19, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Konyok: Good to make your acquaintance, by the way. No one on this thread seems to have a sense of humor, so I'm shaking the dust from my sandals, and leaving. Hope to see you around somewhere else.
jay, the 'tinfoil hat' insult is getting a little shopworn. That's my 'feeling' anyway. Feelings, whoa whoa whoa, feelings...
September 19, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
don't pout konyok...and please don't believe that after 8 years of failed polices you guys can just take off your jerseys and walk from the field.
ain't gonna happen.
conservative policies have been horrible for the country for 8 years. let's go ahead and give them the appropriate response for that performance at the polls in november. unless, of course, you can make the case that we shouldn't hold them accountable for the damage their policies have done...which would be kind of tough without abandoning the notion of personal responsibility, no?
by the way...when you guys stop using the willfully ignorant conspiracy theories to run from acknowledging politically inconvenient data...i'll stop pointing out your tinfoil hat wearing ways.
deal?
September 19, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Malachi,
As a people we have had an unprecedented opportunity to get control of our political system. (I was really enthusiastic about Ross Perot's "electronic town hall." But, now I see where that goes ... )
You lament the absence of "once-reliable moderators." Does that relieve us from the burden to think for ourselves?
Are you saying that because you perceive the Republicans as having resorted to "lowest common denominator" politics there is no need to try to communicate honestly?
Jeez, can you even give me an example of this? Quite honestly, it just sounds like a rationalization to me.
September 19, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Malachi,
Read jay's latest post.
I rest my case.
September 19, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
carryBIGstick writes:
This teacher is victim of the hate of the right wing machine. We must teach our children that hate is unacceptable by keeping conservatives and republicans out of education in every way. When will conservatives understand that they are not welcome or needed?
Vote Obama!
September 19, 2008
6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
what did i say about the pouting, kon?
September 20, 2008
5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
kalonblake writes: "Maybe if McCain had picked a running mate that was qualified for the job, this sort of derisive reaction."
So basically - "It's McCain's fault!"
September 20, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Students were asked to identify themselves as cons or libs; 5 students considered themselves conservatives out of 23 students.
So the so-called "critical thinking" would apparently only be by 5 students. If the goal is "critical thinking" the other 18 students should have been asked to do an essay to contradict the "fairy tale image of Obama"; but in this case the 18 liberals apparently weren't given the opportunity to think critically, they should feel cheated!
September 22, 2008
2:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
HowBoutThemCowboys writes:
jefferson3 writes:
Conservatives don't believe in critical thinking. They believe one thing was written, they believe it and that settles it. Typical narrow mindedness.
In Joe Bidens case, once something is written or said, it is sure to be repeated. Only Joe will take credit for it.
kalonblake writes: "Maybe if McCain had picked a running mate that was qualified for the job, this sort of derisive reaction."
WOW. If Palin is not qualified for the job of Vice-President after running an entire state for two years, what makes Obama qualified to be President after being a Senator for the same amount of time.
There is nothing wrong with critical thinking exercises. There is nothing wrong with putting current politics into study in college. I agree with one of the earlier comments. The students should have been assigned and essay on the politician from the party they support. They would have learned not just the talking points the candidates want everyone to hear, but the truth or fiction of the negatives.
September 22, 2008
2:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
HowBoutThemCowboys writes:
Big_D writes:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein
Reply: Good Point. The US Senate record on votes for and against bills shows Obama to be the most liberal Senator in the US Senate. He has voted along party lines exclusively. And you expect change.
September 22, 2008
2:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
HowBoutThemCowboys writes:
Big_D writes:
It is common practice in a debate to have to draw your side at random and form your argument to support it. Too bad these Republican kids are too big of crybabies to understand critical thinking exercises. Their beliefs are so weak they are intimidated to have to question their indoctrination. I have had to argue a Pro-life stance and I feel strongly Pro-Choice. This was common back in the 70s and 80s before the right wingers apparently made people afraid to think.
I dare you right to lifers to offer the counterpoint even if you don’t agree.
OK. I'll play your game. However, you lump all Conservatives / Republicans in as "right wingers" without thinking that some of us are Pro-Choice. The Pro-Choice / Pro-Life debate is not THE determining political canon, at least for me.
Pro-life stance \ Pro-choice stance:
Ethical for doctor’s faith beliefs \ Hippocratic Oath
Baby’s rights \ Mother's rights
Agrees with religious doctrine \ Separation of church and state
No remorse for loss of child \ Overpopulated earth
September 23, 2008
1:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
HowBoutThemCowboys writes:
Marshdale writes:
Retread; It's sad but unfortunately, I bekiev your statment is basically correct. What we are seeing is socialism in reverse. The American tax payer is paying for the unrepentant unregulated greed of Wall Street. The only bennefit the taxpayer will see is a short term protection of his/her retirement. There is no way this much money can be printed without devalueing the dollar even more and inflation rising. This is the Rothschild book of economics. The extremely wealthy will weather the storm and get even wealthier from this while the rest of the country will suffer.
reply: On the topic of college papers. I wrote a college paper about the great depression, Wall Street crash and events leading up to it. Interesting that anyone would loathe the government for taking steps to avoid what would absolutely be a second coming of the depression.