The Department of Social and Cultural Analysis lists a course called "Cultures and Economies: Occupy Wall Street."
Reminds me of my old college days at the University of Michigan, circa 1970. Everything needed "relevant." The teachers, out of fear or their own ideology, put the word "revolution" into the titles of things.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Where are the Tea Party classes? The Tea Party events were much larger people-wise.
Not only larger, but have actually made a statistical impact. This occupy thing may do something eventually, but you can actually see what the Tea Party has done.
Lol! How much per credit hour?
"Department of Social and Cultural Analysis"? Res ipsa loquitur. And it is definitely an artifact of the intellectual wasteland created by the boomers.
Irony is adding another totally usless college course that covers a protest movement of people who are suffering because they went into tremendous debt by taking totally useless college courses.
Leftist professors create yet another course in leftist propaganda. Dog bites man. Ho-hum. Turn the page.
"...you can actually see what the Tea Party has done."
What has the Tea Party actually done?
"What has the Tea Party actually done?"
2010 for the most part.
I breezed through the bios of the faculty of "Department of Social and Cultural Analysis." Completely predictable. I wish I could predict football scores or the stock market that well.
procanifRobert Cook said...
"...you can actually see what the Tea Party has done."
What has the Tea Party actually done?
-----------------
See 2010 Congressional elections.
Obtuseness is not becoming.
Presumably, they will be taught by Wade Rathke and Andy Stern.
Although why teach classes on a failed movement when, as Seven (I know...) notes, Tea Party classes might be more relevant remains a mystery.
They might have a course about the Tea Party someday. They'll call it: "Racist wingnut militia movements in contemporary Amerikkka."
Cook -- The Tea Party was the political agent that created the Republican landslide in 2010 in the House.
What about how the War in Iraq was illegal, though? When are you going to tell me about that? I've waited a long time.
What has the Tea Party actually done?
Ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Oh ... wait ...
Seven Machos said...
Cook -- The Tea Party was the political agent that created the Republican landslide in 2010 in the House
..and 20 state legislatures switched from D to R
And think how impressive this will look on your transcript.
Department of Social and Cultural Analysis
Dept of Navel Gazing was the first name choice. Rejected because it might discriminate against those with no navels.
So...the Tea Party allegedly got some Dems out and some Republicans in. Seats change and party majorities shift every election cycle or two. It could have as much to do with perennially (and rightly) unhappy voters just voting for "someone else" as to do with the Tea Party.
What actual substantive change has been effected in Washington, or in our political system? What prescription for action did the Tea Party offer to improve our national state of affairs? Both parties are in thrall to Wall Street, and OWSers who vote for establishment Dems or Tea Partiers who vote for establishment Republicans are, equally, simply "wishing".
Look at the array of conmen, fanatics, and halfwits running for President; they serve as a collective object lesson in the debilitative effects of political inbreeding and corporate money on our political system.
(I think the OWSers are less likely to vote for establishment Dems than the Tea Partiers are or were to vote for establishment Republicans, but I'm just guessing and could be wrong.)
"Seven Machos said...
What about how the War in Iraq was illegal, though? When are you going to tell me about that? I've waited a long time."
Everyone knows "Illegal Wars" are those the craziest leftists in the room are against. Cookie makes a great effort to ensure he wins this prize.
"What actual substantive change has been effected in Washington, or in our political system?"
The main one was stopping the trillion dollar giveaways.
Irony is adding another totally usless college course that covers a protest movement of people who are suffering because they went into tremendous debt by taking totally useless college courses.
I know, right? This course will add how much to their student loan debt?
NYU is hipster-heavy, so I wonder if the irony will draw them to the course.
"Mustn't be judgmental of the "culture" of OWS, whining thugs have much to teach us," say Cookie's beloved old Stalinist professors.
"The main one was stopping the trillion dollar giveaways."
Hahahaha!
Let's just ask these wonderfully mature kids what they would like there classes to be. In fact, why not let them teach the classes? How about some OWS clinics?
The janitorial crew is going to hate life after that class.
The students who occupy business, science and engineering classes make more money.
Class diemissed.
What actual substantive change has been effected in Washington, or in our political system?
Being hampered by a Senate that has not actually abided by law in well over 2 years is a problem.
I think the OWSers are less likely to vote for establishment Dems than the Tea Partiers are or were to vote for establishment Republicans, but I'm just guessing and could be wrong
Funny, given how roundly they were condemned for defeating several establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010.
So that you can get a job in Occupy?
I guess you could work in an aquarium store. Or as a diver.
Actually, all wars are illegal unless they are undertaken as acts of self-defense. They are, every one, concerted acts of mass murder, dismemberment, and societal destruction.
The question is not "what about the Iraq War was illegal?", but what about any wars we've ever fought have been legal?
I've suggested in this space that WWII might be considered to have been a legal war, but others--who, astoundingly, seem to think Hitler and Japan were less an imminent threat to us than the scattered and few who made up Al Qaeda and their ilk--have pushed back with arguments that have half-convinced me that WWII may have been no more legal than our other wars. A recent column by Arthur Silber drives the point home quite effectively:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.
com/
See his Dec. 07 post, "A Solemn Day."
Tea Party 'classes'? Not necessary. There are few instructions; for those that need to ask, you wouldn't understand anyways.
OWS classes. And circuses.
What actual substantive change has been effected in Washington, or in our political system? What prescription for action did the Tea Party offer to improve our national state of affairs?
It's unarguably more than OWS has effected! So why classes in the latter and not the former, if not the plain ideological bias of academia?
Ah, at least Cookie admits the millions of dead resulting from Japan's ABCD strategy cannot distract from his moral preening.
"...Tea Partiers who vote for establishment Republicans are equally, simply "wishing"."
As I said, you wouldn't understand.
Maybe 'wishing' in the sense that there were other choices available.
Choosing between a bag of shit and a bowl of shit isn't much of a choice.
"Funny, given how roundly they were condemned for defeating several establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010."
Who is the "they" you refer to here? I was not aware there were any OWSers around in 2010.
"Choosing between a bag of shit and a bowl of shit isn't much of a choice."
Exactly my point.
A recent column by Arthur Silber drives the point home quite effectively:
Yes, he did. Apparently, that Americans used slurs against the Japanese after we were attacked by them -- the war was illegal. And because we didn't sell them things they wanted, well, heck we ASKED for them to bomb us.
Were you born an idiot or did you have to work at it?
"Ah, at least Cookie admits the millions of dead resulting from Japan's ABCD strategy cannot distract from his moral preening."
I don't even know what you're saying here.
Who is the "they" you refer to here?
While it is true that your writing of:
"I think the OWSers are less likely to vote for establishment Dems than the Tea Partiers are or were to vote for establishment Republicans, but I'm just guessing and could be wrong"
...you know, the one I cited specifically, is difficult to read --- the reference of who voted against establishment Republicans is clear to anybody with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
Reminds me of my old college days at Yale, circa 1980. Departments put out "guts" (easy courses), sometimes with sexy titles, so they could bump up departmental enrollment and get more money for the grad students who did the actual work (including teaching the real courses). Unfortunately for the undergraduates, the strategy of taking gut courses with sexy titles works better if your diploma says Yale (or UMichigan); as you move down the food chain, future employers start to ask what you really learned.
And even at Yale, you'd have to be pretty stupid to actually major in Social and Cultural Analysis, as opposed to majoring in Econ and picking up some easy A's in the joke departments. Majoring in that stuff would be like marrying, rather than merely patronizing, a prostitute.
"Apparently, that Americans used slurs against the Japanese after we were attacked by them -- the war was illegal."
I think you need to reread his column again if that's what you think his point is.
But, I am not necessarily in full agreement with him. I simply point out that several commenters here have made essentially the same argument--that we provoked the Japanese into attacking us to give FDR the rationale to insert America into the war--and this has caused me less certainty than I had that WWII was our one "good" or legal war.
Oh, I see you were referring to the Tea Partiers. Perhaps I lack rudimentary reading skills, that's not for me to judge...or perhaps you were less clear in your noun/pronoun agreement than you might have been.
Henceforth, all cool hip college class titles shall include a colon.
And be taught by a sphincter.
'Endless fuckery'.
This aptly describes the activities of those with a list of grievances longer than a list of accomplishments.
OWS, in short.
Sean said...
Unfortunately for the undergraduates, the strategy of taking gut courses with sexy titles works better if your diploma says Yale (or UMichigan); as you move down the food chain, future employers start to ask what you really learned.
More fools the future employers in that case. The evidence is that the faculty at so-called quality or first rank schools are even less inclined to do the hard slog teaching of substance and are far more enamored of "creativity" than are their fellow academics at East Podunk U.
I think you need to reread his column again if that's what you think his point is.
Why are you attempting to commit a crime against humanity by asking anybody to read that gibberish TWICE?
But, I am not necessarily in full agreement with him. I simply point out that several commenters here have made essentially the same argument--that we provoked the Japanese into attacking us to give FDR the rationale to insert America into the war--and this has caused me less certainty than I had that WWII was our one "good" or legal war.
Again, we didn't sell them what they wanted --- so it was our fault.
Well, you do always blame America first. Even when attacked, we probably had it coming.
Hey, I bet the Ukranians did something to warrant a famine, too.
Oh, I see you were referring to the Tea Partiers. Perhaps I lack rudimentary reading skills, that's not for me to judge...or perhaps you were less clear in your noun/pronoun agreement than you might have been.
Given that you specifically tied one group to the establishment Republicans, no, the problem was in your comprehension.
Again, read what you actually wrote.
"I don't even know what you're saying here."
The list of things you don't know is endless, even were we to limit the set to topics you comment on. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was a diversion, their goal was to take over American, British, and Dutch colonies, and control China. Given the Japanese treatment of similar conquered peoples this would have resulted in additional tens of millions of deaths had the US not gone to war.
But according to you these millions don't count when there's a chance to indict America and thus show yourself the moral gold standard.
By the way, why don't you link to the statute you're using to determine which wars are "illegal"?
It's interesting you buy into the nonsense FDR baited the Japanese but claim the Fast and Furious motivations couldn't be gun control. I'm betting since WWII enjoys such modern support an indictment of it is a criticism of America generally. Given that it fits your blame America first views there's no reason to search too hard for reasons to resist the temptation to sign on.
Not a movement that is worth more than a single hour's worth of discussion.
As other's have said, what about the Tea Party? We need a class on left wing bias at NYU.
Harvard is considering adding The Tea Party School of Making Government Small Again [snark].
You have to hand it to NYU on the marketing. You have a bunch of college kids protesting in the city, because they have massive school debt with no jobs to pay it off. NYU sees a target rich environment. Hey kids, go apply for some more debt, and we'll give you heaping of more college classes that won't ever help you get a job. We laugh, but I'm sure those classes will get filled. Further, if you did a survey, I'm sure most of the participants will have either a scholarship or loan.
I doubt the NYT will label NYU's classes as predatory.
I'm trying to find the syllabus. It may be written on toilet paper.
Have we reached the tipping point of mass insanity or is it just me?
And in a few years we can look forward to an article about some kid who is deep in student loan debt and can't believe he can't find a job despite taking such great classes as this.
At least he'll know how to pitch a tent and whine.
This is a tremendous opportunity wasted. I actually think a class on the Occupy Wall Street movement could be used very effectively to illuminate mankind's not-short history of economies that used "horizontal" organizational structures--and largely failed. Let students connect today's headlines with similar movements throughout history.
If there's one group of people that could use a reality check when it comes to cultural utopias and leaderless power structures, it's well-off college students. (I nearly had an accidental bowel movement on reading that NYU's tuition is $1,100 per credit hour! That's $500 less that my alma mater's per-semester tuition!)
But to frame the OWS movement within the context of "the history and politics of debt" is silly. OWS is not remarkable because it's reacting against debt and the power structures that allow people to go into debt. That's old hat. OWS was notable solely for its organizational structure; nearly every news item on the movement mentioned its General Assembly and nebulous organization. That should be the emphasis of the class.
Under what law are wars illegal? Do you know what illegal means?
I like the idea. And you should get extra credit for going up and taking a dump on the professor's desk- Keepin' it real, OWS-style.
"And it is definitely an artifact of the intellectual wasteland created by the boomers."
Oh, blow it out your ass. It's an artifact of the intellectual wasteland created by the leftists. Period.
Geez, I'm sick of boomer-bashing. I've been good and honest and upright all my life. Really. I can't help it that I was born in 1953 and Dad was in the War.
Is that so wrong?
Uh, Marshall, I'm not arguing against our having a reason to fight the Japanese, or to enter WWII...if America has had a war that was warranted and necessary, it was WWII. However, some--including some among your fellow commenters here--have taken issue with that point of view and offer arguments to suggest just what Silber does in his column...that we provoked Japan intentionally, but could have chosen not to and could have avoided entering that war.
I don't even know that Silber suggests we should not have fought in WWII, (though he may believe that to be so); I take as his main point that we were hardly innocent, unknowing lambs struck by a sneak attack for which there was no expectation or catalyst. We--or FDR--if this line of argument is factually accurate, had reason to expect an attack by Japan, and could have forewarned those at Pearl Harbor or possibly even forestalled the attack altogether had we handled things differently.
Having read Silber off and on, I even suggest his larger point is to show that the Democrats--even the sainted FDR--are in no way to be be seen as any less bloodthirsty, brutal, or opportunistic than the party we have been told is the war-mongering party, the Republicans.
The arguments are not without some merit, so I can consider their merits without assuming that point of view.
I am hard pressed to think of any other wars aside from WWII--certainly not any other modern wars we have fought--that were necessary or warranted.
"Under what law are wars illegal?"
Silly...war is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, war is illegal.
So...the Tea Party allegedly got some Dems out and some Republicans in. Seats change and party majorities shift every election cycle or two.
"Some" out and "some" in? Every election cycle or two?
The 2010 election brought the largest one-party gain since 1948. It was the largest midterm setback for a president since FDR's party lost 72 seats in 1938.
House Democrats were left with the smallest number of members since the 1946 election.
But you just cling to your guns: The Tea Party had nothing to do with it. We'll catch up with you next November and see how that worked out for ya.
Buh-bye, now ...
wv: retar
Indeed.
murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority
Note the part about legal excuse. There is a legal excuse in war. Therefore, you cannot prosecute war under murder statutes without first changing the law. And then, because of the ex post facto protections we have under the Constitution, you could only prosecute for future wars. I say this even though such a change in law will never happen.
So, there you have it, Cook: war is not illegal under your own ridiculous argument.
War is legal. QED. You lose. You are stupid. You are simply making things up. You have pretend Robert Cook laws from Pretend Robert Cook Land. It's so sad for you.
Stupid kids mortgage their future for stupid classes to learn how to be stupider.
"The history and politics of debt. Section One: This class."
Silly...war is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, war is illegal.
Oh, no. No, no, no, no.
"Murder" is a crime. Crimes are defined by law. The murder laws clearly do not cover killing done in war.
Now, you might argue that you're talking about "murder" conceptually, not strictly legally. But, then that doesn't really make the case that war is "illegal." Unless you believe that legality is not determined by the law, a contradiction.
The closest thing you can say about war is that there is no controlling legal authority.
I destroyed Cook. The law itself has several exceptions. Military killing is one of them.
If Cook wants to change the law, let that goofy bastard try. Even if he miraculously could, ex post facto means no one can be arrested because of previous actions after a change in the law.
Case closed. I feel bad for the guy I beat his ass so bad.
Come on, folks. The students NEED classes where they can continue to write 5th-grade style essays on the theme "What I did on my vacation".
NYU is just targeting their market.
Murder is illegal. War is murder. Therefore war is illegal.
Christ, Cookie, that's right up there with you saying that being a Christian is all about being NICE to people.
You ignorant fuck.
On the bright side, here is a new way to blow off and fulfill a Department of Social and Cultural Analysis requirement at NYU.
Reminds me of my old college days at the University of Michigan, circa 1970.
So we'll have an Occupier in the White House 40 years from now?
Maybe a course for NY/SF/LA's finest: "How to Baton/Beat/Mace Protesters Properly 101"
It's good to see Cook go full on leftwing crackpot regarding military action by US forces. Right after he pretends that the 2010 election results didn't happen for the reasons they did.
Community based reality in action. Facts by assertion without evidence is what makes leftism possible for totalitarian wannabes like Cook and his OWS Ilk.
Don't feel bad for me, 7M...feel bad for yourself for your own easy acceptance of mass murder and destruction of societies as a normal (and increasingly de facto) tool of our foreign policy aims.
"...that's right up there with you saying that being a Christian is all about being NICE to people."
That is its essence, yes.
But it's so much deeper than your sneering condescension would suggest...before one can truly "be nice to people"--that is, before one can sacrifice one's own comfort and prerogatives in order to help the downtrodden of the earth, one has to become substantially, wholly transformed from the selfish human being one was, that we all are.
I don't claim to be a Christian.
"...totalitarian wannabes...."
I think I see some projection!
You might wanna cover that up, sarge.
"That is its essence, yes."
No, shitbird. It is not.
I don't know what is worse with ignorant libtards - the ignorance itself, or the sheer willfulness with which they cling to it in the face of correction.
Indiana University offers a "contemporary political topics" course on the Tea Party.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा