"In part, she said, Socratic teaching is about that back-and-forth, a breaking down of ideas and examining them from all angles. So when she and her policy team began discussing a wealth tax, she said, 'I kept taking the side of the opposition: Wouldn’t this create a problem? … We’re pulling it apart to stress-test it, see if it would work.'... One of Warren’s former students who declined to be named had a theory about the seeming paradox of a woman known as a bold political progressive adhering to an old-fashioned, rule-bound approach to teaching. It reminded him, he said, of Thurgood Marshall, who was known for being punctilious about civil procedure even as he broke revolutionary ground on civil rights. This student talked about how Marshall understood that rules could be used to enforce equality, and that as soon as you introduced flexibility and discretion, those with more power would take advantage of the wiggle room. Regulations, calling every name in a classroom, could serve as a set of guide rails, a system it would be harder to take advantage of. It’s easy to see how Warren’s fondness for just this kind of formal system jibes with her view of regulations in the financial industry. It is also true that teachers love rules.... It’s true that people may resent teachers. It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power. And yet: People who have had great teachers love them in ways that are intense and alchemical and irrational and sometimes difficult to convey — which is also, oddly enough, how some people love the politicians they believe in and choose to fight for."
From "Elizabeth Warren’s Classroom Strategy A lifelong teacher, she’s the most professorial presidential candidate ever. But does America want to be taught?" by Rebecca Traister" (The Cut).
August 7, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
130 comments:
Well, one guy was impressed.
More professorial than Woodrow Wilson?
Or is this just hyperbole by someone who thinks history started last February?
John Henry
Warren is a hectoring harridan. Worse than Hillary. And that voice!
People of a certain age think of her as that nun that used to rap your knuckles with a ruler. A nun in an old habit with her hair covered up.
I'd be interested to hear, from her or any other wealth tax promoter
1 how they would get around the Constitutional ban on a wealth tax
2 if they can't, how they would get an amendment passed
3 how it would work.
And I do hope they understand that wealth and income are 2 different, only loosely related things.
John Henry
The key to Marshall's rules, of course, is that the are applied to everyone equally (we are all equal before the law). For that, they must be simple, easy to understand, and the product of a transparent process that everyone can believe in.
How many of those boxes does Warren's financial regulations tick?
People of a certain age think of her as that nun that used to rap your knuckles with a ruler. A nun in an old habit with her hair covered up.
Yes and I quit going to kindergarten after that old bitch rapped my knuckles. I thought she looked familiar.
anybody Surprised that Professor Warren liked Rules Rules Rules?
anybody Surprised that Rebecca Traister is surprised that Professor Warren like Rules Rules Rules?
Manner more professorial than Obama's?
Do they mention her academic fraud on bankruptcy, rhetorical
I immediately thought of Woodrow Wilson, truly one of the key architects of the progressive mess we're in now, and a former professor. As it turns out, professors don't always like feedback.
That true, Ann?
America is not a classroom with President as teacher.
The only people excited about electing a schoolmarm are expecting others to be taught.
"But does America want to be taught?"
I'm pretty sure most America doesn't want to be lectured. And I'm pretty sure that focus groups and polling data verify that Americans don't want to be lectured.
Warren is attempting to redefine herself and relaunch her campaign. Liz Warren 1.0 liked to lecture you. Liz Warren 2.0 claims to fix that bug.
Hillary was sold as the most qualified candidate ever. So we were told. Er- scolded. (turns out she is the most corrupt candidate to ever seek high office. oops)
Now - on to more scolding.
The Dayton Antifa Shooter said he would vote Warren.
She should denounce. After all, it must be her fault. Right?
The left: no cis-white men may speak. How Socratic.
"the most professorial"
What John H. said.
Of course, Wilson also gives the lie to the vaunted professorial commitment to "procedure": the point of progressivism, then and since, was to get rid of the established rules, i.e., the Constitution, and replace them with the judgment of lefty experts. Except that Brennanite progs went him one better: you keep the rules on the books, you just interpret them as "living," always "adapting" to a changing society--so, miracle of miracles, you find that a nineteenth-century amendment requires the legalization of same-sex marriage in all states. If anything, Warren is a little more radical than Wilson and Brennan.
She's one of the reasons tuition is so high.
She reminds me of a frustrated old middle school principal who is constantly disappointed by her students.
Also, she lied about her family heritage to get ahead in her profession.
Elizabeth Warren is good at getting advantages by pretending to be Native American.
We're to believe Warren's Manichean worldview where businesses involved in voluntary commerce are uniformly evil and destructive is the result of looking at issues from all angles? I suppose it's possible she does this with a carefully selected group of other far leftists (Q:
Is it possible they're uniformly destructive but not evil? A: Racist!) but it's far more likely it has no basis in reality at all.
This is a puff piece trying to establish the brand she's presenting to the politically naive.
She's never going to top learning-Norwegian-to-read-a-book, but I think she can out-Zoolander Kamala.
Adlai Stevenson?
So when she and her policy team began discussing a wealth tax, she said, 'I kept taking the side of the opposition: Wouldn’t this create a problem? … We’re pulling it apart to stress-test it, see if it would work.'...
How did she know if she’s asking the right questions.
I’m not happy they’re coming for our inheritable IRA’s so instead of securing my family’s future, “undocumented” get “free” health care and college, and a lot of other “free” stuff.
Socrates walks into a bar and the bartender says "What can I get for you?" and Socrates answers, "He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have." So the bartender says, "Well, what would you like to have?" and Socrates answers "I'd like to have a whiskey, so bring me a beer!"
Thusly was born the School of Socrastic Meticulism.
Warren is one of the very few people in Congress to pointedly assail the heads of the various criminal banks and financial institutions with questions about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings. (Another who did was Alan Grayson.)
For that alone, she is serving the public's interest, unlike the majority of those in Congress who are deep in the pockets of the financial interests. So she comes across (to some) as a hectoring schoolmarm; Trump comes across (to some) as a blustering ignoramus, liar, and fool. Given a choice of these to sit in the White House, a hectoring schoolmarm is always preferable.
When has Warren ever conducted a debate along Socratic principles out in the open where citizens could engage? Supposedly, Socrates did that. However, we mainly get a picture of him via Plato, as authoritarian and dogmatic a philosopher as you'd ever want to meet. Somehow the brilliant "Socrates" of Plato's imagination always managed to resolve all disputes so as to accord with Plato's overall view of things. What a strange coincidence.
Bore and Barry also lectured.
Just to be clear, I am no fan of Wilson.
He brought fascism to America under the brand name of progressivism.
Also got us into ww1 for no good reason after promising not to (like fdr and lbj) and then screwed up the peace after.
And fired all black govt employees.
There's not a thing to admire about the man.
Or Edith who finished out his second term.
John Henry
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Warren is one of the very few people in Congress to pointedly assail the heads of the various criminal banks and financial institutions with questions about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings. (Another who did was Alan Grayson.)
Since she’s a criminal herself....
This is a practical joke, right Althouse? You're yanking my wank? If the Democrats really analyzed the 2016 campaign and concluded that a shrill white lawyer asking leading (sorry, "Socratic") questions was going to have any effect on Donald Trump, they might actually be brain dead. If the elites think America has an appetite for meticulously theorycrafted Five Year Plans, we might actually need to purge their class just to get intelligent policy at the federal level again.
In part, she said, Socratic teaching is about that back-and-forth, a breaking down of ideas and examining them from all angles. So when she and her policy team began discussing a wealth tax, she said, 'I kept taking the side of the opposition: Wouldn’t this create a problem? … We’re pulling it apart to stress-test it, see if it would work.'.
I'm highly skeptical that any of Warren's policy ideas could survive a true socratic breakdown. The whole "wealth tax" argument being perhaps the most prominent example of something that becomes extremely difficult to defend very quickly once a basic understanding of history and human nature are brought into play.
This is obviously all a postive spin, attempting to make Warren look well rehearsed with all here positions rigorously studied. So silly.
Well, she might be trying to practice the Socratic method, but I've seen no evidence she is good at it.
The Cut seems to specialize in publishing undergraduate essays, sloppily constructed structures of pseud references and woke bugbears.
(Just like Slate, Salon, and all that other prog punditry, then.)
Rodney Dangerfield and “ Back to School” just popped in my head.
You know the scene. The “teacher” teaches theory and Rodney provides the economic reality.
The Socratic method works best when you have someone like Socrates instructing someone like Plato. It doesn't go that well when you have someone like Aristotle instructing someone like Alexander......The world would have been so much better served if Robespierre, Lenin, and Wilson had used their scholarly talents solely in academic settings. The record of scholars in public life is not inspiring.
The sobriety of Kansas, the stiffness of Harvard, the light touch of an intellectual, the tolerance of a committed bureaucrat.
Vote For your favorite gal pal Lizzie Warren.
***Paid for by the Secular Sisters For The Working Poor.
rustrated old middle school principal
The un-married playground supervisor!! Always scolding.
It seems like she abandoned part of her Socratic Method when she represented Dow as it was sued by women. I'm guessing that's not mentioned in the article.
William, watching Socrates instruct Alcibiades is sufficient testimony against the fruits of Socratic teaching. The guy re-defined treachery in an era that had no attachment to the loyalty of Christian morality.
rustrated
Are cut-n-paste errors Freudian, or typos?
Glad to see William Brennan mentioned above, the most dangerous and self-deluded American of the 20th Century.
about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings. (Another who did was Alan Grayson.)
Cook likes the crazies. No surprise.
Warren has a "rubber meets the road" problem that she makes especially obvious with her stridency and absolutism.
Where high minded ideas crash into the real-world realities of governance.
Makes perfect sense that she's been a teacher and a senator.
Robert Cook said...
Warren is one of the very few people in Congress to pointedly assail the heads of the various criminal banks and financial institutions with questions about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings.
Its revealing Cook demands evidence every time someone criticizes his far left allies, posing as someone who uses evidence to form opinions. But when discussing his enemies he casually asserts their criminality. No evidence is strong enough to taint his allies, no evidence is necessary to taint his enemies.
The guy re-defined treachery in an era that had no attachment to the loyalty of Christian morality.
Not sure treachery was by Alcibiades. He was about to lead the expedition to Syracuse when he was accused and convicted by public opinion,. He fled and the Syracuse expedition became a disaster.
As shown by Woodrow Wilson and Obama, Professors don't make the best executives. Talking to students bears little relationship to running huge organizations, making decisions, and hiring and firing people.
With regards to the wealth tax and a socratic dialogue, a simple question an interlocutor may pose might go something like
"Do you agree that people, in general, will behave in ways to minimize the amount of money they have to surrender to the state in taxes?"
"Do you agree that people of great means have the ability to relocate their wealth to other countries?"
(and then, assuming they agree with the first and second propositions) "If you're confiscating some portion the wealth from the very wealthy, how do you imagine they'll react?"
"It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power."
Rebecca Traiser, this is what is known as an ipse dixit. And factually false, to boot. But she needs to resort to this to explain why ANYONE would not love to see Warren as President.
A friend of mine who is now the dean of a prominent law school took bankruptcy law at Harvard from Warren years ago. He said he considered dropping the class after the second session because it was clear that Warren was going to teach that there was only one correct view of the revised Bankruptcy Act: hers.
His conclusion was that she had a very narrow and normative view of complicated policy questions.
But when discussing his enemies he casually asserts their criminality.
I tend to agree with him on the criminals in the financial frauds and collapse. I suspect we might disagree on who the criminals are.
Jon Corzine would be high on my list, along with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Maxine would be there, too.
That extended pull quote is scary. The first part is just fluff to encourage you believe her positions are the result of intellectual stress testing independent of politics. Her supposed taking the opposing side of a wealth tax is as convincing as her beer drinking. The second part is the frightening territory. It fairly reeks of the belief that the problem with a free market is it's freedom. What is not permitted is forbidden. Innovation becomes "gaming the system." It's not that she doesn't believe in the invisible hand, it's the invisible part that's her problem. She believes in the hand all right, as long as it's hers.
When a reporter falls in love with a political savior
"It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them..."
Resentful Rebecca just can't resist, can she? Socratic method at its best.
Not sure treachery was by Alcibiades. He was about to lead the expedition to Syracuse when he was accused and convicted by public opinion,. He fled and the Syracuse expedition became a disaster.
8/7/19, 9:46 AM
I'd ordinarily agree the point is debatable, but considering the many enemies he made over his career, I'd suggest the problem is with Alcibiades.
... she’s the most professorial presidential candidate ever. But does America want to be taught?
Not by her! If she could adopt the humility to ask how her prescriptions could go wrong, and address the downside risks, she might have something worth listening to. My impression from the 2nd debate is that she believe that the laws of economics are infinitely malleable if your heart is pure enough. They aren't, and her heart isn't.
I think she just simply got the word "Socratic" and sophomoric mixed up. It happens.
Further to my prior comment, I think that Warren is singularly lacking in self-knowledge, and it would be foolish to take her assessment of her own qualities at face value.
It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power.
Where does this crap come from? People resent having to do stuff they don't want to do regardless of who tells them to do it. Women have had positions of authority throughout business, government, etc. for decades. You can't keep going back to the same no-evidence assertion that "people" are sexist without evidence.
And while we're clowning on Elizabeth Warren: this little snippet provided me with an excellent rebuttal to her retarded "assumpsit" gambit. From hpmor.com:
"You know," Harry said icily, "in one of my quite fascinating Muggle books, they describe a study in which people managed to make themselves look very smart by asking questions about random facts that only they knew. Apparently the onlookers only noticed that the askers knew and the answerers didn't, and failed to adjust for the unfairness of the underlying game. So, Professor, can you tell me how many electrons are in the outermost orbital of a carbon atom?"
Severus's smile widened. "Four," he said. "It is a useless fact which no one should bother writing down, however."
considering the many enemies he made over his career, I'd suggest the problem is with Alcibiades.
He was not exactly moral in the modern sense but he was driven to make many of the enemies in self preservation. He did warn the Athenians after he had been exiled about the risks of their position at Aegospotami.
I'll take a buffoon over a disaster.
I gave up on using the Socratic method in everyday conversations. There's too much wiggle room to ignore the question or reply with a dogmatic answer. It may work in the classroom where the teacher rules, but it's useless in a political discussion. Just look at any political debate when the moderator asks a question and the politicians reply with a barely related recitation of talking points.
But does America want to be taught?
What do we suppose she "teaches"? Her bankruptcy study was propaganda, specifically designed to achieve the result which would support her political agenda. This is such common knowledge actual bankruptcy experts don't use her study. Yet even those academics who set aside her study carefully refrain from criticizing her publicly because they understand the backlash will permanently derail their careers.
We should refer to these sorts of propagandists as "teachers"? Nonsense.
People like Warren who take advantage of "loopholes" imagine everyone thinks like them and is equally corrupt. Even if Warren believed she had some remote American Indian ancestor she knew she was not the intended target of minority preference when she claim AI heritage to become a Harvard professor. Warren was happy to take advantage of foreclosure laws when she was flipping houses for profit. And ain't it funny how while Warren rants against corporate profits and the wealthy she does not support taxing the billions in Harvard's endowment which help the mostly rich students and professors get richer. After all Harvard is a "non-profit" so all the rich socialists view that wealth as automatically good.
"Since she’s a criminal herself...."
Really? How so?
And what does the "Since..." imply? "Since she's a criminal herself"...what?
“Warren is a hectoring harridan. Worse than Hillary. And that voice!”
It’s so sad that Warren doesn’t have a melodic quality to her voice as does Sarah Palin.
Just look at any political debate when the moderator asks a question and the politicians reply with a barely related recitation of talking points.
I've always been curious what it would be like to have public primary and presidential debates with really strict rules about only directly answering the question and only the question asked, sort of like a hostile witness on the stand at a jury trial being interviewed by a prosecuting attorney. No grandstanding. No wandering off topic. And if the rules are violated their mic is immediately cut and they are publicly reprimanded for their idiocy.
I know politicians would find such a format terrifying and I personally I'd find it entertaining, but I highly doubt it will every happen.
Lots of Warren Derangement Syndrome on display.
Nothing nothing nothing about this woman Warren suggests she is presidential material.
Nothing.
Narr
Not a goddam thing
American universities have abandoned inquiry for dogma, at least outside of STEM, and even there the rot has set in.
An alleged academic approach to policy questions, in the modern American system, is simply an argument from authority.
I don’t think there is a set of American institutions more thoroughly corrupt, at the lowest level, than education.
Others are corrupt high but virtuous low.
Yeah, yeah. Socrates was a cheat, the dialogues were setups. That's what happens when the author is taking sides.
"It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power."
I would argue this statement, but -- since the writer states that it is "true" -- then obviously my endeavor would be pointless.
Never question a woman's understanding of resentment. It contains multitudes.
I am Laslo.
I have a hard time believing that Warren is using the Socratic method at all, let alone well.
The evidence: One proposal after another that doesn't survive even the slightest inquiry--for example Henry's objections to the wealth tax.
After the second set of Dem debates call ins to Brian Lehrer, a local NPR show where all gushing about Warren. I suspect if Biden fails she will be the nominee.
Nothing nothing nothing about this ignoramus Trump suggests he is presidential material.
Nothing.
Not a goddam thing
Was Socrates a fake Athenian? Was Marshall a real African-American?
> Severus's smile widened. "Four," he said.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The for four bonding orbitals arise from the hybridization of the S and three P orbitals resulting in four hybrid orbitals.
A Harvard Professor is not trustworthy.
"nothing about this ignoramus Trump suggests he is presidential material"
Except ya know - that he is President.
Nothing nothing nothing about this ignoramus Trump
I see Inga is up this morning.
Where does this crap come from?
Forget it, JohnAnnArbor. It's feminism.
I have deep misgivings about the Socratic Dialogue as a teaching method. I have no respect for it at all as a debate method.
Perhaps - perhaps! - Warren can lead a student to truth in the classroom, where she is on the dominant side of a good-faith power differential, and she is a legitimate authority on the subject being taught, by means of carefully applied Socratic dialogue.
But for debating contentious policy issues where nobody is really an expert and most people are going to balk even at the stipulating of basic premises? Boop to that. Make your case. Say what you think and why, and let everyone else decide for themselves whether they agree. People aren't horses. Horses, nobody likes being told to just shut up and play this game about being talked into admitting that it's good to drink water.
"Warren is one of the very few people in Congress to pointedly assail the heads of the various criminal banks and financial institutions with questions about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings. (Another who did was Alan Grayson.)"
Name a 'criminal bank' and its crime.
Warren is a grandstanding phony. She'd be equally happy on either side of any issue as long as she thought it would get her power. Politicians are an insincere bunch, but Warren excels in that department.
Alan Grayson was a violent nut. Also a complete phony.
Blogger Nonapod said...
"Do you agree that people, in general, will behave in ways to minimize the amount of money they have to surrender to the state in taxes?"
I would change "will behave" to "should behave". Always within the law of course
"Do you agree that people of great means have the ability to relocate their wealth to other countries?"
Back in the 80's the PR govt, in their infinite wisdom put a luxury tax on boats over 30' or some such. St Thomas, USVI, is only 30 miles from Fajardo by ferry, seaplane or airplane.
So many people moved their boats to St Thomas, which was happy for the business and marina fees. USVI has some great sailing.
Our local marinas emptied out and the govt lost all that money.
So the govt decided that it didn't matter where the boat was, it was taxable.
So the boat owners set up corporations in the USVI to own the boats. Ownership in a corporation is not taxable.
So they finally removed the tax and the boats came home.
Something similar happened under Clinton(?). They decided to put some sort of federal sale tax on boats built in the US over a certain size or value.
So everyone started building their boats outside the US, yards closed and thousands lost their jobs.
John Kerry, while SoS, I think, used his wife's dead husband's family's money to buy himself a fine, fine, yacht.
He got caught registering it in Rhode Island instead of Mass as he was legally required to do. Why, you might ask? Because RI taxes are lower than Mass.
John Henry
I have deep misgivings about the Socratic Dialogue as a teaching method.
Apparently so did Socrates: "I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think."
The discussion of "teaching" isn't serious, it's just a politician telling people how wonderful she is.
"Given a choice of these to sit in the White House, a hectoring schoolmarm is always preferable."
Really, Bob? Ideology aside, I'm surprised to see you write that.
The bit about female power being new and unsettling:
"It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power."
New? Ever heard of Elizabeth I?
Indira Gandhi was elected PM of India in 1966.
Thatcher rose to power in 1979.
Hillary has been torturing the U.S. body-politic for thirty years.
Warren herself has been screeching at us from her senate perch for six years now. Seems much, much longer.
The reporter does not understand that Socratic dialogue requires two-way communication.
Elizabeth Warren lectures and does not invite questions or alternative answers. There is no way she engages in Socratic dialogue.
I guess the reporter saw The Paper Chase and thought it was cool without having any understanding. .
Seeing Red said...
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Warren is one of the very few people in Congress to pointedly assail the heads of the various criminal banks and financial institutions with questions about their criminal enterprises in Congressional hearings. (Another who did was Alan Grayson.)
******************
she could "assail" them all day long. But you have to ask yourself why Comey, Mueller, Holder et al. investigated and brought charges against so few of them.
Many teachers don't enjoy their opinions contradicted. The ideal of education as the free play of ideas doesn't always reflect what really goes on in classrooms, where teachers often just want to hear students parroting what they hear in lectures. It does reflect today's more ideological politics. Politics have become more ideological as they have become more intellectualized - less about horse-trading, more about "ideas."
Adlai Stevenson fit the stereotype of the addle-headed, absent-minded, dithering professor precisely because he wasn't an academic and wasn't forever lecturing students about his views. Stevenson really was forever weighing both sides of questions, Hamlet-like, and it took a toll on him and his electoral prospects.
Eugene McCarthy was a mixture: he had a dogmatic academic side, but he was also willing to entertain different ideas -- in his later years, too willing for his party. George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey had also been professors and showed different sides of the academic style, Humphrey forever lecturing, McGovern out of touch with most voters. 1968 may have been when today's Democratic Party was born: after Kennedy was assassinated, three former professors were contending for the nomination.
Warren entered elective politics at a later age than the others. She first got elected when most people retire, so she hasn't had time or taken time or been willing to shake off her academic manner. She's more similar to Wilson who went from college president to US president in two years than to other politicians for whom academia was only a stop along the way.
Cookie, the commie, supports the candidate (a very rich one, by the way) who promises to redistribute income.
What a surprise!
(eaglebeak)
Socratic dialogue?Holy cow, but Liz suffers from folie de grandeur. Did she ever read any Plato?
The only thing more offensive would be Liz likening her speeches to the Sermon on the Mount,.
Trump comes across (to some) as a blustering ignoramus, liar, and fool.
Trump is a great truth teller.
His blunt statement that Elijah Cummings has been ripping off and pocketing the relief money for decades was precisely what needed to be sad. The most profound, moral statement I’ve heard from a president in my lifetime, uttered with no thought of profit for himself.
You’re a profoundly immoral, stupid man, Cook. Your intentions are evil.
Your intent is to perpetuate this racketeering at the expense of poor blacks.
Good thing we have Robert Cook to determine who the criminals are. He's a regular 1 man judge and jury.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The for four bonding orbitals arise from the hybridization of the S and three P orbitals resulting in four hybrid orbitals.
8/7/19, 10:23 AM
*sigh* Yes, little-c chuck, you're very smart. If I included the rebuttal made at a scientific understanding lower than the post-secondary level, it wasn't to make a scientific point, but a rhetorical one. Mainly that you don't have to be a genius to identify and decry the practice. You should read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, or more likely the critical reviews pointing out the weaknesses in Yudkowsky's considerable breadth of knowledge.
Either way, Elizabeth Warren still sucks and Trump will -smash- her if she tries to out-alpha him.
One of Warren’s former students who declined to be named had a theory about the seeming paradox of a woman known as a bold political progressive adhering to an old-fashioned, rule-bound approach to teaching.
This is yet another example of the liberal notion that they're just too smart for us deplorables. If only we had the vision to see just how brilliant they are, why, we'd all willingly fall in line with their policies!
What a crock! I'd bet dollars to donuts that Elizabeth Warren, who sees herself as a master of the Socratic dialogue, gets really bent out of shape when one of her underlings takes one of her pet ideas & smacks it up one wall & down the other. She doesn't strike me as possessing the Jesuitical skill of arguing the Devil's side as if it were Scripture in the least bit.
Warren as Sister Mary Elephant: Good morning, America.
Good morning, America.
America? America!?
SHUT UP!!!!!
Thank you
"Cookie, the commie, supports the candidate (a very rich one, by the way) who promises to redistribute income.
"What a surprise!"
Actually, I'm not so sure at all I will support Warren, (assuming she becomes the nominee, which I think is unlikely). She is the only Dem I would support, but I don't like that she voted for an increase in the military budget. We badly need the military budget to be stripped to the bone, and those funds transferred to other needs of the American people. In the unlikely event she wins the nomination, I'll have think about whether I can vote for her or not. There is certainly no other Dem I would even consider supporting.
but does America want to be taught?
does America need to be taught? Taught what? and by whom?
She's mean woman who probably thinks she's Margaret Thatcher.
This all implies that Warren has something to teach us deplorable Americans.
"Given a choice of these to sit in the White House, a hectoring schoolmarm is always preferable."
Uh, no. I am thoroughly enjoying the 3-ring circus we currently have. It's FUN! EMBRACE THE FUN!
Her fiscal plans are disastrous.
Socrates would have slipped her the hemlock.
Given a choice of these to sit in the White House, a hectoring schoolmarm is always preferable.
Well surprise, surprise, surprise!
Blogger madAsHell said...
She's never going to top learning-Norwegian-to-read-a-book, but I think she can out-Zoolander Kamala.
"There's more to being president than just being really, really, really, really good looking. You have to read a teleprompter good. . .and do other stuff good, too." <*Blue Steel*>
Frankly, The Amazing Mrs Warren has a single motive for each of her acting roles. She wants Money.Lots and lots of money.And she saw Clinton Cash flow to them as Wall Street Protection $ under the cover of the latest liberal Harvard Bull Shit theories. And she wants hers. NOW!
We badly need the military budget to be stripped to the bone, and those funds transferred to other needs of the American people.
This is a lovely idea that in the absolute abstract I endorse.
Now, tell me how the U.S. does this while its enemies don't.
The strategy to this goal that you suggest is a good way for the human race to commit mass suicide, and that's another comment on the strange and dysfunctional workings of your mind and soul.
I never did buy your "well intentioned" commie act. There is no such thing.
John Henry nailed my response in the second comment.
"Warren is a war criminal!"
I have to admit, it does have a certain ring to it.
"Warren is a war criminal!"
"Warren Peace".
How did that Socratic dialogue about taking a genetics test to prove her Native American heritage work out for her?
Selling process as a solution is teacher lounge fodder, not real world.
On Warren being the Devil's Advocate in this puff piece:
Of course she takes the other side- she strikes me as someone who wouldn't dare allow an underling the role of attacking her ideas- too much of a chance she would lose the argument. By taking the opposite side, she guarantees her ideas win.
In medical school, we called the Socratic Method pimping.
The phrase "Socratic Method," will forever be associated in my mind with one of my medical school classmates (a lawyer before he went to med school). One day an attending who was known as a savage pimper directed a question at him during bedside rounds. He looked the guy right in the eye and said, "I don't learn well by the Socratic Method. You tell me the answer." We all snickered. The attending wasn't amused.
"So when she and her policy team began discussing a wealth tax, she said, 'I kept taking the side of the opposition:"
Wait...I need to put on my hip boots before reading further.
"Her bankruptcy study was propaganda, specifically designed to achieve the result which would support her political agenda. This is such common knowledge actual bankruptcy experts don't use her study."
I'd like to see a Socratic dialogue between Lizzie and Tyler Cowen.
"Liberal" statists using the Socratic method: "Do you want to pay this higher tax, or drink this tasty cup of hemlock?"
President as Teacher-in-Chief eh?
"Sit, citizen-children, and I shall educate!"
"We badly need the military budget to be stripped to the bone, and those funds transferred to other needs of the American people."
What is the military budget this year? I honestly don't know. I'm sure you do, so save me the effort of looking it up.
"...they resent women who might wield power over them..."
This is why Mothers are so unpopular.
This was in "The Cut."
Was there anything about Rebecca eating out Elizabeth from behind?
WARREN 2020
America's Headmistress!
I haven’t read a single comment on this particular post but the first thing I though when I read this part of it: “.. It’s true that people may resent teachers. It’s also true that people are primed to resent teachers, because they resent women who might wield power over them, and it is still new and uncomfortable to think about women having political — presidential! — power.”
Excuse my language but Jesus fucking Christ who thinks like this?
I honestly know of no one who has ever uttered this thought out loud.
"Excuse my language but Jesus fucking Christ who thinks like this?"
They say whatever advances their argument, any relationship to reality is entirely coincidental. Identity politics including feminism is driven by mythology.
He looked the guy right in the eye and said, "I don't learn well by the Socratic Method. You tell me the answer." We all snickered. The attending wasn't amused.
He would not have done well with one of my favorite attendings, Pete Reynolds. He would have a group of maybe 8 or ten. A case would be discussed and he would ask if you had a suggestion of what it might be. You would come up with an answer and he would go to the next. He would keep going around the circle until somebody said something really stupid, then he would demand you explain your answer, You would sit there with a rational answer and hoping the guy in front of you would not blurt it out before you.
Great teacher and doc.
I just knew that stupid comment about the military budget had to be Cook's.
Yeah, I block the socialists and communists too.
But somebody always quotes the good parts.
I've said for a long while that Robert Cook is a would-be tyrant.
Glad some of you recognize that now.
The people of the United States are not freaking children to be taught by ladies of the government. The government operates with their consent, supposedly.
Post a Comment