If Universities brainwash us, why aren't there more liberals?
584077
The premise of this book is that Liberals in Universities are brainwashing our children.  If college graduates are indoctrinated by liberals, why aren't there more liberals out there?  And does this mean that in order to be a conservative, you can't go to college?  Hmm....College = Liberal, no college = Conservative.  Please let me know if I got this wrong.
1336636
If you don't think this book has a bias against liberals, then just look at the cover.  6 of 8 people on the cover who are "People Who Are Screwing Up America" are prominent liberals.

Look, here's what's wrong with America.  We, as a country, are way too focused on OTHER countries.  Not fixing our own country.  We spend way to much time and money on OTHER countries, and we can't blame liberals for that.  It is in fact the conservative internationalists in the Republican party who have put our military in over 100 countries and tried to turn us into a modern empire.  I think Bernie is off the mark in his analysis.
2162364
It is very difficult to find social justice programs for liberal religious education. This is one of the better ones we've found, they're getting a bit dog eared, so we'd love to get a new copy.
4258271
We drive down the freeway of life and are bombarded with little slogans and attempts to convince and smartly convert us to a way of thinking with marketing bill boards, or through the mail, on TV, in the paper - subtle attempts to steal our minds by over-loading them with a coorporate marketing agenda and sloganism.  A bit abusive language on my part.

The question is worth pondering, and the questions raised in this book are of the sort that any educated man should ponder, even if there is no solution, it makes great "smartening-up" not "dumbing down" (sloganism) of the curriculum.  Peiper persuasively argues that communication is not happening as much as might be thought, because communication must be void of ulterior motives.  And his arguement that we must be able to express our view of the "truth of things" in freedom; why many do not is due to what he calls "the lingo of the revolution".
3027911
As a member of one of the dozens of sects of Christianity here in the United States, I have noted over the last couple of decades the decline in American values, and the rise of Secular Humanism (AKA atheism) as the government-sponsored, official state religion, to the exclusion of all others, but most specifically targeted for elimination are Christians. My alarm has been tempered by my understanding of the fact that as Christians, we have a powerful majority, so I have not been as alarmed as I should have been.

However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the rage directed against Christianity, primarily by liberals, and most vehemently by the highly liberal 'gay' community, is silently (only because of the MSM blackout surrounding such events) creeping toward a line that should not be crossed.

In my lurking around online havens of liberalism, I have noted that the hatred of Christianity is real and growing. The propaganda in our public schools (including Universities) is so blatantly anti-Christian I am quite surprised that only Conservatives are aware of it. The anti-Christian, anti-American, pro-homosexual, pro-communism, anti-capitalist propaganda has, by design, found its way into the elementary schools of our nation.

Our children are being brainwashed to despise Christianity, morality, America, capitalism, and personal responsibility from the time of their first exposure to organized education, all paid for with our tax dollars.

Many parents are too busy working to pay ridiculously high taxes (thanks to liberals) and land values (thanks to tree-huggers) to notice what the educators of our great nation are cramming into the minds of the impressionable, captive audiences that are our children attending public schools.

The courts, packed with political liberals, are legislating from the bench, virtually rewriting the constitution to force laws upon us that our legislators never would have approved. The liberals are using our taxpayer-funded courts to enact their radical extremist agenda, in collusion with corrupt leftist justices.

David Limbaugh has a brilliant legal mind, and his book details, exposes, and educates us about the dangers of letting things continue as they are. Persecution is a clarion call to American Christians to defend our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to practice our religions, to tear down the extra-Constitutional "wall of separation between church and state," and to assert our rights in the public square.

We need to cleanse the education system of the propaganda which is at best, teaching children to hate Christians and to convert to Islam, and at worst, inciting them to future violence.

We must stop the unconstitutional governmental promotion of Secular Humanism as the official state religion.

Please read this book. Unlike the one-star reviewers, I have actually read the book, and it is a thorough, brilliant read. It should be required reading for every American citizen who uses our tax dollars to educate themselves or their children.

Finally, this book is one of the best referenced, documented, recommended books in print in America today. Ignore the one-star reviewers who simply love to hate Christians, Conservatives, and Patriotic Americans. Read this book!
3106741
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage

One has to listen to Savages daily radio show to see the full spectrum of liberalism the mental disorder on display. You won't hear about how mentally disabled the libs are from the jackals in the media, the blinkered academics, or the college administrators who are even more clueless than the media or the professors.

Which is why you need Savages book.

I won't give the entire book away, but here are a few contemporary examples (some discussed in the book) as to why liberalism is a mental disorder:

Feminists will say nothing about the mistreatment of women in Muslim majority countries (i.e., honor killings, female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, forced marriages, divinely-sanctioned wife beatings, etc.) but will complain around the clock about President Trumps treatment of women. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The LGBT community will embrace Islam, hold rallies against Islamophobia, and invite millions of Muslim refugees to live in Western countries. The problem is that if these Muslims were to seize power in Western countries, they would murder the gays and lesbians and throw them down a well (homosexuality is forbidden in Islam). Why does the LGBT community unite with the Islamists who would destroy them? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals, who are pro-womens rights and pro-gay rights, support the Palestinians, who want to destroy the State of Israel, which is pro-womens rights and pro-gay rights. Yet if the Palestinians were to invade Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, then womens rights and gay rights would disappear from the Middle East. Why are the libs cheerleaders for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist groups? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals in Britain allow the Islamists to hold rallies where they call for Sharia to replace English law, while banning critics of the Islamic jihad from entering Britain (e.g., Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, etc.). In other words, those who want to destroy Britain are given a free pass in Britain, while those who want to save Britain from future destruction are banned from entering the country. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals praise Yasser Arafat as a freedom fighter against the Israelis, even though, as Savage notes, Arafat was a monster. This walking obscenity invented airline hijacking, hostage taking, school massacres, and suicide bombings. He kept the Palestinians in a prison of moral, spiritual, and economic poverty. He embezzled their money and, during his final years, skimmed more than $2 million a month to line his pockets. (117). After Arafats death, the libs in the media eulogized him to the point that youd think this mass murderer was Abe Lincoln in a turban or George Washington reincarnate. And Arafats Hitleresque view of the Jews was scrubbed from the media, too. Even Gerhard Schroeder, whom Savage calls a socialist weasel, said it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his lifes work to which Savage replies, What work? The annihilation of Israel? Later on, Savage asks, Why does the American media sit by silently, or worse, glorify this mass murderer? Because they hate the Judeo-Christian values upon which we as a nation were founded. Therefore, they vilify America and Israel and lionize vermin like Arafat. (128) How do you explain this? Easy: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

This is only scratching the surface. There are dozens of other examples one could give. Savage says regularly on his show that whenever you hear libs do or say something that baffles you to the core and for which no rational explanation is possible, then all you need to do to regain your sanity is to say Liberalism is a mental disorder and youll feel much better.

Its true. To learn more, read Savages book to discover why liberalism truly is a mental disorder!

Readers of this book would also like Jennas Flaw, a novel about the death of God, the crumbling of Western civilization, and how we can save it.
4830590
The book was written by one who openly asserts ". . .  I am a liberal, self-described, self-examined, and hopefully self-aware.  I am willing to update my beliefs and to change -- and I see this willingness as a virtue, a characteristic I strive to possess" (p.  274).  And therein lies the great divide.

There is no doubt that there is a great political divide in this country:  conservatives on one side of the aisle; liberals on the other; and a smattering of undefineds occupying some vague middle ground.  Mooney set himself the challenge of reviewing the scientific (specifically the psychological) literature in an effort to determine why that divide exists, why it seems (or is true) that conservatives tend to deny science and in so doing deny some crucial aspects of reality, aspects which are crucial in policy making.  Mooney's premise is that if he can find a scientific basis for the split between liberal and conservative, perhaps there might exist a means whereby the two can be brought together to deal with some of the major critical political issues of the times.  His goal is admirable.  There is considerable scientific literature which defines important psychological differences between self-identified conservatives and liberals.  Using the differences identified by scientists, and there are clearly observable, definable psychological differences, Mooney examines many of the particulars in the political wars which existed as of 2011, when he was writing the book, and why the schisms exist with the virulence they do.

"Republicans today really are more doggedly misinformed about politics and economics (tax policy, healthcare reform), about science (evolution, global warming), and so on.  Indeed, there is a very good reason for this . . . .  Perhaps they respond differently to information than do liberals -- thanks to different psychologies, different media channels, or some combination of these and other factors.  Perhaps they cling more strongly to wrong beliefs, out of deference to authority, unity with the group, and simple searching for closure.  Perhaps they need to do so.  This book takes seriously the idea -- increasingly difficult to deny -- that in the aggregate, Republicans and Democrats really think about facts, about reality itself differently.  And it has sought to explain how such a misadventure could come about, drawing on the best scientific tools available to aid in such an account." (p. 271).

If it is the case that conservatives and liberals treat information differently, then how can that harmful schism be healed?  His ideas require the biggest changes from liberals, because

"My current suspicion -- though I know the science is inadequate to prove it -- is that we probably evolved to have the capacity to be both "conservative," and also to be "liberal, " because both are really beneficial to us.  The problem in modern times, and in the United States today, is that we've gotten terribly confused, and put these two sides of ourselves in opposition.  Which is disastrous.  They need to be operating together, rather than at cross purposes.  But, as I said, I don't expect conservatives to actually listen to me.  So instead of telling conservatives how they might fare better . . . let me instead tell my fellow liberals how they might.  After all, liberals are very open to new ideas and to change -- and change is very much what they need.  So here's the advice, liberals:  You need to be way more conservative.  And I don't mean that in a policy sense, but in a psychological one" ( p.  269).

And the tactics he suggests might actually work.

I highly recommend this book to self-identified liberals because it will help you see yourself and, sadly, some of your flaws.  I know I got a few laughs from realizing "yep, that's exactly the way I am."  Conservatives will see themselves as well, if they are open to new ideas and new information.  The book is not a condemnation of conservatives.  Quite the contrary, it's an effort to bravely go where no man has gone before and identify what makes us different.
3363723
The Shadow University shows just how bad racist and sexist censorship and mind control has become on American university campuses.  Cleverly disguised as "harassment policy" virtually every college and university in the US not categorically prohibits free speech, free ideas, or free thinking whenever it disagrees with the officially sanctioned racism and sexism.  The book has many cited examples and details pervasive bigotry on campus.  It's time that honest citizens did something about it.  The author is an officer of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Inc.  (FIRE)  They are currently suing several universities and winning lawsuits where judges are required to explain to university paid bigots (college presidents) the facts of constitutional law.  It is well worth the read, and ought to be required reading for every college student, employee, and regent.
72360
Dan Schwabauer's "Troubled House" is a call to arms to those facing hypocrisy in today's educational system.  Usually an argument should be examined thoroughly before accepting or rejecting its' claims. The underlying theme Schwabauer offers is that people entrenched in our educational system rarely examine the issues if they are in the majority.  Too much reliance is placed on the status quo at the expense of valid research.  One would think the field of education would be leading the charge for the search for facts.  Unfortunately, it is a troubled house and fails when we need it most.  Schwabauer points this out in a play that is engaging, whether read or produced for the stage.
2322105
Anthony Esolen has dared do speak the truth in a culture gone mad with political correctness. He shows how American colleges have squelched free speech and have dumbed down teaching, especially the classics. He has dared to suggest that truth and beauty are not relative, and has questioned the value of promoting "diversity."  He decries the disintegration of the family with its disastrous results. He supports Christianity! This is a profound, provocative book that could be an eye opener to college students and others who may secretly doubt what they are taught to believe.
2605784
Do we only care when the system comes after us. Blacks, Africans, Native Americans have been getting terrible treatment from the first second pilgrims landed in North America, and Christopher Columbus helped (personally) kill numerous natives in his so called "discovery". Like the Occupy Wall Street movement, seems many liberals only care when the global plantation isn't giving them their share of the stolen resources.
3423668
Mr.
zakaria is preaching to the choir, as i am a devotee of the concept of promoting the liberal arts as an essential element of education. He also
presents a brief summary of the history of education which is a handy source.  i think to combine liberal arts background along with tangible skills is the best combination for survival.
1989287
This is one of the most important books on higher education to be published in many years.
An abundantly-documented report on the hypocrisy of university leadership (the kind of report that only a scholar and a lawyer could produce), The Shadow University exposes the denial of free speech and due process, the veiled institutional racism, and especially the "self-serving spinelessness" that is endemic in university life.
What the general reader might not notice is that while the faculty are by no means let off the hook, the central problems that Kors and Silverglate describe usually originate not from the faculty but from the various non-academic administrative offices that have proliferated on nearly every large campus: offices of student life, student affairs, residence life, and so on. The faculty's failure was to have turned over responsibility for campus life to these other agencies more than a generation ago.
Some commentators have seen The Shadow University as reactionary, as a condemnation of various trendy academic notions. But it is not a reactionary work: it is a fundamentally libertarian work. The authors defend the right of all university members to express their views, however unpopular (even the repulsive views of two-bit fraternities). The answer to offensive speech, they justly observe, is not censorship but more and better speech. And if we seek to eliminate oppressive and incompetent bureaucrats, then "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
While many university students and faculty will benefit from the volume, I think that parents, alumni, and public legislators especially should read it and take it to heart. Universities are unlikely to fix themselves unless sunlight shines in on them from the outside.
4400459
George Lakoff has done some important work in the cognitive sciences, the dominant psychological paradigm which contends, unlike earlier behaviorist thought, that the brain does not merely respond to phenomena in a simple stimulus-response reaction, but rather processes information, adding form and context before outputting a response.

Lakoff posits first that we often think of our country as a family, secondly that conservatives think of the ideal family as one with a Strong Father (stressing authority and obedience) and that liberals think of the ideal family as having Nurturant Parents (stressing communication and self-reliance), and contends furthermore that people extend these attitudes about family and government to their political philosophy.  He goes on to explain and predict liberal and conservative thinking, sometimes even contradictory thinking, on the death penalty, corporate welfare, conservation, abortion, gun control, fiscal responsibility, minority rights and other contemporary issues.

Lakoff writes clearly and makes coherent points. I thought this was an interesting and predictive way of discussing current political differences. A self-declared liberal who nevertheless maintains a reasonably objective authorial stance, Lakoff advises liberals to couch their political arguments in the same moral terms that conservatives have been using successfully for years. Liberals are neither immoral nor amoral, as often depicted by Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and other extremist conservative; they need to make that known and enter the political discussion on those terms.

The author goes on to analyse the social utility of the two approaches to family and cites research showing that, contrary to conservative prediction, children who are raised with physical punishment in a highly authoritarian home often grow up with little external motivation or control, and consider violence an acceptable alternative to negotiation.

This is a thought-provoking book for those interested in the application of cognitive science to social thought, or rationalists interested in politics.
4817257
We are much more subliminal victims of mass psychology with a pathetic Gog and Magog approach to how choices are imposed upon individuals than the discussion by Berlin about pluralism in the first essay that provides a summary for how Berlin could not accept the way philosophy disqualifies what can't be true for everybody. People have so many different strategies for survival that institutional attempts to rule in the form of ideologies like Marxism or follow the money merely lead to the yawning heights. The lack of poetic justice in abstract problems makes philosophy boring until something individual strikes back at every common indecency.
127274
Kind of different. Libs would probably like thought police;)
2403416
The average American simply does not understand the insidious ways the history of  our great country has been maligned and re-written to suit the new agenda. Modern leftists are telling a new story, however, contradicting traditional veneration for America in order to convince a nation to author its own destruction and unmake the America that is here now. Our colleges are over ridden with liberals that "teach" (or brainwash) the young minds in America and get them to believe the lies that them make them feel ashamed to live in this once great nation of ours. After seeing this film I challenge those that see it to do their homework and learn the truth our founding fathers lived through in order to estblish the United States of America.