I've got to second that.

dd, c'mon.

I imagine it is possible and there are exceptions...but I did not see it in the many years I went to college, or the years I worked at a University...or the years my children have attended....so I imagine it is rare, if not almost impossible...maybe things are different in CA....everything else is.

BTW: who said anything about "full time," PhDs included?

+1 to Island:

C'mon...

I read ever post of this incredibly stupid thread. Fint keeps posting this quote and I am surprised no one has mentioned the obvious. Apparently Ann feels that the same solution should be used because she clearly has a problem with the solution being different.

Why in the world would the solution be the same? I suppose that some people feel that there is only one solution to any and all similar problems.

Based on this thinking, all problems of rising cost should be addressed exactly the same? This goes for rising housing prices, auto prices, medical costs, airline tickets, cable TV, gas, hookers, whatever the heck Fint produces, ect. Lets just apply one solution across the board and everything will be fine. :eek:

No, Ann does not think the solution should be the same, you obviously missed the point and/or don't understand her style. She is simply pointing out the selective outrage of the liberal media. Any mention of a shared solution is tongue in cheek.

Well, maybe because the premise of her outrage is false, maybe people realize that one does not apply the same view to all things, maybe people are more immediately affected by rising gasoline prices right now.

Her point is again to dig at anything she calls "liberal" and to use a poster child as a scapegoat for her nonsensical utterances.

Yeah, I don't get her style either.

She is simply pointing out the stupidity of thinking we can lower gas prices by lowering CEO salaries. It's a juvenile and assnine idea.

Look at how pissed you guys got when she proposed the same for professors? Why, cause you know it's a juvenile and assnine idea..............get it now?

So her point was how assinine it is to address professors' salaries as a reason for the high cost of tuition, because what could result are lower wages for the professors?

Or is her point how assinine it is that universities teach liberal subjects and pay professors six figures and that we should complain as much about that as we do an oil company CEO who makes one hundred times as much?

Or is her point how assinine Pete Carroll's play calling was against Texas during the Rose Bowl.

Her point is that although it's a great rallying cry for those being "injured" by the rising costs of either, the truth is they are not the problem.

Oh forget it, oil companies are evil.

I probably do not "get" her "style" because I don't pay much attention to her. If that is what she meant to say, why did she not say it. Seemed to me that she was just pissed off that "proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively ...were diametrically opposed." She said nothing about "selective outrage" so maybe that is where I went wrong.

So what is the reason for the rising costs, according to AC? Liberal education? Is liberal education that much more expensive than a conservative education?

Ann likes to turn the liberal mentality on itself, that's all. Just as cutting CEO salaries is the dumbest idea going to lower gas prices, lower professor salaries is just as stupid a solution to curb tuition increases. Yet only one of the above is actually proposed. and it is proposed by the liberals.

See?

She didn't state what she truly thinks the cause is, nor did she separate liberal from conservative education.

She simply stated what the liberal response would be if the tables were turned.

I don't recall seeing any "liberal" plan to reduce gas prices by lowering CEO salaries.

Of course, the Republican plan would be to increase CEO salaries to reduce gas prices.

Ok, fair enough. How about implied via the incessant b1tching?

And the conservative implication is to let the free market set salaries.

Yeah, that seems to be working... about as well as letting heroin addicts determine their own dosages...

LMFAO

No kidding. This is actually a very well-presented example of the cost of NOT funding education. The more we deny colleges and universities the funding necessary to keep America competitive.........


.......the more Fintstones we will encounter who believe that articles like this one actually draw conclusions and are coherent. Ms. Coulter's livelihood, and the health of her favorite political party, depend on inadequate education funding. Some of us could read her article fifty times and still not find a coherent, rational assertion.

They can and they do. As long as the pure knowledge is all they are after, then fine. But in order to be awarded a "degree," they will need to take the courses that will put their "meat" in perspective. Show them the context in which the meat is used.

I have a degree in Philosophy and am looking for a position as a salaried Philosopher. So far, no luck. I guess I'll continue my job as a Labor Relations Consultant until a Philosopher position opens.

But seriously, folks. The philosophy involved some mental calisthenics that the other courses lacked. Those who think "The Arts" are useless......just don't understand their value. And at this point (and I think they would vigorously agree with this), nobody's going to teach them any different.