HE FOUGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY ... BUT HE'S NOT WORTHY.

[Mark B]

Dive & Dale,



A cautious reader always considers the source. I'd actually never heard of Neal Boortz prior to this post. Above, I read a strongly worded article/editorial about a couple of college women that made idiotic comments. At the end of the piece I began to read:

Don't you just love these young people? They're so much fun to watch during those magic years when they know everything and when they have all of the answers to every problem facing mankind. As I said the other day, we should take 100 volunteer members of university student senates from across the country --- and let's make sure Jill Edwards is one of them --- and give them a country to run for four years. Haiti would do just fine.

Halfway through, I think, "Oh Yeah!, he's gonna send those 100 kids to Arlington Cemetery or maybe even Marine boot camp", but he doesn't. He wants them to govern Haiti for four years. What the hell is that? What does that mean in the context of callously dismissing a memorial for a Medal of Honor recipient and UW alumnus? Based on that little misdirection, I immediately assumed Boortz was not a veteran and a quick google to his own website confirmed same.



Did I assume he didn't serve because it wasn't convenient or it just wasn't a priority in his eligible years? Sure. Statistically speaking, that's the overwhelming case. Hey, do I know that Jill & Ashley aren't attending UW on Marine ROTC scholarships? No. But again, probably a good assumption.



Why does it matter? For me, the kind of righteous indignance and open contempt he displays in his writing requires a more significant personal investment in the topic. It's not a hard fast rule just a factor I consider. I don't deny his right to opine or comment, it's the lack of civility and moderation that irks me. His Dad was a Marine, maybe that's enough. I did hold comment on his service status until his second 'editorial' riled me up in a different direction.



This guy Boortz and others with a broad regional/national forum should feel some responsbility to moderate their attacks in proportion to the offense. This was a routine student senate meeting at a modest sized university in a corner of the United States. A senate member proposed a small memorial to a distinguished alumnus and WWII hero. The typical college guys were for it and the typical college girls flippantly dismissed it. Is that surprising? Not to me. Do I have a problem with the comments? Sure. Were I there, I would have had choice words for J & A. Do the girls deserve some local heat from staff, students, soldiers, alumni and veterans? Absolutely. My concern is this: do they deseve the wrath of a nation? It's a scary outcome from a few odious but probably innocent comments. Do you think some of the Boortz faithful, whipped to a frenzy, can't make these girl's lives miserable?



I guess that's the power of the Internet and talk radio and I need to deal. Maybe, I credit him too much influence. Just consider a daughter, little sister or neice you might cherish. Mine is named, Angie. She has a good heart but she's a teenager and entirely too capable of saying something really stupid at the worst possible time. I wish a successful and trouble-free college experience for her. Hopefully, her future missteps do not fall under the righteous eyes of military honors watchdog, Neal Boortz.



So, that's it. Not specious, not farcical, not even anti-right wing. Just my thoughts from my perspective as a veteran and uncle.

 

[Dale Carter]

Understandable.



Perhaps we would have less idiocy if it were corrected early on. Do you think her comments were shaped by the professors she encounters at UofW or, even, by her high school teachers before she arrived? Past experience leads me to believe that she would not receive much heat from local sources without this kind of exposure. The local sources (school admin, teachers, other students, etc) tend to agree with her. Similar to the judge in NH who let the child rapist out with 60 days time and probation, national attention is needed to some cases. I wish national attention had been brought to bear on soem of the garbage I saw in college.



Perhaps people like Boortz are so sick of academias attacks on the military (no recruiters on campus, eliminate ROTC, San Francisco refusing a battleship, etc.) that they react a little more strongly than might otherwise be warranted?



Boortz thing about Haiti is a running joke on his show. He suggests that we let all the know-it-alls who think America is so screwed up and their way is better a chance to govern Haiti. That might educate them on how misdirected their ideas are in reality. He picked Haiti because their is only one direction to go with that place. He often suggests that the UN be relocated tio Haiti so they can help them fix their country.

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

fy10lyny,



Your comments are of rational and sound-mindedness. But the girls facing the "wrath of a nation" is hardly what is taking place.



Neal Boortz is just providing the information and open discussion. Had he not done this, other correct-thinkers might not have heard of this and little Ashley and Jill proceed forward with their activism-based-on-ignorance.



As a father (of two daughters and a son) and a 10-year veteran of the Navy (and a descendant of veterans who served in every American conflict since the War of Independence), I am raising my children to know, value, respect and honor those who served. If they made comments such as these two ignorant girls did, they would have done so against all that they know, deserving the wrath of their father.



If Jill and Ashley gain an understanding of what it means to serve this nation in combat (no matter what people's opinions are of the conflict), then Neal Boortz has achieved what he set out to do...re-educate.



Too bad that isn't what is happening. I wrote a letter to Mark Emmert (president of UW) and received this in return:

President Emmert asked me to respond on his behalf to your message about

the Associated Students of the University of Washington (ASUW) Senate

debate regarding a memorial to honor Col. Boyington.



The ASUW Senate, an arm of student government on campus, is a forum in

which students discuss a wide range of issues, including the proposal for

the memorial. After considerable debate, the resolution failed by a

tiebreaker vote. As ASUW Senate Chair Alex Kim described in the message

below, students thought long and hard about their decision and cast their

votes for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons that have been

publicized are addressed in Mr. Kim's report.



According to Mr. Kim and ASUW President Lee Dunbar, who co-sponsored the

resolution, many students felt that we should honor all veterans

appropriately, and not single out one, even though Col. Boyington was a

Medal of Honor winner. It should also be noted that thanks to the work of

Dean Emeritus Brewster Denny and the contributions of many UW alumni,

several years ago the University erected a fitting memorial to UW

students, faculty and staff who lost their lives in World War II.



Different versions of what transpired during the debate have circulated

through the electronic media. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr.

Kim's account. I also hope that regardless of one's point of view on this

issue, the exercise of democracy that occurred at the Senate meeting can

be seen as a meaningful learning opportunity for the students engaged in

the debate.





Sincerely,



Eric S. Godfrey

Acting Vice President for Student Affairs





________________________________________________________________________



It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student

Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and

the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.



The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing

together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution

concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at

http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's

exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal

of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the

creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not

have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have

recommended it to the University of Washington.



The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators

representing a diverse array of view

 

[Mark B]

Dale, How would Boortz fill his air-time without academia? He should be more appreciative.



Dive, the Train Trac reprint of Jill Edwards e-mail above indicates she's feeling plenty of heat.



Hate to see words like 'correct-thinkers' and 're-educate'. Don't they make science-fiction movies about those kind of concepts? I'm able to think and educate myself just fine. Don't need Neal Boortz one bit.

 

[Dale Carter]

Now for academia to respond by not responding

4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the

grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated

that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not

suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.

Then why bring up the terms? The exclusion of the Colonel because he is white is implicit in the statement which meant "we need to build monuments to people other than white males, therefore no Pappy Boyington monument". Change the color and subject...If we are at the grocery store and I say we don't need to buy green peas because we have plenty of green peas in the pantry, isn't the reaason we are not buying green peas the fact that they are green peas?



I wonder what the reaction would be if the pilot was a black man and a student Senator said, "We have enough monuments to black guys"?



I wonder why he left out the word "rich" in "rich white male", doesn't it help show her bias and ideology? Can't go around offending "rich white males" who endow scholarships, now can we???

Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.

If you have any additional questions, please contact:

People aren't upset by the "tone" they are upset by the words. I didn't read "tone, I read "words". The tone may be respectful, but saying that "she didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce" is terribly disrespectful of those MOST deserving of respect.



Based on this non-sensical and unresponsive "response", Alex Kim obviously doesn't see the problem. Wonder is he is a law student?

 

[Dale Carter]

Wonder how much heat she would feel without this hitting the national media?

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

dale,



Neal Boortz is hardly national media. This story got no play on the big 3 networks, CNN or Fox.

 

[Dale Carter]

Internet is national media.

 

[TrainTrac]

Neal Boortz is hardly national media.

He's syndicated on over 150 stations around the country, and ranked 20th or higher for his time slot on 21 of those stations. And there are over 30 sites on the internet carrying his show. If that's not "national" media, what is?



Nevertheless, national media or not, he's definitely having an impact on this particular issue. Here's something from his website and show yesterday:

PAPPY BOYINGTON SCHOLARSHIP FUND



Remember the flap last week about the opposition to a Pappy Boyington memorial at the University of Washington? Well, a scholarship fund has been established honoring World War II Fighter Pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner and UW alumnus. Boyington was a 1934 UW aeronautics & astronautics engineering graduate. This fund provides scholarships to undergraduate students who are either a U.S Marine Corps veteran or are the child of a U.S Marine Corps veteran.

This fund was only established after Boortz discussed the issue last week.

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

Rush is national media. Stern was national media.



Btw, Boortz picked up the story from the local Seattle talk shows. The scholarship fund had some roots with VFW/AmVets and UW Alumini Association...in response. Boortz may have had an impact in getting the story to a wider audience, but it was the locals that got the fund started in response to the local radio.

 

[TrainTrac]

Well, Rush Limbaugh talked about this on his show yesterday. He even has this story linked on his website. I guess this is a big story, now that "national media" is talking about it...

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/260404_memorial22.html



Boyington memorial for UW revisited

Wednesday, February 22, 2006



By CHRISTINE FREY

P-I REPORTER



After rejecting a memorial to Marine Corps fighter ace Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a University of Washington alumnus -- and feeling the sting of talk radio, television commentators and the e-mail-sending public -- UW students may now back a tribute to all former students who have received the Medal of Honor.



A resolution calling for students to recognize five Medal of Honor recipients has been submitted to the student government, and it will probably be considered next week. Student government leaders briefly discussed the issue at a meeting Tuesday night.



The university itself, which received hundreds of e-mails about the rejection of a memorial to Boyington, is also trying to cool public tempers that student leaders raised when, among other things, some questioned whether the university should honor a Marine who had killed people or another rich white man.



The UW created a scholarship last week named for Boyington that will go to undergrads who are a Marine Corps veteran or the child of one.



The controversy also has spurred some UW students to propose that their peers show their support for the military by honoring those who have died in the Iraq war and back military recruiters on campus.



Earlier this month, the UW student government failed by one vote to pass a resolution that would have supported the creation of a memorial to Boyington, a pilot with the Flying Tigers and later the Marines in World War II.



Their decision became public when a member of the UW College Republicans e-mailed the news to a Seattle talk radio host.



As reports of the decision spread through Internet blogs and other media, students received scores of e-mails from people who disagreed with their decision and some of their comments, which were posted in online meeting minutes. Students have said their comments were taken out of context.



The latest resolution -- brought forward by the same UW senior who proposed recognizing Boyington -- would honor five former UW students who received the Medal of Honor: Boyington, Deming Bronson, Robert Galer, Robert Leisy and William Nakamura.



"I certainly hope it passes," said Andrew Everett, who sponsored the resolution. "I was disappointed that the last one failed, but at the same time I would not be surprised by any decision that the senate reaches."



Any campus memorial would have to be approved by university officials, including the president. The UW has memorials to World Wars I and II and the Spanish Civil War.



The UW fund-raising department received about 25 phone calls on Friday from people who wanted to honor Boyington; later that day, the university set up a scholarship fund in his name, said Renee Fricke, director of the UW's annual giving programs.



More than 100 people had donated more than $8,000 to the fund as of Tuesday, she said.



"We had a few alums who were upset, but especially our donors, they know working through us ... they can turn negative things into something positive," Fricke said.



Donations can be made at www.uwfoundation.org



The university received around 300 e-mails about the issue, spokesman Norm Arkans said last week.



In the wake of the controversy, several other students have proposed resolutions related to Boyington or the military.



One calls for a UW student to publicly apologize for comments she made about the military and read a book about Boyington -- or lose her senate seat.



Another asks th

 

[Bill V]

TrainTrac, what a load of crap. This isn't leftist, socialist thinking of the group over the individual. This is practical thinking about the prospect of cluttering the university with multiple individual memorials. If they did one specifically to Boyington, there would clearly be a push soon after that to have individual memorials to each of the Medal of Honor recipients. And then to each university alumnus who was killed in action. And then to each university alumnus to have ever served in the military. And on an on. There have to be some practical limits to the amount of space dedicated to memorials of this type, and this is simply an effort to lend some common sense solutions to this while still honoring those deserving it.

 

[TrainTrac]

Bill,



I have to disagree. Some individual accomplishments are worth recognizing, especially those of Col. Boyington:



1. Awarded the Medal of Honor.

2. Awarded the Navy Cross.

3. Squadron Commander with the American Volunteer Group (aka Flying Tigers), achieving Ace status, credited with six kills.

4. Marine Corps Aviator and squadron commander, achieving Ace status several times over, credited with 28 kills. (This was the highest number of kills for Marines in WWII).

5. Imprisoned for 20 months in a Japanese POW camp.



Yes, there are many military members who have accomplished great things while serving their country, but I believe that some do deserve special recognition, especially those who are awarded the Medal of Honor. I see nothing wrong with memorials to all five UW grads who received the Medal of Honor. The very fact that they were awarded the nation's highest military honor, and the reasons for receiving such an award make them excellent role models for the students on campus, and most worthy of recogition. So if Pappy Boyington is the first one to receive such recognition because he's more famous than the other four, I see nothing wrong with that.



All around the country, there are stretches of highway or bridges named in honor individiual Medal of Honor recipients. Should they not have received such recognition?



How about Mount Rushmore? It honors the individual achievments of four Presidents. Should we just wipe that slate clean and put a Presidential seal on the rock face instead?

 

[Bill V]

TrainTrac, I'm not at all saying that Boyington doesn't deserve it. (Nor am I saying he does--I don't know enough about him to form any opinion on it either way, and don't have sufficient time to go digging into the links here or elsewhere.)



What I am taking issue with is your assumption that the people suggesting the memorial honoring all the medal of honor winners are doing so out of some sort of "leftist, socialist" agenda.



The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington honors thousands of men who gave their lives in that war. Every one of them did great things that can be argued to be worthy of individual recognition. Rather than litter the Mall with thousands of individual memorials, they built one, that paid tribute to them all, collectively. Are you claiming that such a memorial is strictly the result of "leftist, socialist" thinking?

 

[TrainTrac]

No, Bill, that's not what I'm saying at all. The 58,000-plus on the Wall are very much deserving of that recognition.



I was pointing out that there seems to be an abundance of left-thinking people in the halls of academia who are using their positions as a bully pulpit/soap box to spread their views rather than just educate the students who are enrolled in the subjects that they're hired to teach. The students are young and impressionable, and many absorb and begin to espouse those points of view without even realizing it. A prime example is the comments made initially by the students in opposition to the Boyington memorial that started this whole thing to begin with:

Jill Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person

who killed other people.

She said she didn’t’ believe a member of the Marine Corps was an

example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.



Ashley Miller commented that many monuments at UW already

commemorate rich white men.

If those aren't leftist comments, then I don't know what is... And who is a very strong influence on these students' way of thinking? Right now their professors are...



Here's column by Dr. Walter E. Williams discussing this very subject:

Indoctrination of our youth



By Walter E. Williams



Feb 22, 2006



Let's start off with a few quotations, then a question. In reference to the president's State of the Union: "Sounds a lot like the things Adolf Hitler used to say." "Bush is threatening the whole planet." "[The] U.S. wants to keep the world divided." Then the speaker asks, "Who is probably the most violent nation on the planet?" and shouts "The United States!"



What's the source of these statements? Were they made in the heat of a political campaign? Was it a yet-to-be captured leader of al Qaeda? Was it French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin? Any "yes" answer would miss the true source by a mile. All of those statements were made by Mr. Jay Bennish, a teacher at Overland High School in Aurora, Colo.



During this class session, Mr. Bennish peppered his 10th-grade geography class with other statements like: The U.S. has engaged in "7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba." In his discussion of capitalism, he told his students, "Capitalism is at odds with humanity, at odds with caring and compassion and at odds with human rights."



Regardless of whether you're pro-Bush or anti-Bush, pro-American or anti-American, I'd like to know whether there's anyone who believes that the teacher's remarks were appropriate for any classroom setting, much less a high school geography class. It's clear the students aren't being taught geography. They're getting socialist lies and propaganda. According to one of the parents, on the first day of class, the teacher said Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" was going to be a part of the curriculum.



This kind of indoctrination is by no means restricted to Overland High School. School teachers, at all grades, often use their classroom for environmental, anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-parent propaganda. Some get their students to write letters to political figures condemning public policy the teacher doesn't like. Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Inside American Education" documents numerous ways teachers attack parental authority. Teachers have asked third-graders, "How many of you ever wanted to beat up your parents?" In a high school health class, students were asked, "How many of you hate your parents?"



Public education propaganda is often a precursor for what youngsters might encounter in college. UCLA's Bruin Standard newspaper documents campus propaganda. Mary Corey, UCLA history professor, instructed her class, "Capitalism isn't a lie on purpose. It's just a lie," she continued, "[Capitalists] are swine. . . . They're ******* people." Professor Andrew Hewitt, chairman<

 

[Mark B]

I was pointing out that there seems to be an abundance of left-thinking people in the halls of academia who are using their positions as a bully pulpit/soap box to spread their views rather than just educate the students who are enrolled in the subjects that they're hired to teach. The students are young and impressionable, and many absorb and begin to espouse those points of view without even realizing it.

So these professors are bringing up interesting points the students hadn't thought of so far? And then their impressionable little minds are absorbing and espousing them?

Limbaugh brought up an interesting point in this issue that I hadn't thought of so far: During all of the debate about this in the student senate, one alternative was proposed: Instead of a memorial honoring Col. Boyington, the idea was suggested to build a memorial honoring all MOH receipients. Limbaugh pointed out that this idea was yet another example of how students' young minds are being indoctrinated by leftist professors in universities.

Hmmmmmm....

 

[Bill V]

TrainTrac, those comments by Edwards and Miller are NOT the ones you were talking about when you made the accusation of it being from a "leftist, socialist" agenda. You were talking about the idea of choosing to honor a group instead of individual(s)...

During all of the debate about this in the student senate, one alternative was proposed: Instead of a memorial honoring Col. Boyington, the idea was suggested to build a memorial honoring all MOH receipients...Typical leftist, socialist thinking: Individual achievement is wrong, only the group matters. This is how kids are being taught/programmed to think in colleges today...

Regarding the article by Williams, it's interesting...if it's true. But in my experience, articles like this usually result not from the professors actually taking the positions they're accused of, but from their statements intentionally being taken out of context by those who are seeking to take them down for whatever reason. For example, I remember being in a college history course where the discussions by the professor and the class often attempted to understand why things in recent American history occurred by trying to see things from the "un-American" point of view. For example, instead of just looking at why the US didn't want nuclear weapons in Cuba, we would also attempt to understand the reasons that the USSR wanted to have them there. And that involves analyzing some of both the pro-American and the anti-American thought patterns going on in this world, to determine what of them are based in fact, what is based in misunderstanding/misinformation, and how that misinformation came to exist. (And believe me, it's easy to find a lot of fact and a lot of misinformation on both sides of the discussion.)



Part way through the semester, a couple of the students started publicly raising objections to how they were being propagandized in the class, much in the way Williams' article says was happening at Overland High and at UCLA. They would take "quotes" from the class as their evidence. But those quotes had been made in the process of trying to obtain better understanding of how the situations developed by "walking a mile in their shoes". No one was trying to convince anyone that this was right or wrong--it was only trying to help people understand how these historical situations had developed. But because of how it was possible to take such concepts completely out of context, the professor took considerable heat, until sufficient students (current and previous) came to his defense and explained what a valuable teaching method this is.



The fact that a parent accused the teacher of including the "Communist Manifesto" in his curriculum only makes it appear like this situation is more similar to the class I was in. Not everything in the general concept of Communism is bad or evil. There were some great things that happened to the USSR during their Communist days that couldn't have happened if they weren't Communist, just like there were some awful things that happened because they were Communist. But because they were our enemy at that time (both for reasons having to do with the difference in political systems, and for reasons completely unrelated), our society has made Communism out to be completely evil. In reality, though, studying the "Manifesto" can result in learning what was good about that style of government, what wasn't, and why it ultimately failed. Even if one takes the stance that Communism is evil throughout, it's still worthwhile to study the "Manifesto", simply to know and understand more about your enemy--see "The Art of War".



But rather than see the value of such learning, the rightists out there want to shut this down, and to control all thought. If it doesn't agree with their narrow view of what is right and wrong, it shouldn't be taught, even as a negative example. People shouldn't have broad learning across ma

 

[Dale Carter]

Bill V - Ever seen what hapens to a student who expresses conservative views in a liberal class? It can get ugly. I was often the sole conservative in mass comm and journalism classes in college and it was tough going, from the teacher and the students. One professor explained that I was an idiot beasue I didn't understand that Communism would overtake capitalism in our lifetimes. Of course, he said that in 1985 HAHAHAHAHAHA He also couldn't stand the bigoted and instutionally racist city of Birmingham (ignoring the black mayor and city council) and he left for Wisconsin as soon as possible. Ahhhh, Wisconsin, beacon of diversity.



I agree that their are distortions and fabrications on both sides, but to say that only the right wants to dominate is simply not true. To say that only the liberal side wants to teach people to think is also mistaken. I can make a very strong argument that the right is less orthodox than the left and that they would like to see their beliefs represented to SOME degree in education. Currently, and in general education and college, it is not.

 

[Bill V]

Dale-- Good points--especially when you point out that this is a two-way street. When you ask, "Ever seen what hapens to a student who expresses conservative views in a liberal class?", my reply is that it's probably pretty similar to what happens to a student who expresses liberal views in a conservative class--a situation I've been in many times.



I didn't mean to infer that it's only the right that wants to dominate--sorry if it came across that way. My intent was to show that the right wants to dominate just as much as the left does, and any article that treats this as a left-only phenomena (as that article by Williams seems to do) is being quite myopic.



I do completely disagree with your assertion that "currently, and in genral education and college, it is not (right beliefs represented in education". All through high school and college, everywhere I turned, I was getting conservative Christian dogma crammed down my throat. (High school was public, college was private Jesuit, where a certain degree of it is understandable, but it was even coming in Engineering classes.) Not only were people who stated that they disagreed with this Christian dogma severely ostracized, but even those who simply stated that they hadn't yet formed an opinion and wanted to learn more were outcast for not already believing blindly.



And for the record--both the high school and college were in Wisconsin. A state where, despite being religiously closed-minded, my experience was that the people are among the most racially open people in the country. So don't even think of trying to donounce the Badger state on racial grounds.



On a side note, I do take offense at that piece by Walter E. Williams, as that was also my grandfather's name, and I know he would be spinning in his grave if he knew that someone was connecting "his" name with an article making the assertions that one does.

 

[Dale Carter]

I do completely disagree with your assertion that "currently, and in genral education and college, it is not (right beliefs represented in education". All through high school and college, everywhere I turned, I was getting conservative Christian dogma crammed down my throat. (High school was public, college was private Jesuit, where a certain degree of it is understandable, but it was even coming in Engineering classes.) Not only were people who stated that they disagreed with this Christian dogma severely ostracized, but even those who simply stated that they hadn't yet formed an opinion and wanted to learn more were outcast for not already believing blindly.

Attending a private Jesuit school, guarantees a heavy dose of dogma in EVERY class because it is the bedrock of their philosophy and everything said and done there is based on Jesuit philosophy. Teachers and administrators on a national level are overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. The schools of education which they attend are the same. Granted there are individual schools which are conservative, but that is not the case in general. Teachers are statistically almost as liberal and Democratic as journalists. The teachers unions, which represent them, are extremely liberal.

And for the record--both the high school and college were in Wisconsin. A state where, despite being religiously closed-minded, my experience was that the people are among the most racially open people in the country. So don't even think of trying to donounce the Badger state on racial grounds

Compared to the diversity of races and the interaction between them in the south, west and northeast, Wisconsin is monolithic. Large urban areas are more divers, but still white as the snow on the ground. That is what I meant by Wisconsin being a beacon of diversity. I am not ragging on them, just pointing out that DR. Commie Professor couldn't wait to move to Madison, one of the most lily white areas of the USA.



I am not being critical of the people of Wisconsin. I was making fun of the weiner professor. As far as being racially open, it is really easy to be racially open when you don't live with each other. You know why they don't have race problems in Madison? For all practical purposes, they only have one race. I know they are wonderful people, I have been there (Madison and Eau Claire), but don't pat them on the back too much for dealing well with a problem which they have never had. That is like congratulating me for beating AIDS and cancer.



This is what I meant;



Population stats from the 2000 census



Madison, WI



One race 203219 97.68% (meaning not mixed)

White 174689 83.96%

Black or African American 12155 5.84%

American Indian and Alaska Native 759 0.36%

Asian 12065 5.8%



Birmingham, AL city proper, not metro area)

One race 240793 99.17%

White 58457 24.07%

Black or African American 178372 73.46%

American Indian and Alaska Native 422 0.17%



Eau Claire 96% white



Wisconsin (entire state)

White 4.5 million 91%

black 244,000 6.1%

Indan/Alaskan 47,000 0.95%

Asian 89,000 1.8%





Birmingham Metro area

Ethnicity:

White 66%

Black 32%

Asian <1%

Hispanic <1%

Other <1%

2000 U.S. Census and Claritas Inc.