1. The breakdown of voters in the presidential election among groups tonight.
2. After some wannabe academic posted on a "friend's" wall about the Founding Fathers, I made a point about constitutional interpretation. Her response? Trumpeting her credentials. Or the fact that she is on the way to getting one. When pressed on whether she agreed with a point, she bowed out saying FB wasn't the place for discussion about politics, though she repeated her claim about there being no consensus among American historians regarding the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. I then wrote that much of American academia is subversive (implying it is not to be trusted) and that the opinion of historians didn't matter much to those who following a living tradition. Of course she would take this as a personal insult.
So why do womyn and everyone else have to prove the bigots (whether real or those who are tarred as such by their enemies, like the "androsphere") correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment