I find it odd that Rozado didn't combine what are obviously references to the same person, i.e. 'Senator McConnell' and 'Mitch McConnell'.
Perhaps this shows that calling him 'Mitch' tones down the rhetoric a bit -- maybe it helps hostile Wikipedia info mavens think of the ageing senator as a softer, more potentially-cuddly elderly man, rather than as a cold-blooded fascist ideological-assault turtle.
Earlier today, I read a short NPR article about Kyle Rittenhouse's assailants published after his acquittal. It was a bit different, to put it mildly, from what I'd read in conservative media and seen in the published videos, yet I'm sure they believed they were being fair to all parties and accurately informing their readers about 3 thugs chasing an "active shooter." That the survivor admitted on cross that he'd aimed his pistol at Kyle was mentioned but well buried. That it was visible on video was not.
Peggy Noonan shows as being positive but Wikipedia is most unflattering (and this is just the start of the “Criticism” section):
“While Noonan's speechwriting has been praised, her books and Wall Street Journal columns have been the source of criticism and mockery. Critics have singled out her reliance on personal anecdotes to make broad assertions about current events and changes in American politics and society.
During Hurricane Katrina, she called for looters in New Orleans to be shot. Henry Giroux called it a "barely coded rationale to shoot low-income Black people."
What would be the results of all the above if 'controlled' for race and sex?
In other words, what % of the seeming favoritism for 'Blue'-team people is actually a function of a DIS-favoritism for the hated class known as "White-heterosexual Christian-origin Males" (sometimes against heterosexuals, sometimes against Christians, sometimes against males, virtually always against Whites, all of the above tempered, but not removed, by an individual's pro-Wokeness signaling).
Professor Rozado might consider consulting the meta-academic literature to amplify his list of search terms.
By meta-academic I mean the giant volume of literature the academy produces about itself. All university administrations pump out self-reports constantly. A good place to start might be their annual reports. These have financial data and lots of numbers but also tons of text (and glossy inspirational photos). What are they measuring about themselves and what are they promoting about themselves? He could pick, say, a dozen key institutions (a few Ivies, a few public Ivies, a few top liberal arts colleges) and see what terms start to appear across all their reports.
It would be a lot of work -- I don't know if he has a research team? But there would be a lot of overlap, because this meta-academic literature all draws from the same para-academic literature produced by think tanks and NGOs and consultants that tell institutions what they should be concerned with, organize conferences for academic administrators, and which invite university presidents -- for a fat fee -- to give talks and get prizes that they they report back on to their institutions in order to assert they are Leaders in Their Field. How do they know? Why, they gave a talk on the subject of University Leadership and won a prize for University Leadership at the World Congress on University Leadership organized by the World University Leadership Foundation.
small print: it cost 10k to go to the congress in a speaker role and uni prezes who do get the prize in a round robin
it is the MOAST self licking of all ice cream cones, defense contracting included
I find it odd that Rozado didn't combine what are obviously references to the same person, i.e. 'Senator McConnell' and 'Mitch McConnell'.
Perhaps this shows that calling him 'Mitch' tones down the rhetoric a bit -- maybe it helps hostile Wikipedia info mavens think of the ageing senator as a softer, more potentially-cuddly elderly man, rather than as a cold-blooded fascist ideological-assault turtle.
Assault turtle is good …
What did Mark Kelly do to garner their ire?
Earlier today, I read a short NPR article about Kyle Rittenhouse's assailants published after his acquittal. It was a bit different, to put it mildly, from what I'd read in conservative media and seen in the published videos, yet I'm sure they believed they were being fair to all parties and accurately informing their readers about 3 thugs chasing an "active shooter." That the survivor admitted on cross that he'd aimed his pistol at Kyle was mentioned but well buried. That it was visible on video was not.
Peggy Noonan shows as being positive but Wikipedia is most unflattering (and this is just the start of the “Criticism” section):
“While Noonan's speechwriting has been praised, her books and Wall Street Journal columns have been the source of criticism and mockery. Critics have singled out her reliance on personal anecdotes to make broad assertions about current events and changes in American politics and society.
During Hurricane Katrina, she called for looters in New Orleans to be shot. Henry Giroux called it a "barely coded rationale to shoot low-income Black people."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Noonan
How did she classed as having a positive entry?
Greg Gutfeld also has a lengthy negative Criticism section in Wikipedia.
Andrea Tantaros (never heard of her) is shown highly negative yet Wikipedia has nothing bad to say of her.
I don’t think this is ready for prime time.
He's in New Zealand. Everything is upside down there.
LOL!
What would be the results of all the above if 'controlled' for race and sex?
In other words, what % of the seeming favoritism for 'Blue'-team people is actually a function of a DIS-favoritism for the hated class known as "White-heterosexual Christian-origin Males" (sometimes against heterosexuals, sometimes against Christians, sometimes against males, virtually always against Whites, all of the above tempered, but not removed, by an individual's pro-Wokeness signaling).
Professor Rozado might consider consulting the meta-academic literature to amplify his list of search terms.
By meta-academic I mean the giant volume of literature the academy produces about itself. All university administrations pump out self-reports constantly. A good place to start might be their annual reports. These have financial data and lots of numbers but also tons of text (and glossy inspirational photos). What are they measuring about themselves and what are they promoting about themselves? He could pick, say, a dozen key institutions (a few Ivies, a few public Ivies, a few top liberal arts colleges) and see what terms start to appear across all their reports.
It would be a lot of work -- I don't know if he has a research team? But there would be a lot of overlap, because this meta-academic literature all draws from the same para-academic literature produced by think tanks and NGOs and consultants that tell institutions what they should be concerned with, organize conferences for academic administrators, and which invite university presidents -- for a fat fee -- to give talks and get prizes that they they report back on to their institutions in order to assert they are Leaders in Their Field. How do they know? Why, they gave a talk on the subject of University Leadership and won a prize for University Leadership at the World Congress on University Leadership organized by the World University Leadership Foundation.
small print: it cost 10k to go to the congress in a speaker role and uni prezes who do get the prize in a round robin
it is the MOAST self licking of all ice cream cones, defense contracting included