Defending the loons and dim-bulbs of academe

(From Philosoraptor)

If I admit that academia is liberal and that sometimes that's bad, will you admit that taking at face value anything George Will or David Horowitz has anything to do with is naive?

I know that George Will wants his readers to assume the definition of social justice that supports his thesis - because advocates for minorities use it in a specific way. Does the textbook he refers to use it that way, too? And what words intervene between the tiny little quotes? I never assume that a right-wing propagandist is leveling with me on the facts.

Really, if you take the word social and the word justice literally, who could oppose them? I mean, other than Michele Malkin. Could that have been the intended meaning?

Some of the anecdotes in the Will column would be disturbing - if they are fairly rendered. I don't assume that they are; too many times I've seen Horowitless allegations turn out to be fart when he alleged diarrhea.

Last, who would want an Ayn Rand social worker!

"Suck it up and will yourself to victory."

"But I came here looking for marriage counseling!"

"Tough, and oh by the way, I charge psychiatrist's fees."

It's a caring profession. Sure, there are conservatives who could do it, but not any of the ones who have a nationally syndicated column.

I mean, Charles Krauthammer! He must have gone into psychiatry because he enjoys screwing people up. Have you every known anyone as bitter and unpleasant?