Frank Dresser wrote:


Any generalization about liberals, or any group, will probably be unfair.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to counter one unfair generalization
with another unfair generalization in an discussion. Everyone gets a fair
chance to clarify their points.

Sure, just to clarify - I was pointing out the the guy who wrote the
op-ed piece in the Globe employed a stereotype about liberals which
was opposite to the stereotype that was used in David Brooks' article,
which introduced the pseudo-scientific blue/red dichotomy that he was
employing. Since Brooks also identifies himself as conservative, this
wasn't a political disagreement, Severin just needed an unflattering
pseudo-fact to support his thesis that liberal radio is bound to fail,
so he made one up. It might fail, but not because the liberals are all
too busy watching Jerry Springer, as he claimed. (Nor because they'll
all be at wine and cheese parties listing to Elliot Carter).


And as far as the analysis of education and politics -- I don't know how
much can be made of it. It might be true that liberals(or democrats) have
more formal education than conservatives(or republicans), but so what? My
formal education ended when I dropped out of a junior college trade school.
I'm capable of learning independently, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I
don't consider myself anyone's fool. And I haven't seen any proof that
formal education is immunization from foolishness.

Frank Dresser



True. I might add that not all liberals are snobs and not all conservatives
are regular guys.

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...


[snip]


True. I might add that not all liberals are snobs and not all
conservatives
are regular guys.


CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the
Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary