Wendy Davis, pro-abortion Democrat running for governor of Texas, admits to “fuzzy facts” she stated about herself. “Note that she’s a Harvard-trained lawyer,” InstaPundit observes, “but says she can’t express herself with precision. Is this what feminism looks like?”
Perhaps, but could it also be what lawyers, or at least liberal Ivy League lawyers, look like? Bill Clinton is a Yale-trained lawyer who was disbarred for lying under oath and who famously tried to deconstruct the meaning of “is” while denying that he had sex with that woman he had sex with. Hillary Clinton is a Yale-trained lawyer, and she exasperatedly asked “What difference does it make” whether the Benghazi murderers who killed four Americans were terrorists or excited video protesters? (The Clintons, by the way, developed the non-denial denial into a virtual art form. For example, when Hillary was asked on the Diane Rehm radio show back in 1997 whether a potential Whitewater witness had been bought off, rather than saying “No” she snippishly replied, “There’s no evidence of that. There will not be any evidence of that.”) Barack Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer, and he has lied repeatedly to the American people (your insurance, your doctor, your medical bills, etc., etc.), with none of (Bill) Clinton’s sly subtlety.
It would probably be a stretch to suggest that there is some connection between all this lying by liberal graduates of liberal institutions and the academic culture of those institutions, where for a generation truth (or at least Truth) has been discounted as relative, contingent, rigid, white, male, old-fashioned. Probably. But at least when a conservative lies you can accuse her of violating her own principles, but what do you say to people whose philosophy has discarded or at least sidelined principle altogether? (See, for example, Stanley Fish, THE TROUBLE WITH PRINCIPLE)
“Is this what feminism looks like?”
Yes, it is.
SEE: Feministing
Liberals are just liars whether they went to Ivy League schools or not.
The Ivy League!
Check out the cutting-edge thinking that is happening at Princeton:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S39/02/58Q32/index.xml?section=topstories
Apparently, the residents of rich Princeton township are representative of all “white” people (rich, well-off, privileged) and the people of Trenton are representative of all black people. It’s odd that the professor wouldn’t point out the many poor WHITE communities near Princeton, too, and then try and explain that! Maybe he could have also cited statistics that show about 70% of the working poor in New Jersey are white, and certainly do not live in Princeton (see the United Way’s ALICE report).
Well, I a certain that the black people of Trenton are representative of black people in general.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Trenton-New-Jersey.html