Now this is a good thing

By skepticlawyer

Well, I think it is, anyway:

Oxford University is hoping to welcome its first Aboriginal Australian students next year, it has been announced.

From next month, applications for two scholarship places are being accepted.

The university said although it had a significant number of students from Australia, an indigenous Australian had never studied there.

The scholarships will pay for tuition fees, air fares and living expenses over a three-year period.

The scheme has been set up by the Charlie Perkins Trust for Children and Students and is funded by the British and Australian governments and mining firm Rio Tinto.

‘Unattainable dream’

Sue Cunningham, director of development at Oxford University, said: “We are delighted that a year after we announced the Perkins’ scholarships, we now have the funding to officially launch them.”

I didn’t realise that there has never been an Australian Aborigine study at Oxford. Significantly, the scholars will have to meet Oxford’s own entry requirements as well as their scholarship requirements (I’ve gone through this dual process myself; it’s challenging to say the least), which means that the people who take up these awards will be very talented individuals indeed. 

I’ve long been impressed by the likes of Noel Pearson, who is one of the most consistently interesting intellectuals in Australia. I have no doubt there are more out there like him. This is just the right way to find them.

More on the Perkins Trust is available here.

50 Comments

  1. thefrollickingmole
    Posted October 28, 2009 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    Anything that gets beyond “they are natural footy players” is a good thing.

    I’ve grown to hate hearing that line, it is the bigotry of low expectations. (Outside sport anyway)

    I hope the ladies/chaps who get these scholarships do extremely well out of it.

  2. Posted October 28, 2009 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Hmmm. There may, of course, have been Indigenous Australians at Oxford in the past, just none who choose to be identified by that label, or maybe who even known of their own Aboriginality. Stolen Generations and all that.

  3. Posted October 28, 2009 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Well it’s at least a week since I last said something controversial, so here we go. Take a look at this:

    “Lynn’s meta-analysis lists East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62)and Bushmen (54)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

    What’s the bet the first Oxbridge Aborigine has red hair and freckles?

  4. Posted October 28, 2009 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    It’s possible, M-H. I remember growing up in FNQ there were lots of people running around with ‘a touch of the tar’, but no-one wanted to admit that their cane cocky/cattle cocky ancestor had married a black woman! Commoner than people realise, I suspect.

  5. lomlate
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    melaleuca – i think those statistics are just evidence that IQ is a poor measure of intelligence.

  6. Phil
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    It’s a pity Perkin’s son was found guilty of corrupt conduct involving Aboriginal land councils and property developers, otherwise he could have toddled off to Oxford with the ruling classes. It’s also a pity Perkins himself died before he could be investigated as well.

  7. Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Dunno. IQ appears to be a very good predictor of educational achievement, likelihood of imprisonment etc

    I started reading Steve Sailer’s site on race and intelligence a couple months back. His arguments seem pretty compelling.

    I suspect Aborigine IQs are greatly suppressed by family dysfunction, maternal alcohol consumption, unenriched environment, health problems, poor nutrition etc… Hopefully these things will begin to improve.

  8. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    I’m shocked, I actually agree with Mel’s last comment.

    I would add one sleeper to that (yes Mel has already mentioned it). I used to think environment wasn’t important, however I think social researchers have a point.

    Odds are that smarter kids able to adapt to western educational standards coming from remote areas is not as good as kids growing up in a middle class life in the city.

  9. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    mel

    Can we find a way of stoushing even when we agree? That would be pretty blog unique, doncha think?

  10. Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Has somebody figured out how to transmit happy psychoactives via ethernet? The jc/mel love-in is weirding me out!

  11. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    The jc/mel love-in is weirding me out!

    Personally I’m disgusted in myself, Dave and I’m more than a little certain that Mel feels the same way.

    It’s horrible and shouldn’t happen.

  12. Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    “I’ve also seen a family where both parents were part-Aboriginal, part Anglo-Celt, but looked pretty aboriginal. They had three kids. One kid looked totally aboriginal, one was blonde-haired and blue eyed, and the third looked like a mix. Is any one of those kids less aboriginal than the other, just on account of looks? It shows how crazy the whole race thing is really.”

    That is a profoundly weak argument. You would flunk biology 101 if you said anything like that in an exam. In botany two plants of distinct infraspecific taxa can produce nonsterile offspring that demonstrate the full gamut of genetic possibilities. By your logic this “shows how crazy the whole infraspecific thing is really.”

    I think we should acknowledge that race is real but bludgeon anyone who tries to use that reality to discriminate positively or negatively in favour of one or more races.

  13. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    I think we should acknowledge that race is real but bludgeon anyone who tries to use that reality to discriminate positively or negatively in favour of one or more races.

    Doesn’t that presuppose the left-wing mantra that all races are able to live together in a happy little community where the rivers run with chocolate and the kiddies pick flowers and sing each day.

    Europe’s tensions put paid to that bullshit.

  14. Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Stoush in 3…2…1…

  15. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Naaa Sl

    I promised you no stoushing and I’ll keep my promise.

  16. Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    I hope it will create more aspiration among Aborigines.

    I fear it will end up in the same basket as recent “indigenous” grants and awards – more freebies for those who don’t need it or really deserve it. By that I mean this type of thing:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black/P120/

  17. Craig of Australia
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Their real good at excepting handouts. Quite alot will find their way onto the gravy train and will receive special treatment.

  18. Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    If people are unwilling to back up controversial points (as mel has done), I will start to use the cutting tool (as, I note, Tim Blair has already done on this topic over at his place). Aboriginal policy is riddled with PC (my partner of several years was Aboriginal; I know the issues well) and I am happy to say so. However, that is no excuse for casual racism.

    And on that point, I’m on an Oxford scholarship. Does that make me a bludger?

    And another thing: statistics are only meaningful in the aggregate, not when dealing with individuals.

  19. Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    “I suspect Aborigine IQs are greatly suppressed by family dysfunction, maternal alcohol consumption, unenriched environment, health problems, poor nutrition etc… Hopefully these things will begin to improve.”

    Anything except proven scientific probability is a possibility then?

    Some people just find it hard to accept that genetics is a real branch of science because it leads to distasteful conclusions.

  20. Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    I hope my post doesn’t qualify as “casual racism”. Just pointing out that IQ is genetic and that most Aboriginal people had at least 1 parent starting out with a significant disadvantage in the genetic lottery.

  21. jc
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Yobbo:

    Absolutely genetics plays a part due to racial specialization in terms of adapting to the environment. However social researchers have also shown that with decent nutrition, caring parents and an environment that offers to satisfy educational curiosity you can push IQ up even by 15 points. This is pretty material.

  22. conrad
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    “I hope my post doesn’t qualify as “casual racism”. Just pointing out that IQ is genetic and that most Aboriginal people had at least 1 parent starting out with a significant disadvantage in the genetic lottery.”
    .
    Just ignorant. Please have a look at the history of IQ tests. What they show is that you can have massive swings over single generations (the Dutch being the prototypical example), especially when you go from dirt to prosperity, so looking at overall means at one particular time point isn’t likely to tell you a whole lot (looking at individuals, and particular parts of the IQ test at a particular time is more useful. Even looking at interactions between parts in groups might be handy)

  23. Posted October 30, 2009 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    Just because you *can* have massive swings conrad, doesn’t mean that they are common or the norm.

  24. jc
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Conrad:
    I hope my post doesn’t qualify as “casual racism”.

    No kidding, but do toilet manners even qualify to determine racism with lefties these days?

    The term has became so abused by the left wing in their attempt to paint people with the racist brush that has lost nearly all meaning now.

  25. Posted October 30, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Yobbo says:

    “Anything except proven scientific probability is a possibility then?”

    You haven’t done your homework, have you Yobbo. The Flynn Effect is well known, has been the subject of hundreds of studies and is widely accepted. If Aboriginal IQ does not improve over time it would be one of the rare exceptions.

  26. conrad
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Just because you *can* have massive swings conrad, doesn’t mean that they are common or the norm.”
    .
    I was just to about say the same thing as Mel. It is the norm of the 20th century, until about 1990, when whites in the US started going backwards (look it up). Beats me why (probably the education system, and perhaps greater intakes of neurotoxins at younger ages too). No doubt if the trend continues, white males will be the metaphorical new Africans on the block (looking at the white male performance in most phases of education, they’re already half way there), so you might want to watch what you say about IQ, for your own sake.

  27. Posted October 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    I must wonder whether those whiteys who look down on darker peoples are prepared to accept the results of the same dodgy data and analyses if used by asians to demean whiteys.

    Once easy travel and hormonal urges have made “race” meaningless, (apart from a few exclusivist groups with a delusional sense of superiority) a lot of these debates about race, IQ and worth will be looked upon as ridiculous at best.

    Gareth Evans had the solution: “Everybody f***s everybody else until we’re all khaki”. Could there be a more enjoyable way of removing such a long-term problem?

  28. conrad
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    “I must wonder whether those whiteys who look down on darker peoples are prepared to accept the results of the same dodgy data and analyses if used by asians to demean whiteys.”
    .
    It depends how biased they are. I believe Hans Eysenck, whilst he still alive, was willing to admit East Asians had a higher IQ than whites (he of course was on the hard right of the intelligence debate for quite some time). Alternatively, if you look at the white shock jocks (etc.) then the reason East Asians score higher than whites is that they study harder, learn how to do the tests etc. etc. etc. Alternatively, Africans obviously score worse than whites because of genetics.
    .
    It will be interesting to see how this all pans out when China becomes richer. My feeling was that people there believe in IQ tests (and that it is genetically determined) far more than people in the West. Already, in some parts, white people are “big, dumb, and happy”, although perhaps it won’t matter much given how few whites live in Asian countries.

  29. jc
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Already, in some parts, white people are “big, dumb, and happy”, although perhaps it won’t matter much given how few whites live in Asian countries.

    Conrad I hope you’re not preaching a soft form of sublimable (bush speak) racism here. LOL

    But how shocking, hey. One race thinks the other isn’t that smart and lazy. That’s really bowled me over 🙂

  30. Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    It depends how biased they are. I believe Hans Eysenck, whilst he still alive, was willing to admit East Asians had a higher IQ than whites (he of course was on the hard right of the intelligence debate for quite some time).

    Herrnstein and Murray were quite happy to make this point as well. Indeed, once I read The Bell Curve, with one lengthy chapter devoted to low IQ among whites and its effects, I appreciated the extent to which it was really a book about the effects of assortative mating and clever people only having to do with other clever people, thereby leaving the rest of the population to stew in its own juice.

  31. conrad
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    “One race thinks the other isn’t that smart and lazy”
    .
    haha. Yes, I missed that one myself, and I wrote it. I wonder if someone has a list of “nasty quotes about others throughout history”. It would be a good laugh — and it would be interesting to see what the most common derogatory remarks are — intelligence? hygene? looks?
    .
    “I appreciated the extent to which it was really a book about the effects of assortative mating and clever people only having to do with other clever people”
    .
    Athough it’s too bad about regression to the mean (and the fact that things like good looks conquer intelligence for many, and that lots of guys seem to like dull females).

  32. Posted October 31, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Dave Bath says:

    “I must wonder whether those whiteys who look down on darker peoples are prepared to accept the results of the same dodgy data and analyses if used by asians to demean whiteys.”

    I think that many if not most whiteys who accept the overwhelming evidence of differential race IQs also accept that East Asians and even more so Ashkenazi Jews are on average smarter than whiteys. As a lefty I think smarter individuals and groups have a moral obligation to give the no so smart a hand up.

    DB also says:

    “Gareth Evans had the solution: “Everybody f***s everybody else until we’re all khaki”. Could there be a more enjoyable way of removing such a long-term problem?”

    This is happening already and it is a jolly good thing for all sorts of reasons. In respect of genetics and IQ, it is a good thing due to heterosis.

  33. Jayjee
    Posted October 31, 2009 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    From all the studies I have read, Ashkenazi Jews have – as a group – a higher average IQ than even East Asians. It’s all very intriguing and suss at the same time.

  34. Jayjee
    Posted October 31, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    SL

    I’d read behind the fine print of Oxford admissions before getting too excited about a stampede of Aboriginal Einsteins and Hayeks descending on Oxford’s dreaming spires. 😉

    Having also gone through the process, Oxford is very circumspect about its post-grad admission standards. Even for admission to a Pure Maths Ph.D, Oxford blandly (and insincerely) claims

    Applicants are normally expected to have achieved an upper second class or first class Honours Degree (or equivalent) in Mathematics or a related discipline.
    http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/admissions-criteria

    It is the same story with History, Law, Psychology, Development Studies, etc. Yeah right. The Oxford Pure Maths dons are going to allow a 2.1 graduate to clean their toilet, let alone admit him/her to a Ph.D. ROFL.

    Curiously, the only department at Oxford that is upfront is the Economics M.Phil degree, which admits 50-60 per year.

    The Department will normally only admit students who have performed very well in their
    undergraduate education, at the level of a First Class Honours degree or its equivalent.

    http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Graduate/PDF/MPhil_2010.pdf

    So, Oxford’s very own criteria (outside economics) DO permit it to admit marginal candidates quite legitimately. So perhaps, Second Class Honours Law graduates from Southern Cross University will be enrolling in next year’s BCL or MBA intake, and perhaps a masters in Anthropology, Politics, International Relations, and so on.

    The other great money-grubbing wheeze Oxford has is a class of student called Senior Status students. These are students who already have a degree – overwhelmingly full-fee paying or scholarship-toting foreigners – but wish to gain a second undergrad degree from Oxford. They are exempt from the first year, so get the second BA in just two years. Lots of Rhodes Scholars – particularly American – take this option.

    But whatever the fortunate Aboriginalwinners of the scholarships choose to do with it, I think it is bloody fantastic.

  35. Posted October 31, 2009 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    The BCL demands a first — or it did when I when I applied. I doubt in the extreme that this would have changed in 2.5 years. No-one I knew in the course — or have ever met, having been a college ‘parent’ in the system — has ever had a 2.1

    They may exist, but then a high 2.1 is a pretty decent qualification.

    Ashkenazi Jews show the benefit of assortative mating in spades. While Einstein reproducing with Marie Curie isn’t going to (necessarily) produce more Einsteins and Marie Curies (due to regression to the mean), it is still going to produce very bright kids — at least a standard deviation above the mean.

  36. jc
    Posted October 31, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Ashkenazi Jews show the benefit of assortative mating in spades.

    And perhaps also the downside with sickle cell disease being a prominent feature in this racial bloodline.

  37. conrad
    Posted November 1, 2009 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Jayjee — the reason Oxford (and almost everyone else) allows H2.1s is that occasionally you get people who are obviously superstars, but for one reason or another didn’t get an H1 (especially those that did their degrees before grade inflation).
    .
    For example, if you were interested in, say, neuroscience, you may have done an honors degree in psychology. However, because you didn’t care about Ethics and the Law, Counselling skills etc. you may not have achieved an H1. Alternatively, you might have a few good papers from here and there which no doubt makes you a far better candidate than most people that get H1s. The second of these is a much better indicator of how well you will do than just a mark — it’s very hard to apriori know who will do something good vs. who is just good at studying. This is important because it’s surprising how many awful PhDs are churned out now, including from good universities (especially the UK and Aus where there is very little quality control).

  38. John
    Posted November 1, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Anything except proven scientific probability is a possibility then?

    Some people just find it hard to accept that genetics is a real branch of science because it leads to distasteful conclusions.

    It has been proven Yobbo, the data on that is quite sound and applies to other mammals as well as us.

    As to the genetics argument, that has also been proven.

    This is all very complicated, we shouldn’t even think in terms of nature nurture. I have long argued that for us to expect a people to just adapt to our way of life is not only arrogant but also stupid. Life is not that simple and we need to recognise that for some and perhaps many aborigines our culture is a strange and alien thing which they must deal with. Poor sods, I have trouble with that reality …

    And perhaps also the downside with sickle cell disease being a prominent feature in this racial bloodline.

    No, Tay Sachs disease JC and it involves perturbations in fatty acid metabolism which are believed to play fundamental roles in neural transmission.

    BTW, it wasn’t just assortive mating, it was also some very strong selection pressures. (Put bluntly: people liked to bully the Jews. )

  39. Posted November 1, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    [email protected] mentioned inherited disease in Ashkenazi Jews – sickle cell.
    Hmmm. Malaria hasn’t really been a selective pressure on Ashkenazi Jews – and certainly not as much as the negroid population. The real problem is Tay Sachs – a really horrible thing with the incidence greatly increased by self-imposed inbreeding. Dealing with sickle-cell is a doddle by comparison.

    [email protected]: “grade inflation”… great phrase, one antediluvian me will use a lot in the future. Personally, I reckon school leaving scores should be expressed in terms of standard deviation from the mean if they dare not measure scores against the tests they’d have been sitting 10,20,30 years ago before the level of rigor and depth in curricula plummeted.
    The standard deviation from the mean method, with a supplementary score calculated within a particular subpopulation of a group that might have a relative disadvantage, would allow a fair comparison BETWEEN subgroups to indicate individual excellence. For indigenous populations, it might even been worthwhile separating into two groups – students from remote versus urban communities. A kid 3 standard deviations from the mean for remote communities is probably as gifted as one 3 std dev from the mean in the general community, and thus probably would be just as good an investment.

  40. jc
    Posted November 1, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Yes, Dave, I meant Tay Sachs. The point i was making was that evolutionary forks in-the-road taken aren’t always lined with flowers.

  41. Jayjee
    Posted November 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    SL

    Oh, I don’t doubt it. I know people who have been through the program myself; invariably university medalists in Law from Commonwealth countries, on full-scholarships, whose overwhelmingly ranking criterion was GPA/Class of Honours/Medal,. My impression is that the proportion of UK indigenes is relatively low, is that your impression?

    All I am highlighting is that Oxford’s explicitly stating its Admission Standards quite vaguely – at least in many of its courses – gives it legitimate wriggle-room to admit, as it does for example, the heir-apparent King of Nepal, or cashed up son of US billionaire who ‘only’ has a 2.1. or American GPA of 3.0 etc. I know of one Law graduate from a university located in Sydney (I should err on the side of caution for legal reasons, I suppose), who despite being ranked in the lowest 10% of his Law school graduating class (I know the exact rank, but again should err on the side of caution), who was admitted to an Oxford postgrad Law degree. He was the son of one of Sydney’s leading families, whose father was world-known. Also, at the time, the Master of the College – a retired extremely high profile Australian – to which not-too-sharp son was accepted was a life-long friend of the guy’s father. Of course, he did not win a scholarship; his father just dipped into the petty-cash tin. 😉

    Similarly, there is of course more wriggle-room to admit the same coves who might have Firsts (or summa cum laude) from the Jim-Bob State University. So, the Charlie Perkins Scholarship might be awarded to an Aborigine who graduates with 1st Class Honours in Law from Southern Cross University, or La Trobe, or Central Queensland, or Griffith, or wherever would certainly fit the criteria.

    There might well be Aboriginal students graduation with 1st Class Honours degrees in Law, Medicine, Economics, Engineering, Mathematics, Psychology, History, and so from the G8 universities. Does anybody here have any more direct connection to the data?

    Of course, there was Larrisa Beherendt “the first Australian Aborigine to attend Harvard Law School”, who is now Professor of Law and Indigenous Studies at UTS. But I am not even sure she obtained Honours, not even 2nd class, in her Law degree from UNSW, though she might very well have. Her main source of funding was the generous Lionel Murphy Scholarship, the award of which is slanted much more towards “social justice/equity” and “international law” aspirations of the recipients research. Professor Beherendt is the quintessential “white Aborigine” that “Gegcok’s” link above is about.
    http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/10/now-this-is-a-good-thing/#comment-47483

    But there is no doubt both Harvard and the Lionel Murphy made a perfect choice, as Professor Behrendt is an extremely prolific publisher of academic articles, book chapters, conference presentations etc. as well as her broader role as public intellectual, novelist, and so on.

    I have no doubt similar paths await the Charlie Perkins recipients, once they finish at Oxford.

  42. Posted November 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Plenty of Poms in the BCL, but plenty of non-Poms as well. For some reason this year there are fewer Americans. There were heaps of them when I studied… maybe it’s just a statistical quirk.

    Agree with John about selection pressures on Jews; one thing I’ve learnt doing recent reading is that while Jews have always been much less inclined to force their religion down people’s throats than Christians or Muslims, in antiquity they were much cooler about voluntary conversion and had a properly formalised structure to allow people to convert to Judaism.

    There were also people who became ‘ger toshav’ (‘proselyte of the gate’) who promised to uphold the Noahide Laws. Sometimes this involved a formal statement before the Beth Din. As a result of persecution this disappeared, although according to wiki the Chabad movement is trying to reanimate it. There are quite a lot of Chabadniks in Oxford and they are always out and about and very friendly (they also sell the best bagels in the known universe); it’s quite likely this is what they’re doing but until I did some reading I simply wasn’t aware of it. They are still far more discreet and gentle than Christians or Muslims, however.

  43. Greg
    Posted November 1, 2009 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I always find it facinating when white people discuss their “white racisms” with each other. There is a certain ontological characteristic that always emerges….

    As for the Oxford thang…getting more Indig students to enter any university here in Straya is much more important.

  44. conrad
    Posted November 2, 2009 at 4:32 am | Permalink

    “with a supplementary score calculated within a particular subpopulation of a group that might have a relative disadvantage, would allow a fair comparison BETWEEN subgroups to indicate individual excellence”
    .
    I don’t think the second of those is especially useful. The underlying assumption is that if you are from a group that scores low at something, but you are good for you group, you will be much better than the score. That often isn’t true.
    .
    Obvious examples are our education system, where poor kids that do well in their schools (or average vs. normal) are sometimes thought to be much better than the normal average — if you look up the data, what you’ll find is that this is basically mythology (and if you went to an awful school, you’d know why — you don’t learn anything!). An even more blatant example would be people from Southern China and sports achievement. If you’re average compared to white guys at sport and you’re from that region of the world, you’re probably great for your group. That doesn’t make you great in general, however.

  45. Posted November 2, 2009 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Ah, Greg, quite a few of the people nattering on this thread aren’t white. Got to be careful on the internets that way… you can’t see the other guy 😉

  46. Posted November 2, 2009 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    This discussion has been perfectly civil, Greg.

    What depresses me as an increasingly disillusioned lefty is that the issues and ideas canvassed here are completely out of bounds in left wing discussions.

  47. Posted November 2, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    [email protected]
    Care to be a bit more specific on what you think is “out of bounds” in left wing discussions? Not stoushin, just askin. And I’d really like to read your blog but cannot get to it. Want a guest post at my site to lay the flame bait? (SL/LE/DEM – feel free to pass on my email)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*