Political science is actually considered a social science, like economics or sociology, and not a humanity. Perhaps, as an undergraduate, you don't do the type of technical work that most professional political scientists do, but that does not make their work nonscientific. I see no reason why scientific study of how we govern ourselves is outside the scope of the NSF.
@mikesalamone: Point taken. However, the NSF was still established mainly, if not exclusively, to provide Federal support for hard sciences and engineering. Social scientists do use complex mathematical and statistical analysis in their work (I remember that well...), but that does not make them equivalent to the hard sciences. The basic reason: social sciences do not lend themselves easily (if at all) to the scientific method.
I think there are two arguments at play here: whether social science research should be funded by the gov't at all, and whether this particular entity should be funding it. I'm saying Coburn is correct on the latter point -- that these aren't really things the NSF should be funding -- regardless of one's stance on the first point.
The NSF is supposed to be supporting the hard sciences, not humanities. Poli Sci (my major) is one of the humanities. It shouldn't be within the purview of the NSF.
Politically motivated or not, he's got a valid point.
@allyzay: He's an OBGYN who once performed an abortion on a relative even though he's pro-life. He claims it was to save her life, but then a relative doctor would claim that, wouldn't he? That's how it works in countries where abortion is banned except in cases of rape or incest, anyway. If a woman has a doctor in the family and has an abortion, it's always "to save the woman's life."
So he's pretty familiar with the science of subjugating the vagina to paternal control.
I thought the whole point of postmodernism is that you don't have to treat any of the works as cornerstones, if by cornerstone you mean canonical. Most of us have our favorites, usually our first experiences of the postmodern, and aren't so excited about others. For me it was MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. Then some Pynchon and Gaddis. They were entertaining but that was enough.
@sparky: Postmodernism in broad terms (or postcolonialism, which sounds more like what you're talking about) doesn't entail the loss of canon. It entails the disassembling of the idea of a permanent, fixed canon, but the idea of canon itself will always remain. The problem is that theoretical works operate on the level of principle, but on the level of pure effect in the world of art there will always be books that have more or less impact than others. So you can say that Delillo is canonical because he's had such a tremendous impact on the world of American literature, but you can't really limit the idea of canon to include ONLY Delillo, for example.
@Pope John Peeps II: Postmodernism put everything, theoretically, into the mix, so the idea of the canon is more like Books That Are Important to Me and the People Who Agree with Me. This is what I meant. I won't challenge your claim that DeLillo has had a tremendous impact on American writing, because I no longer (voluntarily) read contemporary American fiction and wouldn't be able to judge.
Shit like this is the reason I decided to take my master's degree and leave graduate school. It's a bullshit world and we all were supposed to just keep living the lie.
The excerpt for the review: I, a woman, am so tired of men who write with their dick. Note to men: yes, we know you think we're sexy. We know you think you're sexy. If we think you're sexy, trust us, we'll let you know. Until then, find another topic.
The head of my thesis committee is the hardest working woman I know, including ALL of my public school teacher friends. I sincerely hope she makes in the low six figures. If anyone deserves it, it is her and professors like her.
Silly President, cabinet positions are supposed to go to oil and defense industry hacks with seven or eight figure bank accounts and no academic or policy credentials. Who the fuck are all these eggheads, with their elite book learnin'? IMPEACH!
And by contrast, the majority of the academic workforce - that is, the untenured professors - make anywhere from $15K to $35K. Let the good times roll, you limosine liberals!
10/09/09
10/09/09
I think there are two arguments at play here: whether social science research should be funded by the gov't at all, and whether this particular entity should be funding it. I'm saying Coburn is correct on the latter point -- that these aren't really things the NSF should be funding -- regardless of one's stance on the first point.
10/09/09
The NSF is supposed to be supporting the hard sciences, not humanities. Poli Sci (my major) is one of the humanities. It shouldn't be within the purview of the NSF.
Politically motivated or not, he's got a valid point.
10/09/09
I've always hated his ass, bein' all highly quotable and available to reporters and shit.
10/09/09
10/09/09
Seriously, though, you know why he's doing this. It will play well to idiots. I wish I were kidding.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
So I've been totally messing up with the spreadsheets and maple syrup. Damn.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
So he's pretty familiar with the science of subjugating the vagina to paternal control.
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
Thanks for clearing that up! And remind me again: who was it who thought you were sexy?
02/19/09
02/19/09
@cloryfreeborn: Hahahahahahaha - I am laughing so hard I am crying (I am in Fine Arts)
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09