Well, DUH. I've been saying the same thing for weeks! [/s]
It’s sick out there and getting sicker...
The pointy-heads love their : marks don’t they?
Bread, milk and cheese: An academic’s grocery shopping trip recalled.
A push, a flush, and a refill: Professor Smith goes to the loo.
Slower traffic keep right: A 40-year-old grad student risks using his Prius on the freeway and drives at a ‘responsible’ 55 in the left lane.
>>four queer theorists<<
I wonder who they’re voting for, Clinton or Ubama?
Part of the homosexual agenda is to claim great people of the past were all practitioners of sexual deviance. These sickos will stop at nothing including demanding access to kids.
The 1988 dissertation, entitled "Beyond the (Dis)Integration of Post-Modern Post-Toasties Pair 'o Dimes and Paradigms: Look at How Clever I Am," created a stir in academic circles and landed Lowenstein a prestigious teaching position at Harvard. From there, he honed his cutting-edge research. "I began to deconstruct everything I could get my hands on," says Grok. "The Old Testament, Shakespeare, Dick and Jane, a 1967 J.C. Whitney catalog, the Boston phone book, you name it. I showed how everything is a lie, that everything could be deconstructed. Well, except Deconstruction, obviously."
Go figure.
My favorite contribution to contemporary literary criticism is Frederick Crews’s “Postmodern Pooh”:
http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Pooh-Frederick-Crews/dp/0865476543/
The “Did Shakespeare eat Bacon?” controversy has been going on for years.
Several actors of the time were eunuchs...
I would imagine that would work for college types also....
Move to Iran!
Whoever came up with this project had way too much time on their hands.
It seems to me that a pretty good case can be made from this that Shakespeare was at least bisexual.
Speaking of tales told by idiots full of sound and fury ...
How is it that some people who claim to put diversity and tolerance at the head of their social priorities are not satisfied unless every great author and scholar are provided a “sexual orientation” identity, as some mystic clue to their writing, while, hypocritically, the entire base of promoting “diversity and tolerance” is the “universal” nature of so many “social” themes, such as love and romance, regardless of “sexual orientation”. Their need to supply a sexual orientation identity to the authors of great works says that they do not actually believe the themes they claim to be universal are universal. Hypocrites.
Some of the sonnets may raise a few eyebrows.
However, my favorite story is about a class from a Duke educated professor who was a deconstructionist. One of the essays we had to read was from a feminist who railed and ranted about how there weren’t any great women writers of antiquity or until recent times because they weren’t able to write with a pen. (yes the writing tool)
According to her theory it was created and developed by male chauvinists to intimidate women because it resembled a pen(is). And so female authoresses couldn’t use their brains and imagination to write and many great works were lost.
The professor went on at length about this provacative essay until I asked him about the genesis of the earliest form of writing—the cuniform alphabetic writing—and why females didn’t use it to develop a body of work. It seemed to me that it would be right up their alley.
“Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me. You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.”
`Skin-flute’?
What are we going to do with these over-educated ninnies when the sh!t hits the fan?
How did I know Duke was involved?
These people spend waaaaay too much time thinking about their naughty bits.