Jim Knowlton Named Director of Athletics at Cal

here's my take: chancellor Christ is either the gutsiest chancellor in cal history, or the most naive. Bowen would have been a safe and good choice. I'm nervous about this hire because there will be a steep and unforgiving learning curve for Knowlton. Has he considered what President Eisenhower said about the presidency?? "When you are giving orders in the military, everyone follows orders--when you give orders in the presidency, nothing ever gets done." He will likely get much resistance from the academics and administrators , but will do well to remember that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

Looks good to me, especially because he seems to know a thing or two about academics.

helltopay1 said:

---

here's my take: chancellor Christ is either the gutsiest chancellor in cal history, or the most naive. Bowen would have been a safe and good choice. I'm nervous about this hire because there will be a steep and unforgiving learning curve for Knowlton. Has he considered what President Eisenhower said about the presidency?? "When you are giving orders in the military, everyone follows orders--when you give orders in the presidency, nothing ever gets done." He will likely get much resistance from the academics and administrators , but will do well to remember that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

---

Good point.
However the real key at Cal is who the chancellor is, and how well does he/she support the athletic department?
Heyman, Bowker, Dirks and even Tien were not friends of athletics especially financially, and made the AD's job very difficult.

Christ is making moves and saying things that are overwhelmingly in support of athletics on campus. That is what is needed, as when the person at the top at Cal dictates that athletics should not be, nor will not be treated like a cancer on the campus, many of the underlings will fall in line politically. This feels very positive to me, as Christ is saying the right things that haven't been said and doing some big moves financially that needed to get done. She has been paving a way forward that will hopefully change the negative culture on campus.

I would rather have a retired Colonel as AD then a guy that shows no leadership, can,t make the right decisions and generally hem haws along doing virtually nothing to help our program .

He is used to getting things done, will insist on excellence and smooze the right people.

He will set goals and expect them to be met. I like it. Of course I was a graduate of Army ROTC at Cal.

helltopay1 said:

---

here's my take: chancellor Christ is either the gutsiest chancellor in cal history, or the most naive. Bowen would have been a safe and good choice. I'm nervous about this hire because there will be a steep and unforgiving learning curve for Knowlton. Has he considered what President Eisenhower said about the presidency?? "When you are giving orders in the military, everyone follows orders--when you give orders in the presidency, nothing ever gets done." He will likely get much resistance from the academics and administrators , but will do well to remember that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

---

Bowen would have been a good choice, not to mention all his experience and success locally, and some time at Cal. Knowlton has had less experience, but had success at RPI and Air Force. I like that he has an engineering background, which a former Dean of Boalt Hall Law School once told me, "An engineering background teaches you how to think." He will likely approach problems patiently and with logic. The problems are many, and some are deep-rooted. It has taken many years, and in spite of a few bright spots, Cal athletics needs fixing. In terms of visible results, the most important is either supporting the current men's basketball program, or fixing it, depending on the next season or two and getting a dedicated practice site. Football seems to be on a bit of an upswing, and women's basketball seems in good shape. Swimming is probably in good shape. Aside from men's basketball, the most important programs to rehabilitate for me would be baseball, which is a major sport except in college, and Cal nearly lost the baseball program, but for many fans who stepped up to donate, and the track and field program, which is essentially in the tank. Once one of America's most prestigious programs with national and Olympic success, Cal track and field is in real trouble, with not much of a team and about to lose their track and field stadium to campus planners hungry for land where they can build more buildings for academics.

And Eisenhower was a successful military leader and a successful President, so he must have learned to when to use the honey and when to use the vinegar. Knowlton's background indicates he might be on the right track to learning to do the same in a different field. Here is his Air Force Academy AD Bio:

http://www.goairforcefalcons.com/genrel/jim_knowlton_958650.html

Alkiadt said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

here's my take: chancellor Christ is either the gutsiest chancellor in cal history, or the most naive. Bowen would have been a safe and good choice. I'm nervous about this hire because there will be a steep and unforgiving learning curve for Knowlton. Has he considered what President Eisenhower said about the presidency?? "When you are giving orders in the military, everyone follows orders--when you give orders in the presidency, nothing ever gets done." He will likely get much resistance from the academics and administrators , but will do well to remember that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

---

Good point.
However the real key at Cal is who the chancellor is, and how well does he/she support the athletic department?
Heyman, Bowker, Dirks and even Tien were not friends of athletics especially financially, and made the AD's job very difficult.

Christ is making moves and saying things that are overwhelmingly in support of athletics on campus. That is what is needed, as when the person at the top at Cal dictates that athletics should not be, nor will not be treated like a cancer on the campus, many of the underlings will fall in line politically. This feels very positive to me, as Christ is saying the right things that haven't been said and doing some big moves financially that needed to get done. She has been paving a way forward that will hopefully change the negative culture on campus.

---

Agreed. This AD will have the support of the Chancellor and it appears they will actually work together to solve some of the department's issues. Very refreshing.

Does this mean we're now a Hockey school?

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this mean we're now a Hockey school?

---

Would it help?

https://twitter.com/Cal_IceHockey/status/983460543393443840BeachedBear said:

---

Does this mean we're now a Hockey school?

---

Sure, now help em out.

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this mean we're now a Hockey school?

---

It is what it is. What basketball player or coach in his right mind would take this job? After his two best seasons and an NCAA title, Pete Newell took the AD job, and everything went downhill, Cal basketball, football, all of it. An old hockey player might be just what we need.

So now that Mike's gone, can we get back to the issue at hand, the bball facility?

Love looking at these:

VCU

philbert said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

here's my take: chancellor Christ is either the gutsiest chancellor in cal history, or the most naive. Bowen would have been a safe and good choice. I'm nervous about this hire because there will be a steep and unforgiving learning curve for Knowlton. Has he considered what President Eisenhower said about the presidency?? "When you are giving orders in the military, everyone follows orders--when you give orders in the presidency, nothing ever gets done." He will likely get much resistance from the academics and administrators , but will do well to remember that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

---

Good point.
However the real key at Cal is who the chancellor is, and how well does he/she support the athletic department?
Heyman, Bowker, Dirks and even Tien were not friends of athletics especially financially, and made the AD's job very difficult.

Christ is making moves and saying things that are overwhelmingly in support of athletics on campus. That is what is needed, as when the person at the top at Cal dictates that athletics should not be, nor will not be treated like a cancer on the campus, many of the underlings will fall in line politically. This feels very positive to me, as Christ is saying the right things that haven't been said and doing some big moves financially that needed to get done. She has been paving a way forward that will hopefully change the negative culture on campus.

---

Agreed. This AD will have the support of the Chancellor and it appears they will actually work together to solve some of the department's issues. Very refreshing.

---

At some point the Chancellor will not be around to lead interference. He needs to be able to advocate for his department and get through a learning curve of understanding Cal campus culture.

wifeisafurd said:

---

At some point the Chancellor will not be around to lead interference. He needs to be able to advocate for his department and get through a learning curve of understanding Cal campus culture.

---

He needs to help add enlightenment and diversity to the Cal campus culture.

SFCityBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this mean we're now a Hockey school?

---

It is what it is. What basketball player or coach in his right mind would take this job? After his two best seasons and an NCAA title, Pete Newell took the AD job, and everything went downhill, Cal basketball, football, all of it. An old hockey player might be just what we need.

---

and a women's ice hockey team that can feed the Olympics. Have to say the victory over the Canucks was an Olympic highlight.

Dear Golden One; Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??BTW, it'a a shame that CC is 71 years old. All the deep state here at Cal has to do is wait her out and then things will revert to the Telegraph Ave culture which has destroyed Cal athletics and has helped to sully the reputation of a once-great school.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Golden One; Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??BTW, it'a a shame that CC is 71 years old. All the deep state here at Cal has to do is wait her out and then things will revert to the Telegraph Ave culture which has destroyed Cal athletics and has helped to sully the reputation of a once-great school.

---

If Cal athletics are destroyed and the university is no longer great: What are you doing here/a//

mikecohen said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Golden One; Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??BTW, it'a a shame that CC is 71 years old. All the deep state here at Cal has to do is wait her out and then things will revert to the Telegraph Ave culture which has destroyed Cal athletics and has helped to sully the reputation of a once-great school.

---

If Cal athletics are destroyed and the university is no longer great: What are you doing here/a//

---

The Left destroys EVERYTHING it touches: The free market, the schools, the Constitution, the justice system and laws, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, male and female, marriage, sex, love, common sense, the universities, music, movies, sports, and replaced equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, and replaced freedom of thought with indoctrination, replaced news with falsehoods and propaganda, replaced some sense of order and sanity with hysteria, replaced debate and discussion with violence. The University of California at Berkeley and its Athletic programs are just one of many casualties, and I for one, am in mourning for that and all of it, while still holding out a small hope that younger generations as yet unborn may see the wisdom of the founders of this country which allowed the later founding of our University.

I can't speak for helltopay1, but I'm here because the Bear Insider is one place where there is some freedom to describe the past as what I think it was, and not be subject as much to the censorship of the Left, based on revisionist history.

SFCityBear said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Golden One; Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??BTW, it'a a shame that CC is 71 years old. All the deep state here at Cal has to do is wait her out and then things will revert to the Telegraph Ave culture which has destroyed Cal athletics and has helped to sully the reputation of a once-great school.

---

If Cal athletics are destroyed and the university is no longer great: What are you doing here/a//

---

The Left destroys EVERYTHING it touches: The free market, the schools, the Constitution, the justice system and laws, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, male and female, marriage, sex, love, common sense, the universities, music, movies, sports, and replaced equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, and replaced freedom of thought with indoctrination, replaced news with falsehoods and propaganda, replaced some sense of order and sanity with hysteria, replaced debate and discussion with violence. The University of California at Berkeley and its Athletic programs are just one of many casualties, and I for one, am in mourning for that and all of it, while still holding out a small hope that younger generations as yet unborn may see the wisdom of the founders of this country which allowed the later founding of our University.

I can't speak for helltopay1, but I'm here because the Bear Insider is one place where there is some freedom to describe the past as what I think it was, and not be subject as much to the censorship of the Left, based on revisionist history.

---

Dear SFCityBear: Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??

Dear BigC: Neither one. SF city Bear is a great articulator of a cultural and philosophical tradition which existed almost exclusively prior to the 1960's cultural revolution. Bill Clinton said it best: 'If you loved the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a liberal democrat. If you hated the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a conservative republican," As the late Alexander Pope said. " everything else is leather and prunella." of course, we are talking on balance here. No one is disputing that thge revolution did not bring some welcome changes to American culture. liberals argue that the "good changes" outweigh the undesirable changes. Conservatives argue the opposite. We need to stop disparaging folks for their political beliefs and opinions. Most folks come to their opinions and beliefs honestly. around these parts, SF City Bear represents thge minority view. I, too, represent thge minority view. There was a time, not too long ago, when Berkeley and "true liberals", championed and applauded the viewpoints of the minority. Let us have a little more respect and a little less demonization of minority viewpoints. After all, if history is any guide, I can assure you that those currently having majority views will someday be faced with the horrifying prospect of having their views relegated to the minority.

Dear helltopay1: Maybe you noticed I was parodying your post from prior in the thread. Just having a little fun, since SFCity's post was so politically incorrect. I actually don't completely disagree with what he wrote (just mostly). Certainly there is absurdity on either side of the political spectrum and "Berkeley", to be sure, can go way overboard sometimes with the political correctness.

Not a big fan of over-simplified semantics such as Left vs Right. Or Liberal vs Conservative. Seems to direct the discussion to polarizing black and white simplicity (which is never the case). Actually detracts from the dialog in my humble opinion. Same goes for old vs new. Not everything new is better than old (or vice versa). I prefer rational discourse and objectivity.

I think helltopay captured it well about not subjugating a minority. I think SFCity went too far with simply The Left.

Earlier on (or maybe on a similar thread), someone made a point about Military vs Berkeley (with a hilarious satirical jab at "baby killers"). Not sure how many other BI posters are vets, but from my experience - the USN was a pretty good reflection of America in terms of politics and views. Not everyone in the Military is a conservative republican. In fact, if you polled the senior flag officers in all branches since Reagan (when I was in), I bet many more supported Clinton and Obama then Bush or Trump.

More importantly, I'm anxious to see how our new AD does. He has my support and I feel better about Cal than I did last month.

:gobears

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear BigC: Neither one. SF city Bear is a great articulator of a cultural and philosophical tradition which existed almost exclusively prior to the 1960's cultural revolution. Bill Clinton said it best: 'If you loved the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a liberal democrat. If you hated the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a conservative republican," As the late Alexander Pope said. " everything else is leather and prunella." of course, we are talking on balance here. No one is disputing that thge revolution did not bring some welcome changes to American culture. liberals argue that the "good changes" outweigh the undesirable changes. Conservatives argue the opposite. We need to stop disparaging folks for their political beliefs and opinions. Most folks come to their opinions and beliefs honestly. around these parts, SF City Bear represents thge minority view. I, too, represent thge minority view. There was a time, not too long ago, when Berkeley and "true liberals", championed and applauded the viewpoints of the minority. Let us have a little more respect and a little less demonization of minority viewpoints. After all, if history is any guide, I can assure you that those currently having majority views will someday be faced with the horrifying prospect of having their views relegated to the minority.

---

For me, the criteria is substance and truth. SF City Bear's rant contained no specifics, which is typical of right wing rants. I listen, carefully and respectfully, to anyone who has anything specific to say - the recent argument on this board, for example, that tax "reform" was necessary to bring a lot of money back into the country that was being held by American corporations in foreign countries for tax reasons. To me, that is FAR from the end of the story (if only because of the woeful history of the country's wealth, especially after the recent Great Recession, that went to the top minuscule percent of the country and was, to a large extent, not used for economically productive development that benefited many, but was simply used for financial manipulation that benefited the same small percentage of wealth holders - a similar development occurred in the distant past as a result of Prop. 13 which was sold to the electorate, in part on the grounds that the landlords would of course pass the savings onto the renters. But the history of un-checked Capital is replete with such examples). Nevertheless, that above-stated conservative talking point was worth talking about - as opposed to what one usually gets from the right, when there are any specifics, such as that the country is in grave danger from criminal Mexican immigrants, which, in reality, is a relatively tiny danger to the country. Then, the solution to that was to ban Muslims, from a few countries, none of which had anything to do with any "terror" or other attacks here, the actual scale of which "Muslim Terror Attacks" here by immigrants (with the sole exception of 9/11) absolutely pales in comparison to the massive carnage of gun violence in this country (much of which is perpetrated by people with right wing sympathies). Part and parcel of this scourge of substancelessness is the false equivalency that pervades right wing dialog - because there is NOTHING in this country on the left that remotely resembles the insanity on the right one finds anywhere from the right wing violence to the racist rhetoric, to the insane policy positions such as that regarding immigration discussed above -- not to mention the Iraq War, and the decimation of local public education, and the massive voter suppression by right wing state governments, e.g., by illegally striking tens of thousands of people from the voter rolls, by placing a small percentage of voting booths in blue areas compared with red areas, and other means. I have asked more than once on this board for a single specific example of something a right winger has condemned here in general terms; and have never received any such specifics in reply, whereas the outright, immediately demonstrable lies which issue from the White House as regular as clockwork are now a fixture of our politics - the latest is that all of the current special counsel and other investigators are biased democrats (or democrat shills), when the opposite is true, the overwhelming numbers of them are Republicans.

Very good, thoughtful post. Thanks!

DearMr. Cohen; I asked for civility, respect , good faith, humility, tolerance, and appreciation of our cultural history in my post. Please review your post to determine if any of my criteria were met . PS---I will google the political affiliations of the Mueller team and will get back to you.

helltopay1 said:

---

DearMr. Cohen; I asked for civility, respect , good faith, humility, tolerance, and appreciation of our cultural history in my post. Please review your post to determine if any of my criteria were met . PS---I will google the political affiliations of the Mueller team and will get back to you.

---

Dear HTP, no need to google, just follow the link to the right-wing bastion of political journalism The Wahington Post:

Washington Post Article

"But publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found."

Clearly, Mr. Coen believes what he chooses to believe, as is evident from the rest of his run-on rant.

Dear Civil--thank you and please allow me to be more specific since Mr. cohen claims that "right-wingers" ( a derogatory term used to shut down conversation) NEVER offer specifics to substantiate their claims.
Dear Mr. Cohen: According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, 13 of the Mueller team are registered Democrats. The remaining three have not divulged their affiliation. Of the 13 registered democrats, at least 10 have donated to Democrats and Democrat causes such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Senator Gillibrand of New York. one attorney, James Quarles, whose registration is unknown, gave 7,000 to Obama in the last decade and 2,700 to Clintons' 2016 campaign. Jeannie Rhee, a registered Democrat, gave 5,400 to Clinton. she also donated 4,800 to Obama in 2008 and 2011. Andrew Weissman. also a registered Democrat, gave 2,300 to Obama in 2008 also gave 2,000 to the Democratic Committee. Among the lawyers who gave contributions , 62, 043 went to Democrats and a whopping 2,750 dollars went to Republicans. Three lawyers gave Clinton 18,100 dollars for both her 2008 and 2016 run. TO SUMMARIZE----There are 16 KNOWN DEMOCRATS and 3 LAWYERS who choose not to state their party preference. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE. I hope and pray I have been specific enough. If not, I will be happy to comply in the future.

helltopay1 said:

---

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE.

---

Well, other than Mueller himself of course...

I thought this thread was interesting until it devolved into political rants. Could we please post those elsewhere?

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear BigC: Neither one. SF city Bear is a great articulator of a cultural and philosophical tradition which existed almost exclusively prior to the 1960's cultural revolution. Bill Clinton said it best: 'If you loved the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a liberal democrat. If you hated the 1960's and everything it wrought, you are a conservative republican," As the late Alexander Pope said. " everything else is leather and prunella." of course, we are talking on balance here. No one is disputing that thge revolution did not bring some welcome changes to American culture. liberals argue that the "good changes" outweigh the undesirable changes. Conservatives argue the opposite. We need to stop disparaging folks for their political beliefs and opinions. Most folks come to their opinions and beliefs honestly. around these parts, SF City Bear represents thge minority view. I, too, represent thge minority view. There was a time, not too long ago, when Berkeley and "true liberals", championed and applauded the viewpoints of the minority. Let us have a little more respect and a little less demonization of minority viewpoints. After all, if history is any guide, I can assure you that those currently having majority views will someday be faced with the horrifying prospect of having their views relegated to the minority.

---

I am a liberal democrat, and I don't disagree with this post. However, this isn't what SFCity wrote--his post was of the "liberals ruined everything" kind.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Civil--thank you and please allow me to be more specific since Mr. cohen claims that "right-wingers" ( a derogatory term used to shut down conversation) NEVER offer specifics to substantiate their claims.
Dear Mr. Cohen: According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, 13 of the Mueller team are registered Democrats. The remaining three have not divulged their affiliation. Of the 13 registered democrats, at least 10 have donated to Democrats and Democrat causes such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Senator Gillibrand of New York. one attorney, James Quarles, whose registration is unknown, gave 7,000 to Obama in the last decade and 2,700 to Clintons' 2016 campaign. Jeannie Rhee, a registered Democrat, gave 5,400 to Clinton. she also donated 4,800 to Obama in 2008 and 2011. Andrew Weissman. also a registered Democrat, gave 2,300 to Obama in 2008 also gave 2,000 to the Democratic Committee. Among the lawyers who gave contributions , 62, 043 went to Democrats and a whopping 2,750 dollars went to Republicans. Three lawyers gave Clinton 18,100 dollars for both her 2008 and 2016 run. TO SUMMARIZE----There are 16 KNOWN DEMOCRATS and 3 LAWYERS who choose not to state their party preference. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE. I hope and pray I have been specific enough. If not, I will be happy to comply in the future.

---

I stand corrected as to that one point. I was thinking of Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray and Comey - all Republicans; i.e., the guys heading the investigation (also Berman in the Southern District (an associate of Giuliani), to whom my name-sake's case was referred, but who recused himself, for reasons of which I am unaware). Are you saying that their Democratic underlings are controlling these guys (and the judges who have to rule on the warrants under strict scrutiny)? Are you also saying that the indictments and guilty pleas were engineered (against the defendants' wills, and the wills of their attorneys) by this underling, secret Democratic cabal?

SFCityBear said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Golden One; Was your post satiric or have you just arrived from another planet??BTW, it'a a shame that CC is 71 years old. All the deep state here at Cal has to do is wait her out and then things will revert to the Telegraph Ave culture which has destroyed Cal athletics and has helped to sully the reputation of a once-great school.

---

If Cal athletics are destroyed and the university is no longer great: What are you doing here/a//

---

The Left destroys EVERYTHING it touches: The free market, the schools, the Constitution, the justice system and laws, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, male and female, marriage, sex, love, common sense, the universities, music, movies, sports, and replaced equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, and replaced freedom of thought with indoctrination, replaced news with falsehoods and propaganda, replaced some sense of order and sanity with hysteria, replaced debate and discussion with violence. The University of California at Berkeley and its Athletic programs are just one of many casualties, and I for one, am in mourning for that and all of it, while still holding out a small hope that younger generations as yet unborn may see the wisdom of the founders of this country which allowed the later founding of our University.

---

SFCity:

I have always respected you and have enjoyed our discussions about basketball despite our occasional differences (Don Coleman's future as a pro, the need for a true center in today's game, the proper arc on a free throw). I have also shared with you reminiscences of San Francisco in the 50's and 60's. When I read this, I was initially going to respond snarkily, but I realized that more than anything, this post made me sad. By my calculations, you must be in your late 70's. I'm sorry to think that you've reached that part in your life and find EVERYTHING (your caps) to be ruined. Although I consider myself a liberal democrat, I respect the opinion of thoughtful conservatives and have enjoyed many discussions (online or otherwise) with them on politics, culture, etc. Are you so unhappy these days that you can see no progress anywhere? To take a single example: I'm not sure how marriage has been "destroyed." Perhaps you mean the legalization of gay marriage, but it is hard for me to see that as "destroying" marriage. I recall a post of yours many months ago in which you implied that you weren't currently married. I hope you aren't blaming gay people or "the left" for that.

I am willing to bet that I spend more time on campus than you do. I teach part time, I meet with faculty, students, and administrators regularly, and I do not see the University as a "casualty." Although there may be "trends" that you don't approve of, the university (except for its budget) remains a premier institution as are both its faculty and student body.

In all sincerity, I hope you aren't as bitter as this post sounds. It is not a comfortable way to go through life.

Dear Ursa: I, too, was once a "classical liberal." Please see Adlai Stevenson, Scoop Jackson, JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and most of the Democratic Party which existed prior to the turbulent 1960's. Prior to the 1960's the radical, far left in this country was treated as a "lunatic fringe" not only by republicans but also by the mainstream democratic party. As the decades have evolved, however, the radical far left has made so many inroads politically and culturally that it is safe to say that it has taken over the heart and soul of the demo party. The proof is always in the pudding. Please see Bernie Sanders, identity politics, the totalitarian left on college campuses, the political indoctrination which begins at thge kindergarten level, the shaming and demonization of all those who hold opposing viewpoints, ( Saul Alinsky--please take a huge bow) It is not an accident that Hillary wrote her major thesis on the wonderful Mr. Alinsky. So--to summarize, SAF City Bear and I are not so much bitter as we are sad to see a once great nation united by mutually agreed upon values and traditions torn asunder and polarized by tactics and strategies which have much more in common with the Gestapo and Stalin than with normal american traditions. To illustrate further thge radicalization of the Demo party, the nominally left-of-center mainstream Dianne Feinstein of SF was not endorsed for re-election at a recent gathering of Demos. Also, say what you will about the transparent corruption of Bill and & Hillary, they both governed as moderates while in office ( co-presidency remember) Today, 'moderation" in the Demo party is seen as treason by the far left activists which clearly control the party. A little history is in order here. Many Democrats abandoned their party in 1980 in order to vote for Reagan. They were called "Reagan Democrats. They abandoned their party because they felt (rightly) that their party had strayed to far left for their liking. Please compare the Democratic Party of 1980 to the Democratic Party of today. One would have to search far and wide with a powerful telescope to detect any sameness. today, I know many life-long demos who are shocked and dismayed by the current state of their party. I gather you are not. Fine. I gather Mr. Cohen is not shocked and dismayed either. Fine. I get that too. Todays' Demo party has almost nothing in common with the party you grew up with. This above all else is the reality which SF City Bear and I find so appalling and sad. If that makes us "bitter," it is a bitterness that we come by honestly and proudly.

Hell:

We disagree about the current Democratic party in that it isn't (in my view) as monolithic as you seem to think. Yes, Bernie Sanders is very left of center, but don't forget, he LOST the nomination to Clinton. Similarly, while Feinstein didn't get the endorsement of the state party, she is going to win re-election. I would be hard-pressed to see Tammy Duckworth or Claire McCaskill as radicals. By the same token, I could argue that the Republican party has been taken over by radical right wingers. I hope you aren't enamored of Sarah Palin or Steve Bannon, or Steve King, or Trump, for that matter. (and for the record, I don't think they represent the entire party or the entire conservative movement; just pointing out that it works both ways)

You are disappointed with the way the country has gone recently. Fine. Where I would disagree with you is that I don't really subscribe to the idea that it is only the left that has "torn the country asunder." When politicians like King or Trump rail about Muslims or Mexicans, are they not "tearing the country asunder?" When the "alt-right" talks about forming an "ethno-state" is that not "tearing the country asunder?" (I'm making a leap of faith here that you don't subscribe to the "ideal" of a white-only America)

In any event, my comments to SFCity had to do with his comment that essentially everything has been "destroyed" (his word). He has always been a stickler for taking his--and others--words literally, so I assume he means that marriage, sex, the university, etc., etc, have been "destroyed."

You talk about the university today. Let me ask you this: how much time do you actually spend on campus? How many classes do you teach/attend? How many students do you routinely interact with? How many administrators? Unless the answer to these questions is "quite a few," I believe you don't really know what is going on there.

I agree with URSA that it goes both ways. I think both parties are broken and neither reflect local, regional or national desires very well.

But I really want to echo his point about the campus community and HTPs perception of it. Personally, I feel the campus is MUCH less left leaning than it was when I was a student in the early 80's. And the 80's was probably less left leaning than the 60's. I still spend a lot of time on campus and interact with many current and recent students. I feel they are slightly right of center - compared to my gang of alumni who are probably slightly left of center (socially and educationally liberal, fiscally and environmentally conservative). Furthermore, my interactions with faculty are the same (actually, the most left-leaning faculty I've interacted with tend to be from Europe - usually France - just sayin).

I think HTP (and SFCITY) are reacting to a more vocal - and extreme segment of the population than those whom I interact with.

Actually, as I write this, think the current student group is generally just disenfranchised by the whole shebang.

*Disclaimer - I'm unfortunately using 'generally' for expedience sake. The groups above are very diverse and not easily pigeon-holed.