On top of everything else, you didn't even show our entire conversation. A very useless, misleading post. Thanks for quoting me out of context. I appreciate your hack journalism skills.

I give you cred for using logic in your arguments. But I think the premise of some of it is flawed. First of all, how does neoliberalism not drive everything? Have you read "No Logo" or "The Shock Doctrine" (or heard of them) by Naomi Klein? Read any Henry Giroux or David Harvey? Not saying that I expect you to espouse their ideals or ideologies, but they do offer some good points that I think make it hard to argue against neoliberalism driving all pillars of American (corporate-driven) public policy.

Call me "far left" if you want--I think the left-right paradigm was set up as a conquer and divide tactic that today is used as a culture war by elites. To me, everything is class-driven--it's the elites vs. the masses. I guess you could say that's something akin to Marxism (though I've never read any Marx in much depth), but then someone like Gramsci would argue what I'm arguing--that the left-right paradigm is just a hegemonic idea that the elites utilize to pigeon-hole the "left" as marginal. If you look at most credible public opinion polls on an issue-by-issue basis, this is a pretty "left" or "liberal" country by those labels. So, when I use the term "neoliberal" I am using it to describe corporatist policies, or policies that work in the favor of a few elites at the expense of the many masses. The term "corporatist" is probably more apt, in retrospect.

Fair enough on the Food Inc. stuff. I'd probably still take the time to read Ayn Rand if I had time--it gets back to the finite time argument you made before. You're right about it. I work tons of hours per week, plus do political activism, plus go to school full time, and there're only so many hours in a given day.

On the ASM stuff, as long as these are your own independent thoughts and not just self-serving, courtier thoughts, then that's fine.

Onto corporate money--as I said before, I have a vision of a non-corporatist, pro-democracy, benevolent government. I don't really know if it could exist in a Capitalistic system, though I know it could probably work in a mixed economy like Sweden. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect vision or perfect system, as something will always somehow be tainted, but I just think the research and structure of universities nation-wide is too far out of whack, far on the side of what's good for corporation, and far too little on the side of what's in the public interest. Public interests and corporate interests just aren't the same. If you argue that they are, then there's really not much more to say about it. I don't think EVERYTHING corporations do is bad, but I do think that the revolving door between the corporate world and the halls of power (government) spins so fast that there's a blurry line between the two. In short, no matter where we go w/ this conversation, I'm saying a lot of this out of sheer despair and sadness for where our society is headed, and not really to one-up you.

It's not about accepting or denying state money in the end, but rather, it's about changing the role of the state, from corporate servants, to public servants.

I'm sorry I didn't answer all of your questions. i really could've written a book based on all of them. If you want to do some sort of in-person chat about this sometime, that'd probably be easier from here on out, since all of these questions and discussion topics are meaty in nature and warrant more than a one or two sentence explanation--very difficult to convey my answers via this medium. Also, it's just too time-consuming going back and forth over comment boards--and i was urged by someone to comment on this thing to begin with, knowing it'd go nowhere. If you wanna grab a beer or something sometime, let me know.

Steve

Yes--corporate cash taints research. He who pays the piper calls the tune, the old adage goes. I agree, governmental funding is also often (usually) tainted, particularly in our neoliberal, corporate driven society, in which there is a revolving door between the government and their corporate patrons. It's what Sheldon Wolin of the University of California-Berkley, a political theorist and scholar of democracy calls, "Democracy, Inc.," in his latest book. It's the over-arching problem of our society--neoliberalism drives everything, and corporatism dictates all decisions in all sectors of public policy. It's a true tragedy. Higher Education, as Prof. Ellen Shrecker writes, has "lost its soul." Everyone has an agenda--I'm not suggesting we do not. What I am advocating for is higher education in the public interest--democratizing public education in all facets. It's Utopian at this point, but I hold true to principles under all circumstances. As long as one is compromised toward the demos, and not corporatism, then that is what I stand for in terms of research. That's what the Wisconsin Idea used to be all about at its core.

$$$$$ should come from a democratic government, one that cares about its people, and not a corporate-driven government. We need to fix the system first and change the society within which we live, as Kucinich said here in Madison on Sat., to one where government serves people and not corporations--an economic democracy, as he puts it. I believe in the Scandinavian welfare state model of funding education--progressive taxation--an economic democracy. All of your other questions don't really need to be answered because clandestine organizations like UWF and WARF don't need to exist in social welfare states. These countries have a different mindset: what's in the collective good is in the best interests of everyone.

My assumption on your food knowledge is only based on the fact you refuse to spend 90 min. watching Food Inc. Watch it, think about it, chew on it (excuse the pun), and then we can have a fair conversation about Big Agribusiness' insidious role in American society. Kind of hard to "disagree" w/ arguments you've never read/seen, since you've never watched the movie. It's one thing to have heard arguments "like" those made in the movie/book, but it's another to have actually seen the movie/watched the book. Not to be too circular then, but I am basing my assumptions on your refusal to take the initiative to do this.

I guess i don't know your side, to be frank. I probably was too hasty in assuming you were an ASM courtier, based particularly on who also writes on this blog with you. I'm sure you're an independent-thinking guy, though, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I am calling into question the integrity of academics who accept corporate funding for research, actually. Be offended if you want. I'd like to see someone make the case for how corporate $$$$$ doesn't fully taint his/her research. The fact that you won't take the time to watch Food, Inc. or learn more about our food system from a critical perspective says it all about your side. Always unwilling to engage in critiques, but happy to smear those who offer them.
My recent post The Badger Advocates- Corporate Advocates- Not UW-Madison Advocates

I'd suggest you read/watch Food, Inc. Big Agribusiness is evil. Also, I'd suggest being a bit more suspicious about things:

-Pepsi: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pepsi

-Sara Lee: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sara_L...

-Johnsonville: http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/boycot... --also, see Food Inc. Movie deals a lot w/ how evil the mass-produced meat industry is. It's really, literally, sickening.

Those are listing yours. Pepsi is trying to serve its corporate interests by funneling money into University of Wisconsin-Madison, Inc. That means no critical research on the evils of the "food" we eat in the FRI (think Michael Pollan and Wendell Berry), but plenty of research glorifying big agribusiness.

We'll start there. Feel free to respond.

My recent post The Badger Advocates- Corporate Advocates- Not UW-Madison Advocates