Tucson Citizen.com
Fort Buckley - A virtual outpost, from which Don Smith discusses conservatism, politics, and national security matters

Liberal Academics—Are They REALLY That Big Of A Deal?

by on Sep. 02, 2009, under Uncategorized

A common complaint I hear in conservative circles: universities are WAY too liberal, and conservatives don’t feel comfortable being “themselves,” or expressing their true political feelings, in the classroom.

Personally, I don’t think that’s such a big deal—here’s why.

College is only a small sliver of your life, and SHOULD be just a small sliver of a lifetime of learning. Any impact from four to six (perhaps more?) years of classes taught by liberal ideologue professors should fade over time when compared to all the other books, articles, etc… you’ll read over the rest of your lifetime. Any ideologue teacher only has you captive for one or two semesters at most. You have the rest of your life to search out and study competing ideas and beliefs, and then come to your own conclusions.

Virtually all the high-quality, professional academics you’ll meet keep ideology out of the mainstream of their coursework. A lively disagreement between teacher and student never gets reflected in their gradebooks or your report card.

As for the real ideologues, most self-segregate into elective courses. News flash—if you take any class in a department whose name ends in the word “Studies,” be forewarned. Yes, speaking your conservative mind in one of these classes could easily be akin to a 19th-century cowboy sauntering solo and unarmed through the Chiricahuas.

BUT…you KNOW BEFOREHAND that many of these XXX Studies departments at universities are de facto hostile territory for outspoken conservatives. And—here’s what’s most important—most of the courses in these departments are electives. You don’t have to take them. If, however, those classes are mandatory, that’s another story. In that case…

Liberal academicians can’t be as punitive as they once could. Students can blog, call into talk radio and post videos on YouTube. Virtually every town in America has at least one conservative radio station. If your university—especially your public university or college—employs a teacher who bullies conservative students, you can get the word out. And, be reassured that plenty of voters will be unhappy at the thought of their tax dollars employing that ideologue.

Plus, there’s FIRE. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defends conservative students who’ve been harassed by university faculty, administration and officially-sanctioned student groups. FIRE will go to court. Liberal ideologues in academia have taken notice. (http://www.myfire.org)

The craziest liberal professors often beclown themselves. Dinesh D’Souza relates this antecdote from his days at Dartmouth in his book  Letters To A Young Conservative.  An African American professor routinely spoke in “street” dialect and hip-hop slang while lecturing. A Dartmouth student recorded the professor’s speeches and reprinted them word-for-word in Dartmouth’s conservative newspaper. The professor attempted legal action, claiming he’d been libeled. To his, and the university’s, public embarrassment, someone had to explain to him that no one can be libeled by an accurate retelling of their own words. Needless to say, the professor came out on the losing end of that encounter.

Happily for we schadenfreude-loving conservatives, the foot-shooting didn’t end there. The professor’s wife was a French teacher at Dartmouth. She assigned her class to write a French-language assessment of the Dartmouth conservative paper. Most students knew the deal and wrote the scathing critiques that the French teacher obviously wanted to see. However, one naïve student wrote honestly that he liked the paper—and got a bad grade. Fortunately, that student was wise enough to go to the teacher’s supervisors and ask them what was wrong with his French. The administrators took one look at the assignment and realized that it was inappropriate thinking, not faulty French grammar, that was the problem. Guess who lost that encounter?

University leaderships don’t like to be embarrassed. I think it’s safe to say that the administration at the University of Colorado wishes that the brouhaha surrounding the statements of one of its employees, ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill, never happened.  If one of your teachers goes Trotsky too often, eventually he may find himself feeling very lonely in the faculty lounge. (Unless it’s a XXX Studies lounge…in which case, conservative student, you should have known what you were getting into in the first place!!!)

Taking a class from someone who thinks you’re an Untouchable can be a great learning experience. Sometimes, in life, you have to tell the boss what they want to hear. If your boss’s viewpoints and reasoning methods are 180 degrees in opposition to yours, it can be hard figuring out what they want. Well, here’s a chance to practice. Think of the Chomsky acolyte on the podium as a future boss. What do they want? How can you shape and present arguments that will reach them? Remember…you’re not there to change the professor’s mind or defeat him in verbal battle. You’re there to benefit, in some way, from the class.

Be realistic about the grades you really need. The ultimate fear of any college student: the professor will give me a poor grade if he/she disagrees with me. Nowadays, though, in this age of FIRE and the Internet and FOX News, professors know that they’ll likely have to justify any grade that’s shockingly out of the norm. So, that Trotskyite on the podium who hates your guts for wearing that Ronald Reagan pin to class probably won’t give you a D.  He might, however, give you a B- while the “right” thinking students get As.

If so…so what?

I’ve worked for a Fortune 500 consulting company for over a decade, and no one ever asked me for my GPA. They wanted to know what I majored in and where I graduated from. From my experience, if you take a challenging curriculum at a respected school and graduate with a B or high C average, that will check the education block with most employers. What will really make or break you, down the road, will be the work experiences you accumulate and the success you demonstrate in real-life situations, not the C+ you got from your Trotskyite Teaching Assistant in “Marxist and Maoist Perspectives on Sponge Bob Square Pants.”

So, my fellow conservatives, don’t fear the Trotskyites on campus. Avoid the vindictive ones, have fun with the silly ones, give them what they want at test time and never forget…it’s only four years. (Or five. Six?)



  • leftfield

    You’re right, Don; conservatives spend way too much time whining about how they’re discriminated against at every turn.  Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own choices?  I say quit complaining and get busy studying your “Marxist and Maoist Perspectives”.

  • Patrick O

    Alternatively, for those who are so committed to their ideology at such a young age that they find exposure to reality uncomfortable, there are conservative universities.
    You can always attend Regent, for example, and not be troubled by liberal professors mentioning evolution, and after sufficient memorization of Bible verses you can get a job in the White House.

  • Ado

    Virtually all the high-quality, professional academics you’ll meet keep ideology out of the mainstream of their coursework. A lively disagreement between teacher and student never gets reflected in their gradebooks or your report card.”   ???
     
    Mr. Smith, what planet are you living on? I would challenge you to pick up the documentary film Indoctrinate U, produced by a young filmmaker named Evan Coyne Maloney, view it, and then report back to us.

    • Don Smith

      Ado, I’m living on Earth.  And, I’m not doing your work for you.  If you’ve watched the movie, why don’t you report to us? 

      In boldface type, of course.

      • Ado

        The documentary film Indoctrinate U, exposes liberal academics and the hypocrisy they espouse. Apparently rather than viewing it, you prefer to reside in your tower in the dark. That’s O.K. Mr. Smith. Enlightenment is never forced on anyone…

  • azmouse

    Not sure if this is relevant, but when my youngest son was in middle school (he’s now a junior in high school) he was ridiculed by TEACHERS, for not participating in a revolt where the kids (and many teachers) left school to participate in a march for illegal immigrants. He wanted to be in cl;ass. (By the way, this is a kid who, at nine years old, wrote to President Bush without telling a soul. I didn’t know anything about it until I got a hand delivered letter from the White House. He told the president allot about our family…yikes..and his ‘P.S.’ was to tell Colin Powell ‘HI’.)
    I was really upset to find out his teachers were encouraging him and others to blow off school to attend this march. That’s not appropriate to me.

  • sechem

    i went to college, took the classes i neede to and spoke what i beleive.

    college is not the real world ……. a pack of profs that teach, most because they can not do ……. college is nice exit from being in the real world.

    those who complain should in fact shut up and get the job done ……. if they feel intimidated then they need to grow a set. if they get blocked then they need to hit the adversary harder than they are getting hit and more times.

    never let anyone run over you. get your degree and then get busy fighting the real world.

    • leftfield

      sechem, I am reluctant to mention this, but you should either go back to school for a refresher in spelling and sentence structure or stop drinking when you post.  Maybe you should consider an Anger Management seminar at the same time.  Writing in sentence fragments takes away from what you are trying to say. 

  • ldonyo

    Many colleges are liberal, that’s true. They are liberal in order to teach students how to think for themselves. Once those students are out of college, they can feel free to let someone else think for them or they can continue to think for themselves. It’s a shame so many choose the former over the latter, but that does explain why so many watch Faux News.

    • fortbuckley

      They are liberal in order to teach students how to think for themselves.

      Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: After a decade-plus of attending schools staffed by NEA members, American students come to college indoctrinated as…conservatives?

      • leftfield

        It’s just that it’s hard to be that well-informed and adept in critical thinking and remain conservative, Don.  I mean it happens occasionally;  not everyone can be saved.

        • fortbuckley

          Peace, Karl.  Eradicated any kulak populations recently?

  • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

    Liberal is from a Latin root “liberare” meaning to free oneself from oppressive forces.  With that literal definition, not the bastardized one, the William Saffire would scold us for,  we might say that Ronald Reagan was one of the most liberal presidents we have ever elected. He deregulated the oppressive Airlines, and the Savings and Loan industry. He in essence liberalized them. Worked out real well eh?

    • leftfield

      It is debatable that Ronnie “Worked out real well” for this country.  What is not debatable is that his “liberalization” didn’t work out so well for all the people he killed and made refugees in Latin America.

      • fortbuckley

        It worked out well for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

        • leftfield

          Why were they deserving of “liberation” more than the people of Central America.  This is, of course, rhetorical, because Ronald’s real interest was not of the people who lived in either location, but rather in his obsession with communism. 

          “Moral equivalent of the founding fathers”?  Perhaps the amoral equivalent of the founding fathers.

          • fortbuckley

            Hmmm….I prefer focus on communism, its eventual defeat (sorry Karl, but people have this funny desire to be free!), and the USSR’s and Cuba’s attempt to expand their influences into South America. 
            Ronald Reagan thought that people were better off NOT living under a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and history has proved him right.

    • fortbuckley

      As a Southwest Airlines frequent flyer, I think airline deregulation worked out just fine.

  • leftfield

    So this gives the demented old codger the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries if they fail to make the “correct” choice?  Fortunately, the miserable, incontinent old fool’s flesh is rotting off his bones as I write these words and socialism is making its comeback in Latin America.  There’s your history.

    • fortbuckley

      Stay classy, Left.  And, as for my history…it’s still being written.  Like, in Honduras, which refuses to abandon liberty and democracy. 

      Are you a Hugo Chavez fan, Left?

      • fortbuckley

        How do you say “kulak” in Spanish?  Boy, I’ll bet Hugo knows…

      • leftfield

        Leave it to you and the US to support a military coup in Central America.  Who woulda thought?

        • fortbuckley

          Coming from the avatar whose adherents starved millions (Ukraine in the 1930s), crushed the Hungarian Revolution in the 1950s and the Prague Spring in the late ’60s, and used fleeing East Germans for target practice for a quarter-century, those are funny sentiments you have there.

          If communism is so wonderful, why does it have to be so rough on the people living under it?

          • leftfield

            White, upper class Americans excepted, if capitalism is so wonderful, why does it have to be so tough on the people living under, around and on the same planet with it?

            And, Don, why is it that every totalitarian regime that ever flew the socialist flag the perfect paragon of communism, whereas the equally brutal and equally numerous capitalist tyrranies are considered the exception to the rule?  Are you ready to answer your own question as regards Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Burma, Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, China, etc, etc? 

      • leftfield

        I dont know.  Has he sent any conservative militarists to re-education camps?

        • fortbuckley

          So, you DON’T know how to say “kulak” in Spanish?  Well, Hugo probably has a different word for them. 

          • leftfield

            I don’t know why you persist in believing that I am an apologist for the Soviet Union.  I feel no more allegiance to the regime of the former USSR than I do for the current regime of the US of A.  Whether a regime exploits and terrorizes a people at home or prefers to export their terrorism, the result and the damage is the same.  

            Don, you like to cherry-pick your examples.  Along with this, I get the impression that the deaths of Americans, particularly American soldiers, is significant for you, whereas the deaths of nameless brown people in foreign countries is of no significance to you.  Can you understand that, for me, the death of American soldiers is of no greater or lesser significance than that of anyone else in the world? 

  • radmax

    My sister teaches. I love her dearly, but to say that todays’ curriculum is balanced is a joke. My daughter, who gets excellent grades I might ad, needs to count on her fingers some times! She is getting fluent in Spanish though…BTW-she is in 5th grade, and her favorite subjects are math and science, wish they taught it. I also speak Spanish, as an elective, not usurping the 3 r’s

  • fortbuckley

    Left, have you considered the possibility that Reagan expended so much US effort fighting communism in South America…because the Mariel Boat Lift (which occurred before Reagan took office) told him (and the rest of us) everything we needed to know about communism and its benefits?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

    In case you’ve forgotten, over 100,000 Cubans fled the home of socialism in the Western Hemisphere.  Castro had twenty years to turn Cuba into a successful socialist state.  Why, then, did so many want to leave?
    Perhaps Reagan felt compassion for millions of innocent South Americans, and he felt compelled to spare them from Cuba’s fate?

    Funny thing about socialist states…they always seem to have walls around them, keeping their people IN.  And, when breaches in those walls open (see Mariel Boatlift, fall of the Berlin Wall) people flood OUT, not IN.

    If anyone’s corpse is rotting and stinking, Left, it’s Karl Marx’s.

    • leftfield

      Well, I don’t know how you define success, Don.  My opinion is that the US has had over two hundred years to turn this land into a “successful” capitalist state.

      Whatever the demented codger’s motives, it is the height of American arrogance to believe he had any right to engage in terrorism Central America.  It is also the height of blind stupidity to believe that the incontinent old fool ever felt compassion for anyone but his beloved ruling class. 

      The miserable, greasy-haired old man was also a blatant racist.  But, I suppose, that fit into his peculiar vision of success.

      • fortbuckley

        Well Left, think of it this way.

        - Cuba had already tried to let the USSR put nuclear missiles less than 100 miles from our shores.
        - Cuba then sent interrogators to North Vietnam to interrogate and torture our POWs.
        - Cuba then sent “advisors” to Grenada, Angola and elsewhere in the world.  The Cubans weren’t comfortable staying home…they wanted to export their idea of paradise to other places.  (Or, maybe they were looking for other missile bases to offer to the Russians…)
        - To top it off, Cuba’s people were willing to risk drowning in order to escape the socialist paradise that Castro had had almost 20 years to build.

        Gee, I wonder why Ronald Reagan wasn’t comfortable leaving the Cubans to run unfettered through South America…

  • tiponeill

    “Gee, I wonder why Ronald Reagan wasn’t comfortable leaving the Cubans to run unfettered through South America…”
     
    It wasn’t only Reagan that “wasn’t comfortable” allowing any government that wasn’t subservient to the US in Central/South America.
    That has always been our policy, and has brought Pinochet and death squads to the continent for generations.
    I think Lefty is just saying that it is nothing to be proud of, and certainly no reason to hold someone like Reagan in esteem.

    • fortbuckley

      tiponeill, if a country in my neighborhood:
      a. Had allowed the USSR to put nuclear missiles less than 100 miles from my coast,
      b. Tortured my nation’s soldiers while another country held them captive,
      c. Was deploying its military forces worldwide to “advise” other countries,

      d….and, thousands of its people were willing to cross open ocean to escape their country, 

      I’d be inclined to think poorly of that country, wouldn’t you?

      I’ll concede that some of the people/groups on the US side in South America in the 1980s were thugs.  There were, however, thugs on both sides. 
      We took sides in civil wars and rebellions, in which both sides played dirty. 

      If Cuba and the USSR—two nations openly hostile to the USA—had stayed out of South America, then the US would have had much less justification for getting involved.  But, they didn’t stay out, did they?

    • fortbuckley

      tiponeill, how do you connect Reagan to Pinochet?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet

      The general had been in power for six years by the time Reagan took office. 

  • fortbuckley

    Reply to comment by Leftfield, Sept 7th, 7:35 AM

    Don, you like to cherry-pick your examples.

    You make it sound as if there’s a whole basket of successful, happy socialist countries in the world, and Cuba and the USSR were just two small, insignificant anomalies mixed in the bunch. 
    Left, you like to ignore the colossal suffering that your avatar’s adherents have brought into the world. 

    You also don’t seem to want to acknowledge that, whenver one of the countries ruled by your avatar’s adherents opens the fences confining its people, thousands rush out!  Remember the thousands of East Germans who flooded into Hungary in the summer of 1986, when they heard that Hungary was opening its border with Austria?  East Germany was the crown jewel of the Warsaw Pact—why did so many of its citizens run when they heard a rumor of a break in the Wall?

    the deaths of nameless brown people in foreign countries is of no significance to you.

    1.  Mark the time–Lefty has thrown the “racist” flag!  OK, everybody—who had 7:30 AM on September 7th in the pool?
    2. “brown people”—what a condescending, colonial term.   You’d have fit right in in the old East India Company with talk like that. 

    I get the impression that you see these people as collateral damage:
    1.  All the political prisoners in Castro’s prisons.
    2. The hundreds of people Che Guevara killed.
    3. The crops of Cambodia’s killing fields
    4. Vietnam’s boat people.
    5.  American POWs tortured by Cuban interrogators in Vietnam

    Is is the duty of those people to be dead, Left?

    I acknowledge that the civil wars and rebellions in South America during Reagan’s terms in office caused lots of human suffering.  Civil wars and rebellions always do that.   There were unsavory characters on both sides of the fighting—again, something that often happens in rebellions.

    Reagan chose to get involved on one side of the fight, and Cuba and the USSR got involved on the other side.  Are you saying that, if the US had stayed out of South America in the 1980s, Cuba and the USSR would have stayed out, too?

    • leftfield

      I was not aware that Cuba had interrogators in Vietnam during the American War.  Interesting.  Very considerate of Cuba to help out an ally.

      • fortbuckley

        You seem indifferent to the fact that they “worked” on American personnel…why? 

        • leftfield

          I have told you before; now I will try to make it clear.  I feel no differently about the death, dismemberment, torture, abuse, etc, of Americans or American soldiers than I do about the same evil being visited on anyone else in the world.  This is a fundamental difference between us, Don.  As an American militarist, you have an “us against them” mentality.  So do I, but the “us” and the “them” in my case are entirely different.

          • fortbuckley

            Left, I take it as a badge of honor that I am fundamentally different from you, the totalitarian.  I hold our servicemen in special regard.  If that means we’re different people, then three cheers for differences!

            FYI,  the Cuban torturers did actually kill one American POW.  I thought you should know his name.  Earl Cobeil, US Navy.  (Source:  article by Juan Tamayo, Miami Herald, August 22 1999). 

            Funny thing—the Vietnamese were so disgusted by the actions of the Cubans, they intervened.  When the Viet Cong think you’re too cruel, that’s something!

            Yep—if I was Ronald Reagan, I’d want to spare other countries the “loving embrace” of Castro.

  • leftfield

    “The hundreds of people Che Guevara killed.”

    Now you’re talking about someone I revere in the same way you revere the flatulent old racist.  A true hero and a martyr of the revolution. 
    If you were nicer to me, I’d show you my original Cuban photograph of Che.  Yes, he killed a lot of people, either personally or indirectly.  Have you suddenly decided to renounce violence in all forms?  Or do you only sanction US government approved violence?  After all, the people killed were agents of the Batista regime and/or lackeys of the imperialists.  Personally, I do not recognize the legitimacy of US government sanctioned violence, but violence in the armed struggle against the imperialists gets a big thumbs-up.

  • fortbuckley

    “flatulent old racist”
    My my, Leftfield.  the tone and dignity of your prose just keeps getting better and better and better.  Stay classy. 

    • leftfield

      Whenever the name of that wrinkled scrooge comes up, I will insult freely.  Such is the depth of my anomosity.

      Btw – I hate to disappoint you, but even those long time enemies of freedom, the US of A, have finally been forced to cut off some aid to your friends in Honduras.  In additon, they are rejecting ahead of the fact the outcome of the scheduled elections in Honduras.  

      “The Americans will always do the right thing; when they have no other choices”  Churchill 

  • fortbuckley

    Left, I encourage you to read more, much more of Churchill.  You might learn something.  (Frankly, I doubt it,

    You have placed yourself on record as opposing the freedom-loving people of Honduras.  I choose to stand with the Honduran legislature and courts, while you pick Zelaya and Hugo Chavez. 

    You are a piece of work, Left.

    Don’t forget–Earl Cobiel, US Navy.   

    • leftfield

      Don, the US history in all of Central America makes the use of the term “freedom-loving” by you more than a little cynical.  

      You know, I’m sorry about all the people who died in the American Invasion of Vietnam, but I am no more sorry about Cobiel’s death than the death of anyone else.  He should have gone to Canada; or even better, joined the active resistance and helped bomb the Pentagon. 

  • http://livingwithptsd.yuku.com/ winnieo

    Nicely written article, Buck. If you’d left out the name-calling, it could have been a really good piece.

    • fortbuckley

      Hey, winnieo, I’m calling it as I see it. The many, many liberals on this site are not bashful about name-calling; why should I be?

      • http://livingwithptsd.yuku.com/ winnieo

        Hey, Don. Is refraining from name-calling bashfulness? I see name-calling everywhere these days from liberals, conservatives, both and neither. That doesn’t make it a necessity. Rise above it. If everyone would take the high road, we would all be better for it.
         
        Are you not a more enlightened human than the name-callers?

  • leftfield

    Don, I assume you find Earl Cobiel’s death by torture at the hands of foreign agents despicable.  Do you feel the same about the people tortured to death by American proxies?

    • Don Smith

      Leftfield, as I’ve already said, there were thugs on both sides of the fighting in Central/South America in the 1980s.    I deplore, and roundly condemn, cruelty for cruelty’s sake.  As I presume you do.

      However, on September 7th,  at 5: 59 PM, after I’d told you that Cuban agents had tortured captured—and therefore harmless—US personnel, you responded this way:

      I was not aware that Cuba had interrogators in Vietnam during the American War.  Interesting.  Very considerate of Cuba to help out an ally.

      I found that indifference to the torture of your countrymen, to servicemen pledged to protect you—even at the cost of their own lives—-chilling, illuminating and disgusting.  As far as I’m concerned, you’ve now placed yourself on record.

      Cruelty is often used by belligerents on both sides in a war.  There are practical, albeit morally troubling, reasons for using it.  

      1: Intimidate/scare your enemy into leaving you alone. 
      2: Gather intelligence.  

      US warplanes were bombing Hanoi, not Havana, in the late 1960s.  Why did Cuba trouble itself to send intelligence personnel to North Vietnam?  Was Cuba a North Vietnamese proxy, or the other way around?

      If Castro can get involved in Vietnam, then I see no hypocrisy in Reagan getting involved in South America. 

  • leftfield

    I say that if the US can get involved in Vietnam, I see no reason why you would not expect Cuba to come to the aid of an ally. 

    The situation in Nicaragua in the 1980′s was n0t unlike the situation in Chile in the 1970′s: the people of  Nicaragua elected a government that was deemed undesirable to the US and the US set about to destabilize that government.  There are some parallels there to the situation in Vietnam.

    Don, your government is the biggest terrorist organization that the world has seen for some time.  Understand that I find your indifference to this also chilling, illuminating and disgusting.  

    I am not indifferent to the torture of Americans; nor am I indifferent to torture or terrorism of non-Americans, as you seem to be.  Having said that, there are exceptions.  I do think Big Dick Cheney and pasty-white, fat-necked Karl Rove should be waterboarded at least 183 times.  Because, while I deplore cruelty for cruelty’s sake, I do think there are practical reasons for torturing these two:  

    1. To intimidate my enemy into leaving the world alone.
    2. To gather information.

    The upside is that this proposed activity would not be “morally troubling”. 

    • Don Smith

      I say that, if Cuba takes the initiative to:
      - allow the USSR to station offensive nuclear weapons less than 100 miles from our southern coast
      - send its “experts” to a country that’s openly fighting the USA, so they can torture and murder our servicemen
      - send “advisors” to Grenada, Angola and elsewhere…
      then Ronald Reagan had every justification for striking back at them.
      You make the Cubans sound like a group of peaceful, innocent people content to grow sugar in peace, who were beset by an evil imperialist force.  IMO Castro brought this on himself. 

      And, as for the Sandinistas, when they decided to join with Cuba and support other Marxist revolutionary movements in Latin America, did they expect the USA not to notice.  To forget the Cuban Missile Crisis?

      I am not indifferent to the torture of Americans.

      Too late, Left—your cat is out of the bag.  Your first words on the subject, written on 7 Sept at 5:59 PM—IMO define you.  You can’t unsay what you’ve already said.

      I find your indifference to this also chilling, illuminating and disgusting. 

      I proudly disgust you, and I plan to keep it up. 

      • leftfield

        You really can’t see anything from someone else’s perspective, can you?  You just take it as a presumed fact that no other country in this hemisphere has the right to self-determination unless they toe the American line.  What gives the US the right to decide what form of economic organization Cuba, or Nicaragua or Chile or any other country adopts?  Nothing other than military and economic might. 

        And speaking of other points of view, Cobiel, like John McCain, was considered a terrorist of the 9/11 sort by the Vietnamese people.  It’s a funny thing, but you drop bombs on people, and they will hold it against you. 

        I don’t plan to “unsay” anything, Don, and I’m not trying to.  What I’m trying to do, unsuccesfully, is to get you to see some events from the other guy’s POV.

        • fortbuckley

          What gives the US the right to decide what form of economic organization Cuba, or Nicaragua or Chile or any other country adopts? 

          When Cuba allows the USSR to put nuclear missiles less than 100 miles from our shore, and goes out of its way to torture American soldiers in a war that Cuba’s not even fighting, I’m not surprised President Reagan took notice and thought poorly of it.

          Then, when Reagan saw (a) thousands of Cubans try to escape the socialist paradise in the Mariel boatlift, followed by (b) Cuba trying to create little clones of itself in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Grenada, I imagine the president REALLY got concerned.  I’ll bet that Reagan worried that, pretty soon, the people of those countries would show their love of socialism in the same way Cubans did in the summer of 1980.  Florida is only so big!

          You make Castro and his minions sound like some simple sugar farmers who were only minding their own business.  Castro was more than willing to get involved in the affairs of other nations.  Fine, then; Reagan showed he could play at that game, too.

          I do see your POV, Leftfield (I think).  I find much of it to be foolish and some of it to be pretty twisted, and I categorically reject it in general.  (I’m sure there are some small points here and there where we agree).  It wouldn’t surprise me (or trouble me) if you feel the same about my opinions.

          You do, of course, have every right to speak your mind; please keep doing so.  Politics is the contact sport of the mind, and you are a worthy adversary.   I never respond to you unless I’m ready to bring my “A” game to the effort.  (I don’t always produce an “A” effort—but I do try.)  You would keep any opponent on his toes.

  • leftfield

    P.S. don’t forget Fred Hampton 1948 – 1969.

    • Don Smith

      I’ve never heard of Mr. Hampton, and I don’t plan on researching his background.  I told you who Commander Cobiel was and why he’s important to this discussion. 

      • erniemccray

        Please excuse me for jumping into a conversation I haven’t been following but seeing Fred Hampton’s name brings back vivid memories for me, memories of freedom fighters, a Black Panther, in this case, who were struck down by our government for simply daring to feed children and educate children and others in their communities.
        It also reminds me of a time when the exalted Ronnie Ray Gun used his power to TRY to silence brilliant minds, a time when he, just because he didn’t agree with the politics of Angela Davis, forced her out of a graduate program in the University of California system. Soon afterwards Angela was on the FBI’s Wanted List which is a “wanted dead or alive” kind of situation.
        These aren’t memories I like resurfacing in my mind because I try to give my government the benefit of the doubt which is extremely difficult considering our interference in other country’s matters violently when other means would have sufficed. Like instead of mining harbors in Nicaragua we could have joined the Soviets who were working in the fields, helping the Sandanista’s improve the lots of their people – and it doesn’t matter what their objectives were; it’s that we could have been there up close and personal and made sure we did the right thing – find ways to help a needy people in our area of the world, the Americas.
        To Fred: I miss you, man!
        To Angela: Every time I see you or hear about you I’m reminded of your brilliance, of your stamina, of your contributions to the making of a better world. I love you dearly.
         

      • leftfield

        You might be more interested in Fred Hampton’s murder (and that it was murder is no longer disputed) than you know.  It certainly was critical in shaping my point of view and I don’t think I’m alone in this.  The murder of Fred Hampton exposed to me the true nature of the system.   

  • Don Smith

    the exalted Ronnie Ray Gun

    OK, I see where this is going.
    we could have joined the Soviets who were working in the fields

    See Spring, Prague (1968) and Afghanistan, invasion of  (1980).  “Working in the fields,” indeed.

    it doesn’t matter what their objectives were; it’s that we could have been there up close and personal and made sure we did the right thing – find ways to help a needy people in our area of the world, the Americas.

    The sixties weren’t kind to you—were they?

    Feel free to jump into these conversations anytime.

  • erniemccray

    The 60′s were extremely kind to me. I left the Old Pueblo in 1962 after having grown up there designated as COLORED on my birth certificate which meant I could: only swim in one public pool, Estevan, where I later worked as a lifeguard; sit only in the balcony at movies; skate at the rink only on designated days; pretty much eat at only a couple of cafes, Duke’s and Jack’s; get pulled over for driving while black because “You look like a person we’re looking for” as though all criminals were black and 6’5″; get kicked out of City Council meetings for daring to demand my rights and being chastised because a co-freedom fighter happened to be a communist.
    When I left Tucson I held about 12 basketball records at the U of A which meant absolutely nothing to old strutting Jim Crow and I landed in San Diego to be greeted by a classroom of 6th graders who set me on a path of doing all I can to make the world a better place – because children deserve that in a society where many don’t want their president to address them.
    I spent the 60′s helping young people deal with the loss of the likes of Medgar Evers and JFK and Martin and Malcolm and RFK. I protested a war that claimed a couple of my childhood friends. The school I served was in a military housing area and I helped children deal with the anxiety created by fathers who weren’t around. We wrote poems and prose and songs and recorded them and sent them overseas. And we whistled while we worked.
    In the 60′s I was able to come home and eat anywhere I chose. I was able to see the beginning of Tucson’s entry into the New World and feel good about my hometown.
    In the 60′s I felt a kind of hope I haven’t seen since but because of those days I still work with great energy to create change. Because of the 60′s I’ve worked: for Cesar’s United Farm Workers; against apartheid in South Africa; around issues in Nicaragua; on stage as a means of telling stories that need to be told; in behalf of gays and lesbians and against the militarization of our children in their schools. I’ve created rich learning environments for students, making learning fun and relevant and truthful. You don’t have to beat around the bush with children. They like to, as they say, “keep it real.”
    I’m retired now but I still work with children, helping them create performance pieces for the stage and writing with them and creating dance  and movement with them. They, for me, are the hope for turning this world around. They’re Si Se Puede all the way.
    And, by the way, if anyone wants to get keen insights into some of the shenanigans our government can pull I would suggest they google Fred Hampton.

  • leftfield

    Always good to hear from you, Ernie.  And it’s good to know that somebody else remembers Fred Hampton’s life and death.

  • Mic Marine

    Anyone who fought in the  Nam,  black, brown, red, yellow or white,  knew who Fred Hampton was.  Issues of justice were powerfully preeminent in those days. To many now,  social justice is but a subject for bloggers and conversers. Not many in the trenches anymore.