ROSEN: A conservative oasis at CU
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
'Help Wanted: Lefty College Seeks Right-Wing Prof," read the headline over a Wall Street Journal story about a proposed, donor-endowed visiting chair in conservative thought and policy at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The term "lefty," while pejorative, is an accurate description of the dominant political culture in the liberal arts and humanities at CU.
Disclosure: For the last year, I've been cooperating with CU administrators and other interested parties in discussions about this project, which, while not "secret," has kept a low public profile - until the Journal story. As a historical note, about 10 years ago, then-CU President Betsy Hoffman invited me and some other local conservatives to a luncheon meeting at the University Club in Denver to discuss a similar proposal. At that meeting, I asked Hoffman who would have the final say over the appointment of the conservative chair. When she answered: the political science faculty, those in attendance grimaced and the project never got off the ground.
Now, the idea has been resurrected with some concessions to the concerns of prospective conservative donors who are understandably apprehensive about trusting notoriously left-wing academics with a blank check. One possible option is to empower a donor-influenced committee to submit a list of acceptable candidates from which the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences would make the final selection.
The project has gotten mixed reviews from the left and right. Predictably, doctrinaire leftists at the school - faculty and students - covet their domination of political thought and ideology. Some have even countered that there be an offsetting chair in liberal thought and policy. Talk about redundancy. That would be like the University of North Korea needing a separate chair in Marxism. Liberal dogma is ubiquitous at CU, where leftists already have more than a chair; they have a full grandstand and cheering section.
Some conservative critics have expressed concerns that a conservative chair would be stigmatized as tokenistic. They have a point. My first preference, which I've advocated for years, would be a concerted effort to bring more philosophical and political balance to the school's faculty. The notion that committed leftists fairly and respectfully present conservative ideas is a deception or a delusion (think Ward Churchill). Just ask conservative students at CU, or look at the politicized postings at faculty offices. But achieving anything approaching balance won't happen for a long time, if it all.
In the meantime, a prominent conservative in this chair can be a mentor. This can establish an official beachhead, on oasis for conservative students and an intellectual lighthouse for others who've never really been exposed to quality conservative ideas. It might even embolden other faculty members who've kept their conservativism in the closet. While I'd concede that some nonconservative instructors can clinically present conservative ideas, there's no substitute for the dedication and passion of one who actually believes in them.
A revealing indictment of the leftist status quo at CU inadvertently came form sophomore Marissa Malouff, a self-proclaimed Democrat, who, according to the Journal story, described the campus as "a sort of re-education camp where sheltered rich kids . . . get dunked in a simmering pot of left-wing idealism. And that, in her view, is how it should be." Well, Marissa, some of us think you and other students would benefit from instruction in basic economic realities and trade-offs, the virtues of free markets, the problems of excessive and intrusive government, the need for a strong national defense, and traditional American values.
CU's asking for a lot more money these days from students, parents of these "rich (and not-so-rich) kids" and taxpayers, many of whom are loath to heap further rewards on a left-wing "re-education camp" and indoctrination center. If CU wants to enhance its funding prospects, it might show more respect for the ideas and values its conservative customers and benefactors hold dear.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
June 6, 2008
1:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Where is the leftists' commitment to "diversity?" Doesn't that include diversity of world view?
You have to question the intellectual honesty of any academic hired by an American university as they had to have sheepishly adhered to the liberal doctrine in order to get their cushy paycheck. How do liberal academics differ from priests and monks and nuns who have to adhere unquestioningly to calcified religious doctrines in order to advance in the hierarchy of the clergy?
Since taxpayers pay for these academic posts, it is outrageous that private funds have to be proffered to establish a "beachead" of diverse thought at a government funded university. What is the CU faculty-- an unquestioning monastic cloister of true believers?
And while we're at it, how about a little ideological diversity in hiring in newspaper and electronic media newsrooms?
Seems they are all uniformed lockstep leftists in all newsrooms. Even a recent Harvard study corroborated that long-held suspicion.
The media and academy rail for diversity everywhere, but in their own backyard.
What foul hypocrites these left wing academics and journalists!
June 6, 2008
6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lwayfan writes:
Having gone to CU in Denver (which is not as liberal as Boulder) I can safely say that it is more liberal than conservative. There was one professor in particular that refused to spend more than one class of world history on all of Roman and Greek history. We spent more time on the aboriginal people of Australia. And the class we did spend on Roman and Greek history he mocked and degraded both cultures. When I decided to drop the class he called me immoral. Go figure.
June 6, 2008
6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Universities are about seeking the truth, and as Steven Colbert wryly notes, "The truth has a well-known liberal bias." Peddling anachronistic ideologoes has no place on university campuses Mike.
June 6, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Peddling anachronistic ideologoes has no place on university campuses Mike." - Sheik
True. So tell that to Ward (now gone) and the majority of CU professors who peddle their wares everyday. I agree that a university should be a place where the ideologies of the teaching staff should not be inserted into the curriculum. But that is not what we have here. I agree with Mike on the opinon that this is some type of "tokenism", but that this position can also be a mentor and a "beachhead" to the conservative students at CU who are looking for advice and guidance. For that reason I agree that this is needed. If the left leaning staff had kept their iideologies more in check this would not even need to be discussed.
It is amusing that if we were talking about a professor with a different skin color (other than white) or a different religion (other than Christian) everyone on the left would be all for this for the sake of "diversity". But as has been pointed out, diversity is fine unless it is diversity of "thought" and that thought or philosophy originates on the right side of the political spectrum.
June 6, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Churchill and Rosen are ideological opposites, but tactical birds of a feather. A pox on both.
June 6, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Thanks to Mr. Rosen for bringing us valuable information about CU.
How did Liberals get control of our educational system??????
June 6, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Everything Steven Colbert says is sarcasitic.
June 6, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
reminds me of Affirmative Action
June 6, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
In the 1970s, when some liberals were being accused of tossing common sense out the window for the sake of hedonism and selfishness, conservatism might have had a few valid points.
But today, conservatism has been the greatest source of lies, fear, paranoia, unbridled greed, profligate waste, and mass murder in American politics. Conservatism is now proven a mental illness that manifests ultimately as mass hysteria and violence. This false ideology belongs as subject matter for anthropology, not to be taken any more seriously than than the lies Hitler spread about the Jews. In an interesting parallel to Hitlerian fear of the Jews, American conservatives direct their fear at another Semitic people, the Arabs.
Conservatives are living contradictions of themselves. They preach frugality but their representatives invite war profiteers and other corporate pigs to rob the US Treasury. They preach rule of law but insist that our duly constituted courts are no place to try the mass murderers who planned the horrors of September 11, 2001. So, conservatives insist on trials in military kangaroo courts down in Guantanamo Bay. Those courts have no legitimacy anywhere in the world. It's as if there weren't enough evidence to convict them. And it's a slap in the face of the American people.
Conservatives are constantly inviting us to another war. It's been their never-ending sales pitch for the last six decades. Everyone who doesn't kowtow to America is automatically libeled as our enemy, even many countries that haven't attacked us and are not planning to do so. Insults, bellicose words, and criticism are not the same as bullets and bombs. The target du jour is now Iran. As noisy and annoying as they are, they haven't attacked us. Instead, they've made repeated requests for normal diplomatic relations. Yet conservatives delight in the very idea of bombing Iran. They think it's very funny. But it's actually very sick to laugh at the idea of maiming and murdering millions of people who haven't attacked us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPg...
If you are a conservative today after the results that your man, Bush, has produced then you really need to have your head examined.
June 6, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
sooperburd writes:
Booty,
You're actually using Colbert as a source for an argument? Wow, and you liberals make fun of Sasquatch...
Rosen's piece here demonstrates a rational and reasoned argument. How could even a liberal not concede that conservative thought has a place in a university? As left-leaning as CU is, they agree with Rosen's argument. Just how radically left are you, Booty?
And while we're on the subject, Churchill and Rosen are absolutely not opposites. Rosen is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He is pro-choice, in favor of legalization of ALL drugs, and doesn't have a strong stance either way on gay marriage. He is hardly right wing. He's right of center. Churchill is objectively a radical leftist.
June 6, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
sooperburd writes:
Holierthanthou,
You're confusing conservative thought and conservative economics with what the Republicans have done in office. Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would not be pleased with many of the things that Republicans have done in the last 8 years. True conservative values, like limited government do deserve a place at the table of any university education.
Would you argue that Churchill's brand of little Eichman radical leftism has more of a place at the table than fiscal conservatism?
June 6, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"reminds me of Affirmative Action"
-Spencer
The difference being there is no government requirement here.
June 6, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Do you actually believe that garbage you just spittled out, Holier?
While sometimes we get duped into a war, we usually live in the real world, a place where bad people do exist and it is impractical to deal with them. We also live in a place where we understand that the market, while not perfect, does a more efficient and better job of allocating scarce resources than the government...no exceptions. And when you talk about the duelism of preaching frugality and practicing war profiteering, I don't see it.
And I don't know of a conservative who thinks so lightly of war as you assume we do. Iran has an inflammatory leader and thousands of centrifuges processing uranium. Creating weaponized uranium or plutonium for use in "energy" is the hard part. It is a matter of months or even weeks to fit that material to weapons. So, the hard part is almost done...the easy part is all that really remains. How do you feel about worldwide nuclear war. Extremist Islamists have already shown that they would sacrifice their own lives for their cause. Blowing up a hundred million Americans sacrificially would be nothing to them. Not saying that they would, but they might.
If the world had listened to one of the great conservatives, at least regarding foreign affairs, Winston Churchill, World War II would have been avoided completely. People thought he was a raving lunatic because of his disdain for Hitler, and a few million dead Jewish people later, suddenly he had forsight.
Imagine a world where America is pacifist right along with France and Germany. You are looking at a world where terrorist regimes and tribal factions (not just Arabic) grapple for power at the expense of the little guy. Do you know how many people Saddam murdered, how 'bout his oldest son and heir? They were wicked men who tortured people. I am not saying we should be there right now, but imgaine what the world would be like if that kind of insanity stayed in power with America idly watching. It would not be a safer place.
War profiteers are the unfortunate combination of capitalism and the need to defend ourselves. Places like Lockheed Martin are necessary...and they have positive side effects as well, such as pushing forth technology.
To your definition of conservatism, I reply that liberalism is a fantasy world where pacifism is effective, as is government control of scarce resources. In the real world, neither is practical, but in your world, they are ideal.
June 6, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
The chair of conservative thought would not be a token,a beachhead or an oasis. He or she would be a target. Leftist students would take the class in order to disrupt it. People would buy up the textbooks for the classes so that registered students would not have any. Protesters would protest every conceivable grievance regardless of the relevance to the coursework.
Leftists don't believe in free speech and would do their best to prevent rational mature discussion in the classroom.
sheik yur booty, if you think that Rosen is similar to Churchill because they both demonstrate bias, you haven't read their work, nor do you understand their jobs. Rosen has never been accused of plagiarism or of falsifying sources. Nor has he been accused of writing under a pseudonym and then quoting himself. Churchill was an academic who was required to be objective in his treatment of facts. Rosen is an editorial columnist who, while he should remain factual, is paid for his opinions.
Academics are not supposed to be biased. Opinion writers are.
June 6, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Holier
Bush is not a conservative. He is not anti-big government, nor is he populist or libertarian. He is republican, but the conservative wing of the Republican party has abandoned him.
June 6, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Actually, he abandoned the conservative wing of the Republican party. America did too because they don't know the difference between true conservatives and RINOs and saw little if any real conservative policies in his first six years. Reagan is the best example of a true conservative president in this or the last century. Nixon, a Republican, was big government, and neither Bush was a conservative.
June 6, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
McCain might as well be a Democrat except for some of his ideas on defense.
June 6, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
So the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado has a liberal bias. Okay. So what about the Bussiness School? What about the Engineering School?
What about the Colorado School of Mines? Liberal bias?
United States Air Force Acedmey? Liberal Bias?
If you want a serious education you're not going to go to the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado anyway.
Leave the Hippies alone.
June 6, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
sooperburd writes:
TC,
Just because you list two schools that are not heavily biased liberally, you think you can prove that universities across the nation are not overwhelmingly liberally biased? Of course the School of Mines isn't very biased, it's an engineering school. Of course the Air Force Academy isn't biased, it's a military school. Do you want me to start listing schools that have a proven liberal bias?
CU is, for once, demonstrating pragmatism. CU realizes that they are losing donor money by being so one-sided. Putting in this chair will most likely bring more money to them. CU is a business and many people forget this. The Hippies have chosen to do this on their own.
June 6, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
I think you missed my point.
People have a choice of schools.
Let the market decide.
June 6, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
sooperburd writes:
TC,
You are right. To a point (from the free market side of your argument), I agree with you, but so much tax money goes into funding these institutions. We can't just let them be so biased. An overwhelming liberal bias (800 liberal instructors at CU vs 23 conservatives) in state funded universities is unacceptable. Conservative thought needs to be much better represented.
June 6, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Conservatives here make lame attempts to dissociate themselves from the failed policies of Bush. Yet Rosen, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others continue to support him unfailingly. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were also both wrong.
Atlas never shrugged off anything except his responsibility for the economic debacle that is becoming America. So, conservatives still insist that capitalism works? I challenge you to examine proof of the superiority of Chinese communism in every dry goods store in America. See "Made in China". Try to find "Made in USA". Good luck with your proof. My proof is everywhere.
I insist on buying quality USA-made tools and machinery. My equipment is getting older and older. I repair everything myself. American-built replacements are no longer available. So, how's that working out for us? The results are obvious in the falling US dollar, rising oil prices, and record-setting foreclosures. Capitalism is clearly a miserable failure. Conservatives can delude themselves from sunrise to sunset. I observe results.
Let's look at conservative paranoid delusions. Thank you for supporting my assertions vigorously on that account. Hitler blamed the Jews for everything bad. Now we have Islamic extremists, spencerr bleated:
"Extremist Islamists have already shown that they would sacrifice their own lives for their cause. Blowing up a hundred million Americans sacrificially would be nothing to them."
A hundred million you say? That's a tall order for a scattered bunch of religious fanatics and goat herders stuck in the crags of Waziristan. Perhaps you'd better check your facts. Bush let Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2002 because he believed in the free market of ideas allowing competition between the military and the CIA. So, they didn't cooperate with each other. And they failed to do their jobs.
Goat herders and religious fanatics can be rounded up by police with the possible assistance of army regulars. Of course, this works better if you actually bother to insist on capturing them instead of calling the dictator who makes bargains with them your ally.
The other problem comes up with the constant selling of war to the American people. Conservatives gave Bush a license to attack Iraq. Destroying Saddam Hussein provided negative strategic value in our conflict with the Islamic criminals. Saddam was their enemy. Saddam Hussein was also a useful foil against Iranian efforts to dominate the Persian Gulf region. But conservative insistence on a good old fashioned war prevailed and now we are holding the tar baby.
Conservatives are proven paranoid delusional in both word and deed. Their mental illness is fit for study as are all diseases of the body and mind. But we should no more believe in conservative insanity than accept the ravings of drooling schizophrenics as fact.
June 6, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Not too tall for nuclear bombs and ICBMS.
Anyway, my economic proof is in an economy that is the largest in the world, that grows on an average of more than three percent per year. Our unemployment, on average, is one of the lowest in the world every year, and our production is number 1.
And China's "communism" that is working so well for them is only working because they put their products in the market, more specifically the American market. It is not a Maoist, pure communistic economy. Same with Vietnam.
Now, you want a real communism, go look at North Korea and the U.S.S.R. of the 1980s. It failed. Even the more socialistic mixed economies of France and Germany commonly produce double digit unemployment...and we are whining at 5.5 percent, boo hoo.
I thought you might be a socialist, but you are obviously a proud communist. Not many of those anymore in the free-thinking western world...because it does not work.
Oh, and if you needed me to re-emphasize why capitalism is so great, did I mention that our economy is and has been the number one economy for a very long time. China is gaining, but Mao (and any true communists) would be spinning in their graves. Did you know that as a Chinese citizen, you can start your own business now? Sounds like capitalism to me.
Anyway, your answer to my first post shows your credibility as an economist. You are so far out there...!!!!
June 6, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
The United States of American has the highest standard of living of any large nation in history. It is also the most successfull large nation in history by any objective measure - still. Remember back in the '80s when Japan was going to take over the world? They didn't. China's succes comes from adapting free market principles. It remains to be seen how far it goes.
June 6, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And...I didn't say that we should be in Iraq...but now that we are there, we have to finish the job. Furthermore, you justify the means with the end...leave a murderer and torcherer in power because it keeps Iran in check. In your last post, you were ready to shake Iran's leader's hand. Your grasping. And at the very best, that guy having nuclear weapons will be a bargaining chip, at the worst, he will use it and kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people. You don't think he wants to nuke Israel? You might say that a report recently said that Iran isn't creating weapons. I say to you that all he needs is the weapons-grade uranium, which he is making now, because that is the hard part.
I didn't say that capitalism is perfect either...but it is a thousand times more efficient than communism, and it is the better system because of that.
June 6, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Thanks Mike, good piece. Hopefully, in our lifetime we will see true diversity and balance return to our education system, with more emphasis on the good old basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.
LetsThink, I can answer your question “How did Liberals get control of our educational system ?????” with the old adage: “Those who can, do. And those who can’t, teach”.
People with marketable skills, positive attitude, self-motivation, risk-taking, knowledge, etc, etc are out being entrepreneurs, leaders, and successful businessmen.
The small minority remaining end up teaching at the college level and call themselves “scholars”.
June 6, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Holierthanthou (and other leftists to a lesser extent) lives in a fantasy world where communism works (it doesn't, even a little bit), where if the leaders of the world were just to go hang out in a little room together, they could resolve their differences peacefully and no one would ever die in a war.
They want to live in a pipe dream where Americans produce everything for themselves, where no one ever loses their jobs, especially not to overseas operations. Their "utopia" also calls for an end to world hunger, which while honorable, will never happen if you force all jobs that are currently in America to stay in America. (Fifty years ago, Americans were producing steel and cars, doing grueling manual labor...the ones that aren't doing that anymore are now sitting in offices with computers, drinking coffee and wasting company time blogging on RMN...do we really want to go back?)
It is a world where everyone was created not only equal according to law, but equal in every way, especially economically.
It is a world where no one has to work too hard, or not at all if they don't want to. Everything is free. The world is peaceful.
It's utopia.
News for you Holier, it doesn't exist, and if you think communism or socialism is the answer, then look at the former USSR, France, and Germany.
Capitalism is not perfect...it is the best system we have though.
June 6, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
The last time I checked I have been hearing liberals screaming we need to have tighter government controls so we can stop global warming. I truly fear what the liberals will do when they take the white house. They will take away more of our liberties and freedoms under the disguise of saving the world, because we are too stupid to do it ourselves.
If you remember your history Hitler was not a conservative but he was a socialist. He believed in big government, not small government. He created government programs to control people by giving them jobs. Isn't that what the liberals are proposing? Creating government jobs and programs so they can help out the people but then in turn make the people have to rely upon the government more. Then they have more control.
June 6, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Holierthanthou- You don't sound so holy, you do sound like an angry Marxist. "Capitalism is clearly a miserable failure." In what world do you live? Our system IS the worst, except for all of the others.
You and your 'socialist/progressive/liberal' friends won't be happy until you ruin our great country with a 'change' to a third world life.
The Marxists are starting to come out of the closet now with Obama taking the Dem nomination.
June 6, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
spencerr
Folks like HTT select a "cause" then try to make "evidence" fit their agendas. You can't convince them otherwise. They can't, or won't listen.
HTT has obviously never been to China. I have lived there. The "communist" part of it is only in how they run their politics. The economy has been capitalist-based for years. It's how they are moving away from a third-world status. Yes, the government "owns" the major industries -- but it encourages them to run in a profit-making mode, based on Western management philosophies. I know -- I teach them.
Where do you think the markets for their goods comes from? Other communist countries? Hardly. It's the Capitalist countries who have the money to spend. The Capitalist countries pay for China's factories with wealth we created. Our economic model -- so derided by ultra-liberals -- is the success model they aspire to.
From Beijing to Shenzhen, ask anyone you meet if they are a dedicated communist. Out of the literally thousands of people I have had in my classes, from plant-floor workers to senior executives, the answer is always No. They may attend party meetings as a social or political obligation, but that's it. The only dyed-in-the-wool communists left are the party leaders themselves. But examine their decisions in creating more and more "special economic zones" (a la Hong Kong) and you will see where their economic focus is: CAPITALISM.
June 6, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Good insite, P_Denver,
I didn't want to outright attribute all of China's economic success to capitalism because I was unsure of how deeply it had seeped in...but now that I have found someone who has been there...that's awesome.
Where did you get that job? How do I get one like it? Sweet!!! Actually, I'd rather not move to China, but that is a pretty cool experience.
June 6, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
Once again all these conservative posts are proving what dinosaurs they are.
June 6, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
GK: if all you can do is call people names, don't bother posting.
June 6, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Holier, do you realize the irony in your name? Marx once said that "religion is the opiut of the masses."
June 6, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
spencerr: Thank you for saving my time; "Holier" (he must use the term very loosely) had spun me up with that mindless drivel of his. Seeing your thoughtful retort now allows me to return to work and be productive!
Thanks!
June 6, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
P_Denver: My company also teaches and consults in China. Our office there is in Shanghai. Let me know if we can do some networking or provide services. Thanks.
www.tbmcg.com
June 6, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
P_Denver: if all you can do is call people names, don't bother posting.
Please. Tell that to your fellow conservatives.
June 6, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
More paranoid delusions from spencerr:
"Not too tall for nuclear bombs and ICBMS."
as if those ragtag religious fanatics hiding in Waziri caves have the capacity to produce nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This would be very funny if conservatives had not put that sort of nonsense into policy and campaign platforms. If Islamic militants could do that then why do they bother with suicide missions?
Conservative insanity is contributing to global nuclear proliferation. Frightened people tend to devote an impractical amount of their national resources to weaponry. In that regard, we and the Iranians are exactly the same. This suggests that conservatism is not only a mental illness but it stands out as a contagious one.
Ahmadinijad is a blowhard like Bush. Hitting Israel with a nuclear bomb would also kill millions of Arabs and Persians. Anyone with sense knows that he's not going to detonate a bomb that will destroy Iran. The theocrats who control him are less likely to allow that than insane conservatives would allow Bush to bomb illegal immigrants trying to cross our border.
TC blathers about how America has the highest standard of living. We don't. Infant mortality in the USA is a disgrace. 50 million Americans cannot afford a visit to a doctor. Life expectancy in the USA is falling to nearly 10 years less than more advanced nations. Many American families are now suffering hunger and malnutrition. These observations ignore the horrendous conditions on Indian Reservations. It's no surprise to me that Ward Churchill is so bent out of shape. What's truly amazing is how calm he is.
Meanwhile the top 2% of Americans have seen their wealth doubled or tripled in the last ten years as middle Americans have lost income, value, and homes. Our economy is tanking because conservatives dragged our nation down into prostrate supplication to the oil royals while offshoring jobs.
While I'm not a supporter of communism, "Made in China" proves that their system is vastly superior to our capitalist-dominated government. The communist Chinese have stripped our industry without firing a shot. This historic economic defeat proves that capitalism must be made subservient to the common good of the people. Conservatives will have none of that. Their delusions cannot allow them to get beyond the problems that they themselves have foisted on the rest of us.
Conservative denials here prove that they cannot support their positions with fact. Conservatism is a sales pitch based solely on delusional thinking and outright lies. As a complete stranger to reason and truth, conservatism is a form of insanity. If America was in the habit of supporting institutions of delusional nonsense where failure is touted as success then conservatism would have a nice comfy home. We must insist that American universities remain places where truth is sought and taught.
June 6, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Holier than thou just used the "because I said so" argument that jay so often uses. "We don't" (have the highest standard of living). Uh...yes we do. There are two problems in healthcare...cost and availability. Cost is caused by insurance companies and people demanding more than we can supply. Making availability absolute will only compound that. The problem is that the market in healthcare is not a true market...it is distorted by insurance. There are ways to make both the costs and availability better...not everyone will be able to afford it, but capitalism is not perfect as we have conceded. Anyway, we have long had the highest standard of living.
Do you doubt that Iran has the ability to get ICBMs? You didn't actually think that I was talking about tribes getting their hands on them. They are more apt to use dirty bombs or just strap TNT to their stomachs and walk into a supermarket. No big deal though, eh? They don't threaten world peace.
Do you doubt that Iran would hesitate to use it? At the best, merely a bargaining chip. At the worst, he'll use it.
And of course your own life expectancy numbers that you manufactured support your own point. I prefer to use real ones. You exaggerated...there is a four year difference between the longest livers and us. Attribute that to a glut of sugar and fat, not all of which are poor urban people...or rich capitalists. Some are well-off, elitest socialists, like you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
Then you completely ignore all the argument about how China is communist in name only and how they are thriving on capitalism.
I am not telling you how to think, just showing you some facts.
However, I don't accuse you of lunacy for being a commy.
June 6, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Thanks P_Denver!
Your post at 10:46 proves my point that communist-dominated capitalism is economically superior to our capitalist-dominated government.
Thanks for contributing to my "Made in China" proof. The communists in China do indeed govern and control the capitalists there.
As a proof of your own conservative insanity, you fail to see the irony in your having proved my point.
June 6, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I think the majority of the people here arguing with you know who is insane.
June 6, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
HTT revealed on one of the UFO threads he firmly believes that there are space aliens living among us.
Don't waste your time.
June 6, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Holier, if you are all about communists controlling capitalists in the same context that P_Denver wrote, then your problem is not with capitalism, it is with freedom.
However, I don't think it is completely out of the question that one day we, as Americans, may experience government control of the political process, claiming to be one thing (liberal, or even worse, socialist) but using capitalism as a crutch because they know that their own economic doctrine does not work. Not completely outlandish.
June 6, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
GetReal, I'm done. I don't even know why I argue here sometimes. Seems I pick the ones (jay and htr) that don't quite have all their marbles. There are actually some pretty smart libs on here that can back their stuff up and sound sane in doing so.
Wasting time, I guess, like you said.
June 6, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The discussion brought by spencerr is laughably incoherent. Now he's confusing Shiite Iran with Sunni Al Qaeda.
Iran does not have ICBM capacity. They are a long way from it. Their missiles have ranges of less than a thousand miles and they don't have any nuclear warheads. So, again, how is threatening to attack Iran going to defuse the situation?
Now hear crickets from the conservative nut house.
All conservatives can think of is bomb, bomb, bomb. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPg...
American conservatives are moral and intellectual equals to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If bad mouthing and bombing is all you have then you have nothing but disaster to offer the world. I call you insane because you have proven to be so by the results of trying your ideas.
While we're on the subject of disasters, let's discuss US health care, or rather the lack of it. Americans pay over three times what Canadians or Europeans pay on average. We get much less and fewer people are covered. The reason why this failure exists is that insurance companies do nothing of value except create excessive paperwork and procedures to stop patients from receiving treatments and medications they need.
Health care costs in the USA add over $2100 to the cost of manufacturing a typical car here. In Japan, the health care cost of manufacturing a comparable car is less than $220. Greedy health insurance companies and their price-fixing ways have made our industries much less competitive against their global counterparts. Here again, is another miserable failure of unbridled capitalism and so-called "free markets".
June 6, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
HolierThanThou....
"Iran does not have ICBM capacity. They are a long way from it. Their missiles have ranges of less than a thousand miles and they don't have any nuclear warheads. So, again, how is threatening to attack Iran going to defuse the situation?"
Did the US have ICBM capability in 1945? No.
Did the lack of ICBM capability prevent the use of nuclear weapons to obliterate two cities? No.
Your argument is about as lame as it gets.
June 6, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Yeah, there are space aliens living among us all right. They may physically resemble a hominid species but they're hostile to all humanity.
Maybe conservatives aren't insane after all. One could make a strong argument that they're space aliens with malevolent intentions for us Earth folks.
I'd be interested in seeing some DNA testing done on conservatives. If the DNA is human then we know they're just garden variety whack jobs. It might be worth a look.
June 6, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Loco en la cabeza.
June 6, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
That just makes me laugh. LOL...very hard. I'm done.
June 6, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Mr. Rosen, who somehow managed to escape indoctrination when he went to college (I assume he did go to college), presents a couple of fallacies, that many accept lock, stock, and barrel:
(1) that there are two (and only two) competing ideologies in the world; and,
(2) that college professors are somehow in the business of indoctrinating their students with one or the other.
These claims are not like anything I experienced in my many years as a college student (the general idea was that students should learn to think on their own). But then, I'm not in the business of making people angry, resentful, or fearful, as Rosen apparently is.
I have no problem with U of C hiring a "conservative" chair. But let's not play stupid by asserting that college is a den of indoctrination.
If I wanted to live in a world of single-minded perspectives, and seek maximum exposure to propaganda, I would turn on my television.
June 6, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
...or talk radio.
June 6, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
rickg19611 suggests that because the Iranians don't have ICBM capacity that they're going to fly the Enola Gay over here and bomb us.
Again, what's with the paranoid delusions?
Do you seriously believe the Iranian air force is going to attack with an airplane? It would be tracked on radar and satellite from the minute it took off. Once again, the only thing a conservative can prove is a complete and utter lack of reason and common sense.
It's rather sad that this is the best that any conservative can do.
On the other hand, our country has attacked other countries with wild abandon. Since 1950 we've attacked North Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Sudan, and Iraq without any of these countries firing a shot at us first.
Maybe we should be afraid for our safety but not for the reasons suggested by conservatives. We might want to consider the possibility of payback if we keep this up.
Experience shows that if you truly want security then you want peace. If you want peace then unprovoked attacks on your neighbors is probably not a good idea.
Seems the paranoid lunatics of conservatism are incapable of grasping this simple concept.
June 6, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson...don't want to get in a fuming argument with you this late in the day.
To your first point, we have already argued all day and all night about it. You are right, there are more than two sides in SOME cases. We are talking generalizations here. And often-times, the third point of view is complacency.
To your second point, I would argue that it makes it difficult for students to think on their own as eighteen-year-olds when they are told by someone thirty years older and titled with the almighty "PhD" that the liberal view is correct, or worse, the only view.
"The general idea was that students should learn to think on their own." I think that is the point of the column...to give students many different perspectives on given topics, so that they can think on their own and decide for themselves.
June 6, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
When I tutor someone in mechanics, I say F = m*A. Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration.
The conservative wants to contradict this. He has zero understanding of quantum mechanics or Einstein's theory of relativity. Yet he will claim that F = m*A is not true because another scientist says it doesn't represent the quantum view or phenomena approaching light speed. Conservatives, at best, use complete ignorance and misunderstanding to prove their points, not realizing that F = m*A is proven by both experimental evidence and corresponds neatly with the other scientific approaches applied on a relevant scale.
And so it is with conservative politics. Everything is viewed through a prism of fallacies and delusions that are only granted credibility because these myths are so often repeated by the hucksters of the lunatic realm. But saying F = m * V or force equals mass time velocity does not make it true.
What conservatives are demanding is that we accept and teach falsehood and nonsense because they can repeat such idiocy a billion times.
June 6, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Quick everybody...the aliens are already here!!!
June 6, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, as to the first point, thank you for acknowledging there are more than two points of view. My complaint is: the liberal/conservative divide is all too often (and certainly by Rosen) presented not as a generalization but as a clear, divisive (emphasis on divisive) line.
As to the second point, again, my argument is that it's a fallacy to claim that professors are imposing on their young students a singular "correct" view. That is nothing like anything I experienced in college. On the other hand, it is quite legimitate for a professor to poke holes in pre-conceived notions held by their students (it happened to me on more than one occasion).
Can you imagine a 20-year in any line of work (e.g., police, fire, sales, construction, professional economist) telling his boss or experienced co-workers that they are wrong and pitch a fit if they don't agree? Why is college different?
June 6, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
HTT still has trouble differentiating "releasing control" from "controlling". The communist government has "released control" to the SEZ's.
The central planning function does not control them. They do not dictate quantity, quality or timing of the manufactured products. They do not set prices or wages. All of those details are dictated by the free market for those goods and services.
The central committee still regulates agriculture. That's why they still need to import rice, so their people don't starve.
June 6, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, the situations are different because the worker is doing a job that needs to be done the right way. The students are being taught one point of view of an argument when there are several, none of which are correct. One is a matter of the right and wrong way to do things, and the other is a matter of an ideological approach to a problem.
I did experience what is being explained. I took a leftward turn because of it, granted I still voted Right and eventually migrated back to a market-loving, communist hating, environmentalism doubter. I think the problem with younger minds is that they are sponges that don't usually completely think for themselves. They soak up information, and if they are skeptical, they are either too scared to say so, don't think it is worth the trouble, or without question just play along with the professor.
The problem is that they are nearly blank slates that many times don't think for themselves, and they are bombarded with one point of view or one set of points of view.
Let me put it this way...I wasn't horribly immersed in liberal doctrine...seventy-five (or more) percent of the time, I came out with something that was reasonably objective. However, when there was a bias, nine times out of ten (or more), it was a liberal bias.
June 6, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
OK, so let's say that Iran or some other country develops a nuclear weapon that can be carried in a suitcase. Let's assume they don't even bother to develop the device. We already have. So, they buy one on the "free market", one that was Made in USA.
Why would they want to detonate such a device in your backyard?
I've spent considerable time on the topic of theocracy attempting to take over America. The Christian Right wants to ban abortions, teach creationist nonsense in public schools, and start a crusade against Islam. These are bad ideas. My support for the Iranian theocracy is about the same as it is for the Christian Right, which is to say zero.
Antagonizing Iran is proven to strengthen the hard-line Islamic theocracy there at the expense of the more liberal opposition that wants diplomacy and trade with us.
Detonating nuclear bombs is a very risky business. It could come back to haunt you. It could come back to kill you, in which case you may be haunting the smoking ruins of your country in the afterlife. So, Iran or any other country would need an awful good reason to detonate such a weapon on our soil.
Do you want to give them one?
Seems the conservative answer to this question is always yes. You want to give people reasons to see as many Americans as possible dead.
I propose a more cost-effective solution to the global security problem: make peace.
Making peace with other countries and peoples takes power away from THEIR conservatives.
Unlike pressing a button or pulling a trigger, peace-making is hard work and takes a lot of careful thinking and complicated negotiations. But I believe that there are plenty of smart people in the world who can do that sort of work. All we need do is elect smart people who will hire them and put them to the task.
It's much cheaper and less bloody to talk than to fire a nuclear weapon or invade their country even if the talk is arguing and acrimonious.
Here is yet another perhaps not so simple concept that conservatives are incapable of grasping.
June 6, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, in your first paragraph you assert professors are imposing some ideology. As with my first post here, I basically disagree. I remember but one teacher ranting from a specific ideology, but he was adjunct and was only at my school one semester. The others weren't that way.
Young minds aren't tabla rasa when they hit college nor are they like a faucet that turns thinking on or off. A mind is something that grows and develops. In college we are exposed to different ideas, and (from my experience anyway) are encouraged to examine those ideas critically. Part of the growth process.
In your last paragraph, you, like Rosen, are drawing a line, with "liberal" apparently being anything left of where you are now. If you draw a line, you are implicitly inviting a war (that's what Rosen does). College is (and should be) about considering different ideas and perspectives, not about drawing lines.
June 6, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Peace is so warm and fuzzy and nice...and it feels good. Maybe if I just go stick my head in that hole like an ostrich, that big old bad bear won't attack me.
The aliens aren't really as warm and fuzzy as peace, but they're not green little critters with antennas either.
Darn, you mean to tell me they have chest hair and vote Bush.
June 6, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, I agree with most of what you said...and let me just say that I draw the line now and didn't then.
However, I didn't say blank slate...I said nearly blank slate. The students aren't all naive and impressionable. Most have some degree though.
I would say that it is not against your point to go ahead and introduce an equal proportion of conservatism into the classroom and let them sort it out themselves.
Why should they only be able to sort between politically neutral and politically Left? They should have more options.
June 6, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
P_Denver is again proving my point. The Chinese communist party governs capitalism in China. They "release control", which means they have control in the first place.
America will become prosperous again when we take control of our own capitalists. If they choose greed over service to the American people, we take everything away from them. When they poison our water and air, we jail or execute them. This is called a performance incentive.
The people have the power to insist that this performance incentive is applied to the top 2% wealthiest of Americans. We outnumber them. It's called democracy.
The deficit has a painless solution that could be applied within a year after the Bush debacle ends. We tax 90% of the property and income of the top 2%. In a typical case, that means that they get to remain billionaires. In the worse case, they're still in hundreds of millions of dollars. Cry me a river.
Posterity will thank us as will most conservatives who awaken from their delusions and realize that our country is back on the rails and moving forward.
June 6, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
No one single country can "make peace" with other countries. It takes two countries to WANT peace to have peace. It takes only one to make war.
Other countries don't like us, for a variety of reasons -- some logical, some not. We can't do anything about the illogical ones. They will want to "make war" on us, no matter how much we want to "make peace" with them.
I do not believe in "preventive," "pre-emptive, " or first-strike options against people who merely don't like us. I do believe we need recognize the fact that defense may be necessary, and to be ready to defend ourselves in case of attack. Is that a liberal or conservative stance?
June 6, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hominid aliens and communism...and you all are still arguing with him? I gave up a few hours ago.
June 6, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
can i tell you how entertaining it is to watch our resident right wing regulars get schooled.
June 6, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, I guess we'll have to leave our discussion where it is. You keep arguing there are essentially two competing camps. I argue, as I first did, that such is a fallacy or, at least, a misrepresentation of what actually occurs in the college classroom. I probably mentioned this at another time, but I'll said it again: I was card-carrying Republican imbued with conservative ideas during my undergraduate and into my first graduate degree at two liberal arts colleges. I did not have any problems with school or any of my professors.
June 6, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
HTT, since the America that I love is so repulsive to you, why do you still live here? Your residence in this country proves beyond any drivel you write that America, while not perfect, is still the best place on earth to live.
We win.
June 6, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
logical...ironic choice of handle...do you understand that disagreeing with some of this country's politicians' policies doesn't mean you're "repulsed" by america. disagreeing with the republican policies in iraq doesn't mean that one hates the troops, loves the terrorists or kicks puppies for fun. you need to lay off the rush.
i would hope that a being a patriot means you love the country enough to stand up and start shouting when certain people lead her astray.
June 6, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"When they poison our water and air, we jail or execute them. This is called a performance incentive."
You guys are all wasting your time. This sentence alone demonstrates that the guy is way too far gone to be reasoned with at all. There are much more reasonable liberals around to debate with.
June 6, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
is that your professional opinion, yiota? does it make you feel better about yourself to insult those with whom you can't compete intellectually? does it make your world a little easier to live in to believe that democrats are drugged out losers living in their mother's basements rather than well to do business owners who are smarter than you are?
June 6, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
yiota, don't pout...and making up fantasies about my "ignorance" isn't going to do your dwindling credibility here any favors.
now...would you like to tell me why you disagree with the sentiments i posted about loving the country enough to stand up against horrible policy decisions?
June 6, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
jay
I disagree with most of what you say, but it's posts like this that makes me feel there's hope for you.
Thanks
June 6, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
Jay,
HTT was ranting about how good communism and socialism are, and how bad capitalism is. Yet, he still lives in America, where capitalism is practiced. Therefore, HTT apparently prefers to live with capitalism, even though he/she proclaims China's communism to be superior. HTT should live there, if it is so great. I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't love/respect America.
I fully agree with voicing displeasure with our elected officials. I have never said we shouldn't. I also encourage anyone who disagrees with the handling of any situation to offer a vialble solution with their complaint, not just complain. Most complainers don't have a solution; they just say they don't like something/someone. Dissidents commonly don't have a solution, just a complaint. Further, complaints need to be based on fact, not distorted interpretations. (I am not casting aspersions at you or your recent posts, just addressing dissidents in general.)
June 6, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
mwanecek writes:
"If you remember your history Hitler was not a conservative but he was a socialist. He believed in big government, not small government. He created government programs to control people by giving them jobs. Isn't that what the liberals are proposing?"
Name one.
June 6, 2008
3:48 p.m.
jay writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 6, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
usmcmustang writes:
I was brought up Blue Collar Dem, but later found myself aligning more with the Republicans of the 80's on economics, military spending, foreign policy, etc. I went to CU in the late 90's as a young "brainwashed" Marine Sergeant working on a degree to be commissioned as an Officer. Boy, was my world turned upside down! I wore my uniform on Thursdays, and I was constantly verbally "accosted" in public settings by students and professors, who I considered to be "authority figures" (boy, did they reject that title). The Persian Gulf War, Military policy on Homosexuality, even the played out "killing babies in Vietnam" topics all surfaced as students and instructors found a person in uniform that represented a sounding board for their views. Finally, they were not preaching to the choir in the fountain area, Uncle Sam himself just walked in, and they had a thing or two they were going to tell him! At 21 years of age, I had no idea how to handle the anger they spewed at me, nor did even understand some of their terminology. I wasn't alone there as a military person, but I was certainly outnumbered. I didn't want to just surround myself with "my own" however. I was curious what my Chinese National neighbors had been taught. I enjoyed my Chilean Neighbor's rants against the same US they spent 8 years in, really not at first, but eventually it was enjoyable and humorous. I learned about many cultures and customs, including the "Rastafarian's" who were not exactly indiginous to places where one would associate with the religion/culture---OK, the guy was from Vermont and went to Jamaica once for vacation. Oh, and I learned about the evils of "generalizing"-which I still quite haven't overcome as you can tell from my post. My eyes were opened in some areas and my beliefs were just strengthened in others. I learned to research my facts, think critically, explain my thoughts, and generally just learn to discuss and even argue the things I was taught to never discuss at home because I might "offend" somebody. Race, religion, politics, sexuality: it was all on the table at CU. I came away with what I consider to be a tremendous education. I don't know if it would have worked for me right out of the home, though. So, perhaps it would improve the diversity of thought to have some person or persons focused on US political Conservatism. Maybe there would be a refuge where people could find the "official" thoughts on backgrounds of conservative thought. It could be interesting.
June 6, 2008
5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Thanks, Mustang, for your service and pointing out where all of the hatred comes from.
Just look at these postings here: Jay is on his normal diatribes and Holier is telling us conservtives how dumb we are and all of that ilk.
Holier: Take the mote (beam) out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in mine.
BTW - I too once wore a uniform, B-Btry, COARNG 1/157th FA, to school, Metro, and had some hippy girl come up, spit on me and call me a "baby killer". I responded, "Why no ma'am; I've never taken part in an abortion." She nearly fell over and then slapped me.
Funny how we servants of the US are the "haters" and the "lovers" abound in name calling and violence.
June 6, 2008
5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
As long as we're admitting conservatives as professors, why not go whole hog and invite Nazis and the Aryan Brotherhood?
Hitler was a fascist. He believed in combined government and big business to control everyone. He called himself a socialist for much the same reason that conservatives call themselves Republicans; it was popular.
Abraham Lincoln would vomit if he saw the Republican Party today.
Chinese Communists control capital and business interests. They also control the media and politics. I observe the advantages of their more effective business model but I hate Chinese oppression. Poor quality is not the only reason why I reject Chinese merchandise.
I observe the Chinese system for what works well but believe that we Americans have it in us to do better than that.
As for jailing and executing executives who poison our air and water, what is so wrong about that? Polluters sicken and kill people for profit. They ruin other industries such as ranching, farming, and fishing. There is no defense for a man who poisons his neighbor's well, much less one who does so for a little bit of extra money. I won't fight the death sentence on this one: justice calls for their heads on a pike. Jail is the least we can do for them while they wait for their needle.
I noticed a new conservative argument has come up. To summarize: if we build "super weapons" no one will mess with us. This is tantamount to saying that I can make peace with my neighbor by keeping a pistol pointed at his face. So, we build a super weapon. Then they build a super weapon. Then we build a bigger one then... Only a conservative won't get it at this point.
We call this an arms race, an expensive proposition as history demonstrates.
I know this question will bother the conservative crowd but...why don't we have an arms race with France?
I bet you're having a tough time with that one, so let me help you. We don't need to have an arms race with nuclear-armed France because we trust each other. Wow! That must be really hard for you conservatives to read that. I commend you if you can handle it in spite of your probable lack of comprehension.
We have a problem with Iran because there's no mutual trust. The solution begins with something that resembles negotiations and leads to agreements based on mutual honor and respect. Trust comes later.
Romans conquered a quarter of the world with fides. They honored their agreements and made peace a benefit to both parties. Things went bad when they failed to honor this. In fact, turning away from fides caused the death of their republic and the rise of the emperors eventually leading to the demise of their empire. We could learn something from that.
After seeing inability of conservatives to carry on a logical argument above, I harbor no expectations for them. Reason and sanity is something they mimic without any comprehension of what those qualities really mean.
June 7, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
The Devil Dog speaks the truth, as I would expect from a Marine--he got an excellent education at (gasp!) CU--Boulder. This flies in the face of Rosen's divisive argument--and will likely be lost on many here who read it--who are fully invested in an us. v. them world. spencerr, did you read the devil dog's comments?
June 9, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Anderson: Did Mustang get an "excellent" education at CU-Boulder, or a necessary one of limited usefulness.
Learning the reasonings and logic (or illogic) of only one viewpoint, as one is likely to get from CU, does not provide an "excellent" education. No, instead such weak educational practices as those at CU leave America full of people such as "Holierthanthou", who think their one-sided, myopic illogic constitutes great political-economic thought. These people then expand their self-righteous indignation to an assumption that those of us who have made it a point to grow beyond the limited-scope education we received are somehow inferior intellectually to those who toe the educational establishment line.
Having an America full of schools like CU provide us too many Ward Churchills, Jays, and Holiers leave America on a short road to ruin while thinking we're all OK - when we are not.
June 9, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Did you read his post, Ted, or did you just ignore what you didn't want to see?
In Mustang's own words: "I came away with a...tremendous education". And contrary to your claim (and Rosen's) that there is only a single point of view in academia, Mustang said, "everything was on the table".
June 9, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
ted, is this another one of your conspiracy theories?
June 9, 2008
5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
I question whether you can understand context, anderson. It seems to me that the wonderful education he referred to wasn't from the professors or by anyone's designed education, but an education in dealing with people with different viewpoints.
Fine, you can have that and a better balance in the educational aspects too; that's something you don't get from CU. There's no balance there; just more one-sided indoctrination.
BTW - Did you happen to notice his reference to, as a military figure, being substantially outnumbered in his viewpoint...?
June 9, 2008
6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Jay, as I recall, you're the conspiracy nut. IE., the Iraq War was all about oil, etc. etc.
June 9, 2008
6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Wow, Ted, you are really pig-headed. As I suggested before, you merely took what you wanted and ignored the rest. Yeah, I noticed his comment about being out-numbered--but it was reference to his uniform not necessarily to his viewpoint. His comment brought back memories of something that happened to me at a San Diego university years ago but it's not worth repeating here.
June 10, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Wow, I'm "pig-headed" and here I thought libs were supposed to be friendly and nice... (YEAH RIGHT, HATEMONGERS IN THE EXTREME!)
Having been one who wore the uniform during college, I don't think he wore the uniform ALL of the time. And with the number of students, I wouldn't think everyone would recognize him as "that guy who sometimes wears a uniform" (if they did, however, that would only prove my point even more. Granted, I assumed that his reference to siding more with the Republicans in terms of "economics, military spending, foreign policy, etc." meant that he carried those ideas with him whether regardless of whether he was in or out of uniform. I also assumed that he was vastly outnumbered in terms of his ideology; it fits my recollection of college as well. (It seemed to me that anyone who spent time in the "real world" before college tended to be much more conservative than those who went straight to college out of high school. I also know, being a Poli-Sci major, that I was far to the right of all but one of my professors, and still to right of him - just not as much.)
Regardless of whether you are right or I am in regards to him being outnumbered by being in uniform (as you assert) or by viewpoint (as I assert); the truth remains that he most likely did not get a proper, formal education in terms what conservatism or reality is about. Keep in mind, that I am still correct in pointing out that he was discussing his interactions with his peers, not referencing his instructors.
June 10, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"the Iraq War was all about oil, etc. etc."
i never stated this, ted...but i agree with greenspan that it was "largely" about oil.
with all the evidence we now have about the run up to the war...do you really think you can make a case that refutes that sentiment?
June 10, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Jay, you have stated that it was all about Oil and just because Greenspan said it, doesn't make it true.
I believe that, regardless of whether President Bush either intentionally or unintentionally, misconstrued facts about Iraq and regardless of what facts were true and which did not bear out to be true, it was and remains the right thing to do.
I do, however, agree with Michael Yon that from 2004 until late 2006, we were losing because of poor leaders in the field and their bad battle-plan. We have now corrected that mistake and may soon see victory yet.
June 10, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
In general, academics at almost all public and at some private schools are somewhere left of center on most issues. It would do a service to objectivity if students were subjected to a Right-slanted subjective viewpoint with regard to the various topics to compliment the Left-slanted subjective viewpoint that GENERALLY dominates. College kids are very impressionable...I think it beneficial that they are given more options up front rather than, through several years of living in the real world, learning that everything that they were spoon-fed was someone's Left-leaning take on the facts.
That being said, I don't find it too amazing that liberals are opposed to equal representation in education and government. They've got both institutions in their back pocket along with Hollywood and the media, telling people like jay what to think.
What is amazing is that approximately a third of America still regularly thinks for itself during elections and that another third has not been brainwashed into towing the liberal line, despite the very heavy dissemination of liberal propaganda at before-mentioned institutions. It's a free country, so the media and Hollywood can say whatever the heck they want. However, taxpayers with wide viewpoints fund government and education, so a broad representation for all views should be presented, not only the one-sided liberal slant.
June 10, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And Anderson,
I will concede that there are more than two sides to an argument or more than two views if...you will concede that ninety nine out of one hundred times those views fall somewhere on the political spectrum, whether that point be on the Right side, Left side, or somewhere in the middle. Hardly ever outside, because if that were the case, politics would be vastly bi-partisan and most people would agree.
Assuming that most arguments and points of view fall somewhere in a political spectrum, I would say it is a safe assertion that most of the time (a generalization for jay, not a strawman argument), professors profess their points of view from somewhere in the left side of this spectrum, whether it be the more moderate global warming alarmists, or the wacko leftist Ward Churchill sympathizers like HolierTT.
June 11, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay, you have stated that it was all about Oil "
that is a lie. thus...you are a liar.
ted, i know you're still sensitive about the republican failures that led us into iraq...but don't dare for one minute try to lay the blame for those STRATEGIC failures at the feet of the soldiers in the field.
June 11, 2008
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
WOW, how do you get to a point were you saying I'm laying blame at soldiers' feet? GET OF THE 'SHROOMS!
You have, in several previous arguments, said that the war was all about oil; that is no lie.
I don't blame anything at the feet of our soldiers, other than Gen. Sanchez' lack of planning or attention to the situation on the ground while he was in charge of our forces in Iraq.
You are an idiot and you should NEVER claim that I lay blame at our soldiers' feet.
June 11, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, I agree you can put anyone along a spectrum, but then one must ask "for what purpose", and if you're to draw a line, which you inevitably do, then you have to define where that line lies (but you won't). But in any case, again, for what purpose?
Rosen's purpose is obviously to stir his audience into believing they have enemies, and by doing so, presumably to increase his share of radio space. It's an old sales trick: tell people what they want to hear. Appeal to their emotions. Tell them "elite" people are out to do them wrong.
I thoroughly disagree with your suggestion that professors profess (impart? indoctrinate? impose? evangelize?) a particular point of view. Some may, but as you should know having been to college, the idea isn't for the prof to impart specific points of view, but to expose their students to a variety of ideas. Hence, Mustang's comment that everything was on the table. They are not there to tell you what to think. They are there to get you to think.
When you people make this sort of claim, you misrepresent the college experience. You yourself admit 75% of what you heard contained no bias. And today here you stand, degrees in hand, holding a political view that *you* would describe as right of a center (undefined). So how did you escape indoctrination? How