Another one of the Liberals that writes a lot of Letters to the Editor is also a very Lefty leaning professor. Often, as I have found, they as a collective bunch believe that conservatives are dolts as we just refuse to see all of the nuances that they do. In that, they sometimes see so many shades of gray that they cannot see at all, it seems.
For instance, I often try to refute their assertions in “binary”mode – either something is, or it is not. For the most part, it helps my brevity – one could go on and on for ever discussing all of the various nuances and scenarios, and never come to a conclusion. Often, there is no need to.
One such Letter from this professor was rather amusing, as he hit the nail on the head, didn’t realize it, and kept on going. He stated in writing about my responses that
“…sees the world in terms of black and white and so do the terrorists at whom he directs his attention…”.
In this matter, he was absolutely correct. I have no reason to manufacture gray areas where none exist. If the terrorists are willing to state plainly what their aims are, why should we continue to read things into their statements to find other things? Why can’t we (or folks like the professor) just take the terrorists at their word? Just as Hitler announced what his aims were and then followed through, why do we in the West keep ignoring what these Islamofacists say?
An example is Iran’s President – I do believe that his intention are honest when he says that Israel should be wiped off the map. And I know that he is wrong – gee, black and white. No need to get more complicated than that, is there? I often think about what Reagan said when asked about the Cold War “It’s simple – we win and they lose”. Boiling multi-leveled, multi-nuanced, multiple shades of gray to a simple yes / no, black or white synopsis helps to focus on what the most important issue is and then how to solve it.
Still, he continues with Letter after Letter proclaiming that things are as not as I see them – we must talk to these people and reason with them. Only through dialog can we have peace.
Yet, when I listen to these Islamoterrorists, they speak plainly – either I convert, submit, or they will, being a kafir (infidel), kill me. Since none of these Black &White options seem to appeal to my sense of dignity (or well being), I continue to disagree with the Professor’s assessment of how to deal with this state of war (to which he believes that we have started this war – empirical evidence be damned). Since our freedoms and rights fly in the face of their theology (where every aspect of life is governed by the Koran, Hadiths, and Shar’ia law), they wage a physical, spiritual, and information war against the West wherever and through whomever they can.
He does not wish us to defend ourselves. His stated solution is that our only hope is for education all over the world to include non-violence and critical thinking. My contention is that this philosophy is only effective with those that are rational in the Western sense of the word and that support our upholding of the Western belief that all human life is precious. He often touts the example of Gandhi and conveniently neglects to observe that Gandhi was dealing with the British. Thus, non-violence had a chance (in general) the West abhors senseless violence and deaths. Islamofacists have no such built-in governor; thinking as such could be considered to be a sign of weakness, ready for exploitation (my feeling is that this is being done).
Another thing from this Professor – he is a pacifist to the core to the point that he is what is now called a transnationalist – a fancy name for someone who wants no national borders, thinks patriotism is a bad thing, believes that war is never an option, and espouses the wish to replace all national governments with a single world government. His home page proudly displays a large United Nations flag, to which I responded: “be careful for what you wish; you may be learning Arabic.” (as you can tell, I do not hold the UN in much esteem, as it has shown time and time again that it has little backbone to buttress it wordy resolutions).
He also shows a commitment shared with his brethren – the academy is not just for a knowledge transfer but also as a place to indoctrinate those poor “skulls full of mush” who blithely belive that their beloved professors surely would not lead them astray. Again, from his home page:
“I believe that education must be a force for peace and justice in the world and that it must contribute to the abolition of war and the dismantling of the military system that perpetuates it. “
An aside – Now, I certainly have nothing FOR war nor do I, in general, advocate for it. The reality is that there will always be people that want what others have, or wish others to live they way that they want; war is a constant (just review history).
However, to me this is one of the most dangerous aspects to people like him. Here, he forthrightly states that he puts his ideology before actual teaching – he signifies that his students will be indoctrinated into his philosophies and his students (and the parents paying for these students) may never know it. David Horowitz is right.
Many of his Letter’s allegations can be summarized that it is America that always behaves badly; never are others at fault. And if he did identify another nation as misbehaving, he still concludes that the U.S. is always the root cause someway or somehow. Like this one!
“In the first Gulf War, we invited Saddam to attack Kuwait so we could have an excuse to soften him up and destroy his military.”
I was bowled over! My response was:
This stretches the definition of credibility past the breaking point. Are you really stating as fact that the U.S. “gave permission” to Sadaam?
First, call the lawyers, as you have a heck of a lawsuit to file! Next, as is commonly accepted practice in peer reviewed academic research, please provide citations for what you allege so that we can review your data. As one holding a doctorate and working in the academy, you should be held to a higher standard of capability, especially as you are responsible for teaching our children.
He seems to throw out things like this a lot. I often have to chuckle, as I do wonder if he really believes this stuff, or if he just likes to incite.
He has also said many times, to back up his claims, that the US has often support despots and tyrants. My reaction to this was that there is a basic axiom: nations do not have friends, only interests. That said, I yielded on the point that the U.S. has supported rather unsavory governments in support of our interests. Well, we do not always have the option of dealing with only decent people whenever we want even if it sounds nice and politically correct to do so. At times, there are no good options, only a bad choice among worse ones. Excuse bad behavior? I agreed that we often looked the other way, especially during the Cold War. But, how can we go in and straighten up ALL wrongs all the time?
Oh yeah – he is constantly bashing our government. Yet, he is a government employee – working at one of our state supported institutes of higher education. Do you see the hypocrisy? A person wishing to get rid of the government that pays him! And there are others out there like that. Wouldn’t you agree that if one had this outlook, they would stick to principles and not work for the government that they hate? Seems pretty hypocritical to me…..
Lastly he wrote
“…When we talk about freedom and democracy, what these things really mean are freedom for corporations to pillage and exploit…”.
Typical, jut typical. I really feel sorry for the guy, locked so tightly into such a dismal world. However, my response did not go forward with that premise:
Let’s see, as a Plymouth State University Professor, you are dependent on the State for your position. In turn, this is dependent on tax funding. In NH, the Business Enterprise Tax yields the most state income. Based on this, you’d better be hoping for NH corporations and companies to be doing very well indeed.