Here we go again with a so-called freedom of speech claim of a bunch of low-class, petulant children playing at being real "journalists" in one of our state funded Universities. This time it's the little fellas at The Rocky Mountain Collegian, the school paper of Colorado State University, who are hiding behind a real right and using it as cover to realize their 15 minutes of fame. These anti-intellectual, collegians are, of course, pretending to be shocked that anyone would question their "right" to print an expletive in bold headlines in their paper and are claiming that they didn't mean to "upset" anyone. I have another four-letter word that describes this absurd claim: LIES.
Update: Please also see College Newspaper Blames Bush for Florida Taser Incident.
Proving that our schools seem to be more interested in creating controversy, teaching anti-American ideas, and indulging in childish behavior, this supposed student newspaper staff seemed to imagine that journalism should reflect some trash mouthed, morning disc jockey's schtick instead of serious, reasoned debate. Sadly, it is obvious that these kiddies were left to their own devices in writing and preparing their paper. It seems woefully clear that there was no faculty supervision of these anarchist wannabes. So, not only are we left wondering why our college kids so anti-intellectual but we have to wonder why no one is supervising their misguided attempts at writing. Do these school administrators get a salary to TEACH or do they not?
Remembering that Colorado is the home of Ward Churchill, though, perhaps CSU's professors' teaching worked only too well for these half-informed, infant newspapermen?
Denver TV Channel 7 gives us an understated headline for their report, Profane Language Puts Student Editor's Job On Line, Editorial Raises Eyebrows, Controversy At CSU, to alert us to the story.
FORT COLLINS, Colo. -- A four word editorial with a four letter word in it is sparking a spirited discussion on free speech at Colorado State University. The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial on page 4 of the paper Friday which read "Taser this ... F*** Bush."
Naturally, they are hiding behind their misconstruction of the principle of free speech to excuse their idiocy.
In a letter to the University Community and Collegian readers, McSwane wrote, "While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to First Amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening.""I plan to be honest," he said. "Our intentions weren't 'Hey, let's upset the community.' It was, 'Let's get college students to talk about freedom of speech.'"
Mr. McSwane is obviously being disingenuous... no I should speak plainly. Mr. McSwane is a liar. How can there be much doubt that he knew full well what would happen when a reaction of outrage over his calumny occurs and that he had, indeed, counted on it in order to get noticed? He wanted his name on TV and he got it. After all, of the decision for going forward with this nonsense, editor David McSwane said, “We felt it illustrated our point about freedom of speech.” Obviously it was thought out in advance and they counted on this reaction.
But here is the thing that is most vexing from these sorts of actions and that is the faux outrage that perpetrators like McSwane counter with when confronted with their effrontery.
He pretends to be shocked that anyone would be mad at him. He claims to be amazed that his paper was pulled from the shelves and that advertisers were pulling their ads. Gosh, why would people be so mad?
And here is the point where his sort of fool doesn't understand reality, much less propriety. He and his ilk imagine that they might write outrageous, taboo breaking, attention getting, vulgar works to no adverse reactions. Yet, he and his low-end compatriots imagine it will get their blather the attention they so crave. He wants to change the world with his obscenities. He imagines his words are somehow important. He feels he is the arbiter of what is good and should be listened to. And he feels that he has the right to do something that causes people to advocate for change.
All right. Fair enough. Let's allow him his self-aggrandizing assumptions. He is right to want to use his words to change the world, to effect those changes he imagines are good and just. Certainly we all want to be listened to.
And yet, as he is puffing himself up as the harbinger of truth, he DENIES the very same right to all who react to his foolhardiness! He acts as if they should not be allowed to advocate for change... by getting rid of him. He acts as if it just isn't right that people try to use their own words to counteract his efforts.
With his arrogance, in his own mind, he denies the very rights for others that he claims for himself.
So, I say to the advertisers and patrons of The Rocky Mountain Collegian that they have every right to stop supporting this rag and they should surge forward with their own plans to change the world of one Mr. David McSwane.
Free speech has consequences, Mr. McSwane. If you don't want to face up to the consequences of yours, then shut up. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the opinion pages.
But let’s focus on the aspect here that is saddest of all. For ages writers have strived to become known for their great works. They’ve shed blood and tears compiling great tomes filled with words. They’ve spent untold hours toiling over their craft, eager to enrich the world with their rhetoric, slaving away to get the words just right. Shakespeare strove to make his words sing, Joyce meant for density, but all try for complexity and meaning.
Mr. McSwane is right about one thing in the end. He is quoted as saying, “I think we could write 250 words and ramble on and I don't think anyone would pay attention.” He is right that no one would have noticed his lame attempts at commentary without the obscenity. But, as it turns out, his obscenity doesn’t lead us to investigate the “250 words” that followed his cheap headline, still. His headline is all that we will ever see of his folly.
So, after all is said and done, we still get no enlightenment from McSwane’s proffering. We get no real debate. We get controversy that leads to no end. We get empty bombast, instead of clarity.
Yes, many writers have spent their lives toiling behind the pen all with the faint hope that man’s lot might somehow be improved. McSwane has failed not only to achieve any positive end, but he has made a mockery of the work of every writer throughout the ages. And he has revealed just another university failing our country.
Comments Policy
College kids
September 22, 2007 - 17:05 ET by VT Con ManSkulls full o mush, according to a friend of mine ; )
Let them natter. They will have to face the real world someday, unlike their sniveling professor leftoids.
Edit: Not that there are not some darn tootin great profs, I was thinking of the lefty kooks I have seen in academia...
But, by attacking this
September 22, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Conservative in the ArtsBut, by attacking this paper's editorial, you're ducking the real discussion...which is.........Bush sucks!
Looks like he's just pulling a Moveon.org ad
Saying Bush sucks is a cop out
September 22, 2007 - 18:08 ET by Lame CherryOne sentence comments serve no purpose. You are sounding like liberals in "bush sucks".
Give 10 examples how you conclude "Bush sucks" and then define exactly the measure you would do things different than Bush does. Put yourself on the grill just like everyone here in defining issues and providing solutions. Otherwise it is just liberal Bush bashing of no substance.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Ahem.....I gave two
September 22, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Conservative in the ArtsAhem.....I gave two sentences, not one.
And thank you....I live in Lib land and can do impressions all night.
Don't forget to tip the waitress
I disagree, Warner
September 22, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Mica the MagnificentI disagree with you, Warner.
The faculty DID supervise the headline. They agree with the students and proud that they were paying attention in class.
I heard a rumor that the faculty changed it to F*** Bush as a compromise, from what the students wanted -
BUSH S**K* D***K.
Do you think the prof would
September 23, 2007 - 07:06 ET by motherbeltDo you think the prof would have allowed a headline that said "Rice is a House N***er?
So if
September 22, 2007 - 17:18 ET by well99I said Mr. McSwane had sex with barnyard animals that is free speech?So it is ok?I could post it on a newspaper editorial and it would be acceptable? Just curious.
You see NBers...
September 22, 2007 - 17:35 ET by MrShyTHIS is exactly why I avoided college altogether!
Thanks to my wise decision to pass on college (well, okay, this after I finally got my HS diploma in the mail after a hearty 5 1/2 years, which included many nights of night school, including -- not kidding -- gym/PE), I was never brainwashed and re-formatted, allowing me to blossom into the true and pure independent thinker I am today :)
Shock Value
September 22, 2007 - 18:01 ET by kdoliverI agree they are hiding behind the Right of Free Speech. Those of us who have served our country in combat and seen their brothers killed have a much better understanding of what the Right of Free Speech is actually about.
Now having said that--we live in a country where the media shoots for shock value over either information or entertainment. It started on the MTVs, then moved to the other cable channels and now its all over broadcast TV. Where did the "family hour go?"
These children have been brought up thinking of nothing but shock value and fame. This "editorial" gives the editor both!!
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Just another example
September 22, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Nortonalecof the left and their lack of respect for anything that they don't agree with. And when the criticism comes at them, thet will of course scream "censorship!" at the top of their lungs, directing attention from the real story, and the retarted lefty masses & MSM will fall in. F*%k Bush? No, f#%k them.
Nortonalec
Taser This?
September 22, 2007 - 18:21 ET by Lame CherryThis is the perfect example of why children should not be allowed to play in adult forums where adults WORK.
Only a mind of limited insight would equate a John Kerry event of a dolt being tasered and connect it to George Bush.
If Mr. McSwane wanted to compare other nations in their responses, it would have been a great editorial. In Pakistan, one would not be tasered their head would be chopped off. In China, one would be sentenced to 50 years in a death camp. In Zimbabwe, one would have had their head's placed on a pike.
Lashing out at a sitting President is a childish response from someone who is supposed to be an adult. The editorial could have asked is this what 2004 Kerry victories would have meant to America and is this what the current DNC supports too.
The solution to this is fire the editor, expell all the students involved and fire the people who hired the editor. It is not a taser incident, but perhaps all the goofs who are abounding at CSU will get the message and start performing as adults.
As a sidenote, I know of a CSU doctor who is the most gifted, insightful and brilliant person's in their field of study. This kind of constant stupidity hurts this person and the entire staff at CSU. People have to be fired and the typical Coloradan from the barren wastes must be hired with agrairian backgrounds who shoot coyotes, butcher their own meat and have had frost bite at least once need to be hired as only that kind of existential experience in real life will put an end to these twits who infest what was once a grand study place.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
The excuse for swearing by libs
September 22, 2007 - 18:50 ET by SportPoliticsI note the same sorry excuse is used by the libs every time. " We thought long and hard, and had in depth debates and fights over it, before we responsibly decided to go ahead :....
" Collegian Editor David McSwane said a group of seven student editors discussed the statement for several hours before agreeing to publish it. "
____________________________________
Same thing Al Qaeda does - has long in depth discussions and debates over it- before they declare their Fatwah... or saw off Daniel Pearl's head on camera.
I guess were supposed to believe the libby fools need two hours and 7 libs to get together and discuss FOUR WORDS they want to print.
Do you think it should take 7 collegiate idiots several hours to talk over 4 words they want to print ?
I'd love to have audio of that stupidity fest. How about they release the "draft ideas" before they settled on 4 words ?
4 words- 7 peons - several hours / That they think gives them "legitimacy".
I'd say in the real world they would experience: " YOU'RE FIRED! "
______________________________________
So 7 liberal idiots had a couple hour Bush bash fest. I think they ought to take 100's of hours sitting together in discussion and debate for their next 4 words of Bush hate. I mean you know that's what they do anyway.
_________________________________-
John Kerry was quoted on CNN, noting that the tasered yelling crybaby BARGED to the front of the line to deliver his speech.
I guess CUTTING to the front of the line is another lefty kookball "ME FIRST" mental problem. Too bad noone in the crowd nor the MSM has the decency to point out that largely ignored issue in the taser incident, nor do these 7 cussing morons now in trouble.
" Bad behavior, lies, coverups, and misdirected hatred " sums them up well.
[ I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption," Kerry said in a statement issued Tuesday, "but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention."]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCText
It's ok, barging/cutting to the front of the line and creating a scene is free speech.
I'd say it's a good lesson for rude thruther libs. "No cutting" is something one is supposed to learn in kindergarten or first grade. Now, the libs learn, when they really push it in a high tension campaign environment, it's taser time. Good. Glad to know it. Glad the idiot got put down. Next time WAIT YOUR TURN.
SP
September 22, 2007 - 19:03 ET by botgthe exact point I've made: what of the free-speech rights of those he barged in front of and would not allow to speak?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Thanks botg
September 22, 2007 - 20:51 ET by SportPoliticsI guess that was their first mistake, letting someone who barged to the front of the line start bloviating, or even speaking at all. It no doubt was one of the reasons he was cut off, since it was burning in the minds of the police observers.
The problem is they should have forced him back to the end of the line the moment he barged to the front.
He also resisted the police at least twice from what I saw. Once he lunged free to hold his hands and the book above his head twirling around, and at the back of the room he almost thrust completely free from the single officer that had a hold of his arm as he tried to escape and run off to the right.
He was definitely "out of order".
If he had behaved and sat down after they cut off his mic and allowed the several questions he had asked to be answered, none of this would have happened.
I'm sure his yelling and lunging and thrusting the book and his hands in the air as he twirled and jumped free yelling, and his antics all the way down the lane, and then his second clear attempt to "get free" and run in the back of the room is "his right to resist" "harassment" in his and all the libs minds.
The smart thing to do is force someone who barges to the front of the line to relinquish the mic immediately, and go to the back of the line, and wait their turn, instead of "just letting them initially get by with it". Anyone rude enough to do that to begin with is indicative of "trouble to come". I'm sure the police were edged up because of it, and as we saw, for good reason.
I disagree, Mr.
September 22, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberI disagree, Mr. Houston.
I do not think these kids are unsupervised. I am sure that headline got greenlighted by their faculty advisor.
RMR What can you say
September 22, 2007 - 18:40 ET by RMRRMR
What can you say about those happy-go-lucky college kids huh? Running around with no care in the world, living of the public dole.These faux adults who demand every right but shirk all responsibilities.
Little Davey McSwane and his merry band of imbeciles must be having a ball living life in the land of liberalism.
Pay no attention to our grumbling wee Davey, mission accomplished. George Soros will get in touch with you soon enough.
This shows the state of learning in colleges today.
September 22, 2007 - 18:47 ET by c5thenThe supposed "journalists" can't even print a cogent editorial stating their views. All they can do is swear in print.
Combine this with the MIT twit who goes to Logan Airport wearing a printed circuit board hooked up to a battery and carrying play-dough. And don't forget Columbia inviting "I'm-in-a-jihad" to speak while preventing non-students from attending.
It's no wonder that US graduates are fairing worse and worse in the international job market. These "schools" are simply indoctrinating the students into the professor's ideology, not teaching them critical thinking, logical reasoning and certaintely NOT rhetorical writting.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Another fine job by our
September 22, 2007 - 19:19 ET by nicksmith112Another fine job by our edumacation system!
Liberal Madrassa's, brainwashing the future of America
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
I still think stomping
September 22, 2007 - 22:14 ET by ConservativeRexI still think stomping their asses is a viable alternative. Of course I mean stomping their asses in a most positive way. Freedom of expression and all.
Real maturity...impressive.
September 22, 2007 - 19:26 ET by bigtimerReal maturity...impressive.
maturity/impressive expression
September 22, 2007 - 19:30 ET by Mica the MagnificentWell, they could always claim it was 'art.'
I hate my
September 22, 2007 - 20:07 ET by wiwfI hate my school.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
College students are smart
September 22, 2007 - 20:13 ET by chris_gillCollege students are smart enough to know how to count to 20 without taking off their shoes, but are complete dumbasses as to how to create dialogue (without looking like a complete asshole) or of the proper context of 1st Amendment priviledge.
Considering that Bush, nor anyone in his administration, has ever say.. had the IRS audit his critics like Clinton or Nixon, or passed legislation that approached curtailing the right to free speech, reveals this ad to be superficially inept.
Even more so, considering the ad was in response to a far-left student, criticizing Kerry (from the left of course) getting tazed by Univ. of Florida campus police after refusing to leave, how did Bush factor in as a variable to that equation. I know some people consider themselves so profoundly deep, that others don't quite get their schtick. But I don't think that is what in play. An elementary school student would be able to better articulate the connection between 1st Amendment Rights (even being able to factor the time, place, content considerations the courts emphasize), possible infringement by the government, AND BEING ABLE TO DEDUCE WHICH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WAS AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY.
As it stands, it looks like the CSU board, felt an existing sentiment about Bush, and used the opportunity (dumb-ass opportunists at that) to grind their axe, while looking intellectual and radical. Even if one was to conclude that Bush is the worst president in history, HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRIGGIN' STORY. And considering thousands of people protest year, everything from the war to not getting free Preperation H, I am not sure where the freedom of speech infringement comes into play in this country. Everyone from pederast NAMBLA, to illegal immigrants protesting down main street, have free reign to voice their opinions about an issue. So I don't see the connnection between the tasering at a Kerry rally, Bush and 1st Amendment infringement.
Of course I am not that deep... Nor am I complete dumbass opportunists and controversy hound either.
Yet Another.......
September 22, 2007 - 20:44 ET by Steve08080Liberal who doesn't understand the Constitution. There's a shocker!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!! and our troops too!!!!!
I don't really see why the
September 22, 2007 - 23:43 ET by RESTLESS 1I don't really see why the taser incident is such a big deal. Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing about it. One liberal idiot was tasered for daring to challenge another liberal idiot. So what? These incidents of lib on lib violence is what makes it so fun to sit back and watch. I realize that the thread was more about the headline, but comments keep going back to the taser incident.
Anybody notice the header just below the F*** Bush?
September 22, 2007 - 23:58 ET by Dave R"Hillary Care leaves no room for choice."
Hmmmmm.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Funny. It's amazing how
September 23, 2007 - 00:59 ET by mrsimeleFunny. It's amazing how much contempt there is for dubya. I don't see the Republican's being able to get elected in 2008. Even with the *perfect* candidate, most people are sick of the G.O.P's blind support for the worst President in the history of this Country. Gotta love college kids :-)
Anyone who says W is the
September 23, 2007 - 01:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonAnyone who says W is the "worst president in history" knows nothing or either presidents OR history!
W the worst president ever? ROFLMAO!
September 23, 2007 - 02:42 ET by Dave Rmrsimele,
First of all, no real conservative here at NB has been more critical of George W. Bush than have I. In fact, I pretty much view the man as being fairly liberal in most areas, as he does not even come close to meeting my definition of a conservative. If it were not for the fact that, unlike his predecessor, he actually recognizes the stark danger the Islamo-fascist barbarians pose to Western Society, I would have very little use for the man.
However, to assert that he is somehow the worst President in the history of this Country is laughable in the extreme.
Admittedly, it has now been well over twenty years since I last cast a shadow in a college-level history classroom, but right off the top of my head I can name several past presidents that were far worse than Mr. Bush.
First, there were the Johnsons, both Andrew and Lyndon. Andrew was about as crooked as they get, and LBJ ushered in the second wave of big government socialism into our once-free republic. U. S. Grant wasn't exactly the most competent soul that has ever presided over the Oval Office, either. The man had good intentions, but the corrupt cronyism that came to define his presidency was totally out of control.
Then there was Jihad Jimmy, whose mismanagement of just about everything nearly destroyed the greatest economy in the world. Not only that, but he managed to cave in to a bunch of seventh-century barbarians over in Iran. Big mistake that was.
And of course, there was Billy Joe Bob Bubba Arkansas white- trash, who spent most of his time chasing skirts and utterly ignoring the increasing threat from the Islamic fascists. When Osama's goons set off the bombs in the basement of the WTC back in '93, Billy Jeff couldn't tear himself away from his skirt-chasing long enough to even visit New York City.
Of course, when he wasn't busy chasing skirts, he occupied his time by bombing the Serbs (whose direct ancestors were the Chetniks-you can look that one up for yourself) or giving away nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, as well as missile technology to the Chicoms.
As for your reference to college kids, I have amused myself more times than I can remember over the last two-plus decades observing these arrogant know-it-alls adjusting to life in the real world. Funny how quickly that arrogant smirk gets wiped from their faces.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
... don't forget James
September 23, 2007 - 03:06 ET by Warner Todd Huston... don't forget James Buchanan who fiddled while the civil war brewed and Nixon, arguably one of our worst for many reasons including being one of the worst big government advocates we've ever had (not to mention his mental illness that caused Watergate).
And THE worst has to be FDR. His single handed destruction of both the SCOTUS and the Constitution has to rank right up there as the most destructive president we ever had.The ONLY thing FDR did right was WWII. If it weren't for the war he would have ranked as the most failed president we ever had.
But that top slot is firmly in possession orf Jimmy Carter. The single worst prez we ever had the misfortune to have allowed to disgrace the Oval Office.
Warner, didn't Newt
September 23, 2007 - 04:00 ET by JerWarner, didn't Newt Gingrich rate FDR as the best president of the 20th century?
Agreed Carter was bad, but certainly not the worst...and he did not disgrace the Oval Office.
Jer
Newt, if he did do as you
September 23, 2007 - 05:22 ET by Warner Todd HustonNewt, if he did do as you say, is blinded by the same WWII generation blind-spot that his fellows are afflicted with. FDR led us through the war quite well, it is true. But, his "leadership" was based on lies through and through. He ran for office several times claiming he would keep us out of the war. But, he NEVER ONCE meant it. In private he always said he wanted to get us in that war.
A true statesman (as Churchill was, for instance) could have led us into war with the truth. FDR was no statesman.
FDR was also not a smart man. He had but one great ability and one prescient thought. The great ability was to manipulate people and the one prescient thought was that Hitler needed to be defeated.
He manufactured Pearl Harbor, he nurtured the conditions that created the Cold War by mollycoddling Stalin. He destroyed the economy, eviscerated the Constitution, eliminated the very basis of the American system and replaced all three with a weak, pseudo socialist copy of our former greatness.
Should FDR had instead taken office in 1928, the year Hoover did, and not 1932 he would have been considered one of our worst failures far exceeding Carter's "malaise," no doubt.
Go back and listen to his speeches. They are not filled with hope as his reputation holds. They are filled with hate. He hates the banks, he hates capitalists, he hates our very system. And his faux love for the common man is disgustingly patronizing.
Even his "caring" for the "little guy" with his social security plan was a lie. He is quoted by Jim Powell as having said that the thing was always about votes not "helping" anyone. He instructed his PR men in the administration to sell it as an "insurance plan" even though it is not and is not by repeated rulings by the Supreme Court even from the very beginning. His vote mongering tool is destroying us bit by bit to this very day.
FDR is the single worst president we ever had for the damage he has done to us. Take away WWII and he is worse than Carter.
But, Newt and folk his age have been brainwashed by a sycophantic professorate who has turned this wife abusing, liar into a saint, fooled into imagining that FDR is a great man instead of the greatest destroyer of America that ever strode the halls of our government.
FDR should be an American pariah, instead of celebrated as a great man. He was a petty, brash, hateful little man whose crippled exterior matched his blackened and bent interior.
FDR
September 23, 2007 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoThis article sheds a bit of light on him, IMO. Gee, promising limited government & states' rights in election-season but then giving us the exact opposite at voting/vetoing time -- uh....where have we seen this more-recently???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Unfortunately, only every
September 23, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Warner Todd HustonUnfortunately, only every president SINCE F. Roosevelt just about!
So, Warner, according to
September 24, 2007 - 09:20 ET by JerSo, Warner, according to you...
"FDR is the single worst president we ever had....the greatest destroyer of America that ever strode the halls of our government....a petty, brash, hateful little man whose crippled exterior matched his blackened and bent interior."
Well, let no one ever accuse you of subtlety.
I don't quite know how to respond to those claims, and the rest of your post, other than to go out on a limb and predict you will not be laying any wreaths at the Roosevelt Memorial when you visit Washington D. C.
Any point by point defense seems rather useless in light of your demonic view of the man. I might just as well be defending Jack the Ripper by noting his efforts to curb prostitution in Victorian England.
I'll just close with the observation that I think it highly probable that every single presidential historian, living or dead, including the "brainwashed" Newt Gingrich, would strongly disagree with your assessment.
Jer
I guess
September 24, 2007 - 09:29 ET by sarcasmoThe economics-teacher I cited doesn't count as a real Presidential historian, then???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc, does the economics
September 24, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Jersarc, does the economics teacher count as a real Presidential historian? I doubt it. But even so I didn't find anything in the linked article that matched Warner's not only hyper-critical view of FDR's policies, but also his vitriol-laced assault on the man's character.
I'm well aware there are a multitude of free market economists who consider New Deal social programs to be anathema and make for a negative economic model in a capitalistic system. As such, they obviously will never be inclined to lavish praise on Roosevelt. But the ranking of Presidents encompasses many factors, and I'll stick by my statement about Presidential historians and FDR, with one caveat: maybe I should have said objective Presidential historians.
Furthermore, I'm not necessarily claiming Roosevelt was the best, or in the top five, (or ten, or whatever). But I would certainly never put him dead last.
Finally, the very first or second time I posted here, I noted that even though I am a Democrat, I considered Reagan to be the best President in my lifetime [going back to Truman]. But I believe I could formulate a partisan but plausible argument that he did great damage to the country (although that clearly is not my belief), by my attacking Reganomics, citing the imposition of massive debt, alleging the practice of divisive politics which seriously aggravated the polarization of the American electorate, claiming he promoted a dangerous jingoism, and was vastly overrated as far as his role in the collapse of the Soviet Union [i.e. he merely presided over an implosion which liberals had long predicted], and that he unwittingly laid the groundwork for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, and on and on to where he looks to be the most incompetent leader in American history. Of course it would be an unfair, unobjective, and mostly untrue polemic, though many anti-Reagan partisans would buy into it. But not honest, objective historians.
Jer
So the free-market kind
September 24, 2007 - 11:02 ET by sarcasmoAren't "objective" or "honest"?? Wow, bias comes home to NB & admits it! Thanks! And for the record, Reagan expanded the Federal government way-too-much (military was relatively minor, too, as usual it's all the welfare stuff that really grew!) & the economics-teacher's a better historian than most IMO.
Do you, perhaps, see the problem with people like me or you spending either your or my tax money on history books? I sure do...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc, sorry, you've
September 24, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Jersarc, sorry, you've confused me. What do you mean by the "objective" and "honest" comment and the claim of bias? I definitely wasn't suggesting the economist you cited was dishonest, and he may very well be completely objective.
Thanks, Jer
I mean
September 24, 2007 - 11:37 ET by sarcasmoThat historians I like might be just as objective as the ones the majority likes, if not more (see Civil War work of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel) while also saying that the "free" market for government schools has natural biases (shockingly, they're pro-government!) that don't exactly make them objective, or honest when selecting texts.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc, I have a fairly large
September 24, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Jersarc, I have a fairly large collection of Civil War books. Do you have a particular work by Hummel to recommend?
Thanks, Jer
Yes, and it features a politically-incorrect title.
September 24, 2007 - 12:10 ET by sarcasmoEmancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.
It's almost like getting 2 books for the price of one.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Thanks, sarc, I'll order a
September 24, 2007 - 12:28 ET by JerThanks, sarc, I'll order a copy.
Jer
Your claim that "every
September 24, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Warner Todd HustonYour claim that "every single historian..." ect., is not true at all. But, since you haven;t bothered to do any real research into the matter... I guess we are at an impasse, indeed.
I can't argue with someone unprepared to reply substantively!
Warner, I'm not exactly
September 24, 2007 - 11:18 ET by JerWarner, I'm not exactly sure of what research I didn't bother with. In any event, since you know some Presidential historians who would endorse the views and rhetoric contained in your post, perhaps you could provide me a couple of names.
Thanks, Jer
Well, he & I both seem to see:
September 24, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoPresidents of both parties: "...promising limited government & states' rights in election-season but then giving us the exact opposite at voting/vetoing time." Do you also see that behavior, or is it just us and that weird economics professor trying -- without success in your book, apparently -- to be a historian? If our impressions of this behavior-pattern are somehow all-3 wrong, can you tell us why??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc, the issue here is
September 24, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Jersarc, the issue here is whether FDR was the worst President in American history, did the most damage, was a black-hearted little man, etc.
Is that what you believe? Does the economics professor believe it, and does he consider himself to be a Presidential historian?
Jer
"worst" isn't my issue
September 24, 2007 - 11:52 ET by sarcasmoThe bipartisan trend toward promised small government during election-season & then consistent votes instead for larger government once-elected is my issue here, and on that one FDR seems to fit just as well as Reagan, doesn't he?? I wanted no Department of Education, but instead big government fans have gotten a much-larger one. Why? Again, why am I in any way a winner when I'm SO CLEARLY LOSING the battle for smaller government, with extreme difficulty even within the Republican party itself???
Saying something like that usually upsets partisans of both sides, but I'm used to upsetting partisans of both sides around these parts, so it's NB-situation-normal for me...Was FDR bad -- and a bit of a pioneer -- in the promised-one-thing gave-another way I've described? Yes, I think so, and I think that's what my link shows. You'd have to ask the economics professor what he thinks, I'm only speaking for me.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Nice dodge!
September 24, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Clear thinkerGet Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Huh??
September 24, 2007 - 11:57 ET by sarcasmoHow so?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
O.K., got it, and agree
September 24, 2007 - 11:58 ET by JerO.K., got it, and agree with your analysis, if not completely with the substance.
Jer
Also sarc, if the behavior
September 24, 2007 - 11:53 ET by JerAlso sarc, if the behavior pattern you quote (at least to the extent of making promises but delivering the opposite) is the controlling criterion in presidential rankings, then probably more than half would be fighting over last place.
Jer
To be honest
September 24, 2007 - 11:56 ET by sarcasmoI'm not a big fan of the ones in my lifetime, at least so far. I know it's an old Buffett song, but how 'bout a few politicians trying "say what you mean, mean what you say" for once?? If you think bigger government is the answer, say so and see what happens in an election, instead of stealing libertarian rhetoric & then following through with statist ideas/votes.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Warner, valid points
September 24, 2007 - 10:14 ET by ConservativeRexWarner, valid points all. I am of Newt's generation so maybe I am an exception to the rule. I believe FDR sealed our fate for generations when he gave the farm away in Yalta. He was not mentally capable to spar with that monster Stalin. Churchill was incredulous at what transpired, but what could he do?
Other more insidious areas he affectd ie: stacking the SCOTUS, absolute dependence on the federal government for nearly any and everything. On and on...so it would seem that indeed he would be a hero to the leftist in this country today. Pitiful really, when you know the true intentions of the left, and they don't include any good for us!
Warner,
September 24, 2007 - 00:23 ET by Dave RLOL-Well, it was late, so I decided to give FDR & Tricky Dick a bit of a break.
You are correct about FDR, as WW II was his only saving grace, and he sort of botched even that toward the end by blindly kissing up to Uncle Joe, thus ushering in the Cold War in earnest (though the blame for that cannot be laid solely at the feet of FDR). Too many Soviet sympathizers like Stimson around I guess, of which he was one himself.
For me, the Jury is still somewhat out on Nixon. Yes, he was quite paranoid and somewhat off his rocker at times, but having read Red Star Rogue, I think there was far more to the man than we may know for some time.
If the scenario theorized in that book is accurate, and I believe that it is, this world may owe the man a huge debt of gratitude. Had the aftermath of thar event not been handled properly, there is a chance none of us would even be here today. Or far fewer of us, anyway.
Having said that, I am just old enough to remember the price control fiasco of the early seventies, so the man was challenged in the area of ecomics. Then there was the whole stupid Watergate business and all, which eventually brought us Jihad Jimmy.
Still, I suspect that history may judge him a little more kindly than we are curently willing to.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Warner --FDR
September 24, 2007 - 10:53 ET by misterbillWarner-- I am usually in agreement with your articles. I do not agree with you about FDR. I am a child of his era. I was born on March 4, 1933. I was almost named Franklin Delano. (God bless my uncle Bill, he talked my Mom into naming me after him instead of FDR.) America was suffering mass unemployment. Businesses had folded left and right. Earlier (late twenties, early thirties), stock brokers, bankers, financial people were leaping out of windows. FDR equals, bank holiday, NLRB, TVA, WPA, CCC and on and on. My Dad, God rest him,. was a proud man who was a skilled laborer. He was a cutter of men's suits. Nobody was buying suits, (except to bury someone). He moved his small family away from his roots so that he could support them. The job did not last. FDR ordered new raincoats for the Army. It gave my father a paycheck for about 8 months. He eventually swallowed his pride and registered for welfare. A sack of flour, a sack of rice, boxes of dried milk and a carton of cigarettes is what he got. It was a lot better than starving. A couple of my uncles joined the Army. FDR increased the allotment to the military so that more men could join. The CCC built trails and roads. Many young, single men were able to sustain themselves and not be a drain on their families. The construction on the Hoover dam, which had already been started, continued and provided incomes for thousands of families.
As you may guess, my father and mother became staunch supporters of the Democratic party. (Their only mistake!) I guess what I am saying is the view of life or any issue is largely framed by the window from which it is viewed. My window has panes that were placed there by my parents. Although I was a member of "the other" party, I hold their thoughts in high esteem and thus, hold FDR in high esteem.
Another "failing" attributed to FDR was that he gave too many concessions to Stalin at the end of the war. I have a little war story to share about that. My Dad was in the Navy during World War 2. He served on The USS Quincy. That is the ship that FDR was on when he went to meet Churchill and Stalin at Yalta. My Dad was assigned to the staff that supported FDR on the ship. He told me that President Roosevelt was in extremely poor health. He had to nap during the day and, according to Dad, was in pain quite a bit. Once again, one must consider from which window this event was viewed. To my Dad, FDR was a hero who gave his pain, suffering and life to this country. I do not know what backroom deals FDR had to make to save America, but my window has panes of rose colored glass when I look at the man. I remember , vividly, the news on April 12, 1945 when as a 12 year old boy, we heard of his passing. The nation mourned. Even boys of my age were in tears. He was the hero of our generation. He will always be a hero to me.
I close with another thought. FDR changed the SCOTUS in hopes of having a more friendly court for his New Deal program. Robert Burns said it best: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley.” He did his best for the common man.
Well said, misterbill. My
September 24, 2007 - 12:19 ET by JerWell said, misterbill. My parents were depression impacted, New Deal Democrats, who both became conservative Republicans later in life.
I have a degree in history, have read extensively about FDR, and while he and his policies were not without flaws, Warner's screed was way over the top.
Jer
Jer--is it old age that--
September 24, 2007 - 13:25 ET by misterbillJer--is it old age that--has me remembering those days with such happy memories???? A paper cup of sherbet was 1 cent. A licorice cigar was a penny, too. We never locked our doors and we were never having people take the jobs that we would not do(?). I watched Part I of Ken Burns' "War" last night. I had a lump in my throat the whole time. On a side issue, in spite of some on this site saying that it was boring, I am never bored when I see a film that shows dead and beheaded Americans or our troops fighting for our country..
misterbill...just read your
September 24, 2007 - 22:17 ET by Jermisterbill...just read your fond remembrance of an earlier, simpler time and it put me in a nostalgic mood (as Part II of "War" airs while I type this).
After Pearl Harbor, my dad, having been recently widowed and left with an infant son (my half brother), was later drafted but remained stateside with a hardship classification until he and many other soldiers were rushed into combat after the stunning German counterattack in the Ardennes. He had married my mom a few months before, but he honestly thought he would never make it back home. He saw continual combat until shortly before Germany capitulated, and then was on a troop ship in transit to the Pacific theatre for the invasion of Japan at the time the dropping of the atomic bombs ended the war.
He returned home, my sister was born just slightly over nine months later [one of the very first baby boomers] and I followed exactly one year later. We grew up in a small southern town, with small-town values in an America that is nearly unrecognizable today. As you said, the thought of locking doors (home or car) never entered our minds and as children we could play in and roam around the neighborhood even after dark without [I don't believe] inducing the slightest anxiety into the minds of our parents.
My father died twenty years ago, and I still miss him every day. I, and I believe the overwhelming majority of Democrats, have a very deep respect for the military, and it bothers me every time I hear our patriotism questioned. But I also resent those on the far left who sometime engage in behavior which provokes that questioning.
And I miss the innocent joy of my childhood, in an ever more distant, different world.
Jer
misterbill & Jer,
September 25, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Dave RDamn, ya'll two knock it off, as ya'll is about 't make me start bawlin' som'tin awful here.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
I watched episode 2 tonight. I loved it.
September 25, 2007 - 01:56 ET by misterbillalso--WND asked Virgil Goode----excerpt--the article is on WND now.
"WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
"Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer."
Now I can get to sleep!!!!
misterbill,
September 25, 2007 - 02:02 ET by Dave RI saw it, too, and I thought it was great.
And if there is anything left of the Republican Party, perhaps they can do something about the Ahabs buying a chunk of the NASDAQ as well.
Between the Dubai ports deal, the steadfast refusal to halt illegal immigration and the NASDAQ BS, hell, if I didn't know better (and I'm not convinced that I do) I'd swear GWB is trying to sell us off one piece at a time.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Yes sir, Dave, no more
September 25, 2007 - 01:58 ET by JerYes sir, Dave, no more maudlin trips down memory lane.
Jer
Jer,
September 25, 2007 - 02:06 ET by Dave RLOL-I was just kidding. Believe me, as a WW II buff (as in very amateur historian) I love hearing from those who were around for it, as it was probably this nation's finest hour.
I doubt we shall see anything like it again.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Dave, I was pretty sure you
September 25, 2007 - 02:10 ET by JerDave, I was pretty sure you were. But in reading over my post, I think I did get a little carried away with the sentimentality. [misterbill started it though.]
Jer
Jer - can't resist--
September 25, 2007 - 02:12 ET by misterbill"no more maudlin trips" . Did you mean Mauldin as in Bill Mauldin and Willy and Joe? LOL
For those who were not around--Willie and Joe were two GI cartoon characters that Mauldin created. It was a humorous series of cartoons about two foot-weary, battle tired army soldiers and their escapades. I loved it!!!!!
PS- Occasionally got copies of Stars and Stripes from my Marine brother. Used to read columns by a young Army reporter named Andy Rooney!!!!!