[Texbob]

Her ansere proves she is a total dope, I gues that is what you have to be to get a job as a prof at the University of Texas.

[marron]

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism.

Actually, that is untrue. She may believe that people were happier trudging behind a plow, pulled by a water buffalo, but the fact that people abandon that life and vie for the opportunity to work in a tennis shoe factory suggests otherwise.

But that is not the point. A prosperous, technically advanced society does not simply leap into existence. It advances by steps. The existence of an industry does two things; it creates an opening for independent contractors and entrepeneurs. And it begins the creation of a legal framework, without which there cannot be economic development.

Its easy enough to look at countries that have made the leap from 3rd world hell to properity, and to look at the steps they went through to get there.

the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

The Taliban emerged from the chaos at the end of the Afghan/Russian war. I would say that we failed, having left the Afghans to sort out their mess themselves. Are you suggesting that we should have stayed and imposed a solution on them? Are you happy, or unhappy, that this time we are sticking around?

But the Taliban was initially very popular, since they seemed to be a stable alternative to the warlords. We therefore tried to work with them, to help them establish stable government, and put an end to the fighting. It didn't work, of course. We also funded the NGO's that kept the people fed, throughout all the dark days of their rule.

They would still be in power, despite their clear unsuitability, had they not given shelter to our attackers, because we are actually very hesitant to overthrow other countries leaders.

Saddam found his way into power under his own steam. When he went to war with the Ayatollah, we supported him. When he went to war with our allies, we stopped supporting him. So what is your point? That is a truism. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. The enemy of our friend is not our friend.

I do not want you to be sent to other countries to die or kill, because I think those actions are not in defense of our freedoms; more often it's about protecting oil profits

We have never gone to war to protect oil profits. We had a reasonably good relationship with Saddam before he attacked Kuwait, as you have noted. He has control of one of the world's largest pools of oil. We were gearing up to invest a ton of money in his oilfields prior to the Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait was very bad news for US oil service companies, and US engineering companies that were gearing up for some major projects at the time.

American oil companies make money by pumping other people's oil. Taking Iraq's oil off the market was good for the Saudis, but bad for US oil companies.

When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth

No, you mean to say that 4% of the world produces 60% of the wealth.

when U.S. foreign policy and economic policy are designed to drive countries into unsalvageable debt or rubble

Again, not true. Free market economics and individual liberty are the ticket out of 3rd world hell, but precious few countries are willing to try it. I have tried myself to explain the concept to educated, 3rd world professionals, who patiently explain to me that such things cannot work in their countries because they are too poor. (!!)

it is not the fault of bad leaders, bad values, wrong religion, or corrupt people in other nations that brings them ruin

Again, precisely untrue. It is precisely the result of bad values that a country descends into 3rd world hell. The basic requirement for the accumulation of wealth is the rule of law, which is to say, clean courts and predictable laws. Add to that individual liberty, and the legal protection of private property. Those countries remain poor precisely where those values do not exist.

When Madeline Albright said that the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions were a reasonable price to pay

Ms Albright is obviously no favorite among conservatives, because she is not a conservative. It is the left that forever proposes sanctions as an alternative to confrontation. They are there to enforce UN rulings; Conservatives by and large reject multilateral pseudo-legality. The present situation is precisely the result of leftist policies.

[redbaiter]

If you want your ideas to receive a hearing, you must identify and eliminate these tropes you keep citing. I've already disposed of the '5000 Iraqi children' item. Then there's Jefferson. You managed to squeeze in a reference to him and his alleged taste for slave women, and treat this as fact. You should know better. Perhaps you do know better, but are so used to having your statements go unchallenged on campus that you just let it fly. (That habit doesn't last long around here.) The reality is that some Jefferson sired a bunch of kids with those slaves, and that no one knows for certain which Jefferson it was, and that no one has ever claimed to know for sure. It could have been Tom, or it could have been any one of his rascal cousins. If you go back and actually read the report that came out so conveniently in the middle of Der Schlick Meister's perjury problem, you will find it actually does not establish that Thomas Jefferson fathered those kids, and does not claim to establish this. Our hard-working media missed that fine little distinction. When we consider that these allegations were made against Jefferson by his political opponents in an age of scurrilous personal attacks - stuff no one would even dream of saying today - it should be very clear that these allegations against him are to be viewed with healthy skepticism.

[tpaine]

Two of the finest minds in socialism, -- D.H. Finnis & J. von Ludwig , recently published these insights, very much in the same spirit as your article. -- Can you comment?

---

Predialectic narrative and socialism

David H. Finnis
Department of Politics, University of Illinois

Jane von Ludwig
Department of Peace Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

1. Predialectic narrative and the postconstructive paradigm of discourse
"Reality is part of the absurdity of narrativity," says Derrida. Any number of theories concerning Foucaultist power relations may be revealed. It could be said that in Finnegan's Wake, Joyce denies socialism; in Ulysses, although, he reiterates predialectic narrative.
The characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the common ground between sexual identity and society. Lyotard promotes the use of the postconstructive paradigm of discourse to analyse consciousness. However, the main theme of Prinn's[1] essay on predialectic narrative is not discourse, as the preconstructive paradigm of context suggests, but postdiscourse.
If the postconstructive paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between textual neocapitalist theory and dialectic depatriarchialism. But Bataille's model of predialectic narrative suggests that culture is capable of social comment.
Abian[2] implies that we have to choose between socialism and Lacanist obscurity. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a postconstructive paradigm of discourse that includes narrativity as a totality. Derrida uses the term 'subtextual situationism' to denote the role of the reader as artist. Thus, if the postconstructive paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Debordist image.
The subject is interpolated into a postconstructive paradigm of discourse that includes sexuality as a reality. But Lyotard suggests the use of predialectic narrative to deconstruct class divisions.
2. Realities of futility
"Society is elitist," says Lacan. The example of socialism prevalent in Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man is also evident in Ulysses, although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a constructive paradigm of consensus that includes narrativity as a totality.
If one examines predialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept the postconstructive paradigm of discourse or conclude that culture is used to oppress the proletariat, given that the premise of socialism is invalid. In Finnegan's Wake, Joyce analyses predialectic narrative; in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, however, he denies socialism. Therefore, several theories concerning the rubicon, and some would say the collapse, of pretextual sexual identity exist.
Tilton[3] states that we have to choose between predialectic narrative and cultural materialism. In a sense, Sontag promotes the use of neocapitalist feminism to modify and analyse society.
Many narratives concerning the postconstructive paradigm of discourse may be found. Therefore, Lacan's critique of material theory holds that the purpose of the writer is deconstruction. If socialism holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. Thus, Brophy[4] implies that we have to choose between the postconstructive paradigm of discourse and cultural construction.
The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes reality as a paradox. Therefore, Bataille suggests the use of the postconstructive paradigm of discourse to challenge hierarchy.
3. Socialism and neotextual cultural theory
The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a postpatriarchialist totality. The main theme of Dahmus's[5] essay on neotextual cultural theory is the bridge between sexual identity and society. Thus, Lyotard promotes the use of socialism to read narrativity.
"Class is fundamentally meaningless," says Derrida; however, according to Long[6] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the collapse, and eventually the failure, of class. In Black Orchid, Gaiman reiterates the constructivist paradigm of context; in Neverwhere he deconstructs socialism. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is a mythopoetical paradox.
The main theme of Humphrey's[7] analysis of neotextual cultural theory is the role of the poet as reader. If predialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and posttextual capitalist theory. In a sense, the paradigm, and some would say the meaninglessness, of socialism intrinsic to Smith's Dogma emerges again in Mallrats.
"Sexual identity is used in the service of capitalism," says Debord; however, according to Drucker[8] , it is not so much sexual identity that is used in the service of capitalism, but rather the genre, and eventually the fatal flaw, of sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a neotextual cultural theory that includes art as a totality. Therefore, Pickett[9] states that we have to choose between dialectic desublimation and postcultural narrative.
Sartre suggests the use of neotextual cultural theory to attack sexism. However, if Foucaultist power relations holds, the works of Smith are an example of conceptual nationalism.
The primary theme of the works of Smith is a mythopoetical whole. It could be said that the example of socialism depicted in Smith's Dogma is also evident in Clerks, although in a more self-fulfilling sense.
Bataille promotes the use of neotextual cultural theory to challenge and modify class. But Foucault uses the term 'prepatriarchialist feminism' to denote the futility, and some would say the rubicon, of capitalist consciousness.
The main theme of Tilton's[10] model of neotextual cultural theory is the difference between society and class. However, de Selby[11] implies that we have to choose between textual theory and subcultural sublimation.
Socialism suggests that academe is capable of truth, but only if language is distinct from culture; if that is not the case, we can assume that the significance of the poet is social comment. But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is a dialectic reality.
4. Consensuses of futility
The primary theme of Reicher's[12] analysis of neotextual cultural theory is the role of the observer as artist. If neotextual discourse holds, we have to choose between neotextual cultural theory and semiotic postconstructivist theory. Thus, in Four Rooms, Tarantino examines predialectic narrative; in Jackie Brown, however, he reiterates neotextual cultural theory.
"Art is intrinsically responsible for outmoded, elitist perceptions of class," says Baudrillard. Tilton[13] holds that we have to choose between socialism and Foucaultist power relations. It could be said that an abundance of deconstructions concerning not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative exist.
The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the bridge between language and society. Debord uses the term 'the textual paradigm of context' to denote not theory as such, but pretheory. In a sense, if socialism holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Lyotardist narrative.
The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes reality as a whole. Therefore, several discourses concerning predialectic narrative may be revealed.
Porter[14] states that we have to choose between neotextual cultural theory and substructuralist cultural theory. In a sense, Bataille suggests the use of socialism to attack class divisions.
A number of dematerialisms concerning the difference between art and society exist. Thus, the premise of predialectic theory implies that class, somewhat surprisingly, has significance, given that predialectic narrative is valid.
Many narratives concerning socialism may be found. In a sense, the paradigm, and therefore the economy, of predialectic narrative which is a central theme of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction emerges again in Jackie Brown.
5. Capitalist subcultural theory and semantic nihilism
"Society is part of the futility of reality," says Derrida. If predialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between socialism and Sontagist camp. However, Marx uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote not discourse, but postdiscourse.
In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of subtextual consciousness. The main theme of von Ludwig's[15] model of socialism is the role of the participant as reader. But Foucault promotes the use of predialectic narrative to analyse sexual identity.
Any number of constructions concerning the common ground between class and society exist. It could be said that Derrida uses the term 'socialism' to denote the role of the poet as reader.
Sartre's critique of capitalist discourse holds that language serves to reinforce the status quo. Therefore, Humphrey[16] suggests that we have to choose between predialectic narrative and capitalist socialism.
Marxist capitalism holds that sexuality is meaningless. However, the subject is contextualised into a semantic nihilism that includes narrativity as a reality.
6. Eco and neotextual deappropriation
"Sexual identity is fundamentally a legal fiction," says Sartre; however, according to von Ludwig[17] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally a legal fiction, but rather the collapse of sexual identity. Derrida suggests the use of predialectic narrative to deconstruct class divisions. Thus, if the subdialectic paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Sontagist camp.
The primary theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical paradox. Baudrillard uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote the bridge between society and language. However, Lyotard promotes the use of predialectic narrative to challenge and analyse society.
"Class is part of the defining characteristic of reality," says Sartre. Lyotard uses the term 'socialism' to denote a deconstructivist whole. But the main theme of Drucker's[18] essay on predialectic narrative is the role of the participant as observer.
Sontag suggests the use of semantic nihilism to attack outdated perceptions of society. Thus, in Ulysses, Joyce analyses socialism; in Finnegan's Wake he affirms semantic nihilism.
Lyotard's analysis of predialectic narrative suggests that discourse must come from communication. Therefore, Marx promotes the use of socialism to deconstruct sexual identity. The premise of predialectic narrative implies that the Constitution is capable of intentionality, but only if consciousness is interchangeable with sexuality; otherwise, truth has objective value. It could be said that the within/without distinction depicted in Joyce's Ulysses is also evident in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, although in a more self-sufficient sense.
Semantic nihilism holds that sexuality is capable of significance, given that Baudrillard's model of socialism is invalid. But the subject is interpolated into a postdialectic nationalism that includes reality as a paradox.
Sartre uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote the rubicon, and eventually the stasis, of capitalist class. However, Debord suggests the use of socialism to challenge the status quo.
1. Prinn, I. V. A. ed. (1978) The Stasis of Consensus: Socialism and predialectic narrative. University of Massachusetts Press
2. Abian, E. (1990) Socialism in the works of Fellini. University of North Carolina Press
3. Tilton, P. E. ed. (1981) The Reality of Economy: Socialism in the works of Gaiman. Cambridge University Press
4. Brophy, O. E. K. (1973) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Loompanics
5. Dahmus, Q. F. ed. (1987) Textual Desituationisms: Subcapitalist nihilism, capitalism and socialism. Panic Button Books
6. Long, I. (1991) Socialism and predialectic narrative. And/Or Press
7. Humphrey, F. B. ed. (1983) The Collapse of Society: Predialectic narrative in the works of Smith. University of Michigan Press
8. Drucker, T. H. C. (1991) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Panic Button Books
9. Pickett, W. D. ed. (1978) Realities of Failure: Socialism and predialectic narrative. Loompanics
10. Tilton, H. S. G. (1995) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Panic Button Books
11. de Selby, M. ed. (1984) Deconstructing Social realism: Predialectic narrative in the works of Tarantino. Yale University Press
12. Reicher, Y. B. (1978) Socialism in the works of Cage. Schlangekraft
13. Tilton, A. Z. Q. ed. (1989) Realities of Failure: Socialism in the works of Tarantino. Loompanics
14. Porter, E. S. (1994) Socialism in the works of Burroughs. Schlangekraft
15. von Ludwig, G. ed. (1975) The Stasis of Class: Socialism in the works of Eco. And/Or Press
16. Humphrey, A. U. R. (1986) Socialism, pretextual patriarchialism and capitalism. Cambridge University Press
17. von Ludwig, U. ed. (1994) Reinventing Modernism: Socialism and predialectic narrative. And/Or Press
18. Drucker, M. Y. (1987) Socialism in the works of Joyce. Panic Button Books

[p. henry]

Commieprof: Just a few thoughts that occur as I read your letter.

1. You say you are a Marxist and you also say that you "take your freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously." Those positions are inconsistent. Marx advocated the abolition of private property in favor of the common ownership of essentially all resources. The existence of private property enhances the willingness and the ability of the populace to dissent from government policies. It is not coincidental that the societies with the greatest devotion to the concept of private property (e.g. the United States) are also those that are most likely to tolerate and even to subsidize citizens who dissent most (e.g. Marxist, feminist, pacifist university professors) from the dominant societal views. Property rights and personal rights are symbiotic, and to oppose one is to oppose the other.

2. You pledge solidarity with "ordinary people." My experience over the last 50 years or so is that those claim to fight for the common man are often fairly selective as to which "common" people they will support and are frequently more interested in telling their wards what they should believe than in listening to what truly motivates them.

3. The purpose of U.S. foreign policy, including the imposition of sanctions and the dropping of bombs is the defence of the United States, not the liberation of "ordinary people."

4. When you speak of the "Israeli occupation," it is not clear, at least to me, whether you are referring to the West Bank or to all of Israel. To me, although I am not Jewish and certainly not a Zionist, it makes little difference. The West Bank was part of Israel in 1948. It became part of Jordan as a consequence of the Arab invasion following Israel's declaration of nationhood and was retaken by Israel in 1967. Contrary to Arab propaganda, the Palestinian diaspora was largely not compelled but voluntary in anticipation of an Arab victory which never came. To refer to this state of affairs as an "occupation" is at best innacurate.

5. It is also at best innacurate to say that Bush Sr. admitted that the Gulf War was prosecuted in pursuit of "oil profits." Clearly oil was involved in the decision to reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, but we sought access to that commodity, rather than enhanced profit, and that access was clearly in the national interest of the United States and every other industrial democracy. However, being a Marxist, you may have difficulty seeing that a capitalist society can have an interest other than the profits of one segment of its economy.

6. Although it is not clear how you define " liberation," I am confident that the people of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and India would by and large disagree with your contention that capitalism is not liberating. The politically liberalizing effects of the accretion of wealth through capitalism have been evident since at least the Hanseatic League.

I've only gone through one page of your letter and I am out of time and energy.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Dear Professor Cloud,

Please take your Trotskyist drivel elsewhere, where it may be appreciated by the like-minded. You are being rude in the extreme. Your words neither inspire nor intimidate. They merely irritate. We don't post at Left-wing sites, and do not appreciate you totalitarian ghoulish cannibals posting here.

Sincerely yours,

Mortimer Snavely

[neutrino]

When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth,

Kewl! Let's go for 75%!

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Any viewpoint is welcome in my classes so long as the arguer can provide evidence and reasoning in support of claims.

I have had professors such as yourself while I attended college. And I rather doubt if you are even capable of listening to reasoned argument. You are convinced that your point of view is the only correct point of view, so you are constantly formulating new aspects of your argument and are therefore incapable of actually listening to others though that does not fit your pre-conceived biases.

I realize I am putting words into your mouth, but I am quite convinced this is how you are.

[Libloather]

If you cherish the freedoms of the United States, it would be hypocritical of you to be intolerant of the expression of opinions that differ from yours.

Nope. Try again. Feel free...

[LibKill]

I encourage activists with views similar to mine to come out into the light of day.

The light of day is no place for a commie to operate.

Communist scum usually do their murders under cover of darkness.

[RightWhale]

When objects are in orbit around the earth they continue to have the same mass they had on the ground, but they have no weight. In the ideal case, high mass, zero weight. Of course there is microgravity, so there is some weight, however little.

On the Internet the situation is reversed in the ideal circumstance. Low mass, high weight. It doesn't make much sense in physics, but it isn't the first time a principle of physics was subverted to social sciences. Relativity - relativism. Quantum uncertainty - no controlling legal authority.

Earth satellites = high mass, low weight
Internet posts = low mass, high weight

[motexva]

Dear Dana -

As I examined your UT biography, helpfully posted by one of the regular users of this site, I wondered if you are a member of the cabal of socialist journalism PhDs at the University of Texas, which as near as I can tell is led by Dr. Robert Jensen.

I had the opportunity to tutor some of the unfortunate UT freshmen who took Jensen's J310 course, billed as seminar examining current issues in journalism. Lots of kids take it thinking they'll learn something about journalism, but what it really is is Marxism 101.

Take a gander at the text books used in the course: TEXTBOOKS:

Bennett, W. Lance, News: The Politics of Illusion, 4th ed. (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001).

Newkirk, Pamela, Within the Veil: Black Journalists, White Media (New York: New York University Press, 2000).

Danner, Mark, The Massacre at El Mozote (New York: Vintage Books,1994).


READING PACKET:
(at Longhorn Copies, 2520 Guadalupe, 476-4498)

Ueland, Brenda, If You Want to Write, 2nd ed. (St. Paul: SchubertClub, 1983),Chapter 1, “Everybody is Talented, Original and Has Something Importantto Say,” pp. 3-9.

Cleage, Pearl, Deals with the Devil and Other Reasons to Riot (New York:Ballantine,1993), “Why I Write,” pp. 3-7.

Orwell, George, The Orwell Reader (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1956),“Why I Write,” pp. 390-396.

Abu-Jamal, Mumia, All Things Censored (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000),“Lethal Censorship,” by Noelle Hanrahan, ed., pp. 21-30; “Livefrom Death Row,” pp. 202-204; and “Media Is the Mirage,” pp. 229-230.

Herman, Edward S., The Myth of the Liberal Media (New York: PeterLang, 1999),Chapter 2, “The Propaganda Model,” pp. 23-29.

Simons, Geoff, The Scourging of Iraq (London: Macmillan, 1996), Chapter 1,"The Legacy of War," pp. 4-32.

Chomsky, Noam, "The Media and the War: What War?" in Hamid Mowlana, George Gerbner, and Herbert I. Schiller, eds., Triumph of the Image: The Media's War in the Persian Gulf--A Global Perspective (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1992),pp. 51-63.

Webb, Gary, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion(New York: Seven Stories Press, 1999), Chapter 27 and Epilogue, pp. 451-485.

Kornbluh, Peter, “The Storm over ‘Dark Alliance,’” Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 1997, pp. 33-39.

All in all the course is a joke. If Jensen wanted to run a course like this, they should bill it Contemporary Leftist Thought and put it in the polisci department.

There are far too many professors of Cloud and Jensen's ilk at UT. They are ruining this once great institution. I would not send my children there, they would be far better off at Baylor or even Southwest Texas State. (Sorry about all the junk characters, I lacked the will to take them out.)

[hinckley buzzard]

Socialists' lies are the worst when they are pretending to be the most earnest.

Suharto didn't just "kill 200,000 people." He defeated a widespread, deeply entrenched, and virulently malignant Stalinist totalitarian cancer preparing to devastate one of the world's most populous nations. By cleaning the vermin out of innumerable communist nests he saved the lives of millions, who would have been the inevitable victimms in the revolutionary blood-bath being planned by this "Cloud" fool's heroes.


But he would lead you to believe Suharto just massacred innocent villagers for no good reason.
That's a lie, "Dana Cloud," and you are a socialista liar.


Quoting the leftwing whore Halfbright's lie about us killing all those Iraqi children is even more obscene. Those of us who care about the truth recall that "sanctions" were urged by the "Peace" advocates as an alternative to war.

"Give sanctions time to work!" they cried. Well, now, we had a war and we had sanctions, and we still have the vestiges of sanctions, and it is clear they never would have "worked."

But that would have been fine with "Dana Cloud," because he would have been happy to see Kuwait destroyed, and to see Saddam control all that oil, and to see the U.S. hamstrung as a result--that was and is the agenda, after all, isn't it, "Dana?"

Oh, and one final lie. About being "Antiwar?" You didn't protest when Saddam invaded Kuwait did you. And you didn't care if the Soviet scum destroyed Indonesia did you? "Antiwar" my ass. That is your biggest lie of all, socialist crackpot liar.

[CatoRenasci]

Oh, dear. I wonder what you're a professor of. Certainly not history, as you seem not to know it. I have read your Howard Zinn. A sociologist friend gave me a copy of A People's History of the United States when it first came out. Having only a couple of years earlier finished my field exams in American history, I was appalled at the errors and blatant Marxism and anti-Americanism of Zinn's work. He has stated explicitly in other writings that he regards making his political point more important than historical accuracy. As my children have been forced to read Zinn in their high school honors history classes, I reread the book and came away with an even more unfavorable impression than I had originally formed. I cannot respect his work, or take him seriously.

The truly astonishing thing is that you can remain a Marxist (calling yourself commieprof strongly suggests this) after 1989 and the fall of the Soviet empire. The revelations that have come to light in the past dozen or so years make it clear that Marxism in Russia and Eastern Europe was a thug's game and morally bankrupt from the get-go. Virtually all of the charges levelled against Marxims by the right - from von Mieses on the economics side to Popper on the philosophy side and Koestler and even Whittaker Chambers, turned out to be not only true, but understated. Have you read The Black Book of Communism? Edited by Frenchmen and the work of European scholars, many with leftist credentials, the work is damning.

It used to be said (variously attributed to Clemanceau, Churchill and several others) that anyone who was not a socialist at 18 had no heart, and anyone who was not a conservative at 40 had no brains. More truly, it must be said that anyone who remains a Marxist after 1989 is either an idiot, a naive fool, or a power-hungry enemy of mankind.

[First_Salute]

Hate America First, by Gore Vidal:

I was in Guatemala when the CIA was preparing its attack on the Arbenz government [in 1954]. Arbenz, who was a democratically elected president, mildly socialist. His state had no revenues; its biggest income maker was United Fruit Company. So Arbenz put the tiniest of taxes on bananas, and Henry Cabot Lodge got up in the Senate and said the Communists have taken over Guatemala and we must act. He got to Eisenhower, who sent in the CIA, and they overthrew the government. We installed a military dictator, and there's been nothing but bloodshed ever since.

This event was the watershed for nearly every subsequent protest by the leftist liberals in the Americas (including the U.S.) and was pointed to over and over as the great evil of American patriotism; it has been thrown around every program of socialist interest on college campuses ever since; it is popular among the left-winger-weenies as the calling card or ID card of the politically correct's assertion that the United States of America is the enemy to be hated.

I may strongly disagree with even more such "businesses practices" than has Mr. Vidal, but his ill will toward Americans trying to defend themselves against the ultra-coercions of the nationalizing socialism(s) which he and his followers have favored, has constantly overlooked that very horror, such as this, which we still struggle against --- what the leftists have manifested; see: The U.S. case against the court (ICC) is bogus on its face., Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 2, 2002, by editorial staff (posted by wallcrawlr). My reply there:

Why is there no mention of the truly large atrocities committed by the extreme left-wing in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune?

Will Castro and the communists of Cuba be arrested?

Will the communists of Southeast Asia be arrested?

Will the communists of Asia be arrested?

Heart of darkness: Cambodia's Killing Fields

 August 8, 2001 [CNN online]

By CNN's Joe Havely

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia -- The fields of Choeung Ek on the outskirts of the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, carry a dark secret.

Across the baked earth scraps of cloth and human bone poke through the soil and are slowly bleached white by the harsh tropical sun.

In the center stands a glass-walled shrine containing more than 8,000 skulls -- the remains of just a few of those who died here.

These are the Killing Fields of Cambodia.

Here, just a few kilometers from the center of Phnom Penh, tens of thousands of people met their deaths -- entire families wiped out.

Many of those killed were intellectuals or trained professionals -- people considered counter-revolutionaries by the Khmer Rouge leadership bent on turning Cambodia into a [communist, socialist, leftist, fascist] peasant's paradise. (In " [ ] " --- mine, F_S)

Towards the end of its rule, as the regime became increasingly paranoid and turned on itself, many once senior Khmer Rouge cadres also met their end at Choeung Ek.

Men, women and children -- some just a few months old -- were killed here, often in the most violent and brutal ways.

With bullets in short supply, the condemned were forced to kneel before an open grave then stabbed through the head with a sharpened bamboo stake ...

Reign of terror

The fields of Choeung Ek contain more than 100 mass graves

In the corner of the field stands a tree ...

Against its trunk the heads of babies were smashed by young men brainwashed into believing their actions would free Cambodia from colonial imperialism ...

Reuters contributed to this report.

[InvisibleChurch]

hey there, while laughing out loud with your friends as you read these posts, you had no idea that you were so wrong and that your arguments didn't hold up ... get a good night's sleep

Inri

[TxBec]

So I feel sorry for the students whose parents would keep them from attending my classes or the University of Texas because of what I wrote. Don't you have faith that your children can think for themselves? Don't you trust them with a range of positions and approaches to knowledge? Haven't you prepared them to defend your family's values?

By this comment, I would guess you meant me. (I don't know who else said they would keep their kids from UT. I haven't gone back to read the rest of the comments on that thread.)

I have all the faith in the world in my kids. However, would you knowingly allow your toddler to play with matches, knowing what would happen? Of course not. Why then would you allow them to be corrupted morally? My job on this earth is to raise my children and to teach them. I am a single mom (divorced, not out of wedlock.) I read over the post made with your stance on abortion and it saddens me. I feel more sorry for the child you aborted than you should feel for my children. When do you reach the point of knowing you have enough money or maturity to have children? Raising my children is a struggle, but what isn't? Even if I knew that I would divorce after having my children, I would do it all again. My children are my joy.

I only have two kids. I was talking to a friend of mine who has 5 (she just miscarried #6 and it devastated her.) She said 5 kids keep her busy, but that two probably keep me real busy, don't they? (They do.) Another friend of ours only has one and HE keeps her real busy. My point? Kids are work no matter what.

You mentioned standing up for the poor maquiladoras, etc. I cannot believe you feel no shame in not protecting the most tiny, precious, and innocent of all beings.

[MeekOneGOP]

Get a load of this cr**, Bro! The Socialist Professor wishes to explain itself.
See article I pinged you to yesterday.

[MissAmericanPie]

"I take my freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously."

I take the freedom to dissent seriously also. I happen to consider the things you and your kind dissent over to be frivolus "pop dissent" designed more for the deep need of the spoiled child for attention than any deeply held belief. But then I consider most Liberals to be neurotic and deeply spirtually void, not to mention destructive to a nation and a society.

Liberals, not content to break just their own toys, demand to break everyone else's also.

[freebilly]

Thank you for posting this worthless nonsense. It gives all of us at Free Republic an opportunity to see the liberal American thought process at its worst.