Cathy weighs in -- and today's Times

The latest from Cathy:

Hi again,
I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me at this point, but from reading your blog and some of the comments written by your students I thoght I might be able to help. First, I have to agree with them that your blog is very one sided but that is where I felt challanged. I was determined that someone so onesided had to be wrong and in my attempt to prove you wrong I began to realize it was my responsibility to look deeper and see past the rhetoric and the propaganda.

As a future historian it is my job to use what I am learning, in particular about our nations history, and apply it to the present day. There are three editorials in today's NY Times that are in my opinion very thought provoking. "Truths worth Telling" by Daniel Ellsberg (for those who don't know, he leaked the Pentagon Papers) does a great job of comparing those events to what's happening today. He makes the statement, "people have a hard time believing the Presidenent has made errors", which for a long time was my problem. I DID NOT want to believe that any President of the United States could make irresponsible desicions; he is supposed to have access to information to guard against that senario. This is the thought that clouded my vision; as you said to me a few weeks ago, I was thinking with my emotions.

So to your students, they may not like that your blog is one-sided, but it is their responsibility to take that information and use the skills they are learning in your class to determine whether or not they agree with it. They should read the articles you recommend but they shouldn't stop there. Read other articles and op-ed pieces, eventually they will find something that hits home for them and allow them to make a stand.

Hopefully I haven't overstepped my bounds,
Cathy

Not overstepped her bounds at all. This is what we do. We discuss, we listen, we debate, WE LEARN. And I am not tired of hearing from Cathy at all. Are you, readers?

And she beat me to the punch with her citation of the Ellsberg op-ed. ABSOLUTELY necessary reading. I have noticed a great desire on many students' parts to simply trust authority, or a fear of challenging our leaders, as if we work for them rather than the other way around. Well, that is a dramatic misreading of democracy, its benefits and its duties.

From my own perspective: my first real memory of noticing the world was the landing of the first man on the moon in July 1969. But my first real political memory is Watergate. So not only have I never forgiven Nixon (and I still have my "Impeach Nixon" bumpersticker -- literally the ONLY thing I have managed to save all these years), but I have a strong distrust of government officials. I imagine actually most Americans do. But I think since Nixon we now have the excuse that we can believe they are all liars and cheats, so whaddya gonna do? (And if you read someone like H.L. Mencken, you see that distrust is a lot older than Nixon. He called them all "mountebanks." What a great word, due for a renaissance.) But the difference with Nixon, and what still motivates me when observing politics, is that he messed with the Constitution and the democratic process. (And don't get me started on Iran-Contra.) Simply put, it is our job to hold them accountable.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. Go read Krugman!

And while you are at the Times you shouldn't miss "Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions" which begins thus:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 - The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

Then again, maybe they were just guessing.