Ahh, the joy of verbal battle!!!

Hey Folks -

Here it is!!

Directly below is my "Letter to the Editor," copied to the professor and to Columbus Dispatch editors, in response to the Southgate column (see last posting). Following that is the professor's reaction to my letter, followed by my response to that.

Nothing else has transpired.

- Uke Man

My "Letter to the Editor":

To the Editor:

Academicians are supposed to uncover truth by rationally examining the facts. Propagandists are supposed to obscure the truth without regard to facts or rationality.
The two are incompatible.

I don't know how Professor Douglas Southgate comports himself in the classroom, but in the newspaper he clearly gives rein to his political agenda without regard to facts or rationality.

Lynn Cheney, the vice president's wife, is concerned that college professors have been imposing their politics upon their students. Perhaps she should add Professor Southgate's name to her list of those who should be investigated.

Yours,

Tom Harker


Southgate's Response:

Greetings to all.

Mr. Harker's use of the word, academician, is revealing. It was and remains a preferred term of stalinists.

To be sure, his reference to Lynn Cheney is ironic, but I will show him the courtesy of taking him seriously. If Mr. Harker states that someone who describes FARC accurately - a group of "predatory nihilists" (if you will excuse my quoting myself) - should be investigated, he truly missed his calling by not coming of age in the Soviet Union during the 1930s.

Mr. Harker has my deepest sympathies.

Douglas Southgate


My Response:

Dear Professor Southgate et al.,

Well, I don’t know much about Stalinism, but if it is a rational deduction that my use of “academician” reveals my unspoken connection to “stalinists” [sic], then I guess we can all rationally deduce that the professor, by using the word “Greetings,” has revealed some connection to the Selective Service conscription process. Hmmmmm . . .

No irony intended regarding Ms. Cheney, but I’m not surprised that you misunderstood. You see, Cheney thinks professors should stick to their academic (is that word revelatory?) subjects. The reason you misunderstood is that both you and Cheney believe that this restriction should apply only to left-leaning professors. Conservative profs are somehow supposedly free to color their lectures with whatever politically-influenced notions they want (maybe because they are ideologically closer to Cheney).

Although you did not respond to me in any factual way, relying mainly on name-calling and guilt by association (as you also did a number of times in the column), I’ll share one factual example with you.

Not unlike your problem seeing that the Cheney harassment of college professors, at least based upon its purported rationale, cuts both ways; your praise of the Columbian president demonstrates that either you do not know the facts or you are truly propagandizing.

Chavez, whom you call a “dictator” was elected – by large margins just as was Uribe – whom you praise for that. Moreover, for seeking a chance for further reelection, an action for which you praise Uribe, the Right denounced Chavez. Cherry-picking, anyone?

I don’t find it difficult to determine whether this represents a search for truth or a distortion of it. It is quite clear, if one is honest with oneself.

And thank you for your sympathy. I will share it with your students.

Yours - Tom Harker