I certainly have no problem with professors getting together to find “solutions” to difficult “problems.” But I do have a “problem” with the way these professors were characterizing their “problem.”
A better description of their “problem” – one that better reflects its magnitude – would sound something like this: How can we retain the secular/ progressive view of human nature, which is needed to justify secular/ progressive policies, in light of a wealth of evidence to the contrary?
The thoughts of the professors responding to the mass email were enlightening. One complained that she wanted to give her students the benefit of the doubt, but they constantly pushed and tested her. The more she withheld punishment, the more prevalent the undesirable behavior.
Another observed that the more often she does nice things for students, the more often they take advantage of her. She seemed perplexed by the fact that rewarding a missed exam with another administration, thus giving the student more time to prepare, led to more missed exams."
Gee, imagine that. Witholding any threat or consequences for irresponsible academic behavior actually increased incidences of students skipping exams and taking advantage of lenient college professors. And they are shocked at this?
When the executive leadership of a nation shares much the same "secular/progressive" worldview as the aforementioned university professors, the results can be disasterous. The world is a dangerous place, fraught with thugs in positions of leadership, and such a "nothing but carrots" approach is a recipe for complete, diplomatic failure if ever there was one.
This segues neatly into today's article by Austin Bay in which he relates the following concerning Comrade Chavez and his latest attempt at focusing an increasingly unhappy citizenry of his country due to his failed socialist economic policies onto an invented external threat...
"Chavez rattles sabers and threatens war in order to divert increasing domestic opposition. At the moment, Colombia isn't his primary target -- its military is too strong. The Caribbean island of Curacao, however, lying just off the Venezuelan coast, provides Chavez with a convenient enemy both geographically and politically.
Thus far the bully's threats have been gunboat hype and showboat hoopla. The question is, will bluster give way to bombs? An expansionary ideology propels Chavez, one that inflates his already explosive ego. He bills himself as the new Simon Bolivar, who will reunite the South American continent while cowing the United States and other imperialists -- like the Dutch.
Which is where Curacao enters Hugo's gunsights. Though the Dutch West Indies no longer formerly exists as a political entity, Holland retains responsibility for Curacao's defense and other foreign policy-related matters...
Recently, he accused the U.S. of planning an attack on Venezuelan using the base at Curacao...
A border war to recover allegedly lost territory is a classic tyrant's tactic. In 1982, the Argentine military regime saw its grip on power in Buenos Aires slipping, so it invaded the Malvinas Islands (the Falklands). However, that gambit failed when the Royal Navy and British Army counterattacked. Following a swift and embarrassing defeat, the Argentine dictatorship toppled.
An expanse of open sea separated the Falklands from Argentina. In a February 2007 article, StrategyPage.com concluded geographic proximity, oil power and military hardware give Venezuela a huge advantage over Dutch defenses in the Caribbean. StrategyPage said Venezuela could take the nearby islands, and the Dutch "lack the ability to retake the islands on their own should the "Greater Venezuela" rhetoric from the Venezuelan dictator turn out to be for real."..
To counterattack, however, would mean American leaders are willing to ignore the condemnations of Chavez's fellow anti-American sympathizers in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. Chavez, when he rattled sabers in 2007, knew President George W. Bush would respond vigorously to an actual attack. The cowboy would pull his gun. President Barack Obama, however, portrays himself as the anti-Bush. Does the desperate dictator see an opportunity emerging?...
I have always been a fan of former President Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy and I cannot comprehend why an American president would not wish to subscribe to such a mindset. But what would one expect coming an administration that is much more inclined to expound upon the doctrines of Marx and is probably completely ignorant of the Doctrine of Monroe?