Radical Son. A Generational Odyssey

   The David Horowitz book entitled: Reconforming our Universities is well described by Barbara Banner. What appears to elude her is an insight into the motivation of the author. This is not her failing, but was a consequence of the author who seemed reluctant to reveal what made him tick. He seemed quite exercised about the issue of leftist domination of college campuses, but denied us an understanding of what led to his conversion from a left wing firebrand to rightist activist. Perhaps he felt that he had already bared his soul in his memoir Radical Son, published 13 years previously. In that book, Horowitiz appeared to be suffering a midlife crisis. His newfound identity was elicited by progressive alienation from his extreme left-wing background, crowned by the realization that the left wing heroes, the Black Panthers, were more deserving of derision rather than adulation.
 
   A midlife crisis is a questioning of identity and self-confidence that can occur in middle-aged individuals. Characteristically it consists of a change in attitude and direction of previously held beliefs. Accompanying this transition of beliefs is recurrent depression, anger and rupturing of previously formed relationships. In Horowitz’s case, there were serious depressive episodes, dissolution of 3 marriages and a change in beliefs from left wing ideology to conservatism. Consequent to his midlife crisis was further alienation from his communist father. His devotion to leftist causes slowly unwound following the Khrushchev report on Stalin. Both he and his parents began to pull away from communism as a result of these revelations. More importantly, his disillusionment with the Black Panthers was the culminating event in his departure from the radical left. He came to realize that these heroes of the extreme left were sociopathic murderers and not merely the victims of a racist society. With their rejection he rejected the entire left wing ideology that produced them. As part of his midlife crisis he rejected all aspects of leftist ideology, reserving his most angry venom for American Universities. He accused them of fostering of affirmative action and promotion of social courses at the expense of more rigorous material. His most venomous charges were the exclusion of conservative faculty. He argued for a student bill of rights protecting the rights of co enervative students. When he accused the universities of promotion of leftist faculty and causes, the schools were non-pulsed and refused to rise for the Horowitz bait. They were apparently suspicious that these charges were not so much about them but were a manifestation of a psychologically burdened man, struggling with his own demons. His pre-occupation with American educational institutions is not explained in either book. Perhaps, his academic background, having received a master’s degree at Columbia University and his authorship of numerous books is an explanation.

    Like other great tragedies, the book ended with a denouement of sorts. He rediscovered his Jewish background and re-united with his family. He buried his mother next to his father. His first wife’s parents were buried there as well. His sister returned from Canada to take part in the burial ceremony. Thus he came to peace with his entire family. However, he remained separate from his leftist upbringing, adopting an ideology, which favored elitism, rather than sympathy for the downtrodden. In this respect, he denied that aspect of his Jewish background, which was rooted in the poor shtetles of Eastern Europe.

Posted by Arthur Banner

Reconforming Our Universities

   Is There a Crisis in Education Today? David Horowitz is a well-known activist and champion of academic freedom on college campuses. He is the author of the Academic Bill of Rights and a founder of Students for Academic Freedom. He maintains that the environment at liberal arts colleges and universities today is overwhelmingly liberal. Liberal administrators recruit liberal faculty who “indoctrinate” the students by presenting liberal political views as facts rather than opinions. Some encourage students to become activists for liberal issues. Horowitz lectures extensively on this subject, and his lectures are often met with demonstrations requiring campus police for protection. 

   Horowitz outlines the problem as he sees it in a recent book entitled “Reconforming our Universities. The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights” (Washington, D.C., Regency Publishing, Inc. 2010). He defines the problem and traces his attempt to formulate an Academic Bill of Rights for students. He aims to have this established in the mission and rules of the colleges and universities across the country. It is of note that in the 1960s Horowitz was a famous leftist radical, Marxist, and editor of “Ramparts” magazine of the New Left. In the 1970s he changed his political views and is now an ardent activist for conservative causes, particularly those related to higher education. 

   Horowitz begins his narrative by defining the problem. In the early days of the country, universities were communities of scholars well versed in Greek and Latin who taught the classics, literature and religion to students from the upper classes that were expected to become the future leaders. In the late 1800s the Industrial Revolution made it necessary to include science and engineering in curricula and to recruit faculty with expertise in these areas. Schools also broadened access to education to those who would be working in such fields, and campus life became diverse. With the Civil Rights and Equal Rights movements in the 1970s, colleges combined courses from different departments to create new fields of study such as “Women’s Studies’ and “American Studies”. These departments were to foster pluralism of ideas, but in fact many simply became centers for political activism. Then they became openly hostile to conservative ideas, regarding conservatives as reactionary, “religious”, “sexist”, and “racist”.

    Horowitz became concerned about the leftist migration of campus thought during speaking engagements in the 1980s and 90s. He found that campus politics of both students and professors was overwhelmingly liberal. He estimates that nationwide about 10% of university professors regard themselves as political activists rather than scholars. In 2003 he and his team documented political party registration of faculty members and administrators at 32 colleges who voted in primary elections. The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans was >10/1. In many campuses conservative students felt unrepresented and marginalized. Course content was liberal to the point of indoctrination in liberal politics, in Horowitz’s view. For example, at the University of California at Santa Cruz, he found a course on how to organize a revolution. He describes a course at the University of Arizona in which students were given credit for participating in political activity. The instructor provided a list of left-wing organizations for the students to join. Horowitz recounts another incident at the University of Colorado involving a student who was a veteran. The student was offended by an exam question ”Explain why George Bush is a war criminal”. The student answered instead why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal and received an F. This story traveled through the local media and details became murky, but Horowitz gives the story some credibility by the context in which it occurred. Some students described outright hostility from professors. An example is the Malhotra case at Georgia Tech University, which achieved notoriety in the media at the time. An honors student, Ruth Malhotra, was to attend a conservative conference in Washington D.C. She would miss one class and asked the professor what she should do to keep up with the lecture. The professor said that if she went to the conference she would fail the course. The incident went to the administration, which backed the professor. The student dropped the course.

    In 2003 Horowitz decided to take action against this unbalanced situation on the college campuses. He gathered a team of supporters, and they devised a strategy to make changes and bring back political balance on the campuses. They formulated an Academic Bill of Rights for students:
   1. Provide students with materials reflecting both sides of controversial issues.
   2. Do not present opinions as facts.
   3. Allow students to think for themselves.

   Horowitz devoted the next years to getting the Bill accepted by universities. He encountered resistance from both liberals and conservatives in the universities. At one of his invited talks at the University of Missouri in 2003 a professor offered students extra course credit if they protested against his talk. Speaking engagements to promote the Bill often provoked demonstrations. He approached state legislatures, but encountered hostility there also, particularly regarding SUNY. Questions were raised about whether the Bill implies that students have the right to dispute their grade, dictate course content, blackball faculty research, etc. Nevertheless, Horowitz has achieved successes over the years, notably by legislatures and university administrations in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The issue of academic freedom and balanced discussion and pluralism of ideas on campuses has become nationally publicized and recognized.

    Is this a solution without a problem, as one of Horowitz’s critics said, or is there something going on that requires urgent attention? As retired persons, we had the opportunity to audit courses from 2008-2016 at Bowdoin College, a small, highly respected liberal arts college in Maine. The students at that time were all Democrats. The faculty was scholars, and their political affiliations were not obvious in their courses or their lectures. The students were totally concerned with their courses and sports. Invited lecturers tended to be liberal, but one lecture by a general ended with a loud demonstration by students in support of Palestine, which was not the subject of the lecture. In 2013 the College and its president, Barry Mills, were attacked along with other small liberal arts colleges in a report by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. The report maintained that the administration and faculty at Bowdoin and the others promoted exclusively liberal ideas. The attack was vicious and hard to swallow, but some of their criticisms about the minimal presence of political conservatives in debates and invited lectures were taken seriously.

    Our experience as of 2016 resonates somewhat with what Horowitz describes, but not at all to the degree of severity that he advocates. After all, what is a “liberal arts” college? A liberal arts curriculum imparts a broad spectrum of knowledge and ideas to train students to think and form their own opinions about issues. A conservative curriculum stresses traditional values and cautions about innovation and questioning. Thus one would expect liberal arts colleges to have a progressive atmosphere. A pluralism of ideas should include conservative political views as well as progressive ones. Certainly recent events at some schools including Reed and Evergreen State colleges raise concern. Violent outbursts and personal attacks are unacceptable. But our experience suggests that awareness and understanding, rather than action and radical administrative change is what is needed to provide more balanced liberal/conservative debates on campuses. Where is William F. Buckley now that we need him?

Posted by Barbara Banner

Montana Voices Trailer

Chris's Run for Office, John, a proud father submits this post

Election Day. Election Day. As I woke this morning I ruminated on the last 10 months and my campaign. I’ve faced many challenges in my life: some by choice, some not. The decision to run for Missoula City Council was easy for me. The actual process was not as easy. It has been a steep learning curve not unlike pursuing a degree, being self employed, or raising a child on my own. But as I have learned over the years, most things that are worthwhile are not easy. Whether... or not I actually receive the most votes, I have won.
One of my main motivations for this Herculean effort was to demonstrate to my 9 year old daughter how we as individuals can make a positive impact in our world. Three weeks ago out of the blue she looked up at me and said that she was proud of me for running for Council. It was that moment that I realized that I had achieved my main goal. I had won.
One of the many daunting challenges was getting out and knocking on my neighbor’s doors. I met many, many lovely people. People with diverse points of view who shared them with me. Smart people with good ideas on how we can improve our neighborhood, our city, our world. People who are already doing the good work that makes Missoula unique. The result of doing this has helped me increase my sense of community. I feel stronger and less isolated. I have won.
By exposing myself and my life to public scrutiny I have been able to shed many fears and apprehensions. I have grown as a person. I have been able to examine myself and my relationships not only with people but with the world around me. I have won.
I have discovered new friends, rediscovered old friends, and developed new relationships beyond partisan boundaries. My campaign could not have come this far without the guidance, support, and wisdom of many folks. I am humbled and truly grateful for those who believe in me. When we work together amazing things can be realized. Missoula has won. We have won.

Posted by John Badgley

Meeting of the Minds, Oct 23, 2017, A Medically Facilitated Catastrophe

   At a recent Wise Guys meeting, the issue of the opioid epidemic was raised

 and some asserted that the epidemic could be attributed to the medical profession. I write this blog as a physician who was caught up in this medical mishap. I was initially fearful of prescribing opioids lest such efforts result in patient addiction, but then subsequently became equally fearful of discipline from my hospital for failing to adhere to logarithms and “standard practice” for controlling pain. The purpose of this blog is to explore the crosscurrents of American medical culture that gave rise to the opioid epidemic and the efforts to ameliorate the damage that was done by well meaning people.

   Physicians have traditionally been wary of prescribing narcotics for fear of inducing addiction. As a result narcotic prescriptions have been confined to short-term treatment of acute pain.  All this changed in the 1980’s and more so in the 1990’s, spurred by a letter published in 1980 in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The letter claimed that narcotic use as prescribed by physicians did not result in addiction. Despite the lack of corroborating evidence, the medical community accepted these conclusions since the letter originated from the Boston Collaborative Surveillance study from Boston University School of Medicine. The authors Jane Porter and Herschel Jick later claimed that they had no intention of furthering the use of narcotics for chronic pain. Nonetheless, the damage had been done. These impressions were then supported by a study published in 1986 in the Journal Pain by Dr.’s: Portenoy and Foley.  The article consisted of a review of 38 patients treated with opioids for chronic pain .The conclusion of the authors was that that there was no addiction potential by such treatment. This conclusion resonated with the New England Journal letter and thus supported the notion that chronic use of opiates does not lead to addiction.  Although the study was flawed In that there were no placebo controls, the medical community regarded the results as unassailable.

 Following these publications, a complex interaction between academic physicians, the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) and governmental agencies furthered the notion that narcotics were being underused, to the detriment of the suffering patients. The professional medical societies led the crusade and included the American Pain Foundation, the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain Society, which teamed up with the Pharmaceutical Companies to encourage narcotic use.

   The pharmaceutical industry has always sought to influence academic physicians by supporting conferences, paying for foreign conferences and providing a new physician’s first “doctor’s bag. Although it was not clearly delineated, the physicians returned the favor to Big Pharma by prescribing their products, either consciously or unconsciously. With the apparent support of academic physicians, governmental regulatory agents joined the effort to encourage opioid prescriptions.  The Federation of State Medical boards issued a policy to reassure doctors that they would not be disciplined if they prescribed even large doses of opiates. They went even further by encouraging boards to punish doctors for undertreating pain. Soon regulatory organizations joined the fray, which include The Joint Commission on Accreditation Of Health Care Organizations, and the Food and Drug Administration. Under the influence of governmental agencies, pain was proposed as the 5^th vital sign. It soon became required to question patients about pain and attempts to quantify pain were made, Patients were requested to choose an icon affixed to their hospital room walls, indicative of their level of pain. This number was then incorporated into the other vital sings, BP, P, temperature. It soon became inevitable, that opioid use would assume in a new role in the treatment of chronic pain particularly with oxycontin, an oral narcotic with a prolonged action.

   It soon became evident that efforts to promote use of opioids led to an opiate epidemic with profound consequences. On November 11, 2016, the CDC declared a prescription drug epidemic and laid its cause at the feet of doctors overprescribing opiates.  This finding led to some back peddling of regulatory agencies. That same year, JACHO denied a role in fermenting this problem and sought to promote counseling of those affected by drug addiction. State medical societies shifted from promoting opioid use to treatment for addiction. Naloxone was promoted for non-MD treatment of overdoses.  The FDA although approving oxycontin in 1995 and fentanyl in 1998, began to pull back, requiring warning labels on opiates and education for physicians. Large suits were brought against Purdue, the makers of oxyconten for inappropriately promoting opioid use.  The drug company switched to an abuse-deterrent formulation. Oxycontin originally contained a large dose of oxycodone. By crushing the tablet, addicted Individuals could obtain a large dose of the narcotic.  The newer formulation was much more difficult to crush and snort. The FDA although approving oxycontin in 1995 and fentanyl in 1998, began to pull back, requiring warning labels on opiates and education for physicians. As oxycontin became less available, its cost differential to heroin widened, and heroin became the choice of narcotics on the street, and what was an oxycontin epidemic became a heroin epidemic, sprinkled with fentanyl, a highly addictive and potent narcotic.

   We now find ourselves in the role of crisis managers. The medical community is presently in lock step with governmental agencies and the pharmaceutical industry to control the epidemic. Unlike previous epidemics of narcotic addition, which were confined to poor black neighborhoods, the latest epidemic now involves middle class white communities.  It is now a hot political issue. Donald Trump has demanded a new crusade against narcotic addiction, with assurance of seeming unlimited financial support. These issues are dealt with in an accessible way in a book written by Anna Lembke, Drug Dealer, and MD. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. The reader is referred to this book for a readable review of these issues.

Posted by Arthur Banner

A Korean Peace Treaty

   In 1951, the Korean War ended in bloody deadlock. . The Korean War grew out of border disputes between North and South Korea which were interpreted by many as a clash between democracy and dictatorial communism. Through the intrusion of foreign countries, what was a local disturbance was transformed into a wider dispute with millions of casualties on both sides.

  The war was followed by 3 years of negotiations, which like the war itself ended in stalemate. Although a truce was obtained, a peace treaty remained elusive. The world has been living with this situation ever since. After nearly 1 million deaths North Korea has sought some sort of meaning to the war. Not only did they not achieve their goal of unification of North and South but also the brutality of the regime and the absence of free elections has led many to question the very legitimacy of their government. In response, North Korea has developed nuclear weapons approaching parity with other nuclear powers.  This situation has resulted in a new cold war with North Korea and its Chinese and Russian backers and with the United States  and its allies as protagonists. The new reality cries out for a solution.

   The October 2, 2017 issue of Time Magazine contained an article summarizing the difficulties of convincing North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal. The article by Philip Bobbitt was based on a longer work referenced in the Time article available online at the Time Website. The article consisted of a series of impediments to a final solution:

   There is nothing the Unite States can do to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, since such a measure would rob them of their security.

   There is nothing the US can do for North Korea to accomplish the same end, for the same reason.

  There is nothing the international community can do regarding sanctions since it is only the threat of nuclear weapons that prevents regime change.

    After expressing these difficulties, the article suggested another option, which is inherently dangerous. I.e. a direct attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities. The author admitted that such an approach would invite a vengeful North Korean response including the use of nuclear weapons and possibly a worldwide war involving China and Russia.

   The article ended with a safer alternative, i.e. involvement of China to provide a nuclear guarantee to Korea to defend its existence and governmental legitimacy. The advantage to China would be that it could assume the role of a world player and hence raise its own prestige.  With the threat from the United States removed, North Korea might see itself clear to reducing its nuclear arsenal. The problem with this solution is resistance by the North Koreans who are burdened by the weight of memory of an endless and senseless civil war, consequent to foreign involvement.

    Other analysts have contributed suggestions for further solutions.

 On Sept 7.2017 John Badgley proposed  how this situation might be remedied. He suggested that what the North desired was leverage in dealing with the rest of the world. A solution to the problem might be to pick up where the world left off in 1953 and to obtain a peace treaty that would satisfy all sides. He suggested referral to the United Nations Security Council. Clearly we must deal with unfinished business.

 

   In conclusion, when truces are instituted to halt conflicts, peace treaties usual follow to settle political differences. This was never achieved for the Korean War and we are left with tragic memories.  It may be the “forgotten war” to us but the North Korean people have not forgotten it. In order to bring closure, a peace treaty between the combatants is required.  However, there is no clear pathway for this desired outcome other than to accept Korea as a nuclear power. Furthermore one needs to abandon demonization of the North Norean people and to recognize our shared humanity. Thus one must recognize the wishes and yearnings of the North Korean people. Like all people recovering from war they wish to obtain meaning for their suffering.  In addition they desire aid to reverse the devastating effects of sanctions from the United States whom they blame for their economic suffering. Many find meaning in their leader Kim Jong Un, who demands respect from his people and from the rest of the world, based on military might. For this reason, it is essential for them to retain their nuclear threat. 

   We have lived through this before in our dealings with the Soviet Union. Mutual assured destruction seems insane but is actually world stabilizing and may be required for a peace treaty.  Since the war was fought with the consent of the United Nations referral to the United Nations Security Council seems feasible and advisable. Although Kim Jong Un has been demonized and has been declared psychotic, there is little evidence for this.  Mutual provocations have been proven to have limited utility. It is time to achieve the peace that we have all yearned for.

 Posted  by Arthur Banner

The Shooters by John Badgley, 1994

We were just pulling up to the cattle guard when it went off. KAAABOOOM......  "Son of a bitch, he's ripped it this year,” Denny Dupuis shouted to Alice as the whole bunch leaped out of  their truck cabs to watch the huge dusty cloud rise from the gaping hole next to the fence. A half-mile distant they could just make out Stub Gillin doing a little dance on his weathered porch, turning in a circle, then leaning out to get a better view.  Ma Gillin raced out from the kitchen to stand beside him, then both pointed towards us.  You could just barely hear her chewing on him.  "Stub, you're just a big kid.  You'll never grow up, why you could have hurt them guys."

Alice and I lined up behind the cattle guard along with the dozen others, all of us giving ol' Stub the finger as a kind of salute for startin' off the 22nd Annual Shooters Convention right.  Frank Morrison and his new wife Beth stood on either side of us, with Beth next to Alice while Big Frank poked his middle finger up towards the sky. Big Frank was Head Shooter this year, and his was the lead truck that damn near got blown off the road.  This was the biggest crew ever since the Convention began right after the Korean War.  Frank came 400 miles, all the way from Hamilton up the Bitterroot, while the rest of us were closer.

Take ol' Ferd McCullough who was standing just beyond Big Frank. Ferd, he drove down from Lewistown which was just over three hours away.  His current woman, Elsie, was covering her eyes against the dust and sun and laughin' to beat all shit, pounding on Ferd's shoulder while her  big butt jiggle adjacent to his narrow ass.  Every year when they showed up I got  the same wierd image of them two makin' it with her cheeks hangin' down on either side while she pivoted astride him, revolving around his dick like a fat hen gettin' comfortable on her nest.  I could just see her head back, eyes squeezed shut and her mouth wide open to catch enough air, while poor is Ferd lying there, trying to keep it up and not lose interest in the action. A guy's mind does funny things, at least mine does, probably because I'm more Indian than White and see things different.

Anyway, I was glad to see Ham Michaels from Miles City back again with his buddy, Pete Ramirez.  Ham and Pete were in the First Cav during the Vietnam war and joined the national guard when they returned. They were real handy with every weapon in the armory, and always where kiddin' the two fat guys next to them, Art and Dave Little from Forsyth, who made the Okinawa landing as kids just out of high school.  Art and Dave farmed their Dad's patch of sugar beets along the Yellowstone, and kept pretty much to themselves and never married; they lived a hell of lot different lives than Ham and Pete who crowded the Antler Bar most any night in the week, pickin' up whoever  was lonely and available to heat up their beds during the long winter nights. Clootchs, that's who they were always looking for, but no women in their right mind would hang her bra on their bedpost more than a few nights in a row. As Alice put it, they were the funkiest cowboys in Montana. Just washing their sheets was a major action. 

Posted by John Badgley