What do you know about Vietnam?

Dr. Michael Brooks is my guest tomorrow at 8a to talk about a free course being offered through BGSU online. http://www.wspd.com/onair/fred-695/free-vietnam-war-history-class-12365662/ Sounds like it could be really interesting, Check out the link and listen in.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I'll be interested to hear your interview because--although it seems like a benign enough concept--these types of courses have caused much controversy in academia.

What Dr. Brooks (the frequently condesending "historymike" from Toledotalk.com) is doing is called a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). The concept was made popular by the Khan Academy and was heavily financed by the Gates Foundation.

There is an argument within universities as to whether or not they should be involved with offering MOOCs and what impact MOOCs have on the relationship with the institutions' paying students. It's a bit like how we feel when a company we have had a long-term customer relationship with offers a special deal only to new customers.

For anyone who signs up for this course, you should go into it knowing:

1. Dr. Brooks is not an expert on the Vietnam War; in fact, no where in his own descriptions of his background is there a reference to studying that War. (An example: http://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/history/faculty-and-staff/michael-...)

2. Dr. Brooks is very liberal and anything I have read by him is filled with his agenda.

3. Dr. Brooks frequently portrays himself as a "professor." He is an "instructor" at BGSU. I am of the opinion that this is neither here nor there for most of us, but apparently he thinks it's important enough to have been deceptive about it in the past.

credentials here. Interesting.

Did you read point #3? I'm not the one putting importance on credentials.

If you are referring to Dr. Brooks not being a Vietnam War expert, I'd have to admit that some sort of credence about one's knowledge on a subject they are teaching is pertinent. For example, I'm silly enough to want my surgeon to have some quantifiable knowledge about surgery.

Credentials are important to me as well.

My credentials are as follows: BA in history, MA in US history, PhD in History with concentrations in Modern Europe, Latin America, epidemiological history, and European Expansion.

Now, if I were teaching "Geology of Vietnamese Landforms" or "Syntax of Vietnamese Language" or "21st Century Vietnamese Marketing Principles," you would have a point, GALT.

But I am not: I am teaching an undergraduate-level course on the history of the Vietnam War, for which my course work, teaching experience, and outside research make me well-qualified.

Oh, and one of the reasons I have teaching competencies in many different fields is that universities have been slashing humanities budgets for decades. Other than at elite institutions, very few colleges and universities can afford to pay a bunch of narrow specialists to teach a small range of classes directly related to their research. This may have been the case from the 1950s until the 1970s, but to get hired anywhere these days you have to be able to competently teach a wide range of fields.

Am I an "expert" in the history of the Vietnam War? This depends on how you define "expert." I have not published monographs or peer-reviewed articles on the topic, nor do I intend to any time soon (I do not speak Vietnamese, and I have not encountered a Vietnam War topic that particularly interests me that I would want to spend a year or so researching). However, I have read widely on the topic, I have specific graduate training related to the topic, I have taught the class many times, and I am comfortable in front of a class discussing many different aspects of the war.

You might as well give up, you're a goddamned atheist commie pinko socialist liberal elite schoolteacher who gets paid outrageous amounts of money for nine months work, according to the right-wingers here, HM.

said that sounds like Obama? The goddamned atheist commie pinko socialist progressive liberal elite part.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

It's all about Obama with you, isn't it? We all know your outrage is just the subconscious expression of your being in denial about your inner cravings for his big black anatomy, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Hey DTOM, is this your "ride"? http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Vxcpo.jpeg

This is your second reference to a penis. I' am not gay, so you don't have to share YOUR inner cravings for your Obama's big black anatomy. You can keep it for yourself, since you already know how big it is. Here we go with another scandal, Ac blows Obama under the desk, and they talked about Monica..Hmmm..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I bet some people agree with about 90% of that trailer pic. Correction it's more than 2 communists.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

You know Galt, the thought occurs to me that if I actually believed that HistoryMike was a condescending moonbat whose knowledge of the Vietnam war wouldn't crowd the head of a pin, I'd sign up for the class and contribute a few essays that illustrated the instructor's lack of knowledge and political agenda.

Since I don't, I have no worries here. But you, on the other hand, have been presented a golden opportunity to defeat your enemy in a public venue. If you're able, that is.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

LOL - you have an awful lot of animosity toward someone who has not posted on this site in at least two years, GALT. Whassa matter, did we get into a pissing contest in 2011 that I have forgotten?

To address your points individually:

1. I have never claimed to be an "expert" on the Vietnam War, though I have taken a half-dozen graduate courses that examined the topic in depth.. I have, however, taught the course many times, and I am certainly qualified to teach a survey-level Vietnam War course for non-majors.

2. "Very liberal" - too funny, unless by "very liberal" you mean "fiscal conservative and social moderate." Of course, to some folks on the far right Bush II, McCain, and Romney were "liberal." Also, even if I were a "liberal" by any definition, why does that even matter? Judge the merits of the class on their own, not on the particular political views of the instructor.

3. When I self-describe I normally say "I teach at institution XYZ" or I state my position. One can be a professor (small letter P) without being a Professor (capital letter P): the first is a general descriptor for someone who teaches at a university, while the second is a specific academic rank.

4. Also, avoid confusing research interests with teaching competencies: these are two different items, though sometimes research and teaching interests line up in serendipitous ways.

4. Show me one example where I have been "deceptive" about my position. I absolutely f**king dare you to waste your time trying to locate where I have claimed to be something I am not.

5. I am offering the MOOC through the Canvas Learn Network. The class is free, and I do not make a dime from it. My motives are altruistic, and I currently have over 600 students from 18 countries signed up. Admittedly I get a line on my CV from the experience, but I will probably spend 150 hours on this project the next six weeks with zero monetary gain. I may develop a research article from the experience I learn, but guess what? No one pays for those, and this is just another CV line.

Bravo, your reply sets the record straight for those who were in question.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Thank you, DTOM!

It looks like Dr. Brooks (historymike) had to do some backtracking on his initial advertising for this Vietnam course. Notice that Fredericktheentertainer's post said it was a "free course being offered through BGSU online." Where do you suppose he got the "BGSU" part?

I noticed that historymike edited his initial post about the class on Toledotalk.com by changing the BGSU reference to the Canvas Learn Network.

Also, I listened again to the podcast and Dr. Brooks never attempted to correct Fred LeFebvre when he asked what BGSU was getting out of this. Dr. Brooks said that the MOOC course gives BGSU a little exposure.

So which is it?

Is the class being offered through BGSU (which is what historymike's initial reference was)?


Is the class being offered through the Canvas Learn Network and is being taught by someone who teaches at BGSU?

If it's the latter, I would think that BGSU would be very interested in getting that cleared-up because--as has been mentioned on this blog--MOOCs are a controversial subject on college campuses.

And to those who would say, "Who cares, what's the difference," I would make the analogy that if you work at XYZ company, but have another job on the side--would you advertise yourself when doing the side work as representing your full-time employer? (Not to mention the added weight that implying BGSU is sponsoring this gives to the participants.) Shame on Dr. Brooks.


1. You must have reading problems, or you are being willfully stupid. On the Toledo Talk post I clearly identified the course as being on the Canvas Learn Network. Read again. Also, here is the edit history on the Toledo Talk post. I edited as I went along, making four edits in a little more than 9 minutes on Thursday, May 15. Nice try, though,in trying to create controversy where none exists, sir.

2. I also mentioned in this thread that BGSU has signed a memorandum of understanding with Canvas permitting its instructors to teach there and use the BGSU logo. Again, reading must be difficult for you, so I will help you out.

3. As far as Fred: he got the "BGSU part" because the link provided has the BGSU logo. You know, the one you can access via the original post? Of course, that would mean doing a little reading, which appears to be problematic for you.

4. If I failed to "correct" Fred during the interview, it was because this is an incredibly moot point to listeners who just want to learn about a free class. Also, I try to be polite, since my mama taught me well. :-)

So I guess the answer to my question is--regardless of the previous implications--this is not a course offered through BGSU.

You are correct. I applaud you.

Thank you! I now know how Woodward and Bernstein must have felt. (A possible subject for your next MOOC?!!)

Here's the podcast http://www.wspd.com/media/podcast-fred-lefebvre-podcasts-Fred/519-dr-mic...

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Thanks Fred. I missed the broadcast, but I just finished listening to the podcast. That was a good interview.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

What, Our Mr. Brooks is NOT an expert on the Vietnam War? He seems to be an expert on any other subject.

Years ago I read some of what was posted at Toledo Talk every week. Now it's down to about once every couple months. Usually you can find one interesting item. But I never posted there for several reasons.

For one thing JR, whoever that is, had a kind of "palace guard". Someone on this site once asked who "JR" was in real life, and one of his faithful followers threw a fit that anybody would ask that question. A friend of mine [who DID post there occasionally] asked the same queston AT TT, to which "JR" answered something like he had been identified in the Blade. I thought then that that was weird - as well as not true. The VERY FIRST blogger in this area, who named his blog-with-comment-area "Toledo Talks" - THAT guy was identified - very quickly, I might add - by the Toledo Blade. I had read that article. I thought it was not very honest for another blogger (appearing to hope to capitalize on the original "Toledo Talks") to basically steal the name (dropping the "s") And JR was very cagey about revealing his identity. "Toledo Talks", by the way had no IP identifying capability, and hackers got on there and basically destroyed his website. But THAT guy was the pioneer in Lucas County blogging, not subsequent bloggers, who basically built on what he originated.

Which brings me to HistoryMike.... who never particularly made sense to me - nor to my friend, although the friend kept posting there for a couple years. I felt History Mike was just a little TOO self-important, and he also would jump all over any poster who argued with JR... again the "palace guard".

Anyway - LOVE the "Our Mr. Brooks" reference - which kind of dates you into my elderly age group. Good one.

Methinks thou art paranoid. There is no "palace guard," formal or informal. If you think so, perhaps lithium might help with the delusions from which you seem to be afflicted.

As far as jr: yes, he was profiled in the Blade some years ago. Just because you lack the skills to find the article does not mean it does not exist. Also, can you blame jr for wanting to keep his private life private? With the likes of some of the unhinged people on local message boards, I sure do not blame him for staying out off the radar of lunatics.

Be careful Mike,

She will accuse you of being others on here posting under a different username.

That's just what she does when you challenge her.


I'm curious Galt, what makes an expert? Is it someone who studies the subject, lived the subject? Does fighting a war make you an expert in war? Does doing extensive research make you an expert? What are you an expert in? Dock and I have a saying "an expert is anyone who lives more than 50 miles away.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

My point exactly. Being an "expert" is difficult to define. However, having done research and having written a juried article, book, etc. on the subject might qualify for that title. Also, being recognized by other individuals knowledgeable of the subject might also quantify recognition as an expert.

By any of our definitions, Dr. Brooks is not an expert.

One should value the source of information depending upon what the provider of that information can prove they know. My mother was one of the most knowledgeable people I have ever known, and she never finished high school. But, she read, and read, and read; all of the classics and so much more. "Credentials" can be obtained in many ways.

I doubt there is a Bubbler on here who reads as much as GZ. Yet, he doesn't have credentials. I'm not trying to be an ass I'm just pointing that out.

I have to read a book a quarter for my job, From my discussions with GZ, he reads what he does because he enjoys it.


of the facts he gleans from the things he reads, if he is such a well-read person? Mostly he posts the same old, same old, negative, doom and gloom, most often without any factual bases.
I stand by my statements that GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass most often merely bloviates vacuous opinions. As Clara Peller used to say, "Where's the beef?"

Speaking about glasses, is yours' near empty?

It took me a while to figure GZ out.

He is doom and gloom and has called me a blind Neo-Con on more than one occasion. Also he has derailed me and others for moving out of Toledo.

What I've learned is he does employ logical thinking and thus he doesn't feel in many cases he needs to cite facts. He believes the natural order of things will work out. This is because he approaches issues on a macro level.


First of all, citation takes time and effort.
Secondly, what you call GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass's "logic," I see as illogical. One way to put me in my place, would be for him to post facts. You've done that, Mikey. He usually DOESN'T!
Third, my suspicion is that GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass does not cite facts, because facts get in the way of his opinions.

GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass:
No credentials.
No facts.
Only vacuous opinions.

GZ I believe thinks all the mass shooters in recent history have been "LLLLiberals".

Didn't I just see some REPUBLICAN candidate for office in the news who made a similar statement and is now trying like hell to walk it back after having had multiple requests to back his ASSertion up?

So in other words GZ already meets one requirement for REPUBLICAN candidacy. He says all this shit but won't back any of it up with facts or citations because he's automatically right and reality is wrong. A trait he shares with fellow Republican and noted SB Teatard DTOM, another person who believes whatever they read or hear from their choice of right-wing echo chamber sites is correct and everything else is a VAST LLLLIBERAL MAINSTREAM MSM MEDIA CONSPIRACY because reality doesn't agree with how they think the world is.

or a Teatard as you call it. I will tell you that I do accept some of the Republican and or tea party beliefs over any Progressive Democrat. p.s. Have you ever heard of a Constitutional Independent, you have now, and that is in the terms of an Originalists with some textualism. I added the independent part to support either side that holds those truths to be self evident.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Yes, fighting a war makes you an expert in war. A Vietnam Vet I worked with once sat down at my table at lunch one day, and for a forgotten reason (this would have been in 1990) we started discussing his service in Vietnam. He told me stories about what our troops experienced over there, that I had never heard before, and have never heard since. And I wouldn't dream of going into any of it here. Nobody at this site would believe it anyway.

Again, yes, fighting a war makes you an expert in war.

This Professor would qualify as a Vietnam "expert" by my definition:


Yes, Gary R. Hess is an internationally-renowned expert on policy history, especially as related to the Cold War era. He retired several years ago, but his work is still regularly cited by scholars. One of the best books on the major historical debates regarding the Vietnam War is his Vietnam: Explaining America's Lost War, which I used in a graduate course I taught.

I went to see Mr. Khan (who started the academy referenced in the post) when he was recently at UT. MOOC's are an interesting concept, but I can't see what the benefits are for institutions like BGSU and UT to offer them. The return on investment in the way of added tuition-paying students has to be low (how many free food samples that you eat at Anderson's do you actually end up buying?).

I listened to the interview and would be curious to know what the costs are associated with offering the course and who is covering those. If it's a grant through a private foundation that would be one thing; but if BGSU is footing the bill for the technology and instructional costs, as a taxpayer I'm not thrilled about educating the world on my dime. I've got my own tuition responsibilities.

As for the quality of the course experience--it is what it is. According to the provided link, Brooks is a journeyman instructor (taught at every local institution). I'm sure he needs some summer work so this helps him. He said students will be required to answer essay questions. With one student assistant and 600 students--substantial feedback isn't probable.

The thing that worries me about MOOC's is that I believe this is the first step to 1) putting more college-level learning online and 2) forcing college classes to have huge enrollments. If I were Brooks' dean, I would say, "You were able to handle 600 students in your MOOC--I'm increasing the enrollment caps on your for-credit courses."


Thank you for some well-reasoned analysis in a thread with some posters who must have some deep-seated anger issues. To answer your questions individually:

1: I teach at BGSU, but the Canvas Learn Network is the entity sponsoring the course. BGSU has a memorandum of understanding with Canvas that allows its instructors to teach courses on CLN. The upside currently for BGSU is that if students like the course they may have a positive association and enroll in for-credit classes at the university. The university also gets its logo advertised free of charge.

2. Canvas bears the server and infrastructure costs. There is no cost for my labor, as I designed the course and am teaching on my own dime. The motives for Canvas are several:

a) Their main business is their learning management system (LMS) and everyone who uses the LMS becomes a potential advocate for the system: "Oh, yeah, I took a class on that system and it worked great."

b) If MOOCs do indeed become a significant part of higher education, Canvas will be well positioned to profit from the trend, both in terms of personnel and logistics.

c) Canvas gets email addresses of actual human beings who have significant interest in online learning. There is considerable value to this information, though I do not know if they will use the data for their own internal marketing or work with external marketing firms. Still, coughing up an email address is a small price for a free class, and a person could always create a Yahoo! email if privacy is a concern.

3. "He needs the work" : I am not being paid, and I am teaching the class solely for the experience of teaching a large MOOC. I make decent money as it is, I have a few weeks between Spring and Summer sessions, and I am just putting the time to productive use.

4. 600 students are signed up, but many will not be completing the course work. A colleague who recently taught a MOOC estimated that 80 percent are just lurkers and casual participants, watching lectures and surfing the site. The actual student work to grade will probably be somewhere between 70 and 100 students, which is very manageable.

5. Your concerns about MOOCs and enrollment are indeed valid. MOOCs could conceivably cannibalize traditional face-to-face education. My experiment here does have a somewhat self-protective component in that I do not want to be unprepared if MOOCs do emerge as a dominant form of course delivery. That being said, MOOCs also have the potential to deliver education to anyone on the planet with an Internet connection, so a university like BGSU could tap into an almost infinitely larger pool of potential students that those it currently draws from.

thank you for posting your thoughts here, refreshing to see you stop by - tip of the hat to the former pizza man.

BTW apparently Galt does not know you well. I am a fan of Galt's work here, but you are not the person he is suggesting - I know. Congrats on your course - if I had more time right now I would take it being a fan of Asian history and almost making it a minor.

Thanks for the kind words. I have not spent much time in online forums the past year or so, mostly due to an increased workload (I wear several hats at BGSU, and I just published a book on the Ku Klux Klan in Wood County that ate up most of my free time the past year).

Hope you are doing well!

From what I've been able to determine here, the only criteria for being an expert is the firm belief that one is one, along with the dishing out of the usual personal attacks. I'm still waiting for the shouting that should appear pretty soon, too.

Gman you are a paranoid schizophrenic. I am giving my expert opinion on this loser.

How did I do?


One never learns things so well as when one has to teach that material to others. Having answered many tough, insightful questions from young teenagers, I can only imagine how prepared one has to be to field questions from young adults. Kudos, History Mike!

Tough questions, from high school graduates who have to read at a third grade level to get a diploma? Gimme a break.

Go into a TPS school sometime.
I promise you that you'll be safe, even if you're not "packing."

Graduation Tests are available on-line. Try them sometime. Would you pass?
[Hint: They are all well above a 3rd grade level]

LMAO...just can't stop. Just so ignorant!

You MIGHT be right about whether or not I would pass the test. History, e.g., has been re-written to the extent I doubt I would pass. The same with science, humanities, and ethics. Math, I'm not sure about, either. When I was in high school, 2+2 equaled 4 . I think 2+ 2 still equals 4, unless "The State" decrees 2+2 NOW equals 5. That was what a friend of mine(Syme)told me. But as we all know, "Mr. Syme no longer exists". BTW, I never said the tests were written in third grade levels, one needs to read at third grade levels or better in order to graduate according to TPS rules.

In order to graduate, students in all Ohio public schools must pass ALL PARTS of the statewide standardized tests, all of which are written at a high school level. BTW -- ALL math problems are written as what we used to call "story problems". Students can no longer "pass" a standardized math test merely by calculating a listing of problems. Without good reading skills, well ABOVE the 3rd grade level, one cannot figure out the calculations to do in order to get the right answers.
Keep up with the times, GZ.

BTW -- 2+2 still equals 4 in the base 10. But the binary base is used for most, if not all, computer systems. So, knowing more than one base is part of competing in the modern global economy.

Getting a diploma in 2014 is HARDER than it was years ago. As just one quick example, in the "good(?) old days," most of my contemporaries graduated with many less credits than are now the minimum required, and many graduated without ever taking anything but basic math courses. Now, every "regular education" student who graduates must have passed courses in both algebra and geometry at least.
And, nationwide, the high school graduation rate is at an all-time high. We all like to think that things were more demanding when we were in school. That just isn't factual!

So sorry to add facts to this discussion, G-MAN. I know how much ideologues hate facts!
Please, please, please, G-MAN, don't ever let facts get in the way of your opinions!

Dale I agree with you, the other issue is how hard the test is.

The comedian Louis CK famously posted a pic his daughter had that she was studying for a Common Core test. People got up in arms about his posting it because they said it was "easy to figure out" and he should not complain. The problem is his daughter is in third grade and while that question is easy for someone like me it's extremely difficult to an 8 year old.

Common core should be our report card to fix curriculum issues not determine advancement.


Assembly take the OGT and have their scores publicly posted!
Standards for graduating from any high school in Ohio have never been higher. And, you're right, Mikey, even tests for lower grades are quite challenging.

Well Dale what is happening with Common Core is just one example of many of how the private industry can implement an idea efficiently and government copies it and operates the same process inefficiently.

Standardization is done in every industry. It's used to identify trends good and bad. Corrections can be made and when there's efficiencies identified it can be copied and applied across the board.

Common Core is at it's heart the public school systems use of standardization to improve education. The problem is the trends are not used to correct problems within the curriculum but rather to hold the child from advancing. The problem may be across the board yet it's the individuals who suffer the consequences and the fault as viewed upon them when it may be a text book is lacking, a teacher is at fault, or a school administration policy decision is affecting students adversely.

Some private schools have been using a system like Common Core effectively for years but it never hindered advancement. It just gave teachers and administrators a chance to evaluate the curriculum and identify weaknesses and strengths and thus the ability to make adjustments. What it didn't do was hole a student at fault when they didn't know a subject. That was the job of the grading system, and rightfully so. The grading system we use has been used for 100+ years to determine advancement and is tried and true.


The same grading system that lets kids now have a GPA over 10.0.


Oh and don't forget about asshole teachers and administrators that change the grades and the system to fuck over dozens of kids so their own kid can be #1


I don't agree with all the shit behind standardized testing, but it does act somewhat as a check and balance to this sort of bullshit too.

Well once again you're giving examples of corruption.

Also, changes to the grading system are easier to implement because you only need convince the school board or the school administration. Changing a state run standardized test is much more difficult.


I was always good at two subjects: Math and History (include Social Studies). All other subjects were difficult for me.

In high school they implemented a change to the Math curriculum called Integrated Algebra. The concept was to teach students real life scenarios to teach math. I did it but I didn't find it very challenging. I did very well on the SAT/ACT. Fast forward to my arrival at UT.

They had us take placement tests to judge our skills in mathetics and logical thinking. After which two of us were pulled aside. Though our SAT/ACT scores were well enough to get into the College of Engineering we scored low on the placement exam. The other student was not from Ohio nor a private school. What we did have in common, we both were in Integrated Algebra at different schools. I did very well in my calculus and physics in college but I had to retake Algebra my freshman year. Was it because I was not a good student, did I have a bad teacher, or did the curriculum let me down?


Why do you keep tap dancing around the point, Pertcheck? Student testing should be used for quality control and assurance, not for a student's individual achievement and promotion.

Consider that little gem over on Lawrence Avenue, Pickett Elementary. Over half the students can't read and if history serves, will never learn to read. Don't you think a change in teaching techniques is warranted? Of course, that would insinuate that the school teachers were partly to blame for this situation - and we can't have that, can we? No, it must be the students, the parents, the building, the police, the broken homes, the parents, the administration, the students, the parents - anyone but the people doing the work.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

FYI -- Pickett school WAS reorganized several years ago. At that time all of the staff who wanted to stay there had to reapply. Most were not returned to Pickett. And, why do you only mention Pickett School? How does Grove Patterson do on standardized tests? Teachers in both of these schools are TPS teachers. And, they are all members of the Toledo Federation of Teachers.

So, in MJ-land, on average, the students entering Pickett face the same challenges as those entering other TPS schools, and the same challenges as those entering non-urban and private schools.
My best reply is real life and factual. I know how ideologues HATE facts, so I apologize ahead of time. A now-retired teacher started out at a central city TPS school which is now closed. He then taught for a couple of years in Washington Local. He taught most of his career in the Ottawa Hills Schools. I will paraphrase what he related to me about 15 years ago. "I started out being a very bad teacher. My students in TPS were among the lowest scoring students on standardized tests. When I moved to Washington Local, I must have improved my teaching skills, because my students had much higher test scores, than did my TPS students. Now that I am teaching in the Ottawa Hills Schools, I'm one of the best teachers in Ohio. WOW! Did I improve!!"
Meanwhile, we keep electing people into state government who slash funding to traditional public schools, siphon off hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to mostly failing charter schools (and the "for profit" charters are statistically much worse than the non-profit charters), and expect the traditional public schools to improve.
Guess what! Despite all of these challenges, by statistical measures, traditional public schools HAVE improved. So, our state elected officials, in their infinite wisdom, keep changing the curriculum, changing the standardized tests, and changing they manner in which the scores are reported. I wonder why?

The point with Pickett is that reorganization should not have been necessary. The students weren't learning, indicating that change was needed. How many years were those teachers at Pickett allowed to grossly underperform before they became part of this reorganization?

Why do I mention Pickett? It's obvious. Pickett is the epitome of a dysfunctional public school. It has to improve; it can't get any worse.

As far as the story your friend relates, it comes as no surprise. The first year you spend on the job, any job, is not going to be the best work you've ever done. For the first three years, you're learning. After three years, you may still learn but you've got the best part of your position down pat, and you don't have much more to learn about it. School teachers are no exception to this.

As for funding, the State and Federal government have no business funding education. Education should be funded locally so as to avoid the 'handling charge' implemented by the government.

My objection to traditional public schools is that they aren't traditional. If public schools have actually improved as much as you imply, then the schools are no longer traditional. They have changed significantly, and will continue to change. This is perfectly fine until the number of students who fail to learn to read is revealed, and the people who are directly responsible for the education deny all responsibility, coupled with excuses about being underfunded. 'If only we had the money we are supposed to have.' is the mantra, and the implication is that all these students would somehow be able to read if the taxpayers hadn't been so mean spirited and defeated the last tax increase. And that just isn't so.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

And while I'm at it, here is a fact for you, Pertcheck.

Issue 3: 4,357 versus 4,864.

You lose!

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

My grandchildren in the Toledo area live in the Swanton School district. The Swanton levy passed.

MJ -- Take joy in the failure of local school levies here in America! Apparently, you are among those unpatriotic Americans who just don't get the connection between healthy traditional public schools and maintaining a strong America long into the future. Are the schools in China, Japan, Germany, India, Finland, or any other leading or growing economic power begging for monetary support? Or maybe you just don't care.

Dale, MJ and the other Republicans/TeaTards/"LLLibertarians" here practice Compassionate Conservatism, that is, "Oh dear, Mr. Millionaire is being taxed too much, let's give him a tax cut!" but for everyone else, "I'VE GOT MINE SO FUCK YOU!"

The only people who should get help from the government/social safety net/whatever are THEM. If they don't have kids in school then fuck the schools and fuck all the kids. If they don't have a need to drive then fuck the roads, or fuck all the roads except the specific ones they use on a regular basis. They arm themselves heavily so they feel secure in saying fuck the police!" If they have insurance then it's "fuck the uninsured!" If they don't have insurance then "keep gubmint hands off my Medicare/Medicaid!" Fuck gay marriage because they're not gay (riiiiiiight,,,). Any time there is a natural disaster (flood, tornado, whatever) it's all "fuck those people, they shouldn't build/live there", but you can bet that if they are affected they'll be first in line for aid and FEMA checks.

The American right-wing is composed entirely of selfish assholes that focus only on immediate and short-term needs and goals instead of the long ball. Hence all the denial over climate change, energy security, and even the shifting demographics of America and the direction of their party. Anyone who thinks in terms of long-term consequences, long-term profitability, long-term anything is a dangerous capital-L Liberal. They can't even claim any kind of credibility on long-term debt thinking, as they blew it all the minute Chimpy got tax cuts passed that killed the chance of having had the debt paid off by now had we continued on the track we were on when Clinton left office.

should only homeowners pay for school levies, as well as other levies. Why can't it be across the board?

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"Why should only homeowners pay for school levies as well as all other levies? Why can't it be across the board?:

So what you're saying is that commercial and rental properties are not taxed and that renters' rent money doesn't ultimately go towards the property tax that the levy comes from.


Seriously, get the fuck off this board, you're too dumb to be on the Internet.

mention commercial and rental properties specially. You have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions while substituting your words and thoughts. You Progressive Democrats have the same traits.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

You specifically said, and I quote, "why should only homeowners pay for school levies".

Stop trying to weasel and backpedal your way out of this. You said ONLY HOMEOWNERS, you meant ONLY HOMEOWNERS, of course you didn't specifically mention commercial and rental properties because you said ONLY HOMEOWNERS PAY FOR SCHOOL LEVIES, which were your own words. ONLY ONLY ONLY HOMEOWNERS PAY FOR SCHOOL LEVIES. ONLY ONLY. ONLY.

Take ownership of your fuck-up like a real man instead of blaming me for spotting it and calling you out on it, you ginormous whiny pussy.

Don't put your labels on other people. That's who you are, take ownership and be a real Progressive Democrat.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Stop changing the subject, you pussy. ONLY HOMEOWNERS PAY FOR SCHOOL LEVIES, you said, now you're embarrassed and pissed off at being called out on it and having your ignorance demonstrated to the world.

his cronies who dominate the Ohio General Assembly. They have:
LOWERED the statewide progressive income tax.
RAISED the regressive statewide sales tax.
SLASHED funding to local schools and other local governments.
PASSED ON costs to local taxpayers. This creates,
GREAT INEQUALITIES between wealthier communities and poorer communities in Ohio in the financial well-being of local schools and other local government functions (roads, police and fire protection, etc.)

Patriotism and loyalty to the citizens of their state are absent in their thinking. Ohio's Republican leaders have put perpetuating themselves in office and touting Governor Sick for POTUS ahead of what is best for the most citizens of this state. THAT'S the issue! Politics wins over Ohio's future.

What do you mean, I just don't care. Of course I care. I get so sick and tired of the constant whining it's hard for me to sleep nights for the racket they make.

Are the schools in China, Japan, Germany, India, Finland, or any other leading or growing economic power begging for monetary support?

If you actually knew anything about the school systems in China or Japan, you wouldn't be asking this question. Look, China is a dictatorship without regard for civil rights. Japan is a few steps removed from that, but we're talking short steps here. Many of these countries simply take what they want. For instance, if you lived in China you'd be warehoused by now, because they need that wealth you've accumulated to pay for new schools and other government projects that you don't even dare ask about.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Due to recent developments on the local message board SwampBubbles coinciding with the publication of The Ku Klux Klan in Wood County, Ohio by Michael E. Brooks, PhD, an emergency meeting of the Toledo Talk Praetoriani was convened at the Star Of India on Reynolds Road.

If your firewall is active and has been upgraded to protect against the pseudo-root kit trojan aitchonebee, you may also check the link here: The Ku Klux Klan in Wood County, Ohio on Amazon.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack


OMG we haven't convened a secret meeting since we got Lisa Renee Ward her new job. LOL

In all honesty no only were the Praetoriani the protectors of Ceasar but they were also the assassinates of Ceasar as well. Talk about dual roles.

HistoryMike, I will be putting your book on my kindle but I have to finish two other books before I can read it.


I appreciate that, MikeyA, but I cannot sign a Kindle copy. :-)

I almost hesitate to post this now.....We are arranging for Mike to be my guest and talk about the book. Let me just say before anyone questions it......Mike did not suggest to me that he is an expert on the KKK, merely that he has written a book on the history of it in Wood County. Now if any of you other geniuses can write a book let me know and I'll have on too.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

^^ LOL!

I am an expert on books.

I own several. I read them. I borrow them from libraries. You should have me on as a guest fred!


I have written two books (one of which your former colleague, Brian Wilson, used to reference). Thanks for the "genius" reference though.

Please ask Dr. Brooks about the facts he has to substantiate the following sentence in the Introduction of his book:

“The Klan in many ways found a ready-made audience in Wood County for its ideologies of racism, nativism and religious intolerance.”

A pretty incendiary statement that people who have family roots in Wood County might be interested in hearing Dr. Brooks explain.

Chapter Three of the book specifically addresses these issues, using contemporary newspaper articles and other primary sources to illustrate the frequent appearance of racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant sentiments in print.

If you want "substantiation," you can always buy the book instead of cherry-picking a sentence out of context. I provide dozens of examples along with requisite citations.

As I indicate in the book, though, these sentiments were not particularly unique to Wood County and were widespread in the U.S. in the 1920s. Many white native-born Protestants shared views that would be considered repulsive by many Americans in the 21st century.

Here is an example of a racist cartoon from the 1923 Daily Sentinel-Tribune:

ST 10-2-23 Racist cartoon 1

As far as "people who have family roots in Wood County" goes: history is often not very pretty. I do not sugar-coat the past, nor do I omit history that might offend a few folks. People who dislike books that address issues like racism, religious intolerance, or the Ku Klux Klan should skip my book and read something that does not challenge their rose-colored views of the past, like Chicken Soup for the Soul or something.

Did you happen to gloss over the fact that those KKK members were proud democrats?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

The Klan in the 1920s was strongly Republican in this area. In other parts of the country, and in other times, Klan members supported the Democratic party. In Wood County the leading anti-Klan newspaper was the Wood County Democrat, while the most pro-Klan newspaper in Wood County was the Wood County Republican. The publisher, editor, reporter, and even the printing press operator of the Republican were Klan members.

In 1924 the Klan supported Republican Calvin Coolidge because the Democrats added an anti-Klan plank to their platform. In 1928 the Klan supported Republican Herbert Hoover, in large measure because a Catholic (Al Smith) won the Democratic nomination.

The time periods where the Klan was strongly Democratic were in the decade after the Civil War and in the civil rights era from 1950 to 1970, and the Klan in these periods were primarily located in the South. In general, the Klan claims to be non-partisan, and historically they have thrown their support behind the party or politicians who promised more of the Klan agenda. During the 1920s, when millions of Americans were Klan members, Klan support could easily swing elections. Klan support in 1924 helped a Republican political newcomer unseat a Democratic incumbent state senator from the district centered on Wood County, and the heavy Klan vote turned what should have been a close race (1924 was a strong Republican election) into a 3-to-1 trouncing of the Democratic incumbent.

I know that this news will disappoint you, but you need to study history in greater depth than FOX News gives you, Zeitgeist. You are far too intelligent to spout off nonsense like this.

Total BS.....and expected from a modern democrat eager to sever ties to the klan....you even tossed in the prerequisite fox news insult....

1928....every one of these mother fucking racist bastards where......democrats.

And how do you get around the fact that it was Wilson who segregated the federal govt?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

You are absolutely correct that Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist. However, if you think racism and the Klan are the sole problem of one party, you need to read more. Southern Democrats opposed to Reconstruction started the Klan, and Southern Democrats dominated the fragmented Klan in the civil rights era, but it was the Republicans who most benefited from Klan support in its national heyday in the 1920s.

And we have been down this road before, you and I, but for the record I am a political independent, though I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats over the years. I have also contributed more money to Republicans than Democrats, though my wallet rarely opens these days for political campaigns.

Nice try, though.

As to your linked video: the Klan despised Catholics, and nothing got them more fired up than Democrat Al Smith (a Catholic) running for President in 1928. Your video only shows that in 1928 the Klan was still a powerful national force, and again: the number one national issue for the Klan in 1928 was the idea that a Catholic would take over the White House.

If you would like to learn more, here are some excellent references:

Alexander, Charles C. The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

Fox, Craig. Everyday Klansfolk: White Protestant Life and the KKK in 1920s Michigan.

Gerlach, Larry. Blazing Crosses in Zion: The Ku Klux Klan in Utah. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1982.

Horowitz, David A. (ed.). Inside the Klavern: The Secret History of a Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.

Jenkins, William D. Steel Valley Klan: the Ku Klux Klan in Ohio's Mahoning Valley. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1990.

Lay, Shawn. Hooded Knights on the Niagara: The Ku Klux Klan in Buffalo, New York. New York: New York University Press, 1995.

Moore, Leonard J. Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928. UNC Press. 1997.

Most racists, especially in the Old South, were Democrats UNTIL leaders like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms led them into the Republican Party in the 1960s and 1970s. They often stated, "We didn't leave the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party left us!" The issue which drove Thurmond, Helms, and others out of the Democratic Party? Equal rights, of course!

Even before officially switching parties, Thurmond walked out on the Democratic National Convention way back in 1948, with virtually all of the southern delegates thereto, and was nominated for POTUS by the "Dixiecrat Party." So ZG is bringing up ancient history [over 40 years ago] to try to obfuscate rather then illuminate. To which political party do nearly all of the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, of those racist Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s give their votes in 2014? You know, like, today...NOW?? To which political party do most of the descendants of slave owners from the antebellum south give their votes in 2014. You know, like, today...NOW?

Oh boy...here it comes...the southern strategy myth again....


FACT...most of the dixiecrats returned to the democrat party.

FACT...the switch to GOP was mostly due to economic issues....hard core southerners would never be caught dead belonging to the party that defeated the south.

FACT...Copperheads.....aka "peace democrats" here in Ohio and the Midwest were quite active during the civil war and afterwords.....they didn't go anywhere...nor did they change parties...

FACT...Robert Byrd was a KKK recruiter and died in office and Bill Clinton Himself excused his racist past when he spoke at Byrds funeral.

Save your bullshit for the young heads full of mush that wont bother to even look shit up.

If you are a democrat you belong to the party of slavery...period.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Very few former KKK members remained in the Democratic Party into the 21st Century. But keep deluding yourself by living in the past, mostly the far distant past.
Almost all of the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the Dixiecrats are Republicans today. You know what year it is, right? 2014! I guess, ZG, you're both living in the past AND living in Egypt!

Maybe you're too young to remember the 1960s. When LBJ abandoned the "southern strategy" of the Democratic Party and a bipartisan group in Congress of mostly northerners pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this was just too much for southern racists to accept. So, Strom Thurmond and others switched to the MODERN Republican banner -- not the anti-slavery Republican Party of the distant past.
As a matter of fact, since the South was so poor for 100 years or more after the Civil War, it was economic issues which KEPT most of the racist southerners IN the Democratic Party for so long. In addition, since so many southerners could not bring themselves to vote for a Republican back in the previous century, running as a Republican before this time was considered to be political suicide. Following Strom's success at the polls as a Republican, others followed.

Ronald Reagan consolidated these switches in the 1980s when many "Reagan Democrats" like Phil Gramm switched to the Republican Party. Have you ever looked at a map of election results following a Presidential Election in the past 40 years? How many southern states are red, and how many are blue? And you have the gall to say that anyone else's brain is full of "mush?" Ever have a brain scan, ZG?

Pretty good stuff, Dale. Let us not forget JFK and his part in the Civil Rights Act. Other than that, you got the main issues down pretty well.

Here's a hoist of the evening bourbon glass to you, Sir.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Suck ass much?

Hey dale....riddle me this....who is this quote from?

" I will have those N****** voting democratic for the next 200 years"

And I will directly address this:

Maybe you're too young to remember the 1960s. When LBJ abandoned the "southern strategy" of the Democratic Party and a bipartisan group in Congress of mostly northerners pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this was just too much for southern racists to accept.

Yes I know about it....

Care to tell us who filibustered those acts?

What the roll call vote was?

(hint...a higher percentage of republicans voted for it than democrats from all areas of the country including the north...and a very famous much loved democrat filibustered)

And no...I'm not going to forget history or give a pass to the party of slavery.....ever.

I'm all for reparations....the DNC should be stripped of all assets and it's funds distributed to documented slave descendants

Sound good?.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

It's true, it's true.

Zeitgeist is a member of the Republican Party - the party of Denial. The party that denies that it has ever been wrong about anything and that denies that its ideological positions have ever changed since the 1800s.


"THIRD. That to the Union of the states this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no republican member of congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence."


"EIGHTH. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no “person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States."


"TWELFTH. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."


"FOURTEENTH. That the republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad."

TODAY: FUCK IMMIGRATION REFORM AND FUCK ANY FOREIGNERS (except those that the Captains of Industry import on H1B visas to take American jobs for less than Americans would get paid).

"SEVENTEENTH. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the cooperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support."


FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR "PARTY OF LINCOLN" BULLSHIT. Disproven simply by comparing the 1860 GOP platform with the actions of the party in the past 14 years.

Citation for those contemporary newspaper articles. Their is someone here that might report you.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}


Unlike you, HM is not blatantly ripping off entire posts and entire articles. You got the smack down from the original authors/website and have been butthurt ever since because you know what you did was wrong and can't stand the fact that (once again) I was right about something.

Perhaps you should shut up and stop being a whiny little bitch. Really you should because the irony of you calling LLLLiberals whiners and such while you can't man up and own your mistakes is massive.

Whine much?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Yes, DTOM does in fact whine a lot.

You're on, Fred.

It was a dark and stormy night...

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Keep writing. Getting "published" by the company that Historymike is using is a piece-of-cake. In fact, the popularity of online book sales has benefitted these types of publishing companies because they don't even need to pay printing costs.

How it works is you write the book, send it to them so they can "review" it, they put it out, and you get a royalty based on sales (there are no advances or assurances of income). There is not the due diligence in fact checking by the publisher that is given to real books because they are essentially acting as the printers. It gives a whole new meaning to "vanity press."

You too can become a star author worthy of local media attention!

Sigh. You cannot win the argument, so you set up a straw man and try to discredit the publisher.

Again: if you take issue with what is written (which, of course, would mean you would actually have to read the book) then you are free to go to the archives and conduct your own research. All quoted materials and referenced sources have been footnoted.

The History Press is not a peer-reviewed academic publisher, but the commissioning editor, the project editor, and copy editors each read the manuscript and critique the work. This is a million miles from a vanity press, but I did find amusing your halfhearted attempt at another attack on a book you have yet to read.

Sure, there are royalties: if I am lucky I will make a buck or so a book on the 1,000 to 3,000 copies I will probably sell. This, on a project I spent about 1200 hours and eight months developing. If money was my motive, I could do better working weekends at Speedway or something.

As far as "piece of cake": why not pitch a book to the publisher and see if it is accepted? They may indeed accept your proposal, but your disdain for a book you have not even read is puzzling. As someone who claims to have written two books, would you say that researching and writing hundreds of pages of text is a "piece of cake"? Anyone can get a book proposal accepted, but few people are willing to invest the time to write a book.

Also - for someone who is ostensibly pro-free market, you sure do have a problem with profit. I can then assume that the two books you claim to have written were distributed for free and you did not make any profit? And for someone so pro-free market, you have a lot of animosity toward a profit-oriented publisher. You sound more like the antithesis of the John Galt you use as a namesake (assuming that GALT refers to John Galt and is not some acronym).

Oh, and why not post links to your books, so that others can weigh the merits of your claims to scholarship?

What "argument" is it to which you refer?

Yes, I am pro-free market; however, I also note that "free-market" does not always equate to quality.

Oh, you know, the places where you called me "deceptive," or where you accused me of claiming to be someone I was not, or where you accused me of sneakily editing a Toledo Talk post, or where you implied that I was teaching a MOOC without the permission of BGSU, or any of the other strange attacks you have made about me or my work. You know, those "arguments."

So now you are reduced to making snide comments about the publisher.

Whassa matter: did I cut you off in traffic or something? I am puzzled why you continue these weird diatribes, especially since you have not even read the book in question.

And: are you going to post links to your books or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Reality has a liberal bias, and these Tea-tards can't live with that fact or many other facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if it burst from your chest and scampered out of the room....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I, too, am pro-free market. I note that the free market allows the consumer (all the way from the destitute guttersnipe to the pecunious crème de la crème of the haut monde) to enjoy the product of the starving artist without the judgmental restrictions of a third (or more) party. Given that you, by your own admission, are an author surely you can appreciate that aspect of the free market.

Why not post a link to your work so that the rest of us can enjoy it?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Ok mike...here is a simple question for you...

Who won the Tet offensive?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

This is not a "simple" question, Zeitgeist. The U.S. and the ARVN quickly bounced back from the attacks and recaptured territory held by the NLF and NVA forces. In a military sense, the U.S. and the ARVN clearly won this phase of the war after the initial shock of the many dozens of NVA/NLF attacks wore off.

However, Tet is where popular support for the war in the U.S. began to fade. Johnson's administration, which had been touting the success of the American campaign in Vietnam, lost a lot of credibility, and the direct result of this offensive was Johnson's public announcement in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection. Thus, despite heavy casualties and even the loss of some territory, the North Vietnamese were able to shift American public support away from the war. This led to the "Vietnamization" policy of Nixon, where the ARVN would increasingly take greater lead (and eventually complete responsibility) for fighting the war.

So in a long-term political sense, Tet was a "victory" for the North Vietnamese.

You should be a politician!

Now you are just trolling. Wake me when you want to have an intelligent conversation.

I've just been insulted by a permanent/temporary "professor." Yikes!

"This is not a "simple" question, Zeitgeist."

Sure it is.....but of course you wont give a simple answer....

The U.S. and the ARVN quickly bounced back from the attacks and recaptured territory held by the NLF and NVA forces. In a military sense, the U.S. and the ARVN clearly won this phase of the war after the initial shock of the many dozens of NVA/NLF attacks wore off.

See...that is a simple answer....

Yes...the US and allied forces routed the VC and inflicted massive casualties on the NV forces.

Now comes the liberal part....

"However, Tet is where popular support for the war in the U.S. began to fade."

And why would that be?....if we won militarily?

Answer.....leftists in the US press carrying water for the leftists in North Vietnam.

Johnson's administration, which had been touting the success of the American campaign in Vietnam, lost a lot of credibility, and the direct result of this offensive was Johnson's public announcement in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection.

Again...this was accomplished by the antiwar leftists in the US press.

Thus, despite heavy casualties and even the loss of some territory, the North Vietnamese were able to shift American public support away from the war.

Totally vacuous statement.....how could the VC influence anything in America?

Because they didn't....it was the US press who were able to shift support.

This led to the "Vietnamization" policy of Nixon, where the ARVN would increasingly take greater lead (and eventually complete responsibility) for fighting the war.

Sorta.....Nixon's Deal with congressional Democrats was that he would withdraw our troops if congress would continue to support the south with funds and equipment....

Shortly after withdraw....Democrats Reneged on that deal and hung the south out to dry....

So in a long-term political sense, Tet was a "victory" for the North Vietnamese.

Which would have never been possible without the willing support from the American Left.

So even though the US was winning militarily...the antiwar propaganda in the US press was responsible for a shift in public opinion....and Congressional democrats where responsible for handing the south to the communists....which resulted in the deaths of millions.

But I seriously doubt you will ever utter those facts in your class.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

You're like Farmergal. Everything bad in this country is a left-wing conspiracy intended to ruin this land. We could NEVER lose a war, so the left-wing conspiracy MADE us leave a winnable war. Never mind those 58,000 or so Americans who died there. All of them were somebody's father, or son, or mother, or daughter, or brother, or sister, or friend. How many American deaths would have been acceptable, ZG? 100,000? 150,000?
So I guess when I first visited the Vietnam War memorial any of my tears were only for the camera. Oops! This was in the early days of the memorial, and almost no one was there. No one recorded my reaction, a reaction which I didn't know would happen until I approached Jerry's name on the wall.

You're right, ZG. The U.S. was winning the war, and those awful conspirators in the media convinced us to leave unnecessarily. What's 50-60,000 lives more or less?

You're like Farmergal.

Give me some spray paint and a couple of two-by-fours and I'll show you a set of bookends.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

My point (which was confirmed by HM)..is that yes...militarily...we WERE winning...even AFTER the Tet offensive...

Also in reference to Freds post....I see no one has bothered to mention the soviet infiltration of the left wing anti-war movement that was undermining the war effort....which in turn influenced public opinion.

I don't need to be lectured on backround...and I'm sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.

Ok...I'm not really sorry.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

How many more young Americans would YOU have sacrificed? Another 10,000? 60,000? 100,000? And for what goal? The ending of Communism? Oh, wait! The Soviet Union, the primary supporter of the Communist government in Vietnam, is no more. The entire Communist Block in Eastern Europe is no more.

So...what goal was left unachieved by our leaving Vietnam and sparing the lives of tens of thousands more Americans? How long would you have that Vietnam memorial wall be? A mile? 2? How many more families would you have mourning their lost heroes? And for what? Just to say we won?

You know what got to me when I visited that Vietnam Memorial all those many years ago? I thought about Jerry and me. I thought about how I had just seen his mother and how she was going to have him contact me as soon as he got back in town. He was scheduled to return about 2 weeks after he was killed. I thought about how I was there, in D.C. with my wife and two children, and how lucky I was. I thought about how Jerry would never be able to know this kind of life. And I felt so empty for him. I truly mourned, not just Jerry himself, but also the life he could have had. Jerry was a great guy. He would have been a great husband and father. When I thought about HIS losses, I couldn't stop the tears from coming.
But, that's all right ZG. We just should have kept fighting because we were winning. Winning what? And at what sacrifice? You're pretty free and loose with the lives of OTHERS!
And let's not even mention how many Vietnamese died on both sides. It is estimated that AT LEAST 1,000,000 Vietnamese died. It could be as many as 3,000,000! Since they were not Americans, although many were our allies, do their deaths not matter to you, ZG? How many more Vietnamese should have died so that we could say we won the war?

I have developed COPD over the years. I take medication daily and always carry an emergency inhaler.
My father was a World War II veteran. One of my uncles fought in the same unit as Audie Murphy. He was in the invasions of North Africa and Italy before a head wound sent him back home. Another, younger, uncle was deployed to the Aleutian Islands during the Korean War. My older brother was stationed in Korea during the Vietnam War as a physician.
MikeyA would tell you, I NEVER disparage those who serve our nation in the military. I have great respect for them all.

I guess the only thing that will stop this thread is the new thread that will be titled "What do you know about the KKK" after Mike is my guest to talk about his book. That'll be interesting.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

What Z is missing is the background for the change in attitude. The American public fed a daily diet of war on tv and propoganda from D.C. was under the belief that we were winning the war. Even Gen Westmoreland as late as November 1967 told the National Press Club this "unable to mount a major offensive...I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing...We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view." Two months later guess what happened.
The public was already doubting the administration and this only helped. Is Z saying the press shouldn't have covered the fact that despite assurances from Westmoreland the VC were in fact no yet losing. Add to that this little tidbit On 18 February 1968 MACV posted the highest U.S. casualty figures for a single week during the entire war: 543 killed and 2,547 wounded.[183] As a result of the heavy fighting, 1968 went on to become the deadliest year of the war for the US forces with 16,592 soldiers killed and you have the makings of a dissatisfied public press or no press bias.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

What Z is missing is the background for the change in attitude.

No, not really Fred. What Z is missing is about 40 IQ points and 6 years of education.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

LMAO....want to bet who's IQ is higher?

care to play chess?...for money?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

You see what you started with this, Fred? What do you think is going to happen after the next interview?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.