it had low valance, for example, in latin america and africa. this was the result, he says of the relative remoteness of these contin continents of the ravages of the cold war. yet if you extend the story a few years out, you find critical exceptions to this rule. think of cuba and the congo where issues concerning decolonization surely shared space with cold war conflict. and one could as easily say that latin america and africa were farther from the strategic front lines of the cold war regardless of their position during world war ii. in short, it isn't clear to me that the relative lack of interest in these areas by the great powers demonstrates that the cold war was locally sourced. i hoped this book expecting a fresh interpretation of the korean war and was delighted to find that it was more than that. still the centrality of korea, even as a catalyst of social transformation in asia, europe, and the united states seems to me uncertain. professor masuda argues that et made the cold war real because it reminded people of world war ii. yet i

it had low valance, for example, in latin america and africa. this was the result, he says of the relative remoteness of these contin continents of the ravages of the cold war. yet if you extend the story a few years out, you find critical exceptions to this rule. think of cuba and the congo where issues concerning decolonization surely shared space with cold war conflict. and one could as easily say that latin america and africa were farther from the strategic front lines of the cold war regardless of their position during world war ii. in short, it isn't clear to me that the relative lack of interest in these areas by the great powers demonstrates that the cold war was locally sourced. i hoped this book expecting a fresh interpretation of the korean war and was delighted to find that it was more than that. still the centrality of korea, even as a catalyst of social transformation in asia, europe, and the united states seems to me uncertain. professor masuda argues that et made the cold war real because it reminded people of world war ii. yet i

another thing, the teachers are walking out, they don't want to teach because of the valance.there's no repercussion when these children fight the teachers.hc9ñ what are we to do? we pray, we beg, and the government is setting us up for failure. >> linda, one of our viewers brought up the issue of common core this morning. what are your thoughtsj/sd on t program? >> caller: the main problem is the fact that no one is paying attention to the children in this modern technology. we're trying to teach -- >> linda, you're going in and out in miami, florida. but i appreciate the call on our line for teachers. in today's paper, common core is not a federal takeover of education, the editorial board writes. states developed the standards and implemented them with local flexibility. the federal government merely encouraged states to adopt them, as they should have. school districts were able to hide their failure to educate poor and minority students and those with learning challenges. sabotaging standards will allow a return to that era of abdication. if you want to read more on that,