U of Colorado Radical Prof......

[Dr Wogga]

....is there anyone who DOESN'T think he deserves to be fired? It always makes me laugh when people dispute the radical leftist bent of our colleges and universities. Hopefully, he will be terminated from his job and, if we're VERY LUCKY, perhaps from this planet. What a poisonous scumbag. May he get what he deserves

[BCPVP]

I wish universities operated like the rest of the world so he could be fired, but I'm afraid that he won't own up to the consequences of his actions due to "academic freedom"... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[HDPM]

he's middle of the road by CU standards. I doubt they think he is out of line. He fits right in in Boulder. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[lastchance]

Who is this guy? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
....is there anyone who DOESN'T think he deserves to be fired? It always makes me laugh when people dispute the radical leftist bent of our colleges and universities. Hopefully, he will be terminated from his job and, if we're VERY LUCKY, perhaps from this planet. What a poisonous scumbag. May he get what he deserves

[/ QUOTE ]

Terminated from his job on what grounds?

[BCPVP]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/31/professor.resigns.ap/

Professor resigns after 9/11 essay prompts protests
Ethnic studies chair will retain teaching position

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 9:55 PM EST (0255 GMT)

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- A University of Colorado professor who provoked a furor when he compared victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks to Nazis has resigned as a department chairman but will retain his teaching job, the university said.

In an essay written after the September 11 attacks, Ward Churchill said the World Trade Center victims were "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Europe's Jews. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

The essay attracted little attention until Churchill was invited recently to speak at Hamilton College, about 40 miles east of Syracuse, New York. Hundreds of relatives of September 11 victims have protested the appearance. Hamilton College President Joan Hinde has said that "however repugnant one might find Mr. Churchill's remarks," the college was committed to his right of free speech and would not rescind its invitation.

Administrators have moved Churchill's appearance to a building that can seat 2,000, instead of the originally planned 300.

Churchill resigned as chairman of Colorado's Ethnic Studies Department, telling university officials in a letter that "the present political climate has rendered me a liability in terms of representing either my department, the college, or the university."

University officials welcomed the move.

"While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public," interim CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.

In an interview with Denver station KCNC-TV, Churchill said he is not an advocate of violence.

"The overriding question that was being posed at the time was 'why did this happen, why did they hate us so much,' and my premise was when you do this to other people's families and children, that is going to be a natural response."

[HDPM]

gotta love that rigorous field - Ethnic Studies.


I saw this guy on TV tonight and he tried to argue that what he said was supporting Arendt's evil as banality idea. Let's just say he is no Arendt. He is a moron, but I expect nothing less from the chairman, er, chair, of the vaunted CU Ethnic Studies department.

Gotta love the press CU has gotten in the last year or two. LOL. But it has always been like this. Just wasn't covered nationally so much.

[lastchance]

Whoo, he had better have written a damn good essay.

[BCPVP]

Indeed. Kinda hard to justify stating that 3,000 innocent people are akin to the designer of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. If he worked in the real world, instead of a campus fantasyland, he'd be where he belongs; out in the street. Coward.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Terminated from his job on what grounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an unpopular opinion.

[lastchance]

Those who make these types of claims are either geniuses or idiots. I haven't seen the argument yet, so I don't know, it could be a brilliant one. Odds are, it doesn't work though.

[BCPVP]

There is no justification for calling the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmanns", just as there is no justification for saying that the Jews got what they deserved during the Holocaust. What he said was disgusting, not to mention defamatory, yet he wants to hide like a coward behind "academic freedom". That he stepped down from being chairperson of the Ethnics department is a partial admittance of guilt, yet apparently he doesn't have the cojones to accept the full consequences of his actions. I hope the protestors haunt till the end of his days.

[Utah]

He should keep his job. Firing him sets a very bad precedent for future unpopular speech at colleges.

[Michael Davis]

I don't know. At most jobs if you say something ridiculously racist (in public, at least), you get canned, no? This seems no difference. There must be something different between academic freedom and racist rhetoric, which is really what this is.

I definitely see that you don't want to set a precedent against freedom of speech, but I think you can protect that and still punish this chump. Seriously, if this were against any other minority group, he would be gone already.

-Michael

[Felix_Nietsche]

This guy is just weird...

Ward Churchill falsely claims to be part Indian and the leaders of his aledged tribe claim he is not a member.

Having lived in Boulder I can say, W.Churchill is just part of the weird Boulder, CO college culture. The question is not should he be fired, but how he ever got hired... This man has some major psychological problems... Evidently, after his contraversial speech, vandals spray painted Swastikas on his car. I was shocked that this could happen in Boulder... Boulder, CO has one of the highest concentrations of self-hating Americans in the world. He must have really ticked off some people for this to have happen in Boulder... Personally, although I find Churchill's words to be disgusting and moronic, he is showing the political moderates the kookiness of the American left which will strengthen the conservative cause in the USA. Let him keep talking /images/graemlins/smile.gif

To give you an idea of the weirdness of Boulder, the public librarians once decorated the public library with dildos... Imagine taking your kids to the library and they ask you what are those things dangling from the ceiling...

http://i2i.org/article.aspx?ID=825

[Utah]

okay, lets say some conservative professor says that torture is an acceptable method of getting information. Should that conservative professor be fired? What if the liberal college he is at finds his stance extremely offensive?

[HDPM]

Early '90's there was some feminist protest or another at the student union building. Some womyn with a lot of body hair staged a protest of something and decided to go topless and wear dildos on their noses. So they had their protest and the daily school paper took their picture and put it on the front page. Maybe what you might expect if you go topless with a dildo on your nose for a long protest in a public square. The womyn then claimed rape. Seriously, they claimed running the picture on the front page was equivalent to rape since they were photographed in a sexually demeaning way. Average day at CU.

Anyway, I am not surprised that the idiot prof's car got vandalized. Boulder/CU has a large segment that is essentially anti-rational. They often act in primitive, savage ways. Whether it is the periodic riot on the Hill, violence at protests, moronic fights at the football games, or ridiculous political stuff, it happens all the time. I am not surprised people painted swastikas on his car, since violent irrational outbursts are what Boulder people rely on when their limited intellects and defective psyches don't allow them a more rational response. Often a few steps of logical argument can turn a discussion into a shouting match. I also love it when somebody says something a Boulder person doesn't like and the Boulder person starts moaning or making other unusual noises as if they are being slowly tortured or something. Little squeaks can accompany the moaning. Then you get the shout down. LOL.

[Dr Wogga]

.... we already know that if a professor at Anywhere U said something outrageous and used defamatory racist words such as: "niggers","spics","kikes" etc, etc, etc the hue and cry would be so loud he'd get fired ASAP. Calling working people, of all ethnicities and gender mind you, who happened to be in working one of the towers the morning of 9/11 "little Eichmans" - on what grounds WOULDN'T that be racist? I don't think you can have it both ways. Perhaps I'm wrong

[Dr Wogga]

.....but what a whacky state. Isn't this the same state where after the Columbine massacre, the people got up in arms over something Howard Stern said on the radio about "hot chicks running out of the school"?? THey wanted to fry Stern for THOSE remarks, but I guess now that Fox News has Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmanns" banner to wave, all of sudden CU and the rest of the state are now caving to the negative publicity. What phonies!!!

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
There must be something different between academic freedom and racist rhetoric, which is really what this is.


[/ QUOTE ]

How was it racist?

[BCPVP]

Everyone should be responsible for what they say, regardless of ideology.
But college doesn't work like the real world...

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone should be responsible for what they say, regardless of ideology.
But college doesn't work like the real world...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I said was a poke at hardcore feminism, and, as usually happens on the internet, spiraled out of control. What the man said was probably a little too gung ho. Maybe he got caught up in the moment of trying to inspire his troops? I don't know. But I'm not going to pass judgement on someone keeping me and my family safe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't mind that, just a lame jab. Too tempted, sorry.

What one says in the "real world" should be very different than academia. In academia, you are rewarded for extreme and outlandish thought, when you can back it up. Galileo, Einstein, Newton, are known for their radical (at the time) works, because they changed the way people think.

Those who make different and crazy conclusions are rewarded, if they're right, and they back themselves up.

That's why the argument here, not just the conclusion, is very important.

[zaxx19]

okay, lets say some conservative professor says that torture is an acceptable method of getting information. Should that conservative professor be fired? What if the liberal college he is at finds his stance extremely offensive?

Of course the problem with this supposition(and liberal colleges in general) is a patently conservative professor would never be considered to join an ethnic studies dept.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, lets say some conservative professor says that torture is an acceptable method of getting information. Should that conservative professor be fired? What if the liberal college he is at finds his stance extremely offensive?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you were indirectly referencing this, but we have seen almost this exact situation at Berkeley in the last few years. John Yoo, a conservative law school prof, helped the Bush administration construct a legal argument for why the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention and thus could be tortured. A Berkeley students group heard, petitioned for Yoo to resign, and asked the school to can him. He refused to resign and the school did the right thing and refused to fire him.

So to me everything here worked as it should. The professor stood by his right to do his own work and the school stood by the professor's right to academic freedom. That's what should happen with this Colorado guy too.

[lastchance]

It depends on how good that professor's paper is. I, personally, think it's an easily defensible stance, but it's all about your arguments. Premises both of you believe in + Logic = Conclusions.

It doesn't or at least, shouldn't matter how offensive a stance is, only if it's true or not, only if you backed it up well or not.

And there are reasons that Ethnic Studies is a very liberal area of study.

[Michael Davis]

Yeah, my bad, inaccurate use of the term racist. That's why you're at Berkeley and I'm down here. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Michael

[bholdr]

Ward Churchill represents the american left about as much as David Duke represents the right. it's disingenious to say it's otherwise, and all you've done is found the worst in an ideological fringe and used it to justify your (franlkly, silly) opinions.

you either know this already, or are blinded by your ideology and your hate. get real.

Liberals generally don't go around saying- hey, look at david duke, see! all conservatives are racist klansmen! those that do are being imflamitory, counterproductive, and unreasonable.

and that's exactly what you're doing (in a whole lot of your liberal-hating posts, i might add).

[Felix_Nietsche]

I have the gift of esp and Ward Churchill voted Democrat /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"you either know this already, or are blinded by your ideology and your hate."
*****lol....you're quite entertaining.
Don't be so egotistical. Liberals are not worthy of hate. Just scorn and ridicule. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Ward Churchill is the poster boy of the kooky left. Just check a typical Democratic website. You have Democratic "Americans" rooting for the insurgents to kill US soldiers in Iraq. 20 years ago I never thought I would see such kookiness....but who am I going to believe? You....or MY EYES. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Liberals generally don't go around saying- hey, look at david duke, see! all conservatives are racist klansmen! those that do are being imflamitory, counterproductive, and unreasonable."
****lol....I guess you never have visted moveon.org Or soon these so called peace protests. If you want to quote David Duke, go ahead and do it. I could care less.... Speaking of Klansman, is not Robert Byrd, an ex-Imperial Wizard of the KKK?

Face the facts dude...the kook fringe controls the Democratic party. And this makes me happy because they are destroying the Democratic party...

[bholdr]

you've been listening to too much conservitive talk radio.

"Liberals are not worthy of hate. Just scorn and ridicule."
sounds like hate to me. maybe just a joke?

"You have Democratic "Americans" rooting for the insurgents to kill US soldiers in Iraq."
bulls**t. just because there are some that disagree with our soldiers killing innocents and even 'insurgents' abroad doesn't mean that they want the soldiers dead. i challenge you to find one statement by one respected democrat saying that they want to see US soldiers killed. dr churchill is NOT respected by the party.

this is reckless exageration bordering on outright lies.

"guess you never have visted moveon.org Or soon these so called peace protests."
as far as the protests go, yes, i have been to many, both as an observer and a participant. not ONE SINGLE PERSON at ANY of them has advocated killing american soldiers.
...and there are some whackjobs there.

"Face the facts dude...the kook fringe controls the Democratic party."
wrong. this is a LIE that you have been fed by more manipulative and hateful ideolouges than yourself, and you have swallowed it and have been hooked. it's repeated with the intent of stifiling reasonable discussion, and while i'll admit it's been very successfull, that doesn't make it true.

PLEASE, don't look at this next statement as coming from a liberal, think of it as coming from a fellow american (and poker player)

you do not have to aggree with me on any issues, but you owe it to yourself to rise above such boorish oversimplifications and promote reasonable discussion and an honest exchange of ideas, if we are ever to have progress in this, (if i may borrow a line from mike savage) the greatest nation on god's green earth.

[zaxx19]

"Liberals are not worthy of hate. Just scorn and ridicule."

Hate is a powerful word, but those who compare thousands of innocent people cutdown in the most brutal and cowardly way to one of the most diabolical figures in history, is worthy of our(Americans) hate and has forfeited his right to work at a cushy academic job at the expense of the taxpayers.

That liberals on this board are defending this anti-American kook proves how out of touch the left is becoming witht the rest of America.

The flyover has spoken, and soon the supreme court will be packed with 2-3 more Scalia type strict constructionists soon. Big changes are coming and liberals have much to fear in the ensuing 25 years. I just hope they come to terms with these changes and can stop themselves from making asses of themselves.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"you've been listening to too much conservitive talk radio."
****I like talk radio. I even listen to Alan Colmes. Perhaps you should listen to a little Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps it might alter your opinions.

"sounds like hate to me. maybe just a joke"
****To truly hate someone, you must have a degree of respect for them. I see little to respect of the left. I view the actions and rhetoric of the left with amazement and a certain amount of fascination. I see them calling Bush43 a nazi, burning US flags, trying to prevent military supply ships from delivering supplies to US troops, attacking pro Bush demostrators.......it is like watching a sick cartoon.

"i challenge you to find one statement by one respected democrat saying that they want to see US soldiers killed. dr churchill is NOT respected by the party."
*****You are smart to use the qualifier "respected" democrat. Otherwise I could have shown you have a dozen Democrat blogger quotes before breakfast. No Democrat politician will ever make such a statement. My assertion is there are a significant amount of Democrat voters who want the insurgents to win in Iraq. Winning means killing US soldiers... JAMES TARANTO on Monday, January 31, wrote a rather interesting piece about Democratic bloggers. Here are some of the bloggers he quoted about the recent elections in Iraq:

(1) "OR--I just thought of this--maybe they're smiling because they're using the Americans [sic] own game to defeat them. They're voting in candidates who they know will widen the resistance, take the fight to the streets, and finally drive the occupying forces out of their country. Perhaps they're smiling because--right under the American's [sic] noses--they're planting the seeds of a bigger and more effective resistance movement. Wouldn't that be fitting? Use *'s own tools against them?

(2)We can only pray that this is the case. Becuase [sic] if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed. Bush's inaugural speech left little doubt that he has other countries on his list to spread "freedom" to. They will be his next targets, and the world will burn because of it.

(3)Let's hope the resistance got voted in, or if not, they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election.

*****These bloggers certainly 'love' their country /images/graemlins/smile.gif




"this is reckless exageration bordering on outright lies."
*****Lies???.....you're rather RECKLESS in throwing that word about. I've never questioned your honesty... Yet you question mine.

"as far as the protests go, yes, i have been to many, both as an observer and a participant. not ONE SINGLE PERSON at ANY of them has advocated killing american soldiers. ...and there are some whackjobs there."
****And do some of these "whackjobs" want the insurgents to win in Iraq? And how does one win wars? Is it not by killing the enemy? In this case killing US soldiers? If you like, go to www.protestwarrior.com (http://www.protestwarrior.com) and view their videos of the "peace" demostrations. www.brain-terminal.com (http://www.brain-terminal.com) has some interesting videos of the left as well.

"wrong. this is a LIE that you have been fed by more manipulative and hateful ideolouges than yourself, and you have swallowed it and have been hooked. it's repeated with the intent of stifiling reasonable discussion, and while i'll admit it's been very successfull, that doesn't make it true."
*****Geez.....Calling people liars rolls easily off your tongue doesn't it. Again, I have never questioned your honesty. Yet because you disagree with my opinions you lable me as being hateful and a liar. Based on your writings, you have convinced me that you are truly close-minded. This might be surprising to you, but it is POSSIBLE for someone to have a different opinion than you and not be a hate-filled liar...

"but you owe it to yourself to rise above such boorish oversimplifications and promote reasonable discussion and an honest exchange of ideas"
*****<sigh>.....boorish eh. "honest exchange of ideas"....eh.
So have we been having a 'dishonest' exchange of ideas? Let me guess, and I'm the dishonest party in this discussion and your the honest one. Right? In an honest debate, I would expect someone who disagrees with me to provide reasoned counter arguments and supporting examples. Instead you have one tactics:

*Calling people who disagree with you hateful, liar, and boorish.

[bholdr]

I'm NOT defending this lunatic. he hurts liberals more than he helps. i was trying to point out that, unlike yourself, felis isn't trying to discuss the issue, rather, he's just doing his usual hatemongering and exxagerating.


...and it's not just liberals that should fear a court full of scalias and <shudder> thomases.

[bholdr]

Ironicly, i can't stand Combs, yet i love Rush (he is soooo entertaining and his radio persona is both skillfully crafted and hilarious, even if i disagree with most of his politics.) didn't you catch the Savage nation ref? i listen to a lot of talk radio.


I stand behind my statements. if i wanted to make fun of and belittle conservitives, i could simply find quotes from the whackjob fringe, like you have don, and dishonestly state that they represent/control roughly half of the american public- which is what you appear to be doing- please correct me if i'm wrong.

I will not, because, like most reasonable people, i realize that the great majority of both sides are also reasonable, not kooks liks churchill or duke or keyns or chomsky. you should admit that, too- to deny it is, at the least, confused and misguided, at the most, a lie.

"I've never questioned your honesty... Yet you question mine."

yes, i have. you have given me cause to. however, note that i did not expressly call you a liar. i said that your exxagerations are so contrived and off-base that they are bodering on lies. like i have said, claiming that churchill or duke is an accurate reflection of either of thier respective ends of the political spectrum is such an exxageration, bordering on a lie because any reasonable person would know it to be an untrue statment- i have assumed that you're reasonable. (please correct me if i'm wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

"Yet because you disagree with my opinions you lable me as being hateful and a liar."

aren't you touchy?
again, i AM NOT calling you a liar- i was saying that the conservative propagandists that willfully try to associate whackjobs like churchill with the mainstream left in the minds of thier audience in order to discredit all liberals are liars. And i believe thay are, just like the liberal propagandists that willfully and falsely represent all conservatives as racist warmongers are liars. thisn't a repub/dem thing, it's a reasonable/unreasonable and lies/truth thing. if you were a liberal claiming that the Klan ran the republican party, i would be saying much the same things. i don't think that only conservatives lie. (please correct my if i'm wrong. he he.)

"Calling people who disagree with you hateful, liar, and boorish"

not you or your statments- those that feed you the misconceptions that you get on conservative talk. i thought i was clear, sry if i wasn't. and 'boorish oversimplifications' ("the left is run by the whackos", "all protesters hate themselves and america", "the democrats want to see american soldiers killed", etc) is a polite way of saying "Divisive manipulitive LIES". differences on how to run social security and iraqi elections are 'disaggreements' the previous parenthetical statements ARE lies. any reasonable person should see this. (although i suppose 'the left is run by whackos' could be a matter of opinion, as long as it's the party leaders you're reffering to and not morons like churchill)


My intrest here is to further productive debate, while you seem to just want to make fun of the other side, which is divisive, and yes, hateful (when you feel the need to dislike and belittle people that you don't know based solely on thier political affiliation, religion, race, etc, that's hateful). I don't know how to be more clear, so this is gonna have to do it for this thread.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

...and it's not just liberals that should fear a court full of scalias and <shudder> thomases.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least Scalia and Thomas generally correctly interpret the Constitution and rule accordingly, which is more than can be said of certain other Supreme Court justices.

U.S. Supreme Court justices are tasked with ruling on the law as it is written, not with considering it of secondary importance upon their discretion and making alternate decisions "for the good of society". If Constitutional matters should be decided otherwise for the good of society, well, that's what the Amendment process is for.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"and dishonestly state that they represent/control roughly half of the american public- which is what you appear to be doing- please correct me if i'm wrong."
****You are wrong... The specific words I used were a "significant" number. After lecturer others on honesty you should exercise a little honesty yourself.... I think you are being very DISHONEST by misquoting me.

"i was saying that the conservative propagandists that willfully try to associate whackjobs like churchill with the mainstream left in the minds of thier audience in order to discredit all liberals are liars."
****I accurately stated Churchill was part of the left. I challenge you to show me where I said he was a member of the mainstream left. Once again you are demostrating your DISHONESTY by misquoting me.

"the left is run by the whackos",
****You call this a lie. I call this an opinion. Where are your reasoned counter arguments. Answer: You have none except to label other opinions you disagree with to be lies. I'm not impressed....

"all protesters hate themselves and america",
*****OK....now I'm calling you a LIAR. Show me where I used the word 'all" and I'll apologized. You lecture me about honest debate and yet you FALSELY insert words I never said. You sir are a LIAR. I simpley can no longer believe anything you say..... Again I challenge you to prove that this is an accurate quote....

"the democrats want to see american soldiers killed", etc
****Once again you misquote me. And again I say you are dishonest and a liar. I said there are members of the left who want to see the Iraqi insurgents defeat the US military. I even provide quotes from Democratic bloggers who wanted the insurgents to win. Winning in war means killing the enemy. This means killing US soldiers and you can't spin that away....

"My intrest here is to further productive debate,"
****I don't believe you. I've already busted you making up quotes I did not say. Are frankly don't think you are an honest person and I see no reason to believe anything you say.

I think you are more concern with name calling and being holier-than-thou. If you were truly interested in debate, you would have presented reasoned counter arguments. Instead you resort to (1)denial with out offering evidence, (2)name calling, and (3)falsifying quotes.

One misquote can be called a mistake, two misquotes can be called careless, and you have misquoting more than that. Can you see why I simply can't believe a word you say?

[bholdr]

well, dammit, i had a nice thoughtful rational logical reply all typed out with reasonable arguments and everything, and when the eagles scored i kicked the 'off' button on my tower (which is below my desk) accidently. you'll have to settle for the short version. damn i hate that.

***************************************

"the left is run by the whackos",
"all protesters hate themselves and america",
"the democrats want to see american soldiers killed",

I'm sorry that you wasted so much time responding to a misinterepretation. here is the paragraph you are quoting:
[ QUOTE ]
not you or your statments- those that feed you the misconceptions that you get on conservative talk. i thought i was clear, sry if i wasn't. and 'boorish oversimplifications' ("the left is run by the whackos", "all protesters hate themselves and america", "the democrats want to see american soldiers killed", etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

do you see the big fat NOT YOU OR YOUR STATMENTS at the start of that?

just to be sure we are clear:

I NEVER misquote- i copy and paste, and if i am quoting, i use a box or bold text. i went to great care to include disclaimers- 'the conservitive propagandists' and 'not you or your statements' so you would not make this mistake.
only an idiot would misquote in a forum where the original source is readibly veiwable. perhaps your intolerance of liberals has led you to underestimate me?
************************************

[ QUOTE ]
"One misquote can be called a mistake, two misquotes can be called careless, and you have misquoting more than that. Can you see why I simply can't believe a word you say?"

[/ QUOTE ]

permit me a little exasperated satire:

One misinterpretation can be called a mistake, two can be called careless. misinterpreting every thing i have said, despite the TOTAL clarity of my statments, is just Fuc**ing STUPID. Can you see that you haven't understood a single word i've said? /images/graemlins/grin.gif (i'm kidding- i know you're not dumb, but i am frustrated at your appearent unwillingness to carefully read my posts before responding...)

go pats.

[andyfox]

"As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to 'ignorance' – a derivative, after all, of the word 'ignore' – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

[MMMMMM]

A more twisted thesis would be extremely hard to conjure.

Ward Churchill is a very sick and deluded individual.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Sorry...I do not buy your explanation.
And I question YOUR honesty based on the reasons below.

The basic questions are:
1. Why did you not respond to what **I** wrote and not what some IMAGINARY person wrote.
2. Why surround these IMAGINARY writings with quotes?
3. Was it just coincidence that these IMAGINARY quotes were SLIGHTY altered versions of what I previously wrote?

Answer #1:
It was easier to respond to these imaginary quotes than what I had wrote.
Sorry, I do not call that being honest in a debate. If you are unable to think of a reasoned counter-argument to what I said then perhaps my REAL quotes struck gold.

Answer #2:
If you are capable of critical thinking you have not demostrated that to me. Your forte' seems to call the OPINIONS of others "lies" and making psychoanalytic diagnoses that people who have different opinions are filled with "hate". But perhaps it is easier for YOU to call others liars and hateful than to actually think of a reasoned counter argument....

Answer #3:
I don't think so. This coincidence stretches the bonds of ones imagination. At a minimum it was a dishonest attempt to manipulate the debate.

It is simply not possible to reason with a person who:
A. Calls other people's ***OPINIONS*** "lies" instead of calling it what it is: A DIFFERENT OPINION.
B. Makes up IMAGINARY quotes which are slightly altered versions of another's quotes.

I will not debate against your IMAGINARY quotes that you choose to make up.
It is simply a waste of time and shows you are not being honest.

You should familiarize yourself with the latin phrase:
ad hominem
It means against the man.

It is a illogical debate strategy where one attacks the person instead of their argument. You are well versed at this tactic. For example:
*You have accused me of being hate-filled several times to the point of being boorish.
*You have thrown the word lies and liar about like some people throw baseballs.

You accuse me of oversimplying the left yet you make up these IMAGINARY quotes and attribute them to the right. What is that English word that begins with an 'H' and ends with an 'e". Hmmmmmm..... Hxxxxxxxe.

[Utah]

It reminds me of the hilarious scene in Clerks when the two clerks argue about whether the contractors on the Death Star deserved to die.

[bholdr]

hmmmm...

i tried to be reasonable... i tried to explain my position, which is a reasonable one. seems to me like you WANT to be insulted or something. but i'll give it ONE more shot:

to # 1:
i was GENRALIZING. my point was this: right wing propagandists (ruch, savage, etc,) seek to demonize the left be associating the mainstream with the radical fringe by disingeniously claiming and implying thet people like curchill represent that mainstream. what's so hard to understand about that? and as somebody that harps so strongly about ME not providing counter arguments, all you've done is exactly what you're accusing me of! it's bizzare, frankly. did you see the "not you or your statements"? how the hell could i have been more clear?

#2: would you prefer that i used the number 3? 3WTF?!3

#3: no, not coincidence at all, but you have the chain of causality wrong. your statements appear to be only slight modifications of the prevalant conservitive talk radio talking points. you may search all of my old posts, if you like, there IS NOT ONE misquote in the whole 600+. like i said, i copy and paste. dont believe me? see for yourself.

hey, look, here's a 'quote':
"It is simply not possible to reason with a person who: Calls other people's ***OPINIONS*** "lies" instead of calling it what it is: A DIFFERENT OPINION."

it's also hard to reason with a person that's willing to call deliberate misstatements of fact and intentionally misleading accusations mere 'opinion'. my point in saying that your demogougs were liars was that they often state things that either A: they know NOT TO BE TRUE or B: would have to be crazy to believe. i wish i could provide you with quotes directly taken form rush, etc, but I lack the time, and any reasonable person would aggree that my genralizations were fair.

as for the mudslinging accusations:
I did not call you a liar- now you're twisting MY statements, i said you were making (quote cominggg) "reckless exageration bordering on outright lies."
that is different. you, on the other hand, have directly called me a liar, and continue to do so, even though i've presented you with clear evidence to the contrary.

as for calling you hateful, you have given me no reason to believe you aren't: disliking an entire social, racial or political group, looking on them with riducule and scorn, is hateful:

from dictionary.com
"hateful

adj 1: evoking or deserving hatred; "no vice is universally as hateful as ingratitude"- Joseph Priestly [ant: lovable] 2: characterized by malice; "a hateful thing to do"; "in a mean mood" [syn: mean]
i would say, as would an objective observer, that your statements fit this efinition well.


you have been terribly unreasonable, telling me what i'm saying even after I've apologized for not being sufficiently clear and sticking to your original misinterpretations despite VERY CLEAR evidence to the contrary ('not you or your statments', etc). is winning this argument that important to you?

if you still can't see that i am actually trying to have a reasonable debate, here you go. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=145848 6&Forum=f27&Words=whackjob%20%2Bsimpleton%20%2Btro glodyte&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1448644&Search= true&where=bodysub&Name=19946&daterange=1&newerval =1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post 1458486)

[Felix_Nietsche]

"and as somebody that harps so strongly about ME not providing counter arguments, all you've done is exactly what you're accusing me of!"
****LOL...You are so easy to disprove.
Here is an example. When I made my opinions about some Democrats wanted the insurgents to win in Iraq, I provided quotes of Democratic bloggers who wanted the insurgents to win. In addition I provided web sites that show these peace-loving demostrators in action. This is called supporting evidence... Game set and match....
Another false statement by yourself...
Seriously....can you not see why I have difficulty in believing a word you say?

"it's also hard to reason with a person that's willing to call deliberate misstatements of fact and intentionally misleading accusations"
****Is not a deliberate misstatement, the defintion of a lie?
And is not a person who tells lies a liar.
Yet you claim you never called me a liar.
I MADE AN OPINION that the kook fringe is running the Democratic party. Do you know what an OPINION is? here is a defintion, because I don't think you know what an opinion is.

Opinion (defintion): A belief held with confidence but not substantiated by undisputed proof.

Again I provided links to quotes of Democrat bloggers and links showing Democrat peace marchers as partial evidence why I believe this to be true. Again, if you don't know the defintion of an opinion, then there is no point in arguing with you...

"my point in saying that your demogougs were liars was that they often state things that either A: they know NOT TO BE TRUE or B: would have to be crazy to believe."
****LOL...What arrogance you have.
I'll sum up what you just wrote. They are either liars or crazy. And what qualifies you to make such judgements? No wonder you are incapable of having an honest debate where people with different OPINIONS are either liars or insane /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I suppose if I said Cherry pie was better than apple pie you would call me a liar....

"i wish i could provide you with quotes directly taken form rush, etc, but I lack the time, and any reasonable person would aggree that my genralizations were fair."
*****Support your conclusions with supporting evidence? Why start now?

"as for the mudslinging accusations:
I did not call you a liar- now you're twisting MY statements, i said you were making (quote cominggg) "reckless exageration bordering on outright lies."
****Gee whiz, I certainty feel better now (with large gobs of sarcasm dripping from my lips). You have already admitted that you question my honesty.... When I wrote, 'I've never questioned your honesty... Yet you question mine.'....YOU ADMIITED that you did questioned my honesty by replying,

"yes, i have...."
****Game, set, and match.
I suppose if you took a knife and began to stab someone you would tell them you really NOT stabbing them....just their body...

"that is different. you, on the other hand, have directly called me a liar, and continue to do so, even though i've presented you with clear evidence to the contrary."
****
In my experience, when someone throws the words lies/liar around too carelessly, it is usually because they themselves are liars. In my INITIAL response, I deliberatly kept my mouth shut despite your personal attacks upon me but after repeated attacks and YOUR creation of false IMAGINARY quotes, then I could take no more. And I find it amusing, that your now trying to wear the mantle of victim...

You're like the man who murders his parents but asks the court for mercy because you're an orphan.... You attacked me first and then I responded. And you gave me PLENTY of ammunition....

"as for calling you hateful, you have given me no reason to believe you aren't: disliking an entire social, racial or political group, looking on them with riducule and scorn,....i would say, as would an objective observer, that your statements fit this efinition well."
*****I have several liberal friends and we can talk politics with out calling each other's OPINIONS lies. It is called maturity. If you are referring to my scorn of the Kook Democratic left, then yes, I have no respect for them. But they are VERY useful, because Americans swing voters are seeing their madness and being repelled towards the Republicans...

"you have been terribly unreasonable, telling me what i'm saying even after I've apologized for not being sufficiently clear and sticking to your original misinterpretations despite VERY CLEAR evidence to the contrary"
*****LOL...you imply that a person is a liar (defintion: a person who tells lies) and are surprised when they examine you under the microscope. Now you are being truly entertaining /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"if you still can't see that i am actually trying to have a reasonable debate, here you go."
****It seems your idea of a reasonable debate is to call differing opinions LIES and people with those different opinions HATEFUL. I could have a more reasonable debate with a monkey.

[lastchance]

Umm... That's fire-worthy. Yeah... Unless there's something more, you can fire his ass.

[Dr Wogga]

.....in my mind that is a 100% "fireable" speech. The academia angle, the 1st amendment angle - bullshit on all those angles. This is a guy in a public university teaching our kids for Christ's sake. Fire him, then let the local NFA have target practice on ward jazeera

[andyfox]

"let the local NFA have target practice on ward jazeera"

Aren't you saying the same thing he did?

[lastchance]

But he's on a message board, the guy's a professor. There should be a double standard.

He put this in a academic paper. As a professor, you are responsible for what you write in an academic paper.

Part of a professor's job is writing good academic papers.

If a proffesor going to use your academic paper to make a point, that professor has to know he's putting his job on the line.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Tenured professors are practically bullet proof. His job is safe. The only ways to get rid of a tenured professor is to:

1. They commit an act of moral turpitude.
2. Abolish their department.

If they try to fire him, he'll sue and win....

[lastchance]

Really? Didn't know. Mind sharing some more insight? (on professors the job they have)

[bholdr]

you're still hearing what you want to hear instead of listening, and are obviously incapable or unwilling to see the finer points of the distinctions that i am making.

* * *

here's an example of an appearently deliberate miscontextulization on your part (it may have been an oversight, i geuss, which is why, again, i will only say it BORDERS on a lie):


[ QUOTE ]
"it's also hard to reason with a person that's willing to call deliberate misstatements of fact and intentionally misleading accusations"
****Is not a deliberate misstatement, the defintion of a lie?
And is not a person who tells lies a liar.
Yet you claim you never called me a liar.
I MADE AN OPINION that the kook fringe is running the Democratic party. Do you know what an OPINION is? here is a defintion, because I don't think you know what an opinion is.

[/ QUOTE ]
and the rest of what you were quoting (remember that the opretive word is DELIBERATE):

[ QUOTE ]
...mere 'opinion'. my point in saying that your demogougs were liars...

[/ QUOTE ]

notice, not you...
in addition, i said:

[ QUOTE ]
although i suppose 'the left is run by whackos' could be a matter of opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]

!!?? did you miss that, or are you ignoring it?

* * *

you change your argument and tactics against me in each post, striking from a different angle each time, vainly struggling to fing a chink in the armor of my logic. there is none.

first you tried to deny my affirmation that the left does not respect the likes of curchill the same way the right does not respect the veiws of David duke. realizing your error, you tried something else.

in your next post, you took a bunch of genralizations radicly out of context, claiming that i was deliberatly misquoting you, in an attempt to put me on the defensive, even after i showed you that i cleary mentioned that i WAS NOT in order to prevent you from doing so.... you've given up on that too.

Now you are doing exactly what you've been accusing me of- misrepresenting your opponent's statements (see above). lacking anything useful to say yoursely, you can only attack my statements.

I am baffled as to why you feel the need to do so? perhaps it's some atavistic sense of honor? you've been insulted, and wether you're right or wrong, you MUST WIN! like the woman in the Licthenstien print...
"I'd rather drown than call for help!"

Perhaps, for your own good, you could print this thread and show it to somebody (preferably not an extreme partisan)that you respect, without names attached, and see what they have to say about it: you're clearly rejecting my arguments because I am making them. I am sorry that you are this way, and i hope someday you figure it out, you poor, hateful, cartoonish boob. (ok now you can feel insulted, justifiably)

goodbye. i'm sorry this debate could not have been more productive, i won't be visiting this thread again, and you're going on my 'whackjob/ ignore' list with Dr. Wogga and Hack.

[Felix_Nietsche]

This the nature of getting tenure at an American University.

The story I heard was the tenure system began years ago as a result of college professors being fired for political reasons. As a result of massive abuse, the tenure system was developed which effectively gives tenure professors jobs for life.

Many professors have abused the tenure system and there have been calls to reform the tenure system... Don't count on it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20041227.shtml

[Felix_Nietsche]

"first you tried to deny my affirmation that the left does not respect the likes of curchill the same way the right does not respect the veiws of David duke. realizing your error, you tried something else."
*****************************
OK. I'm calling bull**** on this. All my statements are on record. SHOW ME WHERE I "tried to deny my affirmation that the left does not respect the likes of curchill the same way the right does not respect the veiws of David duke".
You can't do it. YOU MADE THIS UP. Just like those fictional quotes. SHOW AND I WILL APOLOGIZE for insinuating you lying about this.....as well.


"in your next post, you took a bunch of genralizations radicly out of context, claiming that i was deliberatly misquoting you, in an attempt to put me on the defensive, even after i showed you that i cleary mentioned that i WAS NOT in order to prevent you from doing so.... you've given up on that too."
********************
You have conceded those quotes were not mine.
You have also conceded you made those quotes up.
Therefore I see no reason to address this issue anymore.
Though I will say it is pretty lame to make up quotes to bolster your arguments...


"you can only attack my statements."
*******************************
Very good at least your conceding this. That is the heart of a honest debate. To attack another person's arguments. Not the person themselves....
Try doing this, and you may find people will act more respectful towards you.


"I am baffled as to why you feel the need to do so?"
*********************************
This does not surprise me... Empathy does not seem to be your forte'.


"you're clearly rejecting my arguments because I am making them."
***************************
I've heard you express disagreements with my opinions by calling my opinions lies...BUT...I'm STILL waiting for you to make your first argument. So far you have only made personal attacks and written fictional quotes.


I am sorry that you are this way, and i hope someday you figure it out, you poor, hateful, cartoonish boob. (ok now you can feel insulted, justifiably)"
*********************************
Feel insulted? Why? I'm use to your tactics by now.
If you could make a post without using insults...THEN... I would be impressed.


"goodbye. i'm sorry this debate could not have been more productive, i won't be visiting this thread again, and you're going on my 'whackjob/ ignore' list with Dr. Wogga and Hack."
*****************************
Whackjob?...<Sigh>....more insults. At least you are being consistent with your tactics. With such close-mindedness, no doubt your list will grow longer.

But it is SMART of you not to respond anymore to this thread because as I said in the first paragraph of the response, I caught you in another falsehood. Although, I suppose you could make up more statements and put them in quotes.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I understand. My only point is that the good doctor is criticizing somebody for saying that the people who were killed in the WTC deserved it and then he recommends (if we take him seriously, which is probably a mistake) that that somebody be given the same treatment.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
"As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to 'ignorance' – a derivative, after all, of the word 'ignore' – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, when I first read that I didn't see the quotation marks and thought that Andy was being a satirist. I can't believe someone could seriously write that.

[Dr Wogga]

.....why not a dose of his own medicine? If our family and friends are part of "the engine", and Ward Churchill condoned their killing, then he is our ENEMY. Enemies should be killed - or they wil kill us.

[BTW, for those who don't know, my son was on the 23rd floor of the north tower on 9/11 and, apparently sadly for this scumbag professor, this "[censored] educator" of our children, my son got out alive].

I have no compassion for our enemies Andy. None. we are better off when his ilk are 6 feet under.

[andyfox]

Isn't this exactly the attitude of the 9/11 killers? As per Churchill's argument, by being part of our "system," the "elite" who worked in the WTC was guilty for being party to the death of children in Iraq. You're saying, similarly, that Churchill condoned the killing in the WTC, and thus is part of their "system." The 9/11 killers took this attitude, that their enemies should be killed before they kill them.

I'm not, BTW, ever the pacifist. I was in favor of a retaliatory attack on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after 9/11. I am not in favor of killing Churchill.

[Dr Wogga]

....but if you subscribe to the idea that we are at war vs. the radical Islamist terrorists, and if you are "aiding and abetting" the enemy with your anti-American (and very racist) diatribes, then it stands to reason Churchill is a traitor. At the least, he should be fired. At the most extreme, he should be dead. Somewhere in the middle, he should be deported so he can go live with the al qaeda he apparently loves so dearly.

[andyfox]

I don't see how saying the 9/11 victims got what they deserved is treasonous. Deluded and reprehensible, certainly. But one of the things that makes us better than Al Qaeda is our ability, in our country, to say what one thinks, no matter how reprehensible. I find most of your views reprehensible (as I'm sure you do mine). Deporting him or you or me for expresssing them would lessen us as a country.

BTW, I'm delighted to hear that your son survived that terrible, terrible day.

[vulturesrow]

Andy,

I had a friend die in the Pentagon attack. Still, I agree with you in spite of my visceral reaction to this maniacs writing. Certainly I agree reluctantly but I dont particularly like the idea of firing the guy based solely on this piece of vitriol.

[andyfox]

Sorry to hear about your friend, glad to read what a good man you are.

[MMMMMM]

If this guy is "teaching" students such a horribly slanted view of the world--that is, teaching, as in not merely expressing opinion--such radical viewpoints as if they were fact rather than opinion--then I think he should be fired.

It is rather hard for me to to imagine that he, as an "ethnic studies" professor, is making any effort to compartmentalize his radical views from his duties regarding fact-based teaching at the university.

A professor having a little personal opinion slip into his lectures is probably unavoidable, and may not even be undesirable. However if that sort of bullsh*t about "little Eichmanns" etcetera constitutes a major part of his lectures, then I say fire his ass. If that's primarily what he teaches, then he is just doing a terrible job teaching, and tenure should be no shield for gross incompetence.

Here is an interesting article about this malevolent piece of scum, who, by the way, suggests that it may be "necessary" for the U.S. to suffer more 9/11 type attacks, and who wants the U.S. to to be wiped off the face of the Earth entirely.


"Prof: I want U.S. off the planet
Embattled, terror-condoning academic said he wants America 'out of existence'
Posted: February 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Characterizing 9-11 terror victims as "little Eichmanns" and commending the al-Qaida suicide hijackers for their "gallant sacrifices" may not even be the most outrageous statements University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill ever made.

In the April 2004 edition of Satya Magazine, a monthly publication "focusing on vegetarianism, environmentalism, animal advocacy, and social justice," Churchill, under fire for his post 9-11 essay, said: "[I want the] U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether."

Ironically, Satya, which means "truth" in Sanskrit, says it is "committed to continuing Gandhi's legacy by increasing dialogue among activists from diverse backgrounds and engaging readers in ways to integrate compassion into their daily lives."

Churchill is described in the interview as "perhaps one of the most provocative thinkers around. A Creek and enrolled Keetoowah Band Cherokee, Churchill is a longtime Native rights activist. He has been heavily involved in the American Indian Movement."

However, the American Indian Movement formally expelled Churchill in 1996, calling him "deceitful" and "treacherous" and questioning his Indian ancestry. Last week, the Oneida Indian Nation denied he is registered among the Keetoowah Band.

''It's disturbing that anyone would use such hateful speech, and do so while claiming to be an American Indian when there is significant evidence that he is not," said the Oneida statement. "Professor Churchill caused many in the media to falsely believe an American Indian scholar could besmirch the lives of those who died on 9-11. Because of this, he owes every American Indian an apology."

Churchill resigned his position as head of the Colorado University ethnic studies program but kept his $96,000 per year teaching post.

At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti.

In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ''Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle.''

In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.''

According to Jodi Rave, an American Indian journalist, Churchill was enrolled as an ''associate member'' of the Keetoowah by a former chairman who was later impeached. The one other known member of the same program, since discontinued, was President Bill Clinton. Rave said that she made this discovery as a student in a journalism class at the University of Colorado. She was also in a class taught by Churchill. When her article came out, she said, he dropped her grade from an A to a C-minus.

"One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary," Churchill said in the Satyr interview. "This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. ‘Hey those brown-skinned folks dying in the millions in order to maintain this way of life, they can wait forever for those who purport to be the opposition here to find some personally comfortable and pure manner of affecting the kind of transformation that brings not just lethal but genocidal processes to a halt.’ They have no obligation – moral, ethical, legal or otherwise – to sit on their thumbs while the opposition here dithers about doing anything to change the system. So it’s removing the sense of – and right to – impunity from the American opposition."

Churchill said he does not want a revolution. He does not want others to assume power in the U.S. Instead, he explained, he wants the state destroyed.

"I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether," he concluded.

In a foreword to the book Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (edited and introduction by Steven Best, a University of Texas El Paso philosophy professor and animal-rights activist), Churchill expands his Nazi comparison to modern medical researchers and meat companies.

"To assault the meatpacking industry," Churchill writes, "is to mount a challenge to the mentality that allowed well over a million dehumanized humans to be systematically slaughtered by the SS einsatzgruppen in eastern Europe during the early 1940s, and the nazis' simultaneous development of truly industrial killing techniques in places like Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka."

Churchill contends groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front haven't gone far enough in defending "animal rights." He claims that drawing a "line in the tactical sand" that embraces "property damage" but excludes murder is "arbitrary" – and again invokes Eichmann: "Given the opportunity to do either in, say, 1942, would it have been more effective/appropriate to have torched the office of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat whose peculiar expertise made an orderly implementation of the Final Solution possible, or to have eliminated Eichmann himself? The answer need not be rendered as an abstraction."

Tuesday, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens urged the university to fire Churchill. And the state House passed a non-binding resolution yesterday calling his comments "evil and inflammatory." A similar measure was awaiting action in the Senate.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the controversy stems from an essay Churchill wrote titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In it, he describes the thousands of American victims who died in the World Trade Center inferno as "little Eichmanns" (a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann) who were perpetuating America's "mighty engine of profit." They were destroyed, he added, thanks to the "gallant sacrifices" of "combat teams" that successfully targeted the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42740

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
At least Scalia and Thomas generally correctly interpret the Constitution and rule accordingly, which is more than can be said of certain other Supreme Court justices.

U.S. Supreme Court justices are tasked with ruling on the law as it is written, not with considering it of secondary importance upon their discretion and making alternate decisions "for the good of society". If Constitutional matters should be decided otherwise for the good of society, well, that's what the Amendment process is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." - John Marshall

I'm open to criticisms of some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, but to accuse certain justices of blatantly ignoring the Constitution is not fair. It's not like the "liberal" judges are are making decisions upholding ex post facto laws and the quartering of soldiers in people's homes.

The Constitution was not intended to have the specificity of a legal code. It is inevitable that certain issues will not be addressed by the exact wording of the Constitution. There are many gray areas in the Constitution. Terms like due process and equal protection are inherently ambigous terms that can be interpreted in many different ways. There is not only one obvious interpretation. Even the strictest strict constructionists do not think that we should have to resort to the amendment process to resolve every gray area in the constitution.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Justice Breyer quoted foreign laws to back his arguments for some of his rulings. Scalia made the comment that that these foreign laws were later overturned.

Not using foreign laws to make constitutional decisions would be a good start....

[MMMMMM]

Fair points, Slickpoppa--but certain justices take it upon themselves to do much more than what you are suggesting.

In Grutter vs. Bollinger, the landmark Michigan affirmative action case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cited a "compelling interest" the state has in ensuring diversity.

The only problem with that, legally speaking, is that this particular "compelling interest" (if indeed it even exists) is in direct conflict with the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, how to legally resolve this conflict, if you're one of a certain five Supreme Court Justices? Why, just ignore it, and present no legal arguments as for why this particular "compelling interest" should trump that other much more venerable and well-recognized compelling interest: the right of the individual to equal protection under the law, as spelled out in the 14th Amendment.

O'Connor did write that in 25 years, affirmative action might no longer be necessary and might somehow vanish. In so doing, however, she was also tacitly admitting that the decision was in fact flouting the Equal Protection clause.

As Clarence Thomas succintly put it in his dissenting opinion:

"...As the foregoing makes clear, I believe the Court's opinion to be, in most respects, erroneous. I do, however, find [another point] on which I agree.

The Court also holds that racial discrimination in admissions should be given another 25 years before it is deemed no longer narrowly tailored to the Law School's fabricated compelling state interest.

While I agree that in 25 years the practices of the Law School will be illegal, they are, for the reasons I have given, illegal now. The majority does not and cannot rest its time limitation on any evidence that the gap in credentials between black and white students is shrinking or will be gone in that timeframe."

[MtSmalls]

The problem that I have with this entire discussion is that one part of a very long essay is being used, and in fact part of an essay written several years ago.

While I do not subscribe to Mr. Churchills views, his thought process and conclusions are not invalid. His opinion is that the execution of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East over the last 20 years, forced a retaliation by those people responsible for attacking the WTC. Not dissimilar to the idea that the neighborhood bully can only force the smaller kids on the block to cower in fear for so long, before he must expect some sort of attack from those he cowed for so long.

His use of inflammatory language and symbolism is way off the charts, but still protected by the First Amendment. In exactly the same way that parades and marches by the KKK are still protected in this country.

If you don't like him teaching your kids, don't send them. Its not a forced secondary education. Boycott the school, work from inside to change the views of the students and faculty. But his actions are neither criminal nor traitorous, and in fact looking for his dismissal based on those statements, or advocating his deportation or death IS traitorous to the ideals of this country.

I don't hear the outrage coming from anyone in reference to Ms. Coulter's most recent statement in an interview with the NY Observer:
"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now and give the rest of the world a warning. I just think it would be fun to nuke them."

[CORed]

I remember a press release from the Board of Regents last week saying that they would consider Ward Churchill's writing and the "need for the ethnic studies department". I haven't heard any more about it, but I think there is a possibility that they will abolish his department to get rid of him.

[vulturesrow]

I agree with your premise that his speech is protected.

However in regards to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hear the outrage coming from anyone in reference to Ms. Coulter's most recent statement in an interview with the NY Observer:
"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now and give the rest of the world a warning. I just think it would be fun to nuke them."

[/ QUOTE ]

The two situations are somewhat different. She isnt a tenured professor and department head at a major university.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
While I do not subscribe to Mr. Churchills views, his thought process and conclusions are not invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, some of his thought process and conclusions are quite invalid. For instance, his net assignment of guilt to people working in the U.S. financial industry.

[MtSmalls]

No, she isn't a tenured professor, nor a department head. She makes a lot more money to broadcast her opinion to hundreds of thousands of people every day, rather just a few hundred..

And is advocating the use of the most horrific WMD known to man on several million people, rather than saying that in some minds the WTC attack made sense.

[MtSmalls]

His point is that the retaliation was inevitable, and that attacking that particular target made some sense (to the terrorist) as the financial machine that feeds the military industrial complex. That and it was a really high profile target.

Again I don't subscribe to the theory, but I understand the thought process.

[lastchance]

As long as it's an actual argument. Remember, that's kind of important in an academic paper. No one enjoys flaming rhetoric in an academic paper either.

[CORed]

Yes, but in Churchill's world, greedy capitalists are responsible for all that is wrong with the world, so anybody that works for the greedy capitalists is guilty.

[Dr Wogga]

.....he wouldn't dare condemn "non-capitalist" China, whose human rights abuses are every bit akin to what the REAL AMerican Indians endured. Of course, Churchill has not been able to prove one ounce of Indian blood, so he's as phony on top of being a bigoted racist a-hole.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
It always makes me laugh when people dispute the radical leftist bent of our colleges and universities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what his remarks have to do with him being leftist. His remarks are just stupid.

[andyfox]

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
If our family and friends are part of "the engine", and Ward Churchill condoned their killing, then he is our ENEMY. Enemies should be killed - or they wil kill us.


[/ QUOTE ]

...because, of course, the only route to peace is through killing all of our enimies...


/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in Churchill's world, greedy capitalists are responsible for all that is wrong with the world, so anybody that works for the greedy capitalists is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well fire his ass then. Might just as well make some other unscientific claim that is clearly false, and teach it as if it were true.

College students deserve to be taught truth, not falsehoods.

Churchill certainly has a right to his (false) views. However he doesn't have a right to get paid for teaching falsehoods (if indeed he is teaching that nonsense).

[MMMMMM]

MtSmalls,

I too understand his thought process, but significant portions of it are invalid.

Ward Churchill might also say that every scientist, not only financial workers, are guilty too, because the military depends on scientific progress and development, and scientists all contribute to the body of knowledge that is tapped for military developments. Then he might say that everyone who teaches science is guilty. But this is ridiculous.

Even if there were a clearer conection between those in the financial industry and the military--in order to to accept his claim at face value, you would also have to ignore all the good those in the financial industries have done--and all the foreign humanitarian aid that has been provided--and all the hospitals that have been built, etc. with money made in that industry, etc.--in order to even begin to take his chain of reasoning seriously.

In order to take his claim at face value about the military, you would also have to ignore all the good the military has done, too...defeating the Nazis, the Japanese Imperialists, stopping the genocidal slaughter in the Bosnia, etc.

He is committing the error of looking at things which have pluses and minuses, and scoring only the minuses. He is also drawing a very loose connection, to the point of being fairly farfetched, in assigning guilt. There is no way those financial workers have done more harm than good in the world with their work in the industry.

There are other invalidities in his chain of logic, and I suspect you will find them if you think about it deeply enough.

Short version: he's got a chain of reasoning all right, but it is unsound. Don't students deserve to be taught by people who can reason logically? What the hell are we paying them 96K per year for if not that?

[MMMMMM]

I agree his remarks are stupid. So what is a university doing paying someone so stupid to teach, anyway? Can someone so stupid be an effective teacher? I don't think so.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree his remarks are stupid. So what is a university doing paying someone so stupid to teach, anyway? Can someone so stupid be an effective teacher? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose he could still be an effective teacher depending on what the subject matter was. If I was in charge at the university I would fire him. I wouldn't want that person representing my school, and I wouldn't expect people to send their kids to a school that employed him.

[Felix_Nietsche]

....In Denver on Tuesday in a packed ballroom.

The self-hating Americans have found their new idol to worship. He meets all their credentilas:
1. Lies about himself/credentials (claiming he is part Indian)
2. Is happy when America's enemies kill Americans
3. Votes Democrat

Howard Dean may have a new rival for chair of the DNC. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HDPM]

"What the hell are we paying them 96K per year for if not that?"


Well, at least we pay him less than the football coach.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
....In Denver on Tuesday in a packed ballroom.

The self-hating Americans have found their new idol to worship. He meets all their credentilas:
1. Lies about himself/credentials (claiming he is part Indian)
2. Is happy when America's enemies kill Americans
3. Votes Democrat

Howard Dean may have a new rival for chair of the DNC. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this guy have to do with Howard Dean? And who cares if this idiot votes democrat? I bet most members of the KKK vote republican, that doesn't mean I compare them to George Bush.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"What does this guy have to do with Howard Dean?"
*************************************************
If you have read my other posts, you would know that I believe the kook fringe of the Democratic party has the Democratic party by the gonads. I considered Ward Churchill to be part of this kook Democratic fringe.

I think it is obvious that someone like Churchill will never chair the DNC. I was joking. One technique of telling a joke is to take a small truth and exagerate it to the point of being absurb. Watching ten minutes of Jay Leno/John Stewart will demonstrate this.

If you follow politics, you would know that Dean chairing the DNC would mean a shift in power from the more moderate Clinton wing of the Democratic party to the left. So Dean chairing the DNC would be a sign of the Democratic party turning more leftward... My joke was exagerating that the Democrats are turning so far left that Ward Churchill could chair the DNC.
But maybe this is more of a joke for Republicans. Perhaps I did not exagerate enough, maybe Ward Churchill chairing the DNC is more realistic than I thought. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"And who cares if this idiot votes democrat?"
***********************************************
Evidently you do....
If someone pointed out that a nazi from Woshlosh, WI voted for Bush, I would not feel threatened... Most of the time people vote for the person that ticks them off the least. I definately have my problems with Bush43 but I found him to be a better alternative than Kerry.

"I bet most members of the KKK vote republican, that doesn't mean I compare them to George Bush."
************************************************
If you or someone else wants to compare these people to Bush, go ahead....
Unlike you, I would not care. I suppose I am more my confident in my political beliefs and therefore I am less defensive...

Now when I was a Democrat, I was less confident in my beliefs.
If I had read this post when I was a Democrat, I would have probably reacted just like you did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had read this post when I was a Democrat, I would have probably reacted just like you did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your strategy. Just keep making stupid posts, and when someone calls you on it you can accuse them of being defensive. Maybe our professor friend should use this strategy. "If you capitalists were more confident in your opinions, you would just shrug it off when I compared you to Nazis. You guys are so defensive..."

[MtSmalls]

I'm sure there is at least one tenured professor in the Econ department teaching (or writing about) Supply side economics, which most of the discipline considers stupid. Its still taught. There are teachers in the History department that downplay the Japanese Internment camps in the US during WWII that I find exceptionally distasteful. There are Professors in the Religious studies departments teaching -GASP- tolerance... how inane....

I don't have a current course manual, but I am pretty sure that Churchill isn't teaching a class at CU under the title "How the US is bad, and the WTC victims deserved it" or anything of the sort.

Why was there no public uproar when he WROTE this essay, more than THREE YEARS AGO????

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Just keep making stupid posts"
********************************
Please....tell you are smarter than that.
Surely you can make more intellectual and more polite responses than this. Can I assume this to be true?

"Maybe our professor friend should use this strategy. 'If you capitalists were more confident in your opinions, you would just shrug it off when I compared you to Nazis. You guys are so defensive...'"
******************************
I will concede that there are Republicans who are LESS condident in their beliefs than me.
Otherwise they just would have rolled their eyes like I did....
By-the-way, was that a Freudian slip when you referred to Churchill as a "friend". Were you conceding he was a friend of the Democratic Party? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, I'm very happy that Ward Churchill made those comments.
The more information that swing voters have about the kook fringe of the Democratic party, the better the Republicans will do in the coming elections.

People like Ward Churchill are killing the Democratic party which I have mixed feelings about. I would like a competant Democrat party that can act as a counterweight to Republican ideas that I oppose, but I don't see this happening in my lifetime....

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

The more information that swing voters have about the kook fringe of the Democratic party, the better the Republicans will do in the coming elections. People like Ward Churchill are killing the Democratic party which I have mixed feelings about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand any of this. What does this guy have to do with the Democratic party? When someone does something stupid are we supposed to assume everyone else who votes the same way as that person is guilty of the same idiocy?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying he should be fired because his views are abhorrent. I'm saying his assigning of major collective guilt to the workers in the WTC shows that he cannot reason or think at even a moderate level of competence. In other words he never should have had that 96K teaching job in the first place.

[Felix_Nietsche]

What does this guy have to do with the Democratic party?
***********************************
I concede Churchill is not an offical spokemans of the Democratic Party.
And I concede *IF* this was just ONE isolated incident then my post would be silly....

However, this incident is one of MANY incidents by kook left wing Democrats. I will give you examples:
*During Iraq War2: Democrat protesters trying to stop supply ships from delivering supplies to US troops.
*On Democrat web sites, democratic bloggers expressing their desire for the Iraqi insurgents to defeat the US army (which means killing US troops).
*NUMEROUS Democrat 'Peace' marchers where protesters attack pro Bush supporters and vandalize property.
www.protestwarrior.com (http://www.protestwarrior.com)
www.brain-terminal.com (http://www.brain-terminal.com)
*Democrat house representatives traveling to Iraq, posing pictures with Saddam, saying they believe Saddam more than Bush43. And Democrats vote for people like this !
*1200 people giving Ward Churchill a standing-O in Denver. And I bet there were a lot more that agree with Churchill but chose not to attend his speech.
* and more............

There is a pattern of kooky behavior by the left-wing Democrats...

"When someone does something stupid are we supposed to assume everyone else who votes the same way as that person is guilty of the same idiocy?"
********************************************
Of course not. I have liberal friends who are alarmed by this behavior. We may disagree on everything else but we agree these people are kooks.

My assertion is these left-kooks have a HUGE influence over the Democratic Party... And like it or not, these kooks have the Democrat Party by the gonads... The Democrat leadership needs these people to win elections and they are afraid to tick these people off....

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4180042/detail.html

Geez...these left wing kooks keep providing more ammo.

[BCPVP]

This waste-of-space might be coming to the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where I happen to be going and is supposed to be giving a speech about racism towards Native Americans during "Native American Pride Week". It's disgusting, and I hope our chancellor follows through with the consideration to cancel that event for several reasons.
1) There are serious questions as to whether Churchill even is a Native American.
2) I don't believe the university would sponser a group of Nazis coming to discuss WWII or KKK members to speak about Civil Rights marches. This man preaches hate and there is no place for that here.

I see no reason to be proud of this man or any of his writings. If he wants to preach his bulls**t, fine, but let him do it in a privately funded venue and not in one where the the taxpayers are paying for the heating, lighting, and security. He's not welcome here.

[Dr Wogga]

....and you wonder if anotherr prof had given a speech with the ethnic slurs banned by the "P.C. police" would the same 1,000 people have applauded? We know the answer.......selective free speech, as defined by the far-left dema-gogue party

[MMMMMM]

Ward Churchill is a creep, and the rare sort of person with whom I feel embarrassed and repulsed to be sharing membership in the human race.

[andyfox]

"I'm saying his assigning of major collective guilt to the workers in the WTC shows that he cannot reason or think at even a moderate level of competence."

It's simply not true. I've read an essay he wrote debunking the holocaust deniers. Well written, logical, well-thought out and argued.

I know some people who earn six figures per week in their business who can't play poker to save their life. Sometimes some people can think clearly about "A" but can't about "B." Certainly you know somebody else like this. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MMMMMM]

OK I'll take your word for it, Andy, that he wrote a decent logically-put-together essay on another topic. Oddly enough that was about the holocaust. So how can someone fairly intelligent in one arena be so RETARDED in another?

It's not like the two areas are of different disciplines, such as math and poetry. They both deal with real world events and moral reasoning, etc. So...why is he such a friggin' retard or lunatic? The WTC workers = Eichmanns???

If he's not incapable of logical thought. then he's too lunatic to hold that job IMO. I think it more or less has to be one or the other. There is no logical way to derive the equivalence that the WTC workers = Eichmanns, without committing major errors of omission, too-extended linkings, etc. So either way he is incompetent, whether due to delusional insanity or lack of reasoning powers.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no logical way to derive the equivalence that the WTC workers = Eichmanns, without committing major errors of omission, too-extended linkings, etc. So either way he is incompetent, whether due to delusional insanity or lack of reasoning powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are all sorts of comparisons one can make when you have poor judgement. People with mustaches have something in common with Hitler, but it takes some pretty poor judgement to use him as your example.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There are all sorts of comparisons one can make when you have poor judgement. People with mustaches have something in common with Hitler, but it takes some pretty poor judgement to use him as your example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

For whatever reason, this guy showed very poor judgment both in thinking that there was an equivalence between the WTC workers and Eichmann, and also in publicly expressing that thought. Either way I wouldn't want him teaching my kids (if I had kids).

[Zeno]

Many people will use well-reasoned or logical acumen in one area and not in another; the cause is usually some sort of passionate belief or wishful dream or a longtime held conviction that clouds their judgment and reasoning ability and ultimately leads to a form of self-delusion. They may honestly think that they are being completely 'fair' and logical in both areas of interest. The resulting dichotomy is obvious to an outside observer but not to the person in question. It is really very common. We are all susceptible to this in various ways.

This is one reason why discussions on this forum are so often contentious and, in many ways, so silly.

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing which we often forget – or try to: that no man has a wholly undiseased mind; that in one way or another all men are mad. - Mark Twain


[/ QUOTE ]

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

OK Zeno that makes sense.

Now: I think that the extent or depth of his delusion is so severe that it should preclude him from teaching.

How much delusion should students (and their parents) be required to put up with? I wouldn't want a psychotic individual teaching my kids. Does it matter, from the students' perspective, if this professor's delusions are caused by psychosis, or are caused merely by something such as you suggest? Worse still, his delusions favor violence against innocent Americans.

Shitcan the guy ASAP.

If he wants to shout his delusions from the rooftops, fine (just not next door to me at 6 AM, please), but he shouldn't be getting paid to teach his delusions to others. And 10-1 odds says he is teaching some of that selfsame crap he wrote in the essay. In fact I can't imagine that he isn't, so make that at least 100-1--because he feels so passionately about this stuff, and since it is so likely intertwined (in his mind) with things like "ethnic studies".

Private delusion or insanity is one thing. Inflicting it on others is quite another. Teaching it is yet a third. IMO he has no business being in a position of such power over students, and the state has no business paying him one thin dime so he can espouse his lunatic views and cheer attacks against Americans.

And yes I am condemning him. I think violent delusional ideologies are the bane of humankind, and this guy appears to be just one step away from being a terrorist himself. Furthermore he wrote that essay with relish, as he talked about the "little Eichmanns" being killed--so he has a gratuitous streak regarding the violence he describes. Nauseating indeed. As I said before, I am ashamed to share membership in the human race with him. And I feel that any university should be ashamed to have him on their payroll.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
....and you wonder if anotherr prof had given a speech with the ethnic slurs banned by the "P.C. police" would the same 1,000 people have applauded? We know the answer.......selective free speech, as defined by the far-left dema-gogue party

[/ QUOTE ]

No, nor would the same people be offended.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There are serious questions as to whether Churchill even is a Native American.


[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that there was a tribe that for a short period of time was issuing associate memberships. Churchill was granted one of these memberships. Thus, his claims to be a member of a particular tribe are true, while claims to be "native american" may or may not be true.

[elwoodblues]

One of the largest critics of Churchill with regard to whether he is Indian is Vernon Bellecourt a member (maybe the head of) the American Indian Movement. A word to the wise to take ANYTHING you hear from that man with a gigantic grain of salt. His critique may be true, but I know enough about him to know that his penchant for dishonesty is legendary.

[MtSmalls]

How is it that you find Prof. Churchill's views so abhorrent that he deserves firing over them, but have no problem with Ann Coulter, on TV, saying that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NY Times building and not the Murrah building in OKC?

Or Falwell believing that the CIA headquarters at Foggy Bottom should be nuked?

Or Coulter again saying that it would be fun to nuke North Korea??

Can you differentiate any of these?

[andyfox]

Here's a link to the holocaust article:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec96churchill.htm

[elwoodblues]

I would suspect for some the difference is public employer v. private employer.

[adios]

Say that a tenured professor with radical political views at a university taught the classes he was assigned to teach at least satisfactorily according to university guidelines. Maybe that professor is even teaching political science and espouses some of his radical views in class but for the most part provides the content for his courses that meet university standards and guidelines. Should such a professor be run off campus? Perhaps a professor with radical viewpoints can't teach at the very least in a satisfactory manner but I doubt if that's true. Isn't that the real question regarding Churchill, how well does he teach his courses and/or is he covering the material in a way that meets university standards and guidelines? I have no idea what Churchill is teaching in the classroom.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it that you find Prof. Churchill's views so abhorrent that he deserves firing over them, but have no problem with Ann Coulter, on TV, saying that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NY Times building and not the Murrah building in OKC?

Or Falwell believing that the CIA headquarters at Foggy Bottom should be nuked?

Or Coulter again saying that it would be fun to nuke North Korea??

Can you differentiate any of these?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know what other statements I find abhorrent or not, MtSmalls?

I'm not especially familiar with the quotes you provide, though I do recognize them. My guess now (as when the quotes first come out) is that the quotes about the NYT building and Foggy Bottom were used as hyperbole to make rhetorical points--I don't think they seriously meant it (though the one about North Korea may have been meant seriously, I don't have any context at all for that).

However Ward Churchill was pretty clearly being serious in his entire essay. He really thinks the USA should be wiped off the face of the Earth and that the WTC workers were guilty as hell and that killing them was good. Those are deluded and evil views. He wrote them seriously and that's a lot different than making an offhand hyperbolic remark in order to emphasize a point. I do think even that hyperbole was uncalled for but I don't think they were seriously advocating the bombing of the NYT building or Foggy Bottom. Hencea big difference overall.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would suspect for some the difference is public employer v. private employer.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be my arguement. People don't have to listen to Ann Coulter if they don't want to, but there are a number of students who have no such luxury as turning the channel during Mr. Churchill's class.

And I think it is somewhat ironic that two men that Churchill declares as war criminals are now working together to run the relief effort for the tsunami victims. Some war criminals...

[Richard Tanner]

Yeah, alot of professors know that unless they have sex with a student, there pretty much there for life.

Cody

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
People don't have to listen to Ann Coulter if they don't want to, but there are a number of students who have no such luxury as turning the channel during Mr. Churchill's class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that there are no allegations (that I've heard) that Churchill carries this into the classroom.

[Utah]

I think that the threshhold for kicking a professor out who is fulfilling his duties but holds and pushed radical views needs to be very high. In your case, it should be darn near impossible to remove the professor.

However, what if the professor in your case espoused killing all blacks? Would you kick him out? What if he only espoused segregation and seperate rights for blacks and whites?

[MMMMMM]

I pretty much agree that that is the principal question, though I find it very hard to imagine that a lot of this stuff does not spill over into his teaching and classes.

If he were teaching math or music it would be very plausible that he would not be espousing his deluded views in class. Of course, I don't know just what is what he is teaching.

The subject/department he is involved with (ethnic studies) is so frequently discussed by the Left with a focus on the exploitation of minorities by whites, that I think it very likely he portrays it this way too. Even in his essay and comments about the WTC attacks, this was a theme of sorts. And this ties in neatly with Leftist propaganda which typically portrays the USA as the greatest evil ever to be visted on the Earth.

A a side note, I read an interesting recent column by Thomas Sowell which pointed out that it was whites who ended slavery, and that several hundred years ago the concept of slavery had not been seriously challenged anywhere in the world. So the ethnic group which the Left portrays as evil for participating in slavery, was actually the first to abolish it, whilst it continued being practiced by other cultures in other regions of the world. Also, Great Britain worked to abolish it in Africa even before it was abolished in the USA. Just another example of selective thinking and analysis--and propaganda--by the Left.

Gotta run, you can look up the article quickly if you like.

As another side note, I'm coming to think tenure should probably be changed to less of a shield than it currently is.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Ann Coulter, on TV, saying that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NY Times building and not the Murrah building in OKC"
****************************************
Ann Coulter is a satirist. Her columns constantly mock and poke fun at liberals. Your response is silly, desperate, and not honest.


"Or Falwell believing that the CIA headquarters at Foggy Bottom should be nuked?"
**************************************
Huh?....I though Foggy Bottom was an area in DC. It is also a slang term for the state department which is in this area.

I thought the CIA HQ was in Langly, VA.
Are you making this up as you go along?

Your entitled to your own opinions but not your facts........

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Say that a tenured professor with radical political views at a university taught the classes he was assigned to teach at least satisfactorily according to university guidelines. Maybe that professor is even teaching political science and espouses some of his radical views in class but for the most part provides the content for his courses that meet university standards and guidelines. Should such a professor be run off campus? Perhaps a professor with radical viewpoints can't teach at the very least in a satisfactory manner but I doubt if that's true. Isn't that the real question regarding Churchill, how well does he teach his courses and/or is he covering the material in a way that meets university standards and guidelines? I have no idea what Churchill is teaching in the classroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is the principal question. The key thing here, however, really comes down to what university standards should be concerning what can be taught in classes. IMO, you want to err far to the side of freedom of speech on this one. I'm not sure what kind of speech I might make actionable for dismissal, but I don't think anything Churchill said would qualify were I making the rules.

That's just my $.02.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the threshhold for kicking a professor out who is fulfilling his duties but holds and pushed radical views needs to be very high. In your case, it should be darn near impossible to remove the professor.

However, what if the professor in your case espoused killing all blacks? Would you kick him out? What if he only espoused segregation and seperate rights for blacks and whites?

[/ QUOTE ]


Good points Utah.

Ward Churchill is championing 9/11 style attacks and the utter destruction of the United States. While he is not exactly "calling for" these things, he nonetheless considers them positive developments and states he would like to see the USA completely wiped off the face of the Earth.

If a professor were to state that a notorious historical case of white vs. black lynchings was justified, and that the blacks who were lynched were "little Eichmanns" (or like some other historically evil person), and further stated that he wished to see the largest
"black" regions of Africa wiped off the face of the Earth--would that qualify as enough to fire that person from a tenured position? The racial/genocidal component apart, Ward Churchill is doing something fairly similar in his essay.

[Chris Alger]

1. They don't care if he's a bigot.

It is impossible to honestly maintain that the high-profile indignation over Churchill resulted from his insensitivy, bigotry and overgeneralization. These attributes, after all, are staples of the same right-wing pundits that MSM defines as legitimate contributors to the debate. Ann Coulter, appearing on Fox just the other night, has favored converting Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint, advocating a "war" that she describes as "carpet bombing" and "killing civilians." Cal Thomas claims that Muslim immigrants present a "beachhead" by "our enemies." When an Iranian airliner crashed killing 43, Don Imus's comments included "who cares?" and "too bad it wasn't full of Saudi Arabians."

The U.S. government is so nonchalant about the civilian carnage it inflicts that it refuses to even attempt to take a toll of victims (now tabulated by mutliple sources at several times the 9/11 toll). Indeed, in discussions of the costs and benefits of the Iraq war in the mainstream press, one rarely sees any reference the number of civilians killed, and often no reference at all to the fact of killing civilians. It's like reading terrorist planning documents for 9/11 discussing the costs and benefits and seeing no reference to the thousands likely to die. Churchill's piece is merely a kind of sociopathy that the media finds acceptable the victims are seen at cross-purposes, no matter how remotely, with Americans or their government.

That's why TV and radio or roiling over the crisis of little Ward Churchill actually speaking to students at Hamilton College while ignoring the most common forms of "Churchillism." Churchill's loudest opponents (Scarborough, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) have no qualms about one in four Americans believing that "Muslims teach their children to hate" and "Muslims value life less than other people," a horrendously destructive bigotry that they either foster or ignore. Churchill is in danger of losing his job and why Coulter gets richer off of "conservative" philanthropies every day. For the mainstream and the right, this is as it should be.

2. His main argument is rational.

It is also impossible to argue that Churchill is an irrationalist or that his basic point is so bereft of logic that it deserves no hearing. Churchill claims that 9/11 was a response to U.S. policy, that there were causal factors behind it other than an insane desire to murder and wreak havoc. That might be false, but its certainly a rational topic. To contend otherwise is to argue that government analysts of terrorism should refuse to investigate or even consider the potential role of U.S. policy in fostering conditions and attitudes that could lead to terror. Since nobody advoates that, the outrage over Churchill's thesis of "chickens coming home to roost" is either phony or thoughtless.

3. It's all about PC.

What's left to explain why Churchill is being pilloried amounts to the usual obsession with political correctness by the more fawning supporters of U.S. policy, typically mislabeled "conservatives." The right is obsessed with conformity and hates diversity and free expression, especially if it promotes the questioning or rejection of received, preferably official wisdom. They want to teach the public to hate dissenters and let dissenters know what's in store for them if they begin to reach an audience or cross arbitrary lines.

[Utah]

"His main argument is rational"

Whether they are rational or not is not entirely the point. His comments are as disgusting and hate filled as your putrid comments about Pat Tillman.

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

Ward Churchill's referring to all the WTC workers as "little Eichmanns"--and meaning it--is not rational. Do you agree or disagree?

[bholdr]

MMMMMMM: i think chris is saying that although his rhetoric may be inflamitory, bigoted, and irrational (unreasonable and unfair would be more accurate), his basic point is deserving of consideration.

that point: that the WTC attacks were motivated not only by muderous psychosis but by (perhaps oppressive) U.S. economic policy as well, deserves consideration and debate, even if churchill himself does not. The right-wing pundits that claim that the attacks were made solely as an attack upon freedom by murdering cowardly psychotics are being disingenious in the same manner as churchill.

i think, instead of throwing around... well, ok, irrational rhetoric, we should be seeking to deeply understand those that have attacked the U.S, from sociological, religious, cultural, and economic stadnpoints, instead of simply saying that they're 'barbaric thugs', 'murderous inhuman cowards', etc, so that we may more effectivly deal with them.

[andyfox]

Great Britain ended slavery early because it was in its economic interests to do so. While the idealism that motivated the great abolitionsits such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson was unquestionable, Britain could afford to legislate against the slave trade only after that trade had helped to provide what was necesary for Britain's industrial take-off. Britain had lost much of its slave-owning territory as a result of the American Revolution. As the leading industrial power in the world, Britain found in abolition a way to work against the interests of its rivals who were still heavily involved in colonial slavery and a plantation economy.

The British abolitionist program entailed deeper and deeper involvement in Africa. By around 1850, the success of the antislavery movement, the impact of the great Victorian explorers in Africa, and the merger of racist and evolutionary doctrines in the social sciences (Social Darwinism) combined to give the British a view of Africa that resulted in, in fact demanded, an imperialistic program on moral, religious and scientific grounds.

"the ethnic group which the Left portrays as evil for participating in slavery . . ."

Wasn't participation in slavery evil?

[Chris Alger]

A few months ago, someone from the U.K. protested that a countryman of his had been captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo without being charged with any crime. You referred to people in this position as the poster's "terrorist buddies," although you had no basis to assume that the prisoner was guilty or even accused of any act of terrorism. Churchill's claim that 9/11 victims were guilty of planning and operating a system of mass killing was on the same level as your stupid bigotry. So, yes, I disagree with him, and you.

On this point, Churchill has apparently clarified that he meant those he believes are actually culpable. "It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack." Cockburn on Churchill (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02052005.html)

[andyfox]

"The right-wing pundits that claim that the attacks were made solely as an attack upon freedom by murdering cowardly psychotics are being disingenious in the same manner as churchill."

I agree. But what is upsetting to people about Churchill is not that he said it's a case of blowback. That argument has been made by many (including me). It's the little Eichmanns statement and Churchill's assertion that those who perished in the WTC on 9/11 (who were "'braying' on their cell phones") are complicit in the civilian deaths caused by the embargo on Iraq and got what they deserved.

[Chris Alger]

This is typical of you: admittedly "rational" political speech should be supressed if it's "disgusting" because it presents a viewpoint with which you disagree. This is a case of so-called "patriots" showing their true colors regarding the "freedom" for which they are so willing to spill the blood of others, like Pat Tillman's.

(I never made any "hate-filled" comment about Tillman. My point was that his heroism, like that of any warrior, is no greater than that of the cause it served).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

On this point, Churchill has apparently clarified that he meant those he believes are actually culpable. "It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.'

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, Chris, let's take Churchill's statement as applied only to those 'financial workers' or 'technicians' in the World Trade Center.

1. Churchill's referring to those specific workers as "little Eichmanns"--and meaning it--is not rational. Do you agree or disagree?

2. Do you think, as Churchill does, that those workers are seriously culpable--morally culpable to the extent worthy of punishment--in military-related deaths overseas? Or do you think, as I do, that this is for the most part a ridiculous and one-sided stretch by Churchill?

[MMMMMM]

Andy,

Thank you for the additional historical perspective.

The point I am trying to make is that the FIRST ethnic group in the world to abolish slavery, whites--is pretty much the ONLY group typically and loudly demonized by the Left for participation in slavery.

In other words, the ethnic groups which participated more and longer in slavery, typically receive far less criticism from the Left for this very thing. This, of course, is in keeping with the Left's general longing to demonize Western culture, capitalism, the USA, etc.

So: they demonize whites on the basis of slavery, but to be consistent, if they are going to criticize ethnic groups for patticipation in slavery, they should be even MORE critical of African blacks, Arabs, and others...all of whom maintained slavery far longer than did Western whites, as a culture.

Talk about an unfairly unbalanced perspective...that really takes the cake. And it is just highly intellectually dishonest to boot.

[Felix_Nietsche]

It are posts like these and the people that write them which will keep liberals out of power for another 4 more years. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Churchill's referring to those specific workers as "little Eichmanns"--and meaning it--is not rational. Do you agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
I find Chuchill's statement to be a healthy dose of moralizing obscured by a preposterous and offensive metaphor. So to that extent it's "not rational." It's certainly meant as hyperbole, as Churchill doesn't seem to be laboring under the delusion that Wall Street traders send people to death camps.

Churchill contends that international capitalism (defining this broadly as the means by which goods, services and resources are owned and distributed worldwide) is responsible for vast death and deprivation throughout the world. He claims that financial services workers and owners are among the "technicians" of that system and therefore responsible for its human cost. Debatable but hardly irrational.

What he meant might depend on what he means by "Eichmans." Despite his popular reputation as a key architect of the holocaust, Eichman is remembered by many intellectuals as emobodying the "banality of evil" described in Hannah Arendt's "Eichman in Jerusalem," a "a bureaucrat who did his duty and followed orders, rather than a raving ideologue animated by demonic anti-Semitism" (Jewish Virtual Library). Similarly, many people in the commercial sector labor under some vague impression that commerce enriches all so they can pretty much ignore where the chips actually fall, and go about their business as if they had no responsibility for anything beyond the firm. The dominant attitude seems to be that if the world comes apart at the seams because it can't maintain the present system of inequality (where a fourth of the world trying to survive on $1 a day), then it must be either inevitable or someone else's fault.

To answer your second question, I don't think that these workers deserve death, but that a lot of them could use a jolt of community awareness and responsibility-taking that people like Churchill occasionally inspire.

[bholdr]

The problem with (dr) churchill's unrealistic ideology is this:

[ QUOTE ]
international capitalism (defining this broadly as the means by which goods, services and resources are owned and distributed worldwide) is responsible for vast death and deprivation throughout the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is true. no doubt about it. but...

the alternitives to the current state of world capitalism are even worse. it's like the OTHER Churchill said about democracy, that's the worst system of government out there, except for all the rest.

and to simply point out the problims without offering an alternitive that doesn't result in even more problems it irrational, or at least unproductive.

OF COURCE the 'little eichmanns' share some blame. we all do. but without a reasonable alternative, it's absurd to even discuss culpability.

[Chris Alger]

There are all sorts of alternatives and reform that can be undertaken to improve the world's situation that neither require abandoning capitalism nor expanding markets or global corporate dominance. For example, the UN's Millenium Project touts "specific cost-effective measures that together could cut extreme poverty in half and radically improve the lives of at least one billion people in poor developing countries by 2015." The cost amounts to 1% of developed country GDP. Of course, it requires a certain political will that in the U.S. today is virtually non-existent. E.g.: <ul type="square">In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty. With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health. "We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."[/list]"U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency," NY Times (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/relief/2004/1222aidcut.htm), 12/22/04

The reference to the "budget deficit," of course, is synonymous with "war time tax breaks for millionaires."

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I am trying to make is that the FIRST ethnic group in the world to abolish slavery, whites--is pretty much the ONLY group typically and loudly demonized by the Left for participation in slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not because they were white that they are criticized it is because they were the group in America that owned slaves. The "left" doesn't criticize the non-white non-americans as much not because of the non-white factor but because of the non-american factor.

You are taking a correlation and trying to make it sound like a causation.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
This is typical of you: admittedly "rational" political speech should be supressed if it's "disgusting" because it presents a viewpoint with which you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual, you have zero idea what you are talking about. If you had read this thread you would see that I am for protecting his right to free speech and I am against firing him.

There is a HUGE difference between rational speech of a controversial viewpoint done in a respectful manner and rational speech filled completely with hate. Unfortunately, you dont understand that reason and it makes you classless as a result.

[ QUOTE ]
(I never made any "hate-filled" comment about Tillman. My point was that his heroism, like that of any warrior, is no greater than that of the cause it served).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you called his a stupid idiot murder who deserved to be slapped and thrown in jail (or something to that effect). I went back to find your wonderful comment but the search doesnt go back that far.

[vulturesrow]

I dont think anyone has mentioned this quote from Churchill:

"I stand with the all the parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by U.S sanctions. US out of North America, US out of our lives, US off the planet, US swept into the dustbin of history"

I got this off the radio, so my phraseology may be a bit off, but I'm pretty close.

[Felix_Nietsche]

So supposedly, 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of sanctions....

Assuming the 500,000 number is accurate (BIG ASSUMPTION). The Iraq govt had enough money to rebuild their military and build palaces......yet they did not have the money for food and healthcare.....for children. Mmmmmm...

Ward Churchill needs a brain transplant....

[MMMMMM]

Point taken, Elwood.

Perhaps I should have specified "the Far Left" rather than merely "the Left"--because that is more like what I meant anyway. And I do think the Far Left tends uses such things as excuses to demonize the West and America.

[andyfox]

"the FIRST ethnic group in the world to abolish slavery, whites--is pretty much the ONLY group typically and loudly demonized by the Left for participation in slavery."

I think that'a a natural thing. I'm a white person who lived in the United States. I know more about my country's history than any others'. I know a bit about the history of slavery in England, but mostly I know about slavery here, perpetrated by whites. They should be demonized. Just as those who did the most to get rid of it should be honored.

You say the left wants to demonize the United States. I say it wants to balance the historical perspective. The right has a triumphalist view of history: it sees all good and no bad.

I hold my government to a higher standard than I hold others. This is something I think the right would/should agree with. If we are indeed the last, best hope of mankind, the beacon shining the light of freedom, the symbol of democracy for the rest of the world, we should be very critical when we fail to live up to our standards, more critical than we are of those whose standards are obviously lower. It's not blaming America first or demonizing: it's looking at history complete, the good as well as the bad.

The reason why I followed up on your post with some information on Britain, was because we should not give them as much credit as might at first glance appear deserved; while there were many altruistic individuals who contributed mightily to the abolition of slavery and the salve trade there, the primary reason for its abolition was economic (as was the primary reason for its establishment). Britain did the right thing very much for selfish reasons.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, I appreciate your perspective as someone who genuinely believes that charity--and criticism--should begin at home (first).

But that's not what the Far Left is generally doing here (and I should have specified "Far Left" rather than "Left" in my earlier post). They seek opportunities to demonize America, capitalism, and Western culture--because they simply hate America and capitalism.

Your motivation is fine and good, but your motivation is not the motivation of many who discuss or teach such things.

If a historical account of slavery is given, it should be factually accurate and factually balanced. That's the last thing the Far Left wants, though.

So you want to talk about our shortcomings because you want to do better, which is admirable. There are many however who want to dwell on our shortcomings because they want us to do worse, to fail, to go down, to become less admired and less powerful. Do you realize this?

There are even university courses called "whiteness studies". These courses typically portray the white man as an callous bigot who exploited minorities throughout his history.

Contrast this with the university courses on other cultures, and those courses do not demonize blacks or Hispanics or whomever. Does "Hispanic studies" demonize Hispanics? You can bet your butt that course it doesn't.

So, why do "whiteness studies" often tend to demonize white folks? Answer: because it's propaganda. It isn't a faiir comparison at all. The good of one race or culture is accentuated whilst the bad of the other is highlighted. And it's particularly propagandistic, in the case of slavery, when not only were white folks the first the first in the world to end slavery, but other races and cultures still have yet to do so in a number of key regions. But the Hate-America-Firsters, Blame-Stupid-White-Men-First crowd keeps pressing their one-sided propagandistic attacks.

You certainly have good motivations, as I mentioned above. Don't presume that others share your inspirations, though.

This is a deceitful and evil campaign waged by those whose goal is to portray whites as worse[ than other races and cultures--when the facts actually argue otherwise, that whites are certainly no worse. And actually, Western culture is in many ways better and more humane to others than are some other cultures.

So you go ahead and focus on things at home, Andy, that's fine indeed...but don't let yourself be hoodwinked by those with hidden agendas who want to compare us unfavorably--because they aren't really comparing us at all, rather they are only listing faults on one side. Yet they portray this one-sided listing of faults as a comparison of sorts. See the subtle trickery there employed?

So, intellectual honesty demands that if one is making a comparison, one makes an actual comparison--and that is exactly what they do not do. Rather, they only denounce and demonize as suits their agenda. Thus the Far Left cynically and deceitfully demonizes whites and America and the West, and the Left (and some others) are thereby hoodwinked and subtly taught a comparison that really isn't.

[andyfox]

Undoubtedly there are some who hate America and therefore criticize as a result of that hatred. There are far more who see something they see as wrong and say it's wrong.

What you may see as "factually balanced" I may see as imblanced. And vice versa. Was the west "won" for civlization or was it genocide? Were Hiroshima and Nagaski justifiable acts of war that saved lives or were they barbaric atrocities? Was the invasion of Iraq necessary for the defense of our safety and values or was it reckless and ill-informed?

When I was in school, the triumphalist version was the accepted version: everything the United States did was good and it's explanation of events was the Truth. It was, I think, Vietnam and Watergate that changed things. We learned that our government could not only make mistakes, but that it could lie about things. The media, which by and large had been engaged in a cheerleading function, became less prone to such activity.

Much of rightist criticism of the "left" lumps all criticism into the Hate-America-First variety. There's a constant barrage on radio, TV, and in books questioning the sincerity, intelligence, and patriotism of any left of center criticism of, or disagreement with, the administration's policies. It's a deceitful and evil campaign waged by those whose goal is to protray the administration as 100% correct in everything it does-- when the facts actually argue otherwise. Don't let yourself be hoodwinked by those with hidden agendas who want to compare liberals unfavorably--because they aren't really comparing liberals at all, rather they are only listing faults on one side. Yet they portray this one-sided listing of faults as a comparison of sorts. See the subtle trickery there employed?

[MMMMMM]

Past problems of bias and triumphalism should not be corrected by biased portrayals in the opposite direction. The facts should be taught.

Demonization always requires at least an implied comparison.

I'll bet most students today think that white/Euro/Americans weree the worst villains in the history of the slave business, throughout the ages. But that is simply not the case.

The issue is not primarily "which side one favors", but whether or not the facts are being accurately portrayed. If most American students think that white/Euros/Americans were the central villains in the history of slavery, the facts are simply not being taught.

I know you are allergic to past triumphalism and such things, but that is essentially irrelevant as regards whether topics are being taught accurately today.

You may think Leftists who teach things in an unbalanced manner, which unfairly demonizes Western culture, are not doing anything wrong or anything the other side wouldn't do. Well maybe the other side would do it too, but that is immaterial. Such teaching is very pernicious regardless of who does it.

What is important is that the FACTS are taught--and not selectively, either. I don't think you will disagree with this.

Also, I really do think Far Leftists hate America, the West, and capitalism--and use such biased portrayals as we are discussing for propaganda purposes. And the moderate Left, out of misplaced guilt, tends to swallow it hook line and sinker.

[andyfox]

"Past problems of bias and triumphalism should not be corrected by biased portrayals in the opposite direction. The facts should be taught."

Agreed. In studing about slavery in the United States, for example, some context about worldwide slavery should be included. I doubt students are taught that "white/Euro/Americans were the worst villains in the history of the slave business, throughout the ages." But if you have evidence of this, I'd be interested in seeing it.

As for facts being accurately portrayed, there can be disagreements about what exactly are "facts." You have claimed here, for example, that the Constitution is clear and that judges should decide cases on the plain language and original intent of the Framers. I've argued, persuasively in my view, less so in yours, that there are a lot of gray areas where there was no one original intent and where the language was explicitly and purposely left vague.

I visit both the USC and UCLA college book stores regularly. As I read mostly political and historical non-fiction, I visit the required textbook sections a lot. I don't see the far left tilt you see.

You're completely wrong when you say the moderate left swallows what the radical left says hook, line, and sinker. That's why we have the labels "radical" and "moderate": they have different positions. Do you think, for example, that John Kerry believes that the "technicians" who were killed in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns" who deserved what they got? Is there no difference in position between, say, Ann Coulter on the far right, and George Bush on the moderate right?

[MMMMMM]

I meant that the Left tends to go along quite a bit with such things as the Far Left's demonizations of Euro/American/white culture and capitalism. I suspect this is in large part due to a vague but misplaced sense of guilt. And I may be overcharacterizing it all somewhat.

[andyfox]

I don't see it. There are, of course, all shades of "left," but the leaders of the Democratic Party don't do it. After all, the Kerrys and the Kennedys have been the beneficiaries of American capitalism.

Anyway, off to Vegas. Enjoy your weekend. I should have some entertaining things to report about when I return next Wednesday, hopefully I can do them justice.

[BCPVP]

I have several problems with Mr. Churchill.
1) He is a fraud in pretending he is Native American
2) Thinking that the U.S. is solely to blame for 500,000 dead Iraqi children. How he rationalizes that a common stock trader is more responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children then the murderous thug of a dictator who not only squandered his country's wealth on pointless wars w/ neighbors and the building of palaces and torture chambers, I'd like to hear.
3) He fantasizes about executing former presidents. Perhaps the USSS should pay Ward a visit. Any armchair psychiatrists can further speculate on that.
4) He's coming to my campus to speak about Racism and Native Americans during "Native American Pride Week", while not being native american and certainly not worth being proud of.
5) I think he is wrong about the motives of the terrorists that attacked on 9-11. Why not hit the NYSE? Why is the WTC (Read WORLD Trade Center, Ward, not just American Trade Center) more of a symbollic attack on America then hitting Wall Street would have been? If they're angry at the world's policy towards them, why not attack the UN building? See the fallacy in this logic?

Ironically, using Ward's twisted logic, he is more culpable for any deaths he attributes to U.S. foreign policy working for the government then some one who happened to work in a particular building. How can he live with himself believing he's working for the very government he claims is committing all of these atrocities on the world? Why is he taking what must appear as blood money? Why isn't he being proactive in preventing the government from committing more atrocities by not working for them and convincing others not to either?
Could it be that Ward Churchill is just starved for attention and will say what ever he thinks will get him that? He's not different than a brat 5 year old.

[PITTM]

you realize that this is EXACTLY why professors get tenure right?

rj

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have several problems with Mr. Churchill. He is a fraud in pretending he is Native American.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't he a genuine descendant of NAs? I thought he was. But, if he is not, where's the harm in him claiming that? (I mean, is he defrauding someone in the process, like getting government grants meant for Native Americans or anything?)

Marlon Brando used to claim that he too was a Native American, to show his empathy with their causes.

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that the U.S. is solely to blame for 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but who else is to blame? Zwaziland and Paraguay perhaps ?

[ QUOTE ]
He fantasizes about executing former presidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch that in his text! Where is it? Must be hilarious. I mean, if I had a penny for every time I heard or read death wishes wished upon Bill Clinton when he was president...

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is wrong about the motives of the terrorists that attacked on 9-11. Why is the WTC (Read WORLD Trade Center, Ward, not just American Trade Center) more of a symbollic attack on America then hitting Wall Street would have been?

[/ QUOTE ]
This kind of "logic" informs the rest of your arguments. You realize you are saying that the final play-offs in the baseball series is not a purely United States affair, right?

(Oh, I forgot! USA+Canada=World. Sorry...)

[ QUOTE ]
Using Ward's twisted logic, he is more culpable for any deaths he attributes to U.S. foreign policy working for the government then some one who happened to work in a particular building. How can he live with himself believing he's working for the very government he claims is committing all of these atrocities on the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Churchill explicitly confesses to being culpable for the deeds of the American governments he has served under, for "not doing enough".

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but who else is to blame? Zwaziland and Paraguay perhaps ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sweden.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't he a genuine descendant of NAs? I thought he was. But, if he is not, where's the harm in him claiming that? (I mean, is he defrauding someone in the process, like getting government grants meant for Native Americans or anything?)

[/ QUOTE ]
No, he's not. See here (http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html) for details. And to be apart of the Cherokee tribe, which Ward claims to belong to, I believe you have to be able to prove that you are at least 1/16 Cherokee. Ward has not done so. Wonder why...
Whether or not he has defrauded anyone, I don't know. He may have gotten special consideration for his job because he claimed to be indian however so that would certainly constitute fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but who else is to blame? Zwaziland and Paraguay perhaps ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I don't know. We could start with Saddam and his sons and work our way down the chain of command there. We can probably lump in several UN countries (France comes to mind) for skimmingi money out of OFF.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch that in his text! Where is it? Must be hilarious. I mean, if I had a penny for every time I heard or read death wishes wished upon Bill Clinton when he was president...

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you didn't read it well enough:
"Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended."
Source (http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&amp;c=recent&amp;view=9&amp;long=1)

[ QUOTE ]
Churchill explicitly confesses to being culpable for the deeds of the American governments he has served under, for "not doing enough".

[/ QUOTE ]
Then maybe he'd like to start setting things right and quit?
He admits guilt, but does nothing to change what he's guilty of.

[Zygote]

He is a role model and a representative of a department and university. He is in a respected and authoratative position with a lot of influentional power. His personal opinons, which happen to be extremely insensitive, disrespectful and hateful for the sake of his own need for rebellion, are not appropriate for any one who is responsible for the above roles in any institution!

If you insult your customers you will get fired. Is this not just an expression of your opinion?

If you write a paper that says all your school's students are ugly and fat, is that not just an opinion? Even if it was a fact, you should be fired.

Perhaps one could advocate that all children that have been molested deserved it because they made themselves vulnrable. Lets let the guy who does that keep his job.

Do you see my point?

[Felix_Nietsche]

This may be old news for some but I just learned today that Ward Churchill was an affirmative action hire.
And since he has been caught in some falsehoods about his supposed Indian heritage, this could be grounds for firing.

In addition, he violated state nepotism rules when he hired his wife for a university position.
Next there are suspicians about his truthfulness regarding his acedemic credentials.

I previous thought he was untouchable, but I think they may have grounds to fire him.
This guy is under the microscope and he brought this all on himself...

[andyfox]

I imagine he's untouchable for his political views. But if he falsified his application, or broke university rules or state laws regarding hiring, they could use those things as a "reason" for his dismissal.

From what I've seen of him, I think he is enjoying being under the microscope. His next book, one would think, will certainly sell a lot more copies than his last one.

[Utah]

not "reason". Just reason.

[Dead]

He's a tenured professor I believe.

While his reviews are certainly repulsive, he is entitled to them. I don't believe he should be fired.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Normally tenured professors are bullet proof but since he may have falsely applied for the position as a minority, he may lose his job...

[jaxmike]

tenure - a status granted to a teacher usually after a probationary period that protects him or her from dismissal except for reasons of incompetence, gross misconduct, or financial necessity

I believe that "incompetence" could be argued, successfully, for his tenure to be revoked and him to be fired. I also think that "gross misconduct" could be successfully argued for both the statements he made and the possible falsification of documents that have been alleged.

[Dead]

No sorry. It's freedom of speech. I don't know how you can possibly discern incompetence. Have you read the paper in question? I don't agree with much in it but it's very well written. He's certainly not incompetent. I'll trust other people's words over yours and OxyRush's.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that "incompetence" could be argued, successfully, for his tenure to be revoked and him to be fired. I also think that "gross misconduct" could be successfully argued for both the statements he made and the possible falsification of documents that have been alleged.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point.

[jaxmike]

sorry, freedom of speech does not apply to a professor at a university. further, his incompetence shows in many ways. most obviously, he has the nerve to compare those killed in the 9/11 attacks to Eichman.

who is OxyRush? I don't get the reference. If you mean Rush Limbaugh, thats fine, you dont have to listen to him, i dont either.

finally, i am probably far more qualified to give you my opinion than the people whose words you believe with blind faith. sorry, maybe faith is offensive, how is obedience?

[Dead]

Yes freedom of speech DOES apply to a professor at the university. If the university does not want him fired then you have no right to demand it. He has tenure and the reason that tenure is given is to protect professors' rights to academic freedom.

[MMMMMM]

Freedom of speech refers to one's First Amendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ward Churchill has the right to say what he said and not be criminally prosecuted for it. Congress is forbidden from making a law abridging such freedom of speech. That, however, does not protect him from being fired for it. There is nothing in that Amendment that says someone cannot be fired for what they say.

Lots of people have lost their jobs over what they have said. How is this situation any different (except for the tenure aspect)?

[jaxmike]

but invoking free speech as opposed to tenure is wrong. free speech is protected in regards to the government, not a college. the people are the ones who "own" the university, thus they DO have the right to petition to have the man fired.

to call his words in his piece "academic" is a joke.

[Dead]

They are academic. He didn't just write two words on a napkin.

He wrote a long detailed paper explaining his views and it was quite scholarly.

It's an academic paper, regardless of how you feel about his opinions.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with much in it but it's very well written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because one is literate doesnt mean one's content can't be incompentent.

[Dead]

How the hell can content be incompetent? Explain that one to me why don't you.

[Voltorb]

I just recently read Ward Churchill's essay and must confess it is very thought provoking. He stated at the end of the paper that he may have been wrong about some things and that the paper was written in a stream of consciousness style. I'm sure we can all attest that some pretty wierd stuff can come out of your consciousness. I don't think that his statements taken out of context reflect fairly on the main argument of the article. He certainly went too far in calling the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns." We should not immediately close our minds to the main point of the article upon reading this statement, or any other statement mady by Churchill. He was probably extremely frustrated at the ignorant complacency and often complicity exhibited by many Americans towards the atrocities committed in our name abroad. The following is a summary of my understanding of Churchill's main argument.

We have all heard it said that Good Germans were partially to blame for the atrocities commited by the third reich. The argument is that the complacency exhibited by their inability to prevent the third reich from commiting these atrocities is tantamount to complicity by tacit approval. So when America basically destroyed Dresden and other German cities including many of the civilians in it, we were justified. Ward Churchill then goes on to say exactly what Americans DO NOT WANT TO HEAR. America has visited countless atrocities on the people of the middle east, particularly Iraq, and any retaliation on the citizens of America for these atrocities is justified in the same way our bombing of German civilian targets was justified during WWII.

There are one of two ways to punch a hole in this argument. You can either deny that America ever commited atrocities in Iraq. This is a bit difficult considering the following quote from the paper,

[ QUOTE ]
One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.


[/ QUOTE ]
unless you simply accuse Churchill of lying in this instance. Or you can say that America was justified in instituting "a systematic program... of deliberate genocide." This was apparently the stance that Madeline Albright took, but is a very difficult position to argue. Churchill is basically warning Americans that if we do not change our policies toward the Middle East, don't be suprised when the "chickens come home to roost." At the very least, don't be shocked and outraged at the callousness our attackers exhibit towards human life, when they have seen first hand the callousness of America for most of their lives.

[andyfox]

I think "reason" is more likely, although a combination of "reason" and reason might be accurate. They want to get rid of him because of his wacko views. But they can't. Tenure and all that.

[Utah]

Lets say that there wasnt the controvery and the resume type lies were found out. Do you think they wouldn't fire him?

I stated here that I didnt think he should be fired for his speech. But I think he should be fired immediately for the lies.

[Zygote]

content can be inadequate/unqualified for or unsuited to a particular application, therefore, content can be incompetent.

satisfactory explanation?

[Dead]

No it's not. Work can't be incompetent. The people who produce the work can be incompetent.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, freedom of speech does not apply to a professor at a university

[/ QUOTE ]

People say some really strange things...

[Zygote]

obviously words are inert.

Do you think content could be correct or incorrect?

I think there is tacit implications in that a writer is incompetent if his ideas are incompetent and that content is the ideas of writers. Therefore, if the ideas of a writer of a particular paper are incompetent, the content of that particualr paper is essentially incompetent.

I'm no linguinstic expert, but this is what makes sense to me.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Genocide?...what nonsense.

The oil for food program was designed to keep Iraq militarily weak while allowing them to sell enough oil to buy food, medacine, and other supplies.

Saddam deliberately denied the less loyal sections of Iraq with adequate food/healthcare while he diverting resources to rebuild his military....

Saddam made a choice.
He chose to rebuild the Iraqi military at the expense of his people. Then he paraded dying children before cameras in a shameless attempt to:
1. Blame the USA for the deaths
2. Lobby for the lifting of the sanctions.
He even cheated the oil-for-food-program to get extra money. So what did he do with that money? He built palaces. Some have referred to this program as the "oil for palaces" program....

I think Churchill has mental problems. He has falsely claimed he was an American Indian. I read an account where he lobbied an Indian tribe to accept him as a member in exchange for helping them. He also may have lied about his academic credentals. And comparing the USA to Nazi Germany is more than bizzare... He is a self-hating American. Period....

And with regard to this post, quoting some anti-American UN scumbag and acknowledging Churchill's paper as being "thought provoking" are classic symptoms of being a self-hating American... A suggest moving to Algeria or Saudi Arabia for about three years. If you survive, then visit Afganistan and hear the people say that their afraid the USA will leave and civil wars will return.
Then visit Iraq after they have had a few years of a stable government and notice they are still proud to have purple fingers.
After that, you should be cured. You might actually be proud to be an American...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
We have all heard it said that Good Germans were partially to blame for the atrocities commited by the third reich. The argument is that the complacency exhibited by their inability to prevent the third reich from commiting these atrocities is tantamount to complicity by tacit approval.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not a description of Adolph Eichman. Adolph Eichman actively pursued the final solution and indeed was a fervant supporter of it. Nothing passive in his role. Referring to the victems of 9/11 as "Eichmans" is at best a totally bogus metaphor and at worst well.... Churchill by using the name Eichman has basically said is that the 9/11 victems were actively participating in genocide.

[ QUOTE ]
So when America basically destroyed Dresden and other German cities including many of the civilians in it, we were justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't start a buhaha about Dresden and it's military significance. I would say that today that the U.S. stance on civilian casualties is far different than what is was in WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
Ward Churchill then goes on to say exactly what Americans DO NOT WANT TO HEAR. America has visited countless atrocities on the people of the middle east, particularly Iraq, and any retaliation on the citizens of America for these atrocities is justified in the same way our bombing of German civilian targets was justified during WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]

The motivation for the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraqi casualties. Zero, nada.

[Voltorb]

I stated and will restate that comparing the victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns" is going too far. I was simply trying to point out that we should not allow Ward Churchill's over the top statements in what was apparently an impassioned rant to distract us from the main thesis of his essay. If the statement of Dennis Halladay is true, then American complacency toward atrocities committed in our name is no less culpable than German complacency toward atrocities committed in their names. If we can claim justification for bombing civilian targets in Germany based on this argument, then Arabs can claim justification for bombing American civilians based on this same argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The motivation for the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraqi casualties. Zero, nada.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may be true. Perhaps Al Qaeda had many reasons for attacking America. I think, however, that general U.S. policies in the Middle East have created extreme animosity amongst many Arabs towards America and Americans in general. Since you seem so sure of yourself, adios, perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us as to exactly why Al Qaeda did attack America.

[Voltorb]

Either you are declaring that U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday and his successor Hans von Sponeck are liars, or you are claiming that you know more about the dealings between the U.N. and Saddam Hussein during the oil for food program, as well as the way Saddam Hussein handled the materials and compensation he received on behalf of his country, than two people who were actually in Baghdad for a portion of this time, actually running the programs and in many instances supervising the allocation of resources. I would be astonished if either of these assertions were correct, but correct they may be. I am certainly not omniscient, nor do I have the means at my disposal to rigorously check every fact put forth by those with more privy to vital information than myself.

Regardless of the veracity of these claims, I think this argument can still move forward under the assumption that everything you have said is fact. You stated that Saddam Hussein had a choice. I will simply counter that the United Nations, with America and Great Britian being the most ardent supporters of economic sanctions, also had a choice. This is the problem with creating ultimatums of this nature. America and Saddam Hussein had very little at stake in the outcome of decisions on either side. What would have America lost in yielding and lifting the economic sanctions? What would Saddam Hussein have lost in yielding to total compliance? The people who really payed the price for the petty stubborness of the leaders on both sides had no ability to decide their fate. It is most always the people, and never the ruling class, that bear the burden of poor leadership. In this case, many innocent children and undeserving civilians died from malnutrition and disease from contaminated drinking water and inadequate medical supplies. How can this be justified? Regardless of Saddam's complicity in this awful outcome, the U.N. is not without some level of guilt here.

[ QUOTE ]
And comparing the USA to Nazi Germany is more than bizzare...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? I personally know a German American who was a boy during Hitler's rise to power. The eerie similarities between those times and the times Americans live in now disturbs him, as they do me. Calling something bizzare without any justification can only muddle any attempt at intelligent discourse. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bush administration is even a tenth as bad as the third reich, but is it bizzare to compare a bad thunderstorm to a full blown typhoon? Digging out the similarities between any government and the Nazi regime can only serve to protect the people from government abuse. For a primer on the similarities between the Bush administration and the Nazi regime, visit

Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/26/hsorensen.DTL)

Thanks for your concern regarding the horrible disease of self hate. I can assure you, however, that I do not hate myself. My tin foil hat protects me from all illness. Seriously though, I rather like being me. I merely hold a healthy skepticism toward the motivations behind any action the government takes, ever. My distrust of authority and general pessimism towards government most often steer me into feeling that the worst is usually correct. The optimist in me continually hopes I am wrong. Not being ill, I will not try any of your cures at this time. If I did begin to hate myself, I don't think a vacation to any of these countries would help. Seeing first hand the destruction my country has visited on other nations would only magnify any self-loathing I had at that time.

[Voltorb]

If you have the time, this article is very informative. It is an excellent expose into how politics is played, and the agenda behind the sudden focus on Ward Churchill's inflammatory remarks.

Ward Churchill is Neocon Test Case for Academic Purges (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_neocon.html)

[Voltorb]

Some quotes from Ward Churchill:

[ QUOTE ]
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when they are routinely applied to other people, they should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.







* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ward repeatedly states in interviews and articles written in defense of himself that he does not condone the attacks on 9/11 any more than he condones U.S. attacks on other countries resulting in "collateral damage." The essay was written immediately after the event, and posted on the internet that night. He admits he was trying to illicit gut responses from the readers, pointing out the irony in receiving death threats, in esssence being terrorized, from those incensed by his writing. The very same people who reffered to 9/11 as senseless (without cause) resort to terrorism when confronted with the very same callousness shown to our attackers. If this is not thought provoking, you do not have a brain.

[jaxmike]

it may have been academic, but I would not call it at all scholarly. his views and insights werent very impressive or compelling. it was a hit piece on america for the most part, at least thats what i got out of it. it wasnt anything that a 9th grader couldnt do with a thesaurus and an axe to grind against america.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
sorry, freedom of speech does not apply to a professor at a university



People say some really strange things...


[/ QUOTE ]

please show me why it does, if i am wrong, which i am not.

[MMMMMM]

Bombing a building with, say, a 100:1 ratio of civilians to military persons, is NOT something the US has done in Baghdad when selecting targets. Churchill makes the ever-so-common liberal wacko mistake of ignoring degree (or more precisely in this case, ratio), when dicussing the above.

The U.S. also tries hard to select targets in Iraq with potential for a minimum of civilian casualties. The 9/11 attackers did precisely the opposite.

Ward Churchill also described the financial workers in the WTC as "technicians" who deserved to die.

His inbability to conceptualize such things as the above in a rational manner makes him unfit to teach, in my opinion.

The guy is also a crackpot and an [censored].

Fire his ass forthwith, and look into suing him to gain restitution of previous salary derived by fraud (by his fraudulently posing as an affirmative action hire in order to get the job).

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Either you are declaring that U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday and his successor Hans von Sponeck are liars...


[/ QUOTE ]

i dont have time to read all of this, or the previous post, but this jumped out at me. i would call them both liars due to association, and not feel the least bit worried i was wrong. give me one good reason they should be trusted. the oil for food program was a scham, do some research.

[jaxmike]

roflmao. this is funny stuff, brilliant fiction. again, please explain what a neocon is, why the liberals coined it, and its purpose...

[MMMMMM]

You phrased it poorly, Jaxmike. I think we know what you meant, but the way you phrased it turned it into an inaccurate statement.

[Voltorb]

If you had read the entire post you would have noticed further down that I ceded that point, and in fact stated that they may indeed be liars... I honestly don't know. The rest of the argument still holds regardless of the veracity of this statement, however.

I have heard the oil for food program was a sham, although I must admit I haven't delved much into this topic. It further goes to show that no matter how much humanitarian aid anyone attempted to give to Iraq, corruption on part of both the U.N. and Saddam Hussein were making this aid ineffective, resulting in the unnecessary suffering of thousands of Iraqi civilians. All the more reason to end the economic sanctions, in my opinion.

[jaxmike]

u end economic sanctions and he just learns that he can win. thats not a good idea. he is a killer and a thug. his removal from power was not only legal under international law, but also a necessary thing imo.

[jaxmike]

ahh, yes, i see what you mean. what i meant was, yes, he has freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech does not protect him from getting fired from his job for what he says, it only protects him from prosecution and persecution from the federal government.

[Voltorb]

What I don't quite understand is what exactly Saddam stood to gain/lose from not having/having economic sanctions imposed on his country. The only people the sanctions truly hurt were the citizens of Iraq, who had absolutely no power in this situation.

You could argue that as soon as we lifted the sanctions against Saddam, he would use the extra revenue to rebuild his military and weapons programs. This is a valid argument, but I think we could put enough pressure on him with weapons inspectors so that his programs would not go very far. If he chooses to not allow weapons inspectors adequate access, then the U.N. could pass a resolution to go to war. However, we could not act against the wishes of the U.N. If the U.N. determined it was in the best interest of the world to not attack Saddam, we would have to abide. We are not above international law; especially as we are so fond of applying it to others. The course of action I have outlined would be well worth the risk, in my opinion, in order to save thousands of people who do not deserve to die.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't quite understand is what exactly Saddam stood to gain/lose from not having/having economic sanctions imposed on his country. The only people the sanctions truly hurt were the citizens of Iraq, who had absolutely no power in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand how Saddams regime worked. The people never had it well in Iraq, despite the wealth. Lifting the sanctions likely would not have helped the people of Iraq at all.

[ QUOTE ]

You could argue that as soon as we lifted the sanctions against Saddam, he would use the extra revenue to rebuild his military and weapons programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was using his oil for food program to do this. Rebuild is a bad word to use, accellerate would be better.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a valid argument, but I think we could put enough pressure on him with weapons inspectors so that his programs would not go very far. If he chooses to not allow weapons inspectors adequate access, then the U.N. could pass a resolution to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didnt allow inspectors access, and there are allegations of impressive incompetence on the part of the inspectors. Many resolutions were passed threatening action.

[ QUOTE ]

However, we could not act against the wishes of the U.N.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure we could, we were still in a state of war with Iraq, we simply had signed a cease fire, the agreements of which were almost all violated.

[ QUOTE ]

If the U.N. determined it was in the best interest of the world to not attack Saddam, we would have to abide.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, we would not.

[ QUOTE ]

We are not above international law; especially as we are so fond of applying it to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, however, we did not violate international law in continuing the hostilities with Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]

The course of action I have outlined would be well worth the risk, in my opinion, in order to save thousands of peple who do not deserve to die.

[/ QUOTE ]

The course of action you outlined was what was tried for a decade. It wasn't working.

[Voltorb]

Neocon is short for neoconsertaive. The word "neoconservative" was coined in the mid 1930's by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who moved to the right. According to Seymour Martin Lipset, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents..."
The original neoconservatives were actually a splinter from a group of communist Trotskyites, who described themselves as anti-Stalinist dissidents. Not the typical ideology we associate with conservatives in this country. Although accused of moving to the right, at this time most could typically be described as democratic socialists. This is what a neoconservative was, but is certainly not what a neoconservative is today.

The New York Times describes the term neoconservative as "a catchall name for a disparate group of authors, academics, media-moguls and public servants who trace their intellectual lineage (accurately or not) to the teachings of a German named Leo Strauss." [i]The New Statesman labels neoconservative as "products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."

Neoconservatives grew in identity during the Reagan years, when many neoconservatives moved into positions of power. At any rate, this was when the losers amongst the conservatives began referring to themselves as paleoconservatives, setting the group of winning conservatives apart from themselves. As you well know, many of the people who held cabinet positions during the Reagan years are also in power today. These people are what older conservatives originally referred to as neoconservatives. In short,
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

Please explain why you believe the link to contain funny, brilliant fiction.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"...many innocent children and undeserving civilians died from malnutrition and disease from contaminated drinking water and inadequate medical supplies. How can this be justified? Regardless of Saddam's complicity in this awful outcome, the U.N. is not without some level of guilt here."
************************************************
It amazes me how you try to white-wash Hussein's complicity in the civilian deaths during the "oil-for-palaces" program.
Some facts can not be disputed:
A. Saddam ran a TIGHTLY CONTROLLED command economy which gave him the power to reward ethnic groups that were loyal and punish ethic groups that had been disloyal to him.
B. He weilded that power like a BIG CLUB... He even had Baghdad's electrical grid designed so he could deny electricity to certain ethic groups in the city.
C. Once the oil was sold, the USA, GB, UN, etc... had effectively ZERO control on how Hussein spent the money.
D. S.Hussein had the power to save those people who died. But instead ***HE CHOSE*** to:
1. Rebuild his military and
2. Build new palaces

...while systematically letting his politcal enemies succum to malnutrician and inadeqaute healthcare.
Hussein had the power to save those people but he did not... *IF* the UN lifted the sanctions there was *STILL NO GUARANTEE* that Hussein would have provided those people with adequate food and healthcare....


"I can assure you, however, that I do not hate myself."
"...would only magnify any self-loathing I had at that time."
************************************************** *********
You contradict yourself.
In the last quote, I think you show your true feelings.
When I first read your analyis of Ward Churchill's ideas as being "thought provoking" and your sympathetic view that the USA is becoming like Nazi Germany, it was not hard to conclude you were a self-loathing American (self-hating). I suspect you are much more sympathetc to Churchill's ideas than you led on in your first post. It would not suprisee me if you're a member on A.N.S.W.E.R.

The USA is the most admired country in the world. If you don't believe it just look at the long line of people from other countries applying for American citizenship and visas to live in the USA. And despite Old Europe's rhetoric, they secretly admire the USA for our culture of optimism. In Eastern Europe, Bush43 is admired and the Eastern European countries are moving towards more Americanize governments.

During the Clinton administration I certainly did not care for many of his foreign policy decisions. In fact, several of his foreign policy decisions I found to be quite embarassing (e.g. the war with Serbia) but I was still proud to be an American.

Prediction:
Within 20 years, Bush43 will be so admired in Iraq and Afganistan, that these countries will honor him with statues in their capitals...

[Voltorb]

From EPIC (http://epic-usa.org/thecrisis/Humanitarian_Conditions_2.php)

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to 1991, Iraq was one of the most economically developed countries in the Middle East. The Economist Intelligence Unit stated in its 1995-1996 report that "the Iraqi welfare state was, until recently, among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab World." In 1998 UNICEF reported, "By the end of the 1980s, 92 percent of the population had access to safe water, somewhat less enjoyed modern sanitation, and an impressive 93 percent lived in catchment areas served by modern health facilities." Today Iraq is an unmitigated humanitarian disaster. A 1999 Report to the UN Security Council stated that Iraq "has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty" and "infant mortality rates in Iraq are among the highest in the world." Iraq is now on par with the least developed countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In 1991, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military has been greatly reduced. UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler said in July 1998, "if Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap."

Ex-weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote in the Boston Globe (3/9/00) that, "...from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed... The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless."


[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall that after resolutions were passed threatening action, Saddam hussein gradually let weapons inspectors back in.

I also recall that the U.S. acted in concert with the U.N. in the original gulf war. It would follow that any cease fire agreement would be between Iraq and each nation of the U.N., not solely the U.S. How could we be justified in breaking an agreement unilaterally on behalf of the entire U.N.? For this reason, I feel we would have to abide by the decisions of the U.N.

We never tried lifting economic sanction, which was the first step in the course of action I outlined.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall that after resolutions were passed threatening action, Saddam hussein gradually let weapons inspectors back in.

[/ QUOTE ]

and then kicked them out, then let them in, then told them where the could and couldnt go, then kicked them out, etc. etc. etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I also recall that the U.S. acted in concert with the U.N. in the original gulf war. It would follow that any cease fire agreement would be between Iraq and each nation of the U.N., not solely the U.S. How could we be justified in breaking an agreement unilaterally on behalf of the entire U.N.? For this reason, I feel we would have to abide by the decisions of the U.N.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the resolutions authorizing force being used in Iraq the US was within its rights to resume hostilities. The US does not, and has never, HAD to abide by the decisions of the UN. Thats not what we signed up for.

[ QUOTE ]
We never tried lifting economic sanction, which was the first step in the course of action I outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your statement. However, I assert that lifting the sanctions would not have helped the people, only Saddam. I say this through the experiences we have had with him.

[Voltorb]

You cannot deny that the U.N. was not without some level of guilt regarding the outcome of the economic sanctions it imposed on Iraq. Blaming it all on Hussein is simply ignoring the facts. Sure, there was no guarantee that lifting the sanctions would improve the conditions for civilians in that nation, but given the obvious unwillingness of Saddam to yield to total compliance (whatever that meant) the odds were much higher than if the sanctions were not lifted. This is supported by the fact that, prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most prosperous nations in the middle east. 92% had safe drinking water, somewhat less enjoyed modern sanitation, and 93% had access to healthcare (for source see response to jaxmike somewhere below, I'm not sure which one).

U.N. General Secretary Denis Halliday and his successor made no mention, to my knowledge, of Saddam Hussein doing any of the actions you listed when they reported on their inability to achieve results through the oil for food program. Of course they could always be anti-American U.N. scumbag liars. Maybe if you would provide some sources I could check your facts sometime.

UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler stated in 1998 that Iraq had been mostly disarmed. Richard Butler states Saddam was disarming through 1998, while you say Saddam was rebuilding his military. Whose a guy to believe?

I clearly did not contradict myself. The part you excluded in the ellipses clearly set up a hypothetical situation in which I had begun to hate myself.

I am not a member of A.N.S.W.E.R. Nor had I even heard of such a group until you brought it to my attention.

The U.S. is most likely the most admired nation in the world. The fact remains, though, that the U.S. is probably the most hated country in the world also. By constantly meddling in foreign affairs, we afford ourselves many opportunties to make lasting impressions on other peoples, good or bad.

Do not pride yourself on your national identity. It's no different than priding yourself on your race. Unless of course you worked hard to achieve that national identity, as an immigrant would have to do.

Prediction:
Within 20 years, the world will be about 10 years past peak oil. Economic conditions in all nations will have deteriorated significantly. America will still be fighting insurgents in Iraq.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Neoconservatives grew in identity during the Reagan years, when many neoconservatives moved into positions of power. At any rate, this was when the losers amongst the conservatives began referring to themselves as paleoconservatives... As you well know, many of the people who held cabinet positions during the Reagan years are also in power today. These people are what older conservatives originally referred to as neoconservatives. In short,
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name me the people who are self proclaimed neocons in the Bush Administrations. Please tell me who has declared themselves a paleoconservative.

[ QUOTE ]

The New York Times describes the term neoconservative....


[/ QUOTE ]

Say no more.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain why you believe the link to contain funny, brilliant fiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here goes....

[ QUOTE ]
We've done some preliminary research and analysis and it's become clear exactly what's at stake and what we're up against. CU-Boulder has been made the national frontline of the neocon battle for dominance in academe.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently its CLEAR whats at stake (your unchecked ability to indoctinize and brainwash people while claiming to educate them if you are right) and who they are up against. its the (suprise!) neocons, who apparently have infiltrated the socialist bastion of academe.

[ QUOTE ]
The CO governor, Governor Bill Owens, is no ordinary Republican governor. He is an activist leader in their battle for higher education through his role in ACTA. ACTA is Lynn Cheney's organization, which hit the headlines a few years ago for creating the rightwing National Assoc of Scholars (NAS) and for proposing post-911 to monitor faculty nationwide for ideological (liberal/left) bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

This evil man, voted in to govern his state, is no ordinary man, he is an activist for higher education reform! The group he supports wants to have universities be fair in their teachings, not socialist, but fair! yee gads!

[ QUOTE ]
ov. Owens is especially active in ACTA's "Governors Project". He has already hosted an ACTA-led conference in CO for state trustees, probably for training them (wouldn't be surprised if some of our regents aren't in this same loop). He is already implementing the Governors Project strategy at less visible institutions. For example, last month the trustee structure at Mesa State College was revised and he appointed 3 new trustees, one of whom is "the intermountain coordinator for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni for teacher preparation reform."

[/ QUOTE ] Oh no! hes doing his job!?!? Wow, amazing how sinister training can be made to sound by a liberal who i believe is a fool.

[ QUOTE ]
Also leading in this "Governors Project" is Pataki in NY-no doubt connected with the Hamilton College incident that started all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our vast right wing conspiracy is working! muhahahaha By vast right wing conspiracy, i mean the will of most americans.......

[ QUOTE ]
The general strategy in forcing and then manipulating this "investigation" of Ward's scholarship shares key tactics with the neocon sinking of Emory historian Bellesiles in 2001 www.oah.org/pubs. (http://www.oah.org/pubs.) There are also likely to be parallels with the campaign against Linda Brodkey at UT in 1991 as well as other campaigns through which they have been testing and developing their methods and tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much marijuana would it take someone to get THIS paranoid?

[ QUOTE ]
Further, by going after Ward's tenure, they are essentially targeting the scholarly legitimacy of the entire field that, through external and internal review, granted Ward tenure. If Ward's tenure (and his promotion to Full, and his successful post-tenure review) was a "mistake," the next question is "who gave it to him?" Ultimately, by undermining the integrity of tenure in one national field, the neocon Right will pave the way to an attack on the very legitimacy of tenure as an institution. CU Regent Lucero did not mince words in his public statement at the emergency meeting where the 30-day investigation of Ward was announced

[/ QUOTE ]

I will question tenure, in its current form, as an institution. Its being abused, most notably by Ward. I do question how this man whose life appears to me to be full of lies and exagerations was awarded tenure. Why he recieved it is still beyond me, from what i can tell he has yet to do anything notable besides trash america in print.

[ QUOTE ]
My displeasure with Mr. Churchill's essay should be abundantly clear

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the fact that people are against it right? Thats all thats clear.

[ QUOTE ]
Neocon students at CU-B (College Republicans) are likely connected with CampusWatch and/or AVOT (Americans for Victory against Terrorism); they are already connected with a very hostile right-wing talk radio talk show host in Denver (that is then feeding to the national level) and they have been using tried-and-true CampusWatch/AVOT-type tactics to create the steady stream of racist, violent hatemail that not only Ward, but ES faculty and students are receiving.

[/ QUOTE ]

is there evidence of this? if so, why is nothing being done about it on a LIBERAL campus? funny, now all college republicans are neocons. everyone who isnt a socialist is a neocon! oh no!

[ QUOTE ]
While we are confused and disoriented by the barrage of attacks, the state legislature is already moving to get tenure changes written into the books

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are actually confused as to why there are "attacks" right now, then I question your intellectual capacity to be a professor, and to drive a vehicle. hint: its because one of your "professors" called the victims of 9/11 "little eichmans!"


[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, the neocon agenda doesn't even have to succeed in getting Ward's tenure revoked; the attack on Ward is only one key piece of a larger campaign with several objectives beyond the firing of Ward

[/ QUOTE ]

Like freeing education from the socialist who have taken it over in their conspiritorial attempt to take over the US through indoctrination and brainwashing of people. Like getting rid of a bunch of thugs who care more about their rights to mouth off then doing their job of educating people, hopefully honestly. By getting some people in the educational system whose only agenda is to teach people the truth about things as opposed to the socialist propoganda that is normally spouted off. See, i can write the opposite of this woman, only I dont really mean it.

[ QUOTE ]
There are faculty who have problems with his being American Indian

[/ QUOTE ]

besides the fact hes not?

[ QUOTE ]
On top of all this, in the post-911 climate, moderates who would normally disagree with his views but then go on to defend his free speech rights and academic freedom, will hesitate because they are afraid of being cast in with his "anti-americanism" (much like the McCarthy period).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to defend old Joe's tactics, but I will defend his results. Look up the facts, the VAST majority of the people McCarthy went after were guilty of EXACTLY what he charged. Maybe thats why shes so afraid.....


[ QUOTE ]
This is much, much bigger than an individual attack on Ward. What we're looking at is a carefully developed, pre-existing national strategy that has been searching for exactly the right breakthrough "test case." It has found extremely favorable conditions in Ward's situation and in the post-911 climate. As they've been doing already in other areas they want to dismantle the structural footholds (academic freedom/tenure, ethnic studies) that social movements gained for people of color and liberal and progressive intellectuals inside academe during the 60s &amp; 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back to the tried and true. Calling neocons (read republicans by her definition) racists. Fact is, its the Democratic party, the Liberal/Socialists who are the racists. They use minorities, then treat them like it. Always making the case that if the right has their way, we wont be able to help you. (read: you cant support yourselves, you NEED our help). Thats just BS and its racist. Affirmative action is racism, and the liberals are guilty of it.

[Voltorb]

I don't regularly use the term neocon or neoconservative. If conservatives within the Bush administration don't want to be identified as neoconservatives, this is fine by me. I grow tired of doing simple internet research you could easily do yourself, and I never set out to defend the use of the term "neoconservative." Irving Kristol is the only self-confessed neoconservative I am aware of, although he is not within the Bush administration. Patrick Buchanan considers himself a paleoconservative.

I guess The New York Times is too liberal for you to give any of your attention. Okay then, close your mind.

I read your running commentary on the article I linked, and only once did you point out a statement that was, in your opinion, either funny or fictional.

You accuse the liberal left of brainwashing, defined as intense, forcible indoctrination. This is a gross exaggeration.

The author continues to state fact after fact, and all you can do is accuse the author of being paranoid, drumming up fear of an evil conspiracy, and making the actions of the governor of Colorado sound sinister.

I don't desire to argue about the validity of tenure as an institution. I will only say that it is necessary for the preservation of academic freedom.

Valid point, the author does like to toss around the n-word. Is this the only part you found funny? I would argue that the reason the university has not acted to check the hate mail is precisely because they are a liberal institution that values personal freedom above censorship of hateful speech.

I do not think the author was confused about the why, only that the actual attacks were causing so much commotion as to make difficult any attempt to fight the legislation being mentioned.

I agree. Affirmative action is tantamount to racism, and those who support it are guilty of such. My father actually won a reverse discrimination class action lawsuit, so I know from his experience the absolute absurdity of this ridiculous liberal institution.

From analyzing the points made in this article, it seems obvious that there is an agenda here to remove the institution of tenure from academia. I can only speculate on the reasons why conservatives would desire this. If tenure were gone, conservatives could affect the removal from the arena of public discourse the nation's most provocative and controversial thinkers by creating a backlash of popular opinion against unpopular speech. This would destroy academic freedom as we know it.

[jaxmike]

the only rebuttal to this that i feel the need to make is this.

there is nothing academic about the "academic freedom" that people like this lady and the "native american" professor are spewing, its simply propaganda from antiamerican trash.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"You cannot deny that the U.N. was not without some level of guilt regarding the outcome of the economic sanctions it imposed on Iraq."
************************************************** ***
Yes, I can deny this.
The oil-for-food program was designed to protect the Iraqi people from being hurt by the sanctions. Hussein did not cooperate and used it as a tool to punish less loyal ethinic groups... Sanctions were warranted by his brutal killings of Kuwaitis, his environmental terrorism, his support of terrorism, and other actions.


"This is supported by the fact that, prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most prosperous nations in the middle east. 92% had safe drinking water, somewhat less enjoyed modern sanitation, and 93% had access to healthcare"
************************************************** **
He had resources to address these problems but he chose to rebuild his military. If a mother buys $200 basketball shoes and yet does not buy enough food for her children then who is at fault for her malnurished children? By your reasoning it would be her employer's fault for not paying her enough.


"UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler stated in 1998 that Iraq had been mostly disarmed. Richard Butler states Saddam was disarming through 1998, while you say Saddam was rebuilding his military. Whose a guy to believe?"
************************************************** ****
Neither.
I believe American news showing captured Russian GPS Jammers and other newly bought military equipment. Including newly purchased French military equipment. These stories were on all the major news outlets. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?


"I clearly did not contradict myself. The part you excluded in the ellipses clearly set up a hypothetical situation in which I had begun to hate myself."
************************************************** *****
Hypothetically "self-loathing" the USA is something I would never consider...


"Do not pride yourself on your national identity. It's no different than priding yourself on your race. Unless of course you worked hard to achieve that national identity, as an immigrant would have to do."
************************************************** ****
Why not? I'm proud of the heritage and the accomplishments of the USA. In Texas we have a several small towns that were established by Germans, Czechs, etc... Each year there is a Czech-Festival in one of the Czech towns and the people gather and celibrate their heritage... I do not have a Czech background but I still enjoy going and it is a great time. But I suppose in your world these Czech-Americans should cease to be proud of their roots and cancel all their future Czech-Fests...

[BCPVP]

We can add copyright infringement to this guy's sheet. Apparently he sold art he claimed was original but is actually a mirror image of older copyrighted art.

Then of course there's the falsifying of history in which Ward makes up history in order to support his theory that the Army perpetuated genocide upon Indians in 1837.

Then there's his claim of being a Native American. If he was bumped up the list of applications because of claiming he was a race that he wasn't, I hope he's out on his ass.

So forget what he said. There's more than enough other trash he's been involved in to warrant his firing. His writings are just icing on the cake.