A few days ago I made some throw-away remarks about Ward Churchill, the Colorado University professor of questionable character.
Well, I thought the post was unimportant, but Google disagreed. I've seen almost five thousand readers here to read on the subject as of this hour. And boy, did they leave comments. Not the usual thoughtful comments I read here, no. Mostly vitriol and bigotry. So I thought I should respond in the comments there, and reproduce it here.
I've seen quite a collection of questionable logic in this series of posts. My original post about Prof. Churchill was brief, as the error of his statement is obvious to anyone with a smidgen of ethical sense. But since we've seen a number of similarly misguided souls spouting ignorance on this page I think I'll set about to state the obvious, and here it is:Posted by Walter at February 2, 2005 06:52 PMEach individual in those towers is responsible for his or her own actions. None of them bombed anyone, none of them are murderers. If you want to argue otherwise you'd better have extensive and persuasive documentation of specific crimes. NY being a Democratic stronghold, many or most of them would have voted for anti-war candidates had they survived 9-11. You may believe this country has perpetrated atrocities around the world, but slaughtering thousands in the WTC is a depraved and indefensible act. Churchill went ahead and defended the act anyway. And no, he wasn't taken out of context. His writings have been quoted at length both here and elsewhere.
Furthermore, (and this next bit is sure to grate on the commenters here) most of the businesses in the WTC were financial. Churchill thinks this makes the victims especially culpable, but the last decade or so of more liberal global trade policy has increased wealth in nations around the world. WTC workers were part of this process. The truth is exactly opposite of what Churchill argues.
I will also assert that Americans are people of general good will toward other countries. We'd like to see prosperity and peace around the globe. This is true of most of our political leaders as well. They have made errors in judgement - some of them egregious and disastrous - but both Republicans and Democrats are usually looking for positive outcomes from foreign policy decisions, and if you don't understand that you really don't understand this country. This isn't to say there aren't criminals and evil people here, and as a libertarian, I think even our well intentioned policies are usually stupid and counterproductive.
Ward Churchill doesn't understand any of that, nor do many of these commenters.
I believe Venture (Feb. 1 5:26 PM) brings up a critical point that is detrimental to Churchill's "push back" thesis. Instead of trying to attack the man personally, a dispassionate logical breakdown of Churchill's paper is a much more effective method to discredit his ideas. There are many faults in his paper and I would be overwhelmed if I attempted to debunk each one. I will grant him almost all of his point for the sake of brevity, but I will object to his “when you push people around, some people (must) push back” philosophy. This is equivalent to the juvenile excuse of “but he started it…” and ultimately reveals Churchill’s double standard in applying this justification.
Venture writes, “Osama bin Laden's goal for quite some time has been the destruction of secular government in the Mideast in favor of reactionary Islamic theocracy.” His goal is not to seek revenge for the death of Iraqis, Palestinians or any other group. If OBL had “B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates” at his disposal in 1990, he would have been the first to bomb Baghdad. Even if Al-Qaeda’s primary goal was humanitarian vengeance (if that makes any sense), who grants them exclusive rights to “push back?” The “combat groups” on 9/11 were not negatively affected by the US or captialism (reports seems to suggest they were living the good life).
Churchill claims that the hijackers “were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs,” but I can turn that around and state that the US pilots who dropped bombs over Afghanistan and Iraq were motivated by the grisly realities of 9/11. Who is pushing and who is pushing back? Rather than getting into who is justified, look at the circular argument Churchill built. For a man that urges respect for international law, he has just sanctioned an all-out bloodbath. His theory is reliant completely on which side you like; that side gets to (no, "they must") push back without guilt.
Ultimately, I believe Churchill despises capitalism, as in, competition, unequal incomes, and a misguided belief that capitalism leads to genocide. Look at how he lashes out at those in the WTC, “they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated…into the starved and rotting flesh of infants” while basically ignoring personnel in the Pentagon. This is a personal hatred beyond ideology. Churchill jumps to the conclusion that anyone attacking the US must share his believes and therefore they are getting revenge for the collective of victims (from Columbus’ days to the present) and attacking against the sins of capitalism. They are not.
FWIW, I do not believe he should quit his teaching position. I believe many people believe, probably secretly, that the US was justly being paid back or pushed back on 9/11. It is always better to present these ideas publicly than to let them simmer privately in people’s minds. The argument might be seriously flawed and designed to incite anger, but there are enough smart people in the US and the world to pick apart his paper and come up with much better theories without forcing Churchill out of work.
Posted by: JPK at February 2, 2005 11:56 PMI am disappointed that the moderator stopped the last board from continuing. While there were some that supported Churchill's drivel, and it his is site (and thus can shut it down whenever he likes) I thought that some intellectual discussion was being done. My views of Churchill and his words are explained very succinctly on prior posts, so I will not go onto it here.
It is obvious that this man has created a firestorm of controversy, not because any sane people consider what he said to be valid, but what should we do as a free people when confronted with such evil. And yes, what he said was evil, because it is intended to mislead and corrupt. If you have any doubts of this, please email me for some education.
This is the important question. I for one believe that such talk is not quite the equivalent to shouting fire in a theatre. It is protected, and it should be dragged into the light of reason and truth, because this such light will debunk this junk with 15 seconds. It is shameful that a supposedly trained academic would allow himself to even entertain such an intellectually lazy position.
R: Churchill despises capitalism? Given his salary was over one hundred thousand dollars a year until recently and has been reduced to ONLY ninety-four thousand a year, plus benefits, I politely dispute that.
If I may: Churchill hates anything and everything American, unless it makes him a quick buck. Then it's okay.
Posted by: James C. Hess at February 3, 2005 05:46 AMAd hominem arguments, on both side of the tracks, are priceless in the sense that they're less than worthless; they actually promote violence as sanctified by a higher moral authority.
Would you blame the sheep for being herded by the sheepdog, the sheepdog, the one who trained the sheepdog, those who raised the sheepdog trainor or the butterfly that flapped its delicate wings a thousand years ago in the Amazon Basin.
That US foreign policy has been directly responsible for the deaths of countless innocents across the globe for generations is readily documented fact. Does acknowledging that fact make you unpatriotic, a lunatic ?
How is it that readily accessible facts are preferably ignored for ad hominem emotional ejaculations ?
Perhaps the path of least resistence is following a herd mentality that is quick to devolve into a mob mentality comfortable with violations of the Geneva Convention, the strange fruit of lynchings, the ovens of WW II Germany or the genocide in Rwanda as long as the hot-wings were nice & spicy at the Superbowl party.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2689334,00.html
three-sixteenths Indian.
this guy is a charlatan.
he lied to the people he claims are his and got his indian club membership.
then forgot they existed after making them promises. His vietnam service is dubious as well.
Apparently Churchill is feeling pressure from many sides and not just from Governor Owens, or the House of Representatives or even the University of Colorado.
It seems now University Alumni, private benefactors and Corporate Sponsors have informed the President of the University that they will not support the university financially while Churchill is maintained as a teaching professor.
Some Department Chairs have been informally told that if that where to happen they would not receive any bonuses at the end of this semester and all salaries would have to be frozen for the foreseeable future.
And if one was able to heap additional insult to injury it seems two national security companies have taken up effort to look in to the Churchill’s many professional and academic claims. It appears his troubles are only just beginning.
You have to love how this Freedom of Speech thing works!
Ward Churchill was been publishing for 20 years.
The essay that has engendered the present firestorm has been in print for years.
Is it just me or does something smell fishy ?
I have examined his work over last 12 years.
I've double checked his primary sources. They have not been misrepresented & do support most of central arguments.
I have yet to see anyone useing the strictest scholarly apparatus invalidate his 20 years of work.
Perhaps it's out there somewhere & I've missed it.
It's certainly not here.
But if that body of work has been legitamately invalidated, I'd surely like to know.
Anyone..... with primary source material that achieves that end ?
Crucifying the man is not a replacement for substantive counter-argument, IMHO.
Posted by: Rman Jack at February 3, 2005 10:17 AMMegan,
Is Warped Buzzkill the only one who gets rights?
Freedom of Speech is great but there are other freedoms we need to consider.
Don't the companies and benfactors of CU Boulder have a choice of where their money goes ? Why would a conservative continue to dole out money to CU Boulder if there is, in that person's mind, a madman spouting insensitive garbage in public.
Well, if it were me, I'd stop funding them.
If you found out money you were giving to help tsunami survivors was actually going to finance celebrity missle and slave labour factories, wouldn't you stop donating?
It's all about what's best for the PEOPLE, not the PERSON. Personally, I have changed my mind and don't think he should be fired for his writings. I think he should be fired because he is a fake, a poseur and a typical Boulderite, someone dressing down to elevate their status as an individual.
Boulder isn't full of individuals. It's full of people who want to undermine the liberties of others to promote their own lifestyle.
Churchill is a fine example of what Boulder produces: He has lied about his heritage, lied to the people that accepted him as a "Native American", lied about his service in Vietnam and God knows what else. Then he urinates on the flag and wraps himself in its fabric to protect himself.
If he was hired by CUoBoulder under the belief he actually is an Indian of American Origin, then he should be fired, no questions asked.
I think Ol' Churchill will weather this storm but his career will be vastly tarnished afterWARDs.
Let his ship sink itself.
In other news:
Deputies: Vandals Paint Swastikas On CU Prof's Truck
POSTED: 6:28 am MST February 3, 2005
BOULDER, Colo. -- Boulder County sheriff's deputies say vandals painted two swastikas on the truck of a controversial University of Colorado professor.
Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Phil West says the vandals struck sometime between late Tuesday and early Wednesday while the truck was parked in front of Ward Churchill's home.
The swastikas may be in reference to an essay he wrote after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks -- in which he compared the people killed in the World Trade Center to Nazis.
Churchill has been highly criticized for the essay, and many critics have called for his firing.
On Wednesday, Churchill turned over copies of hate mail to sheriff's deputies that he says he's received.
He also says he's received numerous death threats since the uproar over his essay.
RIGHT ON!!!!
Churchill seems to be saying that the 9/11 attacks were a correct response to US foreign/business policies and that further attacks may be necessary to deliver a message and make us understand the error of our ways.
My question is how can anyone expect terrorism and mass murder make us understand the error of our ways?
So, Ward Churchill is a Viet Nam Vet,
Yet, some of the GOP neocon wennies, like Bill Owens, the draft evading COLORADO Governor, wants to make a mockery of the 1st amendment, as applying to only those who suck the ass of some
GOP politicians. C. U. receives only about 10 % of its budget from State of Colorado funds.
How many other Viet Nam vets does Chicken-Hawk Owens want to strip of rights as Americans,
The jerk(Owens) should do the State a big favor, and just turn in his prompt resigniation,
so he can have ribs, in Texas, with other draft doggers like Tom Delay
Rman Jack, I have not read every single paper or book Churchill has published. Life is short and frankly I've spent enough of mine dealing with this man already.
I did, however, read the paper under contention ("Some People Push Back") in its entirety. As I said in the previous thread, if I were teaching a class in critical reasoning and this paper were submitted by a student, I would give it a failing grade. It has no attributions, which means it does not meet the standards for academic work at the university I attended (which was nothing to write home about in the first place). It assumes facts that are not in evidence. Its central thesis -- that the 9/11 attacks were just retribution for American action in the Mideast -- is provably wrong.
It is quite possible to indict this paper based simply on the quality of the work, without wrapping oneself in the Patriot Act and hurling epithets. It is not even necessary to point out that the paper is, in fact, hate speech. It is directed at white corporate America and the American government, which are legal targets for hate speech, but it is hate speech nonetheless. We wouldn't be having this discussion if he'd slipped in just one reference to "Jewish bankers" -- the outcry would have blasted him off the face of the earth by now.
Some now attack Ward Churchill as lying about his Viet Nam service
Ok, what did he( W. C.) assert, that was a lie on that,
lets address that, straight on.
That one person(not Ward C) spits in the face of every person who served in the U S, military or as one of those so called military-industrial complex works in the period of V-Nam
Lay out the facts on that, if you got any facts, or foreever be known as a coward hiding behind Bill Owen's skits
Venture.... I agree the paper in question was basically an OP Ed & poorly crafted by any objective metric.
However it is not the basis by which to invalidate an entire body of work over 20 years, most of which is carefully crafted.
Nor should a shoddy OP Ed provide the basis to what is shaping up as a high-tech lynching - if I may borrow a phrase from Clarence Thomas, a man I don't especially rever.
The court of public opinion is one I'm glad the Founding Fathers didnot institutionalize when they framed the Constitution.
Worst case scenario Ward Churchill expressed an opinion that many find offensive - including myself.
That alone would not cause me to hate the man, think he should be physically brutalized, have his livelyhood taken away under duress or see to it he was ostracized for life.
I would hold him to task for said opinion but by way of speaking to it further without the fear of death looming. My position would be to have level-headed, comprehensive & logical counter-argument undermine his opinion rather than ad hominem pronouncements & indictments bereft of judicial due-process...
There are so many Americans masquerading as “sensitive”, “caring”, “good” and “decent” human beings, but the sad truth is they are really just “true blue” neo-Nazis: very similar to your classic child molester dressed up as a friendly uncle, grandfather, (or catholic priest).
Ward Churchill’s work has been very effective in exposing the real nature of most of these Americans and it isn’t too surprising to see who they turn-out to be, and where they are. Like a good “exterminator” he has flushed the indignant out of the wood-work with the light of truth like so many “cocker-roaches”. Could these people who hate what he has said be a bunch of cold hearted neo-Nazi racists, exploiting the weak for a lifestyle?
All those who have attacked him on personal or emotional grounds HAVE irrefutably PROVEN (by making a choice) what they truly are; AND that they know they cannot demolish him through rational argument. They have clearly demonstrated a fierce desire to squash and demolish the guy with high-sounding, “decent”, rhetoric for saying what are very obvious truths to the rest of the world, and which they are bound and determined to conceal at all costs. Hypocrisy is so sad.
And man, does the truth about oneself hurt like a @##$$$*!
So in reading what he says, be aware that the more he inflames your sensibility the more likely you are to be a hypocrite.
If the object is to destroy the guy it would be so much more effective, both practically & morally, (and also “decent”) to use facts and rational argument to do so.
But because the majority of Americans are NOT decent (and they KNOW it) so they have been going after him on a personal level. How weak!
But that’s what hypocrisy is, it’s weak.
Are you a hypocrite? If not, prove it to all of us by:
1. reading what he actually wrote; and
2. refuting the meaning of his facts with your facts.
Leave his personality, his past, his hairstyle, etc out of the matter. By attacking him personally all you are doing is proving yourself to be a neo-Nazi, baby-killing sympathizer. Did the US kill women and children with cruise missiles, yeah or nay? Fact or fiction? Is not the illegal invasion on false pretext a Nazi thing to do? If you’re to bring “democracy” to a country would it not be “decent” to do so WITHOUT killing people on the sidelines? Or are you just a bunch of “omelette makers” breaking eggs and skulls right and left, “just so long as it ain’t my eggs being broken”?
Try it why don’t you.
The problem for those who want to demolish him on rational grounds is huge though; because the guy has done extensive reading, his work is thoroughly documented, he is very sophisticated, and practically speaking unassailable to the majority unless they choose to expose themselves as hypocritical. So you see the problem. I know you do.
“Brilliant!” As they say in the Guiness ad.
He is just way too strong for the majority of weak hypocrites oozing out of the slime of American society like so many leaches smelling fresh blood.
The fact that a person speaks and pretends to act like a decent person, just as did the good Nazis of the 30’s & 40’s, is the pre-eminent problem in America today.
Ain’t nobody got the “brass” to tell it like it is, and already 1400 of your own kind are dead (fo’ nuthin) in Iraq, and 10’s of thousands are maimed, holed-up at Walter Read trying to learn how to walk and talk again for the the draft-dodging rich-boy you call “president”.
Indeed most Americans are acting like Eichmann by choosing to turn a blind eye to the butchery of thousands of innocents overseas in order to further U.S. foreign policy.
Scientifically you can test anyone’s sincerity by taking any issue and measuring the extent to which they avoid it. Remember the parable of the good Samaritan all you sanctimonious Christians? The Ward Churchill affair is that very story written in the modern context!
Walk-on-bye, why don’t you, while the sick, dirty and dying are being raped and killed for political power. You know it’s happening, you know it!
By taking umbrage at Ward Churchill’s ideas, and getting all worked up about the “truth”, the majority of Americans are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actual, no-doubt-about-it, the next generation of “little Eichmans” ready to persecute any one who won’t let them go about their “God-given” right to kill and make a profit.
A child molester pretends to “care” about children, as so many Americans pretend to care about so much, but it is easy to see how much they really care by all the high-sounding “Whereas” rhetoric coming from the Colorado State legislature.
What are the facts?
1. Churchill has been attacked viciously and personally because:
a. hypocrites are morally bankrupt; they’re broke;
b. Abu Ghraib just blew their ethical bank account right out of the water;
c. Bill Owens actually dressed-up in military uniform for a photo-op to fool the voters that he was a Nam vet (CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!)!!!!!! But just look at the guy he’s got draft-dodger written all over him;
d. It’s a “no-brainer” to PROVE that US foreign & domestic policy has been to massacre millions of poor people for centuries (just Google “Ludlow Massacre” to bring it to your doorstep!;
e. How much does the average American really care about the real costs of WALMART, U.S. petroleum and mining interests exploiting poor people overseas?
f. In every country where there is oil overseas the CIA has had a direct hand in the installation & maintenance of a murdering dictatorship: you see: it is so much easier to cut a GREAT deal with one man than a plurality of stakeholders;
g. SO cut the crap about caring about people overseas, you don’t if you choose to turn a blind-eye to it
h. FACT: what is the deal with GITMO? Why does Guantanamo exist? Why was it located outside US jurisdiction? If I were an American I would be in a real quandary to reconcile “Gitmo” with being a decent civilized culture AND the CONSTITUTION and democracy, etc.
i. GITMO proves that you guys are dishonest, you don’t care about your own laws so what kind of people are you???????
Ward Churchill has carefully documented the true cost of American corporate greed, and you all had better listen to him and come up with some OUT-OF-THE-BOX SOLUTIONS to right these wrongs before it is too late.
It is nothing but craven cowardice to trash the messenger.
So what are you? A man or a mouse?
If a perfesser argued on Dec. 8, 1941 that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified, Americans would no doubt have demanded his dismissal...or worse.
If he makes the same argument 60 years later I doubt so many feathers get ruffled.
We have a high tolerance for unconventional historians when dealing with events that have passed beyond sacrosanctitude.
Churchill has been attacked viciously and personally because:
a. He says he does not condone terrorism, yet he does.
b. He says he is Native American, yet he is not.
c. He is arrogant and when celebrating the 9/11 attacks he crosses the line. He is learning that when pushed, some people push back.
Posted by: buford at February 3, 2005 12:43 PMBill Smith:
"1. Churchill has been attacked viciously and personally because:
a. hypocrites are morally bankrupt; they’re broke;
Yes, he is, and that would be a good reason to attack WC. But that's not what you meant, is it?
b. Abu Ghraib just blew their ethical bank account right out of the water;
Americans are prosecuting the torturers at Abu Ghraib. Our opponents celebrate torturers if they are on their side. If the facts were reversed then you would have a point. But you don't.
c. Bill Owens actually dressed-up in military uniform for a photo-op to fool the voters that he was a Nam vet (CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!)!!!!!! But just look at the guy he’s got draft-dodger written all over him;
We were talking about whether WTC victims deserved to die or not. Are you saying they deserved to die because of Bill Owens?
d. It’s a “no-brainer” to PROVE that US foreign & domestic policy has been to massacre millions of poor people for centuries (just Google “Ludlow Massacre” to bring it to your doorstep!;
I'm well aware of Ludlow. As long as we're bringing up old history how many lives were saved by defeating Germany and Japan in WWII?
The jury is still out on the long term result in Iraq. If the US is successful hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved vs the slaughtering ways of Saddam. How does that figure into your millions massacred?
e. How much does the average American really care about the real costs of WALMART, U.S. petroleum and mining interests exploiting poor people overseas?
Yes, let's pull up stakes around the world, abandon commercial ventures and leave the locals unemployed and starving. Brilliant!
f. In every country where there is oil overseas the CIA has had a direct hand in the installation & maintenance of a murdering dictatorship: you see: it is so much easier to cut a GREAT deal with one man than a plurality of stakeholders;
You mean oil producing countries like Canada? Great Britain?
g. SO cut the crap about caring about people overseas, you don’t if you choose to turn a blind-eye to it
h. FACT: what is the deal with GITMO? Why does Guantanamo exist? Why was it located outside US jurisdiction? If I were an American I would be in a real quandary to reconcile “Gitmo” with being a decent civilized culture AND the CONSTITUTION and democracy, etc.
i. GITMO proves that you guys are dishonest, you don’t care about your own laws so what kind of people are you???????"
Hey, you wasted a lot of time and words to make one slim point with a shade of validity behind it. If you read my stuff here you know I don't like what's going on there either. But to get back to the point, it doesn't mean the WTC victims deserved to die, does it?
Posted by: Walter at February 3, 2005 01:26 PMSubject: Does Bill Owens want to smear a Viet Nam Vet with lies, then let the coward Owens bring it on to show what a depraved mommy's boy he is.
Fact 1) Ward Churchill served in Viet Nam era in
U. S military, Bill--the coward-- Owens
did not
fact 2) Bill Owens did not attend C. U.,
he is a mommmy's boy, Bush clone
fact 3)Many who went to C. U served in
various U. S military agencies, or
were associated with such
fact 4) The 1st Amendment is a fundamental
constitutional right in America
fact 5) Owens took an oath to defend the
U. S constitution, but fails to
Fact 6) The test is not whether any agree
with Ward C, personally.
Fact 7 Bill Owens has been an embarasment
to the entire state of Colorado,
Sincerely,
M/
a member of the military-industral complex,
U. S taxpayer, over 15 years in Army of
the United States of America, and
this is my country, too
RE: "technocratic corps..mighty engine of profit"
This C. U professor 1/16 breed with sun glasses glued on his head,used those words to suggest people in the USA are not "innocent"...in the wake of 9/11.
I disagree with his premise, his conclusions, and his manner of speech.
However, don't some in the world feel that way about people in the USA.
So, if I made a profit on Storage-Tech computers by investing in that stock on the New York Stock exchange, i am not "innocent", and should expect to die at the hands of some people who sneak into the USA to do me in...(i. e others)..
Isn't Churchill helping the Homeland Bush Agency
to generate billions in budgets, after all
wasn't he in counter-intelligence...>
So, does that mean he seeks to counter any
intelligence out there from regular U. S taxpaying citizens, not in some Ivory Towers, or pin head think tank
He has Owens playing into his hands.. very sad.
Sincerely,
M
Walter,
You got me. Didn't you? Or did you? I think you know that a lot of your points are incomplete and not well fleshed-out.
Here's more of what I wrote before reading your post:
I just re-read the first page of “Some People Push Back” by Ward Churchill.
He has had the nerve to violate some un-written rule. What could that rule be?
Anybody got any ideas? I suppose in reading all these comments one can get a vague sense of what it must be.
Let’s see now: Commandment Number 6:
“Thou shalt not kill”.
W. Churchill pointed out that certain people of the first party, were murdered by another group of people of the second party “Whereas all things being equal etc, etc.
Let’s see now: in theory we all people of the second party pay taxes that go to buy the best weapons in the world. Then we hire people to take care of business with regard to people of the first party.
“All nice and legal like if you know what I mean wink, wink, nudge nudge, say no more, say no more.”
Then we expect that business to be done on the QT (we don’t want to hear about it. “For God’s sake no gory details”).
He suggested that because we are, collectively, members of the second party, the murdering group, that we should not be surprised if some of us are killed in a retaliatory strike by the aggrieved party of the first.
Woa Nelly! Hold yer horses I’m beginnin’ to unerstan’. I think he violated our sacred notions of identity as the “innocent” party.
Because the dead don’t care what the fancy reasons are for their death, they’re just dead, plain dead, his argument could be expressed in a very simple cold blooded arithmetic as follows. Here goes Ward Churchill’s algebra:
500,000 Iraqis = 3000 WTC victims (times a spin factor F)
Wade Churchill seems to be behaving very badly by questioning our innocence. It’s such bad form. This is where his American Indian identity comes in: it is encompassed in the spin factor F coefficient.
Imagine you were a settler on the plains around 1860. You have a choice get along with the red skins or side-up with the cavalry. I guess old Ward chose to join the Cherokee and us folks just can’t abide his havin’ gone native.
Jeez! it makes the milk in my tea cup go all rancid.
Now the thing is about Universities and “perfessors” as some call ‘em. It’s their job to derive formulae, and when they can’t make them equate, to throw in a coefficient or two which might be useful in making these tough natural laws make logical sense.
Call him what you will, but that spin factor Fs gonna be a bitch for the could ole US of A to factor out.
Thank God I’m not American……just kidding. We are all to blame, and the only way to fix all this, is to fess up, admit we’re killers and drunks, git on the wagon, and try to make amends. Quit yellin “bu’, bu’ we’re innocent” and
“I take exception to your insinuation you bounder you!”
Ain’t nobody innocent darlin’, leas’ of all you: Bill Owens, you lecherous money lovin’ ho…..
Lord knows that fire water & pooty-tang can make life hell.
Dubya did it, so can you, Praise Jesus!
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 3, 2005 02:36 PMRman: you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Churchill blew his. Any writer needs to remember that anything he writes may be a reader's first exposure to his work. Every piece needs to be up to snuff -- or better. Given what I've seen of Churchill I have no desire to explore the rest of his work. As I said, life is short and I've already got a big stack of academic and recreational reading waiting for me.
I agree the man did not deserve death threats for what he said. No one does. I agree that it is disgraceful that Hamilton College validated those death threats by cancelling its conference. Had it been my decision I would have gone ahead with it. I would also have held his work to the strictist standards of academic excellence and perforated his argument on its merits -- or lack thereof. Having paid the Danegeld, Hamilton's regents will now have to live with the Dane, at least for a while.
I also think, though, that the man should never have been given tenure in the first place. I have to wonder if CU's decision was perhaps motivated by the man's professed ethnicity more than by the quality of his work.
Mr. Bill Smith,
Three questions (first two are yes or no answers and I'd appreciate it if you could answer the third succinctly).
First, do YOU think the people that died in the WTC deserved it?
Second, if they did deserve it, did ALL deserve it (WC said that some may not have deserved it)?
Third, if the answer to the above question was that only some deserved it, how did you (and WC) decide which ones didn't deserve it?
Posted by: Nick at February 3, 2005 03:18 PMBill Smith's replies:
Bottom line: nobody deserves to be killed on either side.
The US has no right to execute and torture Iraqis.
And those who have executed and tortured should be tried in a court of law; not a military tribunal, not a kangaroo court, for crimes against humanity just like at Nuremberg.
And Cherokees, Cree, Sioux, Iraqis, Arabs, Chileans, Argentinians etc should be the judges & the juries. No OJ Simpson trial for the bankers and politicians and Ken Lays of this world.
The above is a basic principle of our culture and the the founding fathers. "All men our created equal" right?
How do you like them apples?
Itemized reply:
1. Churchill has been attacked viciously and personally because:
a. hypocrites are morally bankrupt; they’re broke;
Yes, he is, and that would be a good reason to attack WC. But that's not what you meant, is it?
All this ain't about the WTC victims, its about the hypocrites who put them in harm's way in the first place. It's about us, about collective guilt. About Judaeo-Christian theory on original sin and the bell tolling for thee, and the way you feel on the tee-box when a bad man is present. We're in this together: they came for Ward Churchill, then they came for Bill Smith, ain't gonna be nobody around when they come for Walter.
b. Abu Ghraib just blew their ethical bank account right out of the water;
Americans are prosecuting the torturers at Abu Ghraib. Our opponents celebrate torturers if they are on
their side. If the facts were reversed then you would have a point. But you don't.
Yeah fat lot of good the old man beaten to a heart attack prosecuting what's his name Graner. Are you kidding? Really, you think some form of Abu Ghraib doesn't go down every day in prisons nationwide stateside? It goes on because we are fundamentally racist mf's. "Its the American way, Ku Klux Klan and pass me another beer buddy while I waste the raghead motherfucker like a prairie dog".
c. Bill Owens actually dressed-up in military uniform for a photo-op to fool the voters that he was a
Nam vet (CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!)!!!!!! But just look at the guy he’s got draft-dodger written all over
him;
We were talking about whether WTC victims deserved to die or not. Are you saying they deserved to
die because of Bill Owens?
Maybe if we didn't have digweeds like Bill Owens and GWB as our representatives, people might have cut the WTC folks some slack. The deal is: no body will try to talk to us now that we have shown ourselves to be such craven cowardly people who fall in line behind such....." dogshit excrement cowardly as Bill Owens and GWB, Dick Cheney, Condi, et al...." can you hear them whispering under their breath in your mind?
d. It’s a “no-brainer” to PROVE that US foreign & domestic policy has been to massacre millions of
poor people for centuries (just Google “Ludlow Massacre” to bring it to your doorstep!;
I'm well aware of Ludlow. As long as we're bringing up old history how many lives were saved by
defeating Germany and Japan in WWII?
Buddy! If you think that we are anything like the good guys in WWII think again. Hitler's Germany was the aggressor, they were the techno supermen of their day, just like the US today. The equation goes like this: tax the people give the money to Thyssen-Krupp=Lockheed Martin, Mercedes Benz=Ford Motor Company, AG Farben=Halliburton. Taxes good for the special people, bad for the rest of us. Death, death and more death. At the end german women get raped by crazy mad russians, german men helpless to do anything but watch, cry and die. Very sad German grandmothers remember and blockout bad memories. Weak master race. Sad. Bad for the people. Bad.
The jury is still out on the long term result in Iraq. If the US is successful hundreds of thousands of lives
will be saved vs the slaughtering ways of Saddam. How does that figure into your millions massacred?
Yeah, well while you are waiting for the jury to decide maybe if you were in Iraq right now having watched a storm trooper blast & crush the family car into a hulking wreck with his M-1 Abrams tank you might be thinking maybe, just maybe, this American democracy is just a tad more than you bargained for, just possibly??? Democracy comes from within not from the barrel of a gun, WWII myths notwisthstanding.
e. How much does the average American really care about the real costs of WALMART, U.S.
petroleum and mining interests exploiting poor people overseas?
Yes, let's pull up stakes around the world, abandon commercial ventures and leave the locals
unemployed and starving. Brilliant!
Commercial ventures should be pursued on your home soil to see just how difficult it is to deal with a multiplicity of stakeholders. Don't kid yourself about the bullshit fed to you by the PR depts. of multi-nationals doing business in foreign lands for the "good of the locals": so much spin. The test of a good business overseas is one where the locals retain the lion's share of the the money. Most US & European overseas ventures are rape pure and simple without oversight they cut deals with totalitarian crooks which they install to steal, all nice and legal, and legitimize transactions with the real owners of the resources. Venezuela and Mexico are perfect case histories of this phenomenon if you care to make more than a cursory analysis of what has gone down in these resource rich countries. Before the west came in the locals coped very well without progressively more forceful foreign contamination of their societies and culture. As resources have become more and more scarce dictatorships have become progressively more vicious. At one time they could let the majority of the populace go about their business with little outside interference, but now that things are rough, the hard arm of the secret police is ready to squash even the littlest resistance e.g. Colombia (Ward could be in for it "big time").
f. In every country where there is oil overseas the CIA has had a direct hand in the installation &
maintenance of a murdering dictatorship: you see: it is so much easier to cut a GREAT deal with one
man than a plurality of stakeholders;
You mean like Canada? Great Britain?
Even Canada & Gt. Britain: my point exactly. A million people, a million Englishmen got out into the streets to protest against the invasion of Iraq: to no avail. Britain is a puppet state of the empire, ain't no doubt about Canada.
g. SO cut the crap about caring about people overseas, you don’t if you choose to turn a blind-eye to it
h. FACT: what is the deal with GITMO? Why does Guantanamo exist? Why was it located outside US
jurisdiction? If I were an American I would be in a real quandary to reconcile “Gitmo” with being a
decent civilized culture AND the CONSTITUTION and democracy, etc.
i. GITMO proves that you guys are dishonest, you don’t care about your own laws so what kind of
people are you???????"
Hey, you wasted a lot of time and words to make one slim point with a shade of validity behind it. If
you read my stuff here you know I don't like what's going on there either. But to get back to the point,
it doesn't mean the WTC victims deserved to die, either.
Nobody deserves to die. That's the point. It isn't that white people are innocent and brown are just bomb-fodder; nor is it the other way around. Yeah, I know it's not fashionable to spend more than 5 minutes thinking for yourself in this day and age. Jeez, if I did spend more than 5 mins. I might not be able to continue deluding myself of my "innocence" and in the decency of our collective callous exploitation of the people in the resource-rich areas of the world.
Thanks for the forum by the way.
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 3, 2005 03:54 PMRE: "Engine of Profit"
Those are the key Ward Churchill words in his manefsto that got him all in a huffy Ivory Tower
lather to suggest that American citizens,
are targets of "push back" to be slaughtered, like what happened in 9/11.
Just think about that, really in the full implications: if you work for a company and it does not make a profit what happens ?
It goes belly up, chapter 11, out of business, you are out of work. Then, people have no salary.
I am just happy that Ward Churchill was not from the C. U economics department.
Yet, his claimed forte is ethics.
Is that a joke or what.
It is apparent that Ward Churchill is still doing
"counter intelligence" work, and working overtime to counter any notion of intelligence at certain
Halls in Boulder, the "Republic of Boulder"
The people who draw up the Bush billions in Homeland Security budgets must luv, the guy, all in secret, of course. By the way, Squaw Valley is my favorite ski area. So, please, please, somebody tell us the full scoop on Ward Churchill's full Military record, did he really serve in Viet Nam, where , how long etc.
He says it was a "turning point"
in his life. So, he makes it an issue, so it is a need to know thing...here.. so please any out there come to BLOG land, and lay out the full 9 yard facts on that. By the way, I attended C. U.,
and never took one ethics class while I was there, but I did have a really bad teacher( some grad assistant) in advanced calculus
To all you churchill supporters
Thank YOU!
Thank you so much!
Thank you for your anger that pushes so many to edge.
Thank you for your dissident views and creating a fear that causes so many to cringe.
Thank you for your choice of venue our universities and places of higher learning. Your progressive views have done so much to enrich so few (me included) who realize that all this is one enormous, and I mean this on an astronomical scale, profit opportunity.
All this hate has been feeding a marvelous engine. All this anger has created a need, which at 240,000 strong is still not enough. All these wonderful dissident ideas that threaten the status quo have given birth to so many new industries in the fields of surveillance, law enforcement and protection.
I can not begin to tell you or thank you for just how wealthy you have made just my stock portfolio. But to give you an example; The surveillance industry has experienced a 20,000 percent increase on the average and protection over 6,000 since Jan. of 2000. That is inclusive of both private and government spending. Take the almost Homeland Security Agency Chief who’s name eludes me at the moment. He invested $6,000 in a Tazer company and in December cashed out $23 million.
Another interesting piece of information is that now that The Homeland Security Agency is over 240,000 strong (and growing) and the federal budget is being held to an increase of 1 percent. The funds necessary to equip, train and staff this agency as well as first responders must come from somewhere. Well it won’t be defense. So which do you think is the next biggest budget? Education. So what if you need to get a bigger loan. What if the universities need to cut back on programs or charge additional fees? I mean its worth it.
Right?
But in the meantime there are a select number of individuals who have become very wealthy investing in those firms that protect us from the thoughts, the ideas and the concerns you have created.
So by the time my kids enroll into a university not only will their entire ride be paid for, but I will remind them that they have you to thank for it. So not to worry.
So never change. Keep the hate alive. For goodness sake (literally) keep Church employed! God knows I want the Porches with all wheel drive and the metallic paint and that stuff is all extra. So get out there and do that voodoo that you do so well and help us get more funds for those companies and drive that stock price up!
Thanks! We love you!
"Ward, I think there's something wrong with the Beaver..." - June
Posted by: Ross Tafari at February 3, 2005 09:36 PMHey Walter, ain't popularity great!
My most popular Google result it that Alaskan Grizzly Bear story, but nobody wants to argue about it. I feel so left out. :)
Posted by: jed at February 3, 2005 09:45 PMIsn't it great that there is a forum here where Americans can use their right of the Freedom of Speech?
I personally find Churchill's comments ridiculous, callous and absolutely without merit, but I would argue for his right to make them as an American citizen.
I don't feel that is a Republican or Democratic point of view, but an American one.
Posted by: First Amendment at February 3, 2005 10:29 PMI think what everyone forgets about this is that this guy is a CU Boulder Professor. That, in itself, should speak mountains about him and what one should expect from him. I understand that a lot of individuals who have commented on this subject and have seen it on the news most likely have no idea how the college operates. Allow me to enlighten you.
CU Boulder is a disgusting melting pot of Neo Hippies, alternative religious converts, high school drop outs, dumb jocks, ultra rich pampered kids and pseudo intellectuals who didn’t make the academic cut for DU, much like the rest of the town in which it resides. I’d have to say that both Metropolitan State College of Denver and CU Boulder are evenly tied for the most liberal college I’ve ever seen, beating out even modern Kent State by a fair margin. CU openly caters to these types of students (you go there to, “ski, get D’s and get a degree”) and hires its professors accordingly (with exception of certain departments, the few conservatives in the whole town). They know that this little fiasco will just attract more jaded youth to the school.
One thing that CU has learned since the 60’s is that their admissions application rates would dramatically increase (and their state funding along with it) if they offered this care free, pressure free environment to prospective college students. A place where students would be away from their parents and be able to do whatever the heck they wanted without any sort of structure or supervision (at least three people died on campus from drugs and alcohol last year alone). Churchill’s comments are just another of the many events that have come to pass in the last year that have showed that liberals do not a good liberal arts college make. If I were a professor of theology at a Christian based college and wrote a paper glorifying Satan and condemning the Church I’d be severely reprimanded and probably fired. Why? Because, simply put, its not kosher. Extremist papers like this are, however, expected from CU Boulder because of its overall social makeup and so go mostly ignored by disciplinary boards despite outside ridicule. I also honestly think they give people like Churchill tenure before their time to press controversial and often offensive issues although the current students and college suffer academically from it. The college is quickly becoming a laughing stock in the academic world because of stuff like this and its beginning to strongly reflect on the reputations of their students and alumni.
Do I agree with Churchill’s paper? No, but do feel he has the right to free speech in his own personal time? Yes, I do. But was it within his rights as a representative of CU Boulder, his students and his profession? Definitely not. As Americans we have the right to say whatever stupid thing we want but we shouldn’t be surprised when we encounter repercussions for our words. However, as a college student, when I go to class I’m paying for a product. Now, maybe this doesn’t count for CU Boulder students since, statistically, the government picks up the tab for most of their liberal asses, but when I walk into a college classroom I expect to get something other then the teacher’s political views for the hard earned cash I spent to get there. Never mind all the time I spent in high school getting and keeping a good GPA so that I could continue my education.
Furthermore, I expect not to be discriminated against because I hold different political views from the teacher, which is unfortunately not the case as I have personally seen at CU Boulder, DU and Metro State. Even in a political science class or an ETHICS CLASS my final grade shouldn’t reflect what my professor’s personal issues are. But it does on many college campuses today all around the US. Churchill’s stunt gets press, however, because CU Boulder is in the public eye so much for its sports program and its formally good name. A professor at Metro State threatened to kill a conservative student in front of a state congressional committee. Shortly before that another Metro professor was involved in a plot to kill the student president of the College Republican party? And neither of these people were fired for committing these felonious acts because both were “tenured”. But you probably heard about none of this. Why? Because those who live outside of Colorado don’t even know Metro State exists. Its all a matter of press, prestige and extremist politics.
Personally, it makes me sick to see CU once again make us college students look like a bunch of pansy liberal arts majors who just couldn’t deal with real academic coursework and so made up for it with intercollegiate sports and activism. I’m proud that I go to a school that has a zero tolerance policy for crap like this. My school is one of the least politically charged colleges in the nation (as said in the Princeton Review and through my own personal experience) and, never once, have I heard a professor discuss his political or social views with students or other staff (with the exception of one invitation to free cake on Martian Luther King Day). Its one of the many reasons I decided not to go to CU Boulder and chose the Colorado School of Mines instead. At Mines I’m still free to think on my own and even encouraged to go against the grain in my research but, unlike CU Boulder, a professor isn’t going to fail me in a class because I don’t like the stance he takes on Communism.
Posted by: thE_mAd_Dr_shOck at February 4, 2005 01:06 AMTo Bill Smith.
I read your very long essay on your opinion about the rest of us who do not agree with WC. I got bored with you, Bill. Your ideas, and the stratigy you attempt to use to bolster your icon, while at the same time attempting to insult the rest of us is pathetic and old. You get angry when we attack your hero, calling us neo-Nazis hypocrites, morally bankrupt, bla, bla, bla. You even made mention that us "neo-Nazis" are much the same as the classic child molester, dressed up like a friendly uncle, grandfather, or Catholic priest. (Gosh, Bill, is that how you lure little kids into your car?) Then you proclaim that your icon has all his facts together, while the rest of us do not. Am I supposed to take that at face value, because you say so? I don't think so.
For someone who obviously hates name-calling, you sure sling a bunch of it.
Why don't you take all that trash-mouth to the nearest redneck bar, preferrably one with a bunch of Harleys parked outside with American flags on them and start your little speech there. Go call them a bunch of Chesters and see how long it takes them to stuff you into a beer bottle. Maybe they could stuff your PC in there with you.
Posted by: Robert at February 4, 2005 01:21 AMI've been keeping some track of this whole W.C. thing since it first "blew up" a week ago. The most informative source I've found (next to actually reading his essay--which I did--or reading his books--which I haven't) is the Caplis and Silverman show on 630 KHOW in Denver. Apparently the essay was only the tip of the iceberg. If you haven't read it, you haven't missed much. I can say with some confidence that if he had turned it in to a *high school teacher* it would've received a low grade. If he had turned it into any of C.U.'s English professors, I'm sure they would've returned it with an "F", along with comments like, "Back up your statements!!!"
Caplis and Silverman have played excerpts from a couple CDs W.C. published a while back of some of his lectures. In them he reaffirms that the WTC was a justified target, since he says that he's gone through the obituaries of the dead and found a few janitors and the like, "but more than half were in the Eichman capacity," he said. In another, he kind of brainstorms with a student who suggests that more needs to be done, after the 9/11 attacks, to bring about desired changes to our society. The student suggests sabotage as a tool for social change, which W.C. dismisses, not because it would be against the law, but because it wouldn't be enough. He asks, "What would it take, but that would be getting rhetorical at this point, to bring those people on the upper floors [of the WTC] to some sort of justice? Small acts of sabotage?" That last part was a rhetorical question. In another, a student suggests that more needs to be done. 9/11 wasn't enough. W.C. debates that with himself for a moment and says something to the effect of, "Well I don't think...well, I don't know. You might be right. I think that would make a great homework assignment. Get busy!"
W.C. elucidates further what he'd like to see in the future at http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html.
All this has caused me to question, you know, this guy is SUPPPOSED to be an Ethnic Studies professor. What the HELL is he DOING discussing sedicious acts with students?! What kind of academic CESSPOOL is C.U.-Boulder running in the Ethnic Studies Dept.?!
W.C.'s whole approach is that he's one of the few people in the whole country who lives in reality, and knows the truth, while everyone else is living in a fiction, and they're just stupid, or ignorant--"sheeple" as some other radicals I used to know would call "the masses". After reading a little more of what he's said, it seems that while he has particular ire for the U.S., he's against the state in general. He not only sees capitalism as an engine of oppression, he sees the state, any state (he gave a speech up in Canada where he spoke against their government, too), as an engine of oppression as well. It seems he will never be satisfied.
He seems to have a particular effect on some (most?) of his students. In that he is doing them a disservice. I think their parents should be asking for their money back.
In the meantime he fosters a sense of alienation from the society around them. When the Caplis and Silverman show did their first broadcast on this subject from the C.U.-Boulder campus (they're both law school graduates from C.U.-Boulder), W.C.'s student supporters, which there were apparently many, perhaps more than 100, attempted to shout down the hosts of the show, as they questioned W.C. about his essay. The hosts attributed their rude behavior to W.C.'s influence, but I think some would question that. I mean, there's a riot led by C.U.-Boulder students at least once a year, ones where the "oppressive" Boulder police have to get involved...
The hosts were generous enough to give some of W.C.'s supporters a chance at the mic, to give their own opinions. Two things were surprising to me. One was that in both cases when they had student supporters on, they refused to voice an opinion about specific things he has said or written. They just generally lavished praise on him, saying he was a brilliant man (hmm, I wonder if this is shades of "The Manchurian Candidate"--"He's the nicest person I've ever known..."). One was asked about his views on capitalism, and it was striking. Silverman asked him, "Those people in those towers [in the WTC] were engaging in commerce, in capitalism. Are you against capitalism?" Without even a pause, this student who refused to criticize anything specific about W.C.'s statements said, "Absolutely!" He went on to say that it oppresses people and something about how it leaves them poor, and leads them to "miserable lives". Huh. Perhaps he should go visit North Korea sometime... That's *real* poverty.
Another thing that came out of that show was that students going to C.U.-Boulder are *required* to take a course in the Ethnic Studies Dept. before they can graduate! I can just imagine it, "Yes, I'd like my dose of indoctrination now. Okay, everything I know is a lie, white is black, and black is white, our country is a murderous regime, always has been, capitalism sucks, because obviously, I'm not rich, I got taken by some rich people, I am a product of the evil White, dominant, oppressive patriarchy, and am ashamed of myself, and I will repent until the end of my days..." (sigh)
Yesterday, the behavior on the part of his supporters got even worse. The Board of Regents held a public meeting. Many of W.C.'s supporters showed up and were unruly, shouting down the regents, shouting so loud it was hard to hear some of them over the din. It got to the point that a few of his supporters were arrested by police, one for forcefully shoving a police officer against a steel railing (hey, you know, that's felony assault...). When that guy was arrested, the group of supporters had the temerity to chant "LET-HIM-GO! LET-HIM-GO! LET-HIM-GO!", over and over again. At that point the Board had no choice but to adjourn the meeting, or risk worse violence. Then these students have the gall to come out as strong advocates for "free speech". Really. If anyone has anything to say against W.C., they try their darnedest to shut them up.
You know, even if W.C. does get fired after all is said and done, he will still have his free speech rights. It just won't be on MY DIME, thank you very much!
Churchill probe ordered
CU officials ponder firing prof; regents apologize to nation
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
February 4, 2005
AURORA - The University of Colorado Board of Regents ordered an investigation Thursday into whether embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill should be fired, and then took the extraordinary step of apologizing to the nation for Churchill's writings about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a raucous meeting where university leaders were shouted down by Churchill supporters who defied orders to be silent, the regents voted unanimously to authorize a 30- day investigation (aka how do we fire him and send a message to the rest of the faculty) to determine whether there is cause to fire Churchill, 57.
In what may be an unprecedented action by any major university, the regents ALSO apologized "to all Americans, especially those targeted in the 9/11 attacks and those serving in our armed forces, for the DISGRACEFUL comments of professor Churchill."
Two protesters were arrested during the meeting.
Churchill has been the subject of a firestorm of controversy since concerns were raised last week about an essay he wrote on Sept. 11, 2001, in which he compared "technocrats" working in the World Trade Center to notorious Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann and said the United States invited the terrorist attacks through a long history of violent domination of other cultures.
Contacted Thursday night about the regents' decision, Churchill said, "No comment. Until I receive something official from the regents or the university, I'm not going to comment until I know more about what I'm responding to."
The investigation to determine whether Churchill should be fired will be directed by Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano, who has been in that post just two weeks. He will be assisted in the process by Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleason and School of Law Dean David Getches.
The probe could (in other words WILL) put any or all of Churchill's published writings and public remarks under a microscope; this week, he told students in one class he has authored 24 books and 70 other book chapters.
DiStefano's investigation will lead to a report to the regents, who will then make a recommendation to CU President “Where will my funding come from now” Betsy Hoffman, who holds the power to make a final decision.
"Two primary questions will be examined in this review," DiStefano said: "One, does professor Churchill's conduct, including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause, as described in the regents' laws?
"And, two, if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against university action?"
The rules established by the regents state that a tenured professor can be fired only for professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment, or "OTHER conduct" that falls below minimum standards (you mean the university even has a standard?) of professional integrity.
David Lane, Churchill's attorney, predicted that, ultimately, nothing will come of the CU probe.
Dismissing Thursday's session as "a lot of hand-wringing and tongue-clucking," Lane said "Ward Churchill is entitled, under the First Amendment, to have any opinions about anything - especially matters of public concern - and he is allowed to write those opinions without fear of reprisal from Bill Owens or the regents of the University of Colorado." (According to the First Amendment this is not true)
Ultimately, Lane predicted, "They will condemn his writings, (but) beyond that, do absolutely nothing, as the law requires. That is the correct result."
Police arrested two of Churchill's supporters (who are now doing some donut hole punching in the county jail)- one at the beginning of the meeting and one who could not be subdued until he was grabbed by several officers (something he found strangely sexually satisfying), one of whom was nearly knocked to the ground in the struggle.
The two-hour meeting deteriorated into chants of "Let him go, let him go," (you would think at $25,000 year they would have come up with something more intellectual. Oh well such is the institution of higher learning) as regents were escorted from the meeting hall on CU's Fitzsimons campus.
Hoffman could not make herself heard, even with the microphone in front of her, as the meeting deteriorated into chaos. Finally, appearing speechless at the disorder that had engulfed the room, the president also made her retreat.
Prior to the meeting's termination, each regent spoke out - several struggling to be heard over remarks directed at them by dissenters - against the substance of Churchill's now infamous essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." (As I recall chickens are stupid birds who’s head are cut off and then served up as good eats!) Some went much further.
Regent Tom Lucero called for a far-reaching evaluation of CU's overall curriculum (In other words, note to the faculty there is a new sheriff in town so watch your ass).
"It naturally follows that I will be seeking justification for all departments and their academic value and merit to the university community," Lucero said. "I want to scrutinize whether or not it is necessary to eliminate courses and departments of questionable academic merit." (well look at the bright side, unemployment lines are getting shorter)
Owens, who said Wednesday that he had asked Hoffman to fire Churchill, endorsed the regents' decision to take "the necessary first step" in reviewing the professor's employment status.
The governor added, "However, I deplore the behavior displayed by some students at the regents' meeting. Their abhorrent behavior underscores the culture of violence that can be spawned by inflammatory speeches and essays such as those by Mr. Churchill."
In the wake of the meeting's turbulent climax, Hoffman said it was critical to her to emphasize "the importance of civil debate, the importance of dissent, the importance of the opportunity for people to speak freely, and also for faculty to understand the responsibility that goes with free speech." (In other words free speech does not mean I will continue to pay you for your disgusting and hateful opinions.)
Hoffman would not speak to whether she believes Churchill, a tenured professor on the faculty of CU since 1981, should be removed from his post. (in other words do I have a choice?)
"I will not even comment at this point," she said. "It would prejudge any process."
Churchill's essay, written the day that terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon claimed nearly 3,000 lives, took on new life more than three years after he penned it, when protests arose after he was announced as a panelist in a presentation on "The Limits of Dissent."
That event, which was to have taken place Thursday night at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., was canceled after more than a hundred threats of violence convinced Hamilton officials they could not guarantee public safety.
On Monday, Churchill, who has heard himself branded as "Osama bin Churchill" in recent commentary, voluntarily stepped down as chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department, taking a pay cut of about $18,000, but retained his position as a tenured faculty member.
I hope this guy is on some dark watch list. Who's to say....with that kind of thinking ......he doesn't wake up one day....full of piss and vinegar...and plots an attack on civilians in the USA. He is clearly capable of justifying it in his own mind. It sounds like he has too much in common with Bin-Laden. I wouldn't be surprised to find he had a pro Osama poster or T-shirt. Freedom of Speech works for us here. A person spouts off like that and the underlying message could be......hey ...I'm nuts and probably dangerous. Well, I've heard it before.....where is Jack Ruby when you need him ?
Posted by: M.Paul at February 4, 2005 07:36 AMTo ALL you C. U haters, including Dr MAD/ SHOCK
Some of you appear to be miffed that C. U lost its number one party school rating, and that only 3 students died of drug or alcohol OD's in the last year. , some of you are really in a tizzy, over the revelation in the Alumni Magazine that C. U's most radical fem grad, Lynn Cheney, had poor book sales on her book on lesbians, and incest. I know that this may come as a surprise to you that C. U had more grads that became
astro-nuts(excuse me astronauts) than any other University in the World. I have to go run to go to a AA meeting, but I was very saddened to see that the old faternity was closed down on the HILL. Seems that the C. U Pres just doesn't realize how important OCTOBERFEST is in an ethnic sense to some. In any event,after I left C. U, I tried to make the trains run on time in Calif, I apoligze if some of you were late for work,
and are still caught up in the 'rat race"
Sincerely,
Buck
Posted by: buck at February 4, 2005 08:44 AMThis speaks volumes.
Perhaps the regents should be looking at fraud charges for misleading the university regarding his background when he was hired. they thought they hired an outspoken Indian, BUT, well, you'll see as you read:
Prof's Indian roots disputed
By Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News
February 3, 2005
The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is not a member of their tribe.
"He's not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah," said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.
In his books and articles, Churchill has described himself as a member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. In past interviews, he's claimed to be one-sixteenth Cherokee.
But the Keetoowah say that's not true.
Attempts to contact Churchill for comment Wednesday on his background were unsuccessful. But Churchill's claim to American Indian roots has been challenged repeatedly by people in that community.
One Montana woman has an especially personal tale of confronting Churchill on his claim to American Indian heritage. She was taking one of Churchill's classes at CU in 1994 when she wrote an article for the Colorado Daily newspaper, saying there was no evidence he had any American Indian background.
"For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn't an Indian," said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. "Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he's not an Indian."
Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.
In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.
"To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me," Rave said. "On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background)."
Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.
When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.
"He called me and said, 'Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.' He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity."
He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.
Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill's classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.
She says Churchill can write what he wants, but his claim of American Indian heritage is bogus.
"There's no denying what he writes resonates with a lot of people, but when he says this is something he's experienced as a Native American man, that's fraudulent," Rave said.
The question of who is and who is not an American Indian is a sensitive one in that community. Many Indians resent the idea that only those who grew up on a reservation or have two American Indian parents are real Indians.
"Tracking blood lines is the business of Nazi Germany and South Africa (under apartheid)," said professor George Tinker, who teaches American Indian culture and religious tradition at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver. "That's not an Indian issue at all."
Tinker said that it should be up to the tribes themselves to decide who is an Indian.
The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee
• The word A-ni-kee-too-wah-gee ("Keetoowah people") was used by Cherokee speakers to refer to themselves. Kituhwa was the mother town of the Cherokees; its location, probably in present- day North Carolina, is now lost in the past.
• The Keetoowah Society was formed in 1859 by Cherokees transplanted to Oklahoma on the "Trail of Tears" as a way of preserving cultural traditions.
• The United Keetoowah Band is a part of the Tahlequah, Okla.-based Cherokee Nation. It was formed from various Cherokeee subgroups after passage of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act in 1936, and it was recognized by Congress in 1949.Source: Www.Cherokeeobserver.Org
Posted by: mothy at February 4, 2005 09:14 AMRE: RED BLOODED on counter-intelligence
HEY MOTHY, and all you blue blood lines:
Wow, are you in a tizzy on Churchill's blood.
That Harvard Professor, never even took a DNA test, and she is like implying her blood is better than Churchills, as if she has more blue blood. Ya, like Harvard made her blood more blue in content, it got up a lot bluer, even if before she went to Harvard, she was a 1/2 breed.
But, this Vietnam thing is the real mystery.
It was after Vietnam, that Churchill wanted to
put on the head-dress, and sun glasses.
It is apparent that Churchill is a certifed expert in counter-intelligence.
He should get the John Poindexer going the extra mile award to increase the Homeland Security Dept budget more than any other person, regardless
of the blood content, be it red, white , or blue.
Sincerely,
Buck
Posted by: Buck at February 4, 2005 09:32 AMAnd the bricks just keep mounting…
Rocky Mountain News:
2nd college and possibly 3rd yanks Churchill invitation
President of school in Massachusetts cites security fears
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
February 4, 2005
A Massachusetts college withdrew a speaking invitation Thursday to University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.
Wheaton College, in Norton, Mass., had invited Churchill to participate in a March 29 panel on genocide.
President Michael (Am not as stupid as CU) Crutcher withdrew the invitation amid concerns about public safety, college spokesman Michael Graca said.
"Freedom of speech is an important principle both for the country, but certainly as well for educational institutions," Graca said. "And it needs to take place in a secure and safe environment, and that's the fundamental issue."
Eastern Washington University will decide today whether to rescind an invitation to Churchill to speak April 5.
The ethnic-studies professor is under fire nationally for a 2001 essay in which he referred to victims in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi Gestapo officer who headed Adolf Hitler's effort to wipe out Jews in Europe.
On Tuesday, Hamilton College in upstate New York canceled an address by Churchill because of security concerns. Churchill's remarks on the Sept. 11 attack were brought to light by a student journalist at Hamilton.
Graca said Wheaton College has not received any threats, but acted in light of the threats at Hamilton.
"Given the experience of Hamilton this past week, we felt it was prudent to take some action to maintain a secure campus," Graca said.
Churchill was to speak about the American Indian experience with an expert on the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915, and survivors of the Holocaust and mass killings in Rwanda. That discussion will take place now without Churchill (where he will not be missed).
Wheaton College is a 1,500-student liberal-arts college in southeast Massachusetts.
At Eastern Washington, Churchill is scheduled to take part in Native American Awareness Week. The school in Cheney, Wash., is 6 percent American Indian - considered a large proportion for a college, said spokesman David Rey.
Rey said faculty members who invited Churchill knew his views about Americans Indians were controversial. They didn't know about his essay on Sept. 11.
"I don't think this is what they expected," Rey said.
President Stephen Jordan spent Thursday discussing the matter with trustees and faculty, Rey said. Jordan will issue a statement during a trustees meeting this morning.
Awwwwwww I suppose churchie should be looking into those food stamps now.
Robert,
Thanks for reading my long essay. I am sorry you were bored, did the best I could to make it interesting.
What’s up with wishing to see someone stuff me into a beer bottle? Maybe you should offer to do it yourself instead of hoping some redneck will do it for you. Hey, hey!
It’s time people started VOLUNTEERING to serve in Iraq (Iran???), same to all you posters who trash Ward: you all need to put-up or shut-up!
VOLUNTEER: that’s what your fathers & grandfather’s did in WWII, they volunteered to bring democracy to the lands across the seas. Why don’t you all go for it, women too.
I take it you are all CONVINCED that Ward Churchill is a bad guy. If you are not convinced what kind of behavior are you exhibiting?
Now to the FACTS: what do you think about:
US/UK behavior in Iraq and the death of 500,000 kids? Did this happen? Is it acceptable?
Do you have anything to say on that?
Did you see the video of an Iraqi taxi driver’s car being demolished by a couple of US grunts for stealing wood? Maybe if you volunteered a level of decency would have prevailed at places like Abu Ghraib and Falluja.
What about Viet Nam: was that a good thing?
Saudi Arabia: what do you know about the Arab-American Oil Company (ARAMCO) and the relationship between the Saudi monarchy (a dictatorship) and the oil companies and the US Govt?
I’m sure you know that they have routinely tortured people for DECADES in Saudi so that we can have fresh oil without interruption. Just for you and me. They cut people’s heads off and they are supported by the US military and oil companies…………
……………………….. just for you my lovelies.
Are you really OK with that, honestly, is this a good thing?
Same deal in Indonesia & Colombia, AND Iran before the Ayatollah. Actually, name any country where there’s good shit to be had, there’s a CIA agent whispering into the DICTATOR’s one ear and a representative of Her Majesty’s Gov’t whispering in the other.
This is not a lie people. No spin whatsoever!
Forget Churchill, just for a moment, address this one thing explain it to us in your own words.
Do you now want to foster the same dynamic in your own backyard?
Public ass-kickings for people who think differently from your leaders? Remember, if you are not a leader the view never changes. Do you all enjoy looking up someone’s ass ALL DAY LONG?
Do you REALLY want to live under a system where only APPROVED businesses, speech and people are allowed?
If so, you guys sound like the first people to sign-up for duty as concentration camp guards, are you really so stupid? (It’s a shit job by the way). It’s hard to imagine so many crass idiots signing-up for what some people would call a mind-f---!
By screwing Churchill you’re really doing it to yourselves!
Are you all cool with the idea of using secret police forces worldwide and in the US to facilitate big business providing you with an opportunity to work in a cube?
Are you all really on-board with bringing secret police units into the US to arrest subversives and to mess with people who don’t spout the party line?
Come-on people I pray you can’t be serious. Move-out from your attacks on Churchill to the issues he is addressing.
How ‘bout what he said of Madeleine Albright, the FBI & CIA: righteous don’t you think?
CLUE: RWANDA
By the way do you think shouting-down the Regents was doing Churchill any good? It was the Secret Police in full COINTELPRO mode. Google COINTELPRO.
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 4, 2005 10:26 AM"The policies for dismissal at CU include; insubordination, moral turpitude and incompetence. Synonyms include, factious behavior, mutinous, rebellious behavior, vile behavior, and uprising against authority, open defiance. Clearly these words, written by the Board of Regents at CU apply to a clean, clear dismissal"
Then it should have been done back in 2001 when the essay was written ... not just dismissed until some other group decided to use the essay for an excuse not to have the man as a speaker three years later. I have not seen anywhere that the essay was used as a teaching tool. So, are you saying that just because he is a professor at the university, he should not be allowed his own personal opinions outside of the classroom? That would be synonomous with an employee who is not allowed to drink or smoke at work not to be allowed to do so on their own personal time after hours.
Posted by: patti at February 4, 2005 10:57 AMManufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations...
It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.
They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.
Why?
Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.
That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.
Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust
In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.
But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.
“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”
What are you willing to do?
Posted by: kstreetfriend at February 4, 2005 11:59 AMAnd you've got to wonder..... is this really about stopping Ward Churchill from talking at Hamilton College?
Or could it be about teaching America to obey our great leader!
Freedom of speech is vitally important. But it is just not enough to enshrine it in law. To have it work, really work, where it does any good, you have to promote it, encourage it and avoid at all costs from hurting people who speak out.
How would you like to a buy a car from a manufacturer where a worker was too afraid to speak-out about a faulty cruise-control switch?
Guess what! this happened: a bunch of F-150s (favored by red-necks) are spontaneously bursting into flames while parked in the garage, switched-off at that.
A great place to live and work is not some place where you have to watch what you say all the time for fear of offending the big guy in charge.
Soviet society didn't work too good. Humm, I wonder why.
Yeah, jump all over the Ward man, next jump all over some blind guy, retard, Mexican, Raghead whatever....you're just doing what you've been told to do by your boss to keep your job.
Well I say you should all get together and tell your great leader to "take his job and shove it....."
You don't have to demolish Ward Churchill, the Iraquis, Colombians, Iranians whomever to hold on to your jobs people.
Ward Churchill is showing you a way out of fear, he may even be wrong, but guess what its OKAY.
How many picks did Elway throw before he got his Superbowl ring?
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 4, 2005 12:29 PMK-Street Friend, and other Dick and George
Buddies, CIA cut outs, DIA agents,etc.FBI, SEC,
Mother Terresa Academy, and the Catholic League, Donahue dude who is in a tizzy over the C. U professor
Hey, beltwueay dude( the K) you end your story with: what are you willing to do. ?
What do you want me to do.
After I left C. U, I got 2 law degrees( J. D. & LL'M), and passed 3 bars, but I had a great time at C. U..( party time.. big time)
So, what do you want people to do. ?
Are you saying that privitization scam is a rigged deal to make some GOP fat kats fility rich,
who kick back $$$ to GOP coffers. So, isn't that what K -Street is all about..filth, greed, power, protecting corruption, screwing most Americans
So, what do you want us to do relative to the Ward Churchill stuff.. Tell us, OK.,Of course you realise 100 spooks from the DIA, CIA, etc are reading
this board, along with BOOM BOOM, after all they got the budget, funds, and Ward is seen like a meal ticket to the high end feast.
Buck
To W.C.--Liar, liar, pants on fire....
Posted by: Trish at February 4, 2005 02:08 PMI am curious as to why this has become an issue now... after it was published in November of 2003. How many people critical of Churchill’s book have actually read it? It is easy to pick out portions of his writings and object to it without any critical thinking. Churchill’s thoughts and opinions on our government’s actions around the world go much deeper than specific remarks about 9/11.
In Churchill's opinion, the attacks of 9/11 were a direct result of our government’s own actions and in that sense alone, Churchill is saying that the victims of 9/11 were not innocent. Not innocent, as in that those who died were responsible, but that they represent our government’s guilt in relation to foreign policy they enacted.
I do not personally agree with all of Churchill’s opinions in the book. This is America... a place where one can speak his/her mind. We don’t have to agree or even respect the man and his opinions. But we do have to accommodate people that may strike us as being insensitive, callous or even out right stupid! After all, look who our president is!!
Public handwashing ceremony: modern day Pontius Pilate - Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado, apologizes for Ward Churchill. Owens sells-out Soviet-style. McCarthyites line-up behind Bill: he'll take you on one by one.
Background explanation: Colo gov Owens raised Catholic, likes to dress-up like a soldier (but does not actually join the military), his wife left him mid-term. Have they got video & audio of him doing something that ends in ......tio?
I can't believe them boys died on Omaha beach to preserve Owens right to fire Ward Churchill.
Can you?
To have them violating their oaths of office Ward must be saying something darn near close to the truth: his screed must be worth a re-read.
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 4, 2005 03:31 PMChurchill THREATENED a student because she exposed him as the fraud he is?
That's the grounds for termination right there.
And Dr. Besty Hoffman should be next.
Posted by: James C. Hess at February 4, 2005 05:41 PMTo Bill Smith:
Obviously you can read, but comprehension might be a problem. I asked you to go to the nearest redneck bar, one with a lot of Harleys parked outside, with American flags on them, go inside, make your speech and call them a bunch of Chesters. I SUGGESTED you do that. So, why don't you, instead of using your little veiled way of trying to pick a fight with me? I'm not the one calling people neo-Nazi, Chesters. Your are the one doing that. You see, I love the things I have and wouldn't like giving them up to you through a lawsuit you would level on me, which I'm quite positive would happen, if I were, indeed, to stuff you and your PC into that beer bottle.
So, big bad PC warrior, put your money where your mouth is and go to that bar I mentioned, strike up a conversation with the rednecks, tell them that anybody who does not agree with your icon is a neo-Nazi, Chester and see how far you get, before they make your nose one-dimensional. I'm certain someone in that bar would clobber you, without being overly concerned about lawsuits.
Trying to pick a fight with me on line, without ever seeing, or knowing me, tells me two things about you: 1.) You are one big, bad moe-foe, or 2.) You are one very stupid moe-foe. Judging from the way you write, and assuming you haven't gone to that redneck bar yet, I think number 2 fits the bill.
Posted by: Robert at February 4, 2005 09:57 PMI find it humorous and quite ironic, indeed, that I’m labeled all sorts of fun things for not supporting good, ole’ W. C.’s right to make an ass out of himself and the school he represents. Just FYI: I didn’t vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader, I believe I have the right to do whatever the hell I want as long as I don’t hurt others and, with that in mind, I‘m a registered rightist Libertarian.
As I said, I don’t have a problem with Churchill saying whatever he wants on his own time. But when it reflects on others besides himself I have an issue with it. Being an ethics professor he should have understood this. The school is having enough trouble right now without him. This concept is college freshman ethics crap, for God’s sake!
I’m sure there are several professors on CU’s campus who are much more extreme then Churchill. In fact, I’d place a healthy wager on it. Considering that any of them have yet to drudge up the rigmarole Churchill has probably indicates that they know what line not to cross and, if they do cross it, they sure as hell have better timing. It looks like there are many candidates for the position of Ethics Department Chair who understand the subject matter better then W.C. and appear to be more qualified for the position.
Oh, and isn’t it funny that die hard Churchill supporters thunder on and on about free speech, skewed version of historical events and conspiracy theory yet can’t use proper grammar, punctuation, civil argument or reference real evidence? And don’t give me that load about, “You’ve been brainwashed with the white man, man!” America is to blame for a lot of people dying around the world. However there is a simple fact of reality that time always follows; PEOPLE DIE. You die, I die, everybody dies eventually. Americans die, Russians, Iraqis, creatures in other dimensions, whatever, all of which come to a premature end for generally odd and sometimes not all to understandable reasons. Humans are very apt at killing one another (its our hidden talent) and I don’t see us all joining hands and singing “Give Peace a Chance” anytime soon. So grow up and live with it. It’s the way the world works.
Posted by: thE_mAd_Dr_shOck at February 4, 2005 10:13 PMDr shock says he doesn't have a problem with
Ward Churchill saying what he wants on his own time. Surely, Dr shock (and his ilk) finds no problem saying what he wants, not feeling his time is owned by Gov Owens, or some others. Then, Dr Shock's main point: people die get over it. Well, how come people like Dr Shock can't get over a C. U Professor, he killed nobody in the years,
1996- 2005. He wrote a book in 1996, now making some in NY go on a tizzy, the head of some NY Catholic group wants his(Churchill's) head.
When some Yale Professor did the Hilter's Pope stuff, where was Bill Donahue, calling for Professor's at Yale's head to roll to be fired.
Gee, is he admitting stuff from Yale professors.
Dr Mad Shock seems to be Bill Owens main advisor (Owens has the same mindset)seeking to ax C. U professors..
Both, apparently could not even meet the entrance requirments to get into C. U...
Doesn't that tell you plenty.
I feel that Ward's essay on 911 is how the majority of the world feels. I don't think people who read this really understand what he really means. Of course most americans are too ignorant and stubborn to believe anything other than "u.s.a., u.s.a". Ward should be commended for this paper.
Posted by: T. at February 5, 2005 12:37 AMT.
You said it all in your first sentence. YOU FEEL. That's the trouble with you folks. You feel about issues instead of THINKING about them. You then go on to say that people don't understand what WC really means, but you don't bother to enlighten any of us about his meaning. What is he doing, T, speaking in secret code? I think he was pretty clear: He believes the folks in the towers deserved to die. That's what he said, and I believe that's what he meant.
You think most Americans are too ignorant and stubborn to believe anything, other than USA, USA? What logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Are all of us "ignorant" Americans supposed to believe that your side has their collective finger on the pulse of the world? Are we supposed to believe that the guilty, murdering, fanatical sons of female dogs are truly innocent, while the innocent are guilty because WC says so, based on some vague reference about being part of some "mighty engine of profit?" THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING! THEY WERE TRYING TO RAISE THEIR FAMILYS! THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE THEIR NEXT HOUSE PAYMENT! THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE A BETTER LIFE FOR THEIR CHILDREN! I DON'T THINK THEY WERE GOING TO WORK EACH DAY, THINKING TO THEMSELVES, "IN WHAT WAY CAN I SCREW THE REST OF THE WORLD TODAY? HOW MANY CHILDREN CAN I STARVE OUT OF EXISTENCE TODAY? MOOOOOOOOOOOOOHA,HA,HA,HA,HA!!!! But I get the impression that's exactly what you think they were doing, and if it is what you think, or feel, or however you come to your conclusions, that, my friend, is true ignorance.
If you want to commend WC for his paper, you have that right, so go right ahead and commend him. As for me, well, I'll be GD'ed if I will. I'll leave you "higher minds" to your mussings, and I thank God there aren't that many of you.
Posted by: Robert at February 5, 2005 03:51 AMYou know, Buck, I would have addressed you directly earlier, but I'm afraid, as you so blatantly showed in your last post you obviously can't write or read English very well. Just what I’d expect form someone like you as I stated above. If you’re a lawyer then you must obviously not be a very good one since your English skills resemble those of your average 4th grader and you lack the ability to think critically. And you’re an AOL user, to boot. Go figure. In short, I think you’re lying about being a lawyer in an attempt to make yourself more credible. You could have NEVER made it through law school let alone into law school. You don’t even know how to use a thesaurus let alone Black‘s Law. By the way, before I forget, “requirments” is spelled with an E.
To be quite honest, I got over W.C.’s comments before he ever said them. As I’ve said before (but you obviously didn’t understand) was that this sort of thing is to be expected from a place like Planet Boulder. What you don’t seem to understand, Mr. Lawyer, is that W.C.’s actions reflect on those involved with him. There are plenty of tree huggers like yourself up at CU who find his paper, and is books, CD’s, etc, inappropriate from a representative of a learning environment because it makes them look bad. I have a couple of friends up at CU who are from out of state whose parents almost pulled them from the college after the football scandal. None of them are involved in the sports program but it made everyone do a double take. Do you really think this incident is helping recent grads trying to find jobs in socio-political fields, things the school specializes in? I think not. Why? Because private companies and public government organizations don’t want to hire political nut jobs. Think of all the letters of recommendation W.C. has written in the last year for prospective grad students since he was, formally, the department chair.
As for the “Hitler’s Pope” thing, the reason nobody got upset over it was because; 1.) It was 50 years after the fact and 2.) anyone who bothers to take a freshman history class knows it the truth. There are tons of Vatican documents supporting Pius XII’s involvement with WWII German government. The only part of this that has ever been in debate within the last 30 years was to what level did his involvement stretch.
Yale: Bases thesis off of opinions and hard evidence, reporting their results with some (although somewhat dry) literary talent and proper, though obviously professionally edited, English usage.
CU Boulder: Bases thesis off of blatant assumptions and opinions without the support of unbiased evidence. Unedited by trained professionals. Commonly uses slang terms and verbal abbreviations such as, “Gimme a break,” in their books and papers.
As for me not meeting the admissions standards to get into CU I suggest you reread my above posts if its within your vocabulary to do such. I go to Mines, the most selective public school in the state and, arguably, the most selective school in the state, period. Go to the Princeton Review and see for yourself. Then again you’ll also see that CU is above the top schools for Beer and Pot. Surprise, surprise. I was accepted to CU before I was even a senior in high school because I attended one of their main “feeder schools”. They could have cared less what my grades were. All they knew is that my high school, like most in north Jeffco, was known for turning out really good athletes.
And as for Bill Owens, although I don’t like him one bit, I will defend him in this instance only. He graduated with a his BS from Austin State University and his Masters from the University of Texas. U of T is, by far, more selective then CU will ever be and, while he was there, received a two year fellowship. For a lawyer you really don’t know how do to research before you open your mouth, do you? I’m just sorry you’re so bitter that good colleges don’t accept poor spelling social refuse like yourself. It sounds to me like you were kicked out of CU rather then “left” of your own accord. I also suggest you return to your local community college and take an English class.
See, its fully possible to combine fact based debate skills with fact based insults.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations, you’ve been owned by a girl. ;) I love how you were quick to assume I was a man.
Posted by: thE_mAd_Dr_shOck at February 5, 2005 07:10 AMDear Madam Doc Shock, and other MINES Students,
and JEFFCO Americans
You don't own me as you assert, haven't you heard slavery, was outlawed, but maybe since you go to MINES, that has not sunk in with you, yet.
I went to a law school, much higher rated in that Princeton (so called) Review you cite, than C. U. but my purpose here is not to support soley your right to the first amendment because you believe you are the smartest person on Earth. Rather, even though I don't agree with much of what Churchill blathers on about, or the manner he does, nevertheless, does he still not have a 1st Amendment right on that in the State of Colorado(in the face of Bill Owens intimidations of power from a GOV OFFICE) ? Are you going to tell me MINES is the center of constitutional rights in the USA, if so then what is your point, you attack other schools, other Americans, it is as if your have your FEM jack boots on, seeking to elevate yourself by stomping on others, all using the 1st amendment.
I just don't think you, MS MADAM MINES, the self described MAD JEFFCO SHOCK Honey, are the only person who has 1st amendment rights, in the USA, but yes, you do have a right to spit on me with your disgusting verbal insults in a forum like this, even though I served in the Dept of Army,why because this is America..
and MINES produces some fine engineers, but it is not a law school, and I hope that most of the students there are not like you, so inclined to spit on other Americas, but I get your point on how you are misusing this forum, all under the banner of the 1st Amendment..on a WWW site WALTER titles as "private property", when we venture into it, but he neither owns me, because we post here, to receive your garbage you toss out. I just hope they put some jack boot fems like you in the front lines in Iraq, and Iran, troop deployments, then we will see how flip you are, from your Jeffco cosy smug comforts.
Sincerely.
BUCK
One other point: Bill Owens was a draft evader in Texas, you point that out MADAM shock, on your Austin (TEXAS)school stuff, but since you seem to be a litle suck up to Owens, that is consistent with your spitting on other Americans, some GOP abnormality of yours.( what are you a GOP MINEY trooper of the PARTY) Bill Owens never went to law school, in the range of quality I did. Neither you, or Owens can take that away. Bush was rejected by U. T law, surely you are not so dense to figure that out. Cheney was kicked out of YALE.. you know that, don't you.
Bill Owens put on a Military Uniform faking to be a Vietnam vet..and you suck up to him to strip other Americnans in Colordo of the 1st Amendment rights.
Have you no shame, Madam Shock in your brazen suck up to the worst Governor in the history of the State of Colorado, all as you display your GOP leeming Party rant, your cover is blown, little Ms Bill Owens suck-up. ?
You seem to believe Ms Bill Owens Suck up(Madam SHOCK), that GOP Party Officlas are the only ones who can use English as a means of expression in Colorado
Is that some German history of the 1930's class project as a MINEY GOP Party leemings thing with you?
Why doesn't Owens voluntary for the Marines, since he did a duck out in NAM.?
Why don't you sign for the Army,
you could be an "information specialist", just like Churchill was in Viet Nam. ?
You are really displaying your anti 1st amendment bias, aren't you, Ms Bill Owens suck up, tell us did you learn that at MINES, or some yuppie GOP
squad at the knees of Owens..?
Unprofessed love for Bill Owens, seems to have over-rode any First Amendment rights of others in Colorado, is the bottom line of people like MISSY Smarty pants, MISSY Shock, the MINES Engineer, or
wanta- be dig in the sands of the Range types.
Yes, she will retart, or retort back that she put in a disclaimer that she doen't realy like him(the Governor),
Yet, she goes into her rant about how great Austin State College is, surely as a place for Bill Owens to hide to disregard his draft duties to the U. S Military at a critical juncture in his life.
Who took BIll Owens place on the Wall, surely those who are are deemed not to speak proper English, Texas, Owens, Dr Shock style., i. e GOP special neocon privileges code to stomp on the rights of other Americans
Is the young GOP party in Colorado some youth hate group, given the display reflected from that rubbish put out by the MINES Person, Dr after shock, she is totally zonked out, moonie style, but is perfect as a spokesperson for Owens..here..
RE: U. S. Constitution in Colorado, and OWENS attack on that
Now the front range knows, who the other woman is in Bill Owen's life, since his wife left him. ?
Congratultions , Missy MINE Silde ruler, real slick, you are willing to tear to shreds the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, all over your admitted defense of Bill Owens.
The power he has over you... it just reeks from your writings(if any could call them) that,
but blather on MISSY Shock, some are not shocked on how Owens tries to suspend the U. S Constitution in Colorado.
SAD, what is happeing, as Owens posions the minds of the youth in Colorado , using his GOP PARTY appratus
Hey Robert... true ignorance is not criticaly thinking about the entire essay. Pick out a few lines and rant about it... that is true brilliance! Your first paragraph ends with a sentence by you saying "I believe". In order to believe, you have suspended rational thought. Why don't you read the entire essay and think about the issues that are raised! Then tell us how you feel!
Posted by: d at February 5, 2005 03:27 PMJust a note to a few who have commented that there was no outrage back in 2001. There was. Among bloggers, at least. It's just that we were fewer then, and we didn't have the 'buzz power' we do now.
Here's one I found in about one minute of Googling -- that's was found among all the more recent posts, which indicates that post was widely linked back then.
Robert,
You are very confused, it is not that people commend Churchill for his writings, you miss the point. Some of us do not agree with what he(Churchill blathers), or says, or the manner he says that, but we would not take it as far as you to tear up the U. S. constitution. Are you in love with Owens too(like Dr MAD MINES lady) in his move to suspend constitutional rights in Colorado.
You have no basis to assume that there are many in Colorado who want to suspend the U. S. constitution, like you and Dr MAD MINES.
It's puzzling to me that so many have made this a civil rights issue. Yes, there's an issue over what a college professor can or cannot say, and that deserves debate, but as I said earlier, if it turns out that Churchill is removed from his job, that's it, he gets removed from his job. He doesn't lose his free speech rights. Another way of looking at it is if he were an employee at a private company, he would likely be fired for publicly saying what he said. That doesn't mean his free speech rights were violated. His rights being violated would be like if he were arrested, beaten, or tortured for saying these things, by the government or allowing others to do it without consequences. No one is suggesting that (though I'm sure some unstable people have, given the stories of the death threats).
I think the task before the regents is to review whether W.C. is teaching subject matter that is of academic worth. Just because he has free speech rights, doesn't mean that it automatically follows that he should be a professor at a university. I mean, try this on for size: What if C.U. had a physiology or medical school professor who supported child pornography? Okay, so he or she writes some articles and books about it, talking about its merits, talking about "healthy relationships between adults and children through sex", perhaps citing material from people associated with NAMBLA, or other such organizations. What if the professor, continuing down this line, discussed the act of having sex with children with his/her students, maybe even bringing in some children to the classroom and asking the students to look within themselves to evaluate whether they have sexual feelings for the children, and if so, what they are. Would this be appropriate? Would this be in the realm of professional conduct for a college professor? Would this be in the realm of academic freedom?
I just thought of this example out of the air. I haven't seen this take place (though I wouldn't be surprised if some faculty member of some university has ventured into this realm, given the state of our universities). As I've taken the time to listen to what others have found out about W.C.'s activities over the last few years, it causes me to question his professional integrity. I would think the mission of an ethnic studies professor would be to teach students about the people and cultures of various ethnicities. Yes, what they've endured or triumphed in could and should be discussed as well. It seems to me that what W.C. has gotten into since 9/11, and perhaps before then, has been to not merely question U.S. policy, but to use his position as college professor to first smear the U.S. for all the bad things its done throughout time (and not give it credit for the good its done), and then to advocate its overthrow, actually discussing with students what needs to be done to meet that end. I think a question needs to be asked, as to whether he's done the scholarly work to back up what he says, and what he advocates, because it's serious stuff. I think the question needs to be asked, should C.U. continue to employ a man who's doing this? Is it appropriate to the job of professor of ethnic studies?
So far as I've heard, he has not openly advocated specific actions to further the goal of overthrowing the U.S., but he certainly goes through the effort to say that's what needs to happen (the key word is "needs") in order for there to be justice in the world. It is advocacy for an end. In his most recent book, I've heard him quoted as saying that the people of the U.S. must risk their own lives in order to bring about that end. That is what I object to most, and I don't think it's the job of a professor to be suggesting that his students and the people of this country need to somehow bring about an end to the U.S. I sense that he is not teaching, but is on a campaign of sorts. If so, I think that's an abuse of his position. Anyway, I think that's what needs to be investigated, and I'm glad the regents are going through the effort to do it.
I think unfortunately there's been so much attention paid to the essay he wrote, which is "exciting" enough, that people aren't considering what he's done since then. I think the essay was a "red flag". I don't blame the regents for thinking this indicates that W.C.'s other works and deeds need to be investigated. If the essay were the end of the story, you know, he wrote it, said what he really thought, as offensive as it was, but otherwise did not carry those thoughts into his job, I think most people, including myself, would eventually come to the conclusion that it was a free speech issue, and his speech perhaps should merit a reprimand from the university, a slap on the wrist, saying "We'll keep you on, but don't embarrass us like that again." But it's not the end of the story.
Morty:
Where in my writing did I say to tear up the Constitution? I don't think I missed T's point, because T specifically said that he/she thought that WC should be commended for his paper. T was who I was communicating with. If somewhere in my communication with T you saw me saying to tear up the Constitution, then let me put your mind at ease by saying that the Constitution must be protected at all costs. The Constitution is the heart of our way of life. Without it our way of life comes to an end. Are you ok with that?
As for d's comments about what I wrote, I have only this to say. When you make sense, I will respond.
Posted by: Robert at February 5, 2005 09:52 PMIsn't it cute how Buck just changed his name to Morty to get twice the blog crap in. You're no lawyer and, FYI, its not such a difficult thing to become, either (it’s a matter of temperament rather then smarts, I deal with Prelaws and Premeds all day long). The writing is clearly on the page that, at this point, you‘re just lying trying to dig yourself out of a hole. Once again, thank you for proving all of my points so wonderfully through you're own mindlessness (had to respond three seperait times for no real reason, did you? I guess the truth really hurts and makes you so mad you loose what little train of thought you had, huh?). Once you learn to type and read proper English I'll be happy to debate with you again. However, as it stands right now, reading your posts is the equivalent of deciphering Coptic written in crayon.
I've made several points, none of which you've refuted (but you're a lawyer, LOL) but, instead, you just keep moaning on about your pointless opinions, such as, "MADMISSYMINESMADDRMISSY LOVES BILL OWENS." But you can't read so you wouldn't know any better. You don't know how to argue, all you know is personal opinion... But you're still a lawyer. God, you're such a fake.
I would continue further with this but I have a man, friends, a career and a life to attend to. Furthermore, I feel that I should spare you further embarrassment. For God’s sake, your name even indicates inbreeding.
After this you'll respond with some equally inane blog just to get the last word in. Go ahead. Prove further to the people of the internet that you're really just a 16 year old kid with nothing but a lot of angst and Linkin Park to back up your POV.
Posted by: thE_mAd_Dr_shOck at February 6, 2005 12:15 AMuse your brain... Roberto. Read my last post again if it did not make sense the first time. Someti