http://re2.mm-b.yimg.com/image/508531531

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest_5

I abhor everything that Ward Churchill stands for. I think he is dangerous and he poisons the minds of impressionable young people. However, I do believe in freedom of speech. With all freedoms come responsibility. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from all consequences of what you say. The Constitution only guarantees that the government will not punish you or throw you in jail for your opinions. It does not guarantee that you can keep your job after expressing your opinions. If an employee brings disrepute to their employer by what they say then that employer has every right to fire the employee. College professors should not be immune. Yes "professor" Ward Churchill had every right to say what he said, but he must take responsibility for his words. Do I think the University of Colorado should fire him based on what he said? Probably not, but I would defend the schools right if they did.

Hmmm.....but if he is invited to be a speaker and he expresses his opinion on a subject then he should be fired? I mean because his opinion is unflamatory to some doesnt really reflect on the college does it? Isnt it a reflection upon him? I think all the college has to do is say (like before any other editorial) that their views dont coincide with the Professors and be done with it. By giving his comments extra attention he is getting "Press" that he probably doesnt even deserve.......Kinda sounds unfair to me to say "whats your opinion on______" then fire someone for giving it. I f he would have spoken out on his own then maybe I would feel different but since he was invited to express his opinion then I think that is different :m:

So let me get this strait the university will fire this professor merely because he goes against the grain? Isn’t that a sign of fascism or what! I would understand if the professor was propagating hatred, and violence then he is a threat. The greatest threat to the United States would be firing the professor, not what the professor said.

So let me get this strait the university will fire this professor merely because he goes against the grain? Isn’t that a sign of fascism or what! I would understand if the professor was propagating hatred, and violence then he is a threat. The greatest threat to the United States would be firing the professor, not what the professor said.

Did you actually read his essay?? The "Eichmann" comment was really the tip of the iceberg.

This is what I would call propagating hate!
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

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

The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.

Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans).

In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

The time the helpless aren't, or at least are not so helpless as they were.

This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad – or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the "terrorists"' own schedule, and at a place of their choosing – the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here "at home."

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?



Yea, here's a guy I want teaching my kids. :eek:
Barkhorn.

Did you actually read his essay?? The "Eichmann" comment was really the tip of the iceberg.

I read what you posted and no where do I see hatred, or propagating violence. All the prof. did was point out that the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks paled in comparison with the invasion of Iraq. He also pointed out that the United States is not secure from attack as she once believed, and that US actions around the world from supporting Saddam to Pinochet which killed millions with either direct or indirect US support is just what Buddha states, Karma. Now granted the prof is a bit too much for me and his hyperbole really degrades his argument quite a lot. But his basic argument is sound; the US is part of the world, not the world.

i dont see where he is WRONG (in a factual sence not an ethical one) with his comments. Im sorry but i am really over 11/9. You get atacked and rightly ask for the worlds sympathy which you get and then you use it to do whatever you feel like draging other countrys through the mud as well. Well too bad. They died, if you are a family member grive then get on with your life and if your not then stop using them as an excuse to fuck the world for your own profit

Those Americans who died on sept 11 bore a collective guilt , as they are aware of what global criminality their plutocratic government is responsible for . the victims all voted for either the Democrats or the Republican parties , which these 2 parties alternate in leadership and determine the projection of American foreign policy . By voting this meant endorsement of their government , this makes the American people co- conspirators with their goverment , giving carte blanche approval for criminal behaviour . Then the American people stand by their government , American people must accept the consequences of their actions .This attitude is justified by Americas defence of terror bombing of German cities , which was unnecessary and barbaric which led to the deaths of 3 million German non-combatants . The American justification for this atrocity after the war ended was that seeing the German people gave the Nazi government a 99% approval in a referendum in 1939 that made them complicit and just as guilty so this action was justified .

You right wingers are pathetic.

It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living.
-- Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays

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

I gotta agree with this guy here. Too bad it wasn't Wall Street and not the Twin Towers that was hit. The world could do better with less money-grubbing CEOs, stock brokers, bankers, and lawyers.

I feel sorry for the families that are now on their own after this tragedy, and the true innocents that were stuck in the building as well as the firemen and police officers that died, but the people that worked in those towers were everything that is wrong with this materialistic and capitalistic society.

This guy is a bit extreme, but really no different than any left or right-winger. Voicing one's opinion and being able to disagree with people is what America is all about. To fire this guy all because he didn't fit the common mold is ridiculous and only goes to show one of the main reasons why America is hated after this event with the whole "you're either with us, or against us". B.S. to that.

- N

Undecided;

Sorry, but all but promoting the deaths of 495,000 American citizens to "get even" is advocating hatred and voilence.

Assguard;
Yoda would be so proud of your revolting moral relativism and mind numingly infantile extremism.

Brian Foley;

Where to begin with your cretinous remarks? Your line of reasoning is as "objectively pro-fascist" as it is bankrupt. Do you even have the vaguest understanding of World War II history or the strategic bombing campaign? Your post suggests not.

Repo Man;

Yea, um you really showed me. :rolleyes:

Neildo;

So, you wish it was Wall Street an all those "evil capitalists" and Churchill is pretty much like any left winger or right winger? You are an ass!! I really can't come up with any other reply as words fail me in the face of your "smash the system" idiocy.
************************************************** *****


This board is like some sort of extremist bizzaro world where the posters try to outdo each other with their hateful claptrap as they applaud each others efforts and excoriate anyone who has a sane point of view.

Sick, so very very sick. Thank goodness you are all pretty much irrelevent to what goes on in the real world.

Barkhorn.

I say if what the good professor says is true then the fact he is profiting in America he deserves the same punishment as those "Eichmann". What more fitting proof that he stands by his word than for him to go to the middle east and allow them to cut his head off.

Alexander Cockburn:
That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. About those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote recently, "It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target."

At this point Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was an OK target.

Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them. It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else." I'm glad he puts that gloss in about the targets, thus clarifying what did read to some like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original paper.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_cockburn.html

The death of civilians is wrong. But we are all to quick to downplay them when we cause them in pursuit of our international goals. Churchill's "crime" is to try and view things from an international perspective, rather than the default perspective of a U.S. nationalist.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

And a final quote:"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
- Samuel P. Huntington

Neildo; So, you wish it was Wall Street an all those "evil capitalists" and Churchill is pretty much like any left winger or right winger? You are an ass!! I really can't come up with any other reply as words fail me in the face of your "smash the system" idiocy.

Yup, yup, and yup.

Now let me just clarify a tad. I wish 9/11 didn't happen. I do not want bad things to happen to anyone. HOWEVER, if something bad DOES have to happen, I'd rather those that worship money to be the first one's to go. :) And yes, I say that with a happy face.

It's not about smashing any system, it's about smashing certain types of people. Capitalism is a good thing, when used in moderation, just like anything in general; it's just unfortunate that most people on Wall Street are obsessed with it which is why I'd rather it have gotten struck instead of the WTC and Pentagon. People with any type of fanatical obsesssion is bad. I don't like religious zealots, I don't like capitalist zealots, I don't like any type of zealot whatsoever as they ruin what they're obsessed with. The world would be a much better place without those types of people. People think that religious fanatics are the worse but no, money fanatics are as money and trade controls everything and has more power and effect over people than, yes, God and religion.

- N

Undecided;

Sorry, but all but promoting the deaths of 495,000 American citizens to "get even" is advocating hatred and voilence.

He didn't advocate killing 495,000 Americans, learn how to read properly. He was saying if the death that American brought upon Iraq was done to the United States that would be the figure.

This board is like some sort of extremist bizzaro world where the posters try to outdo each other with their hateful claptrap as they applaud each others efforts and excoriate anyone who has a sane point of view.

No…that’s the Republican party not sciforums, just we here at sciforums have NEVER meet a conservative who made any sense.

Thank goodness you are all pretty much irrelevent to what goes on in the real world.

Which is a good thing for the elites. Go fight for America with your gas guzzling truck who u use to drive ur kids to school with and increases the amount of money going to the very same people who are trying to kill you:

http://explosivesigns.com/images/us%20car%20flag.jpg

God Bless Red State America...

*note*: not meant for logical, literate Americans.

Now this prof. is on to something;

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3524623,00.html

Anyone who reads widely in the collected works of professor Churchill, and especially anyone who listens to his speeches, will, if they are not blinded by certain ideological commitments, recognize the essentially fascist tendency of his work. If a white American were to speak of any foreign people or nation in anything like the way Churchill discusses America and Americans, the fascist character of his work would be obvious to everyone.

But I've seen that most posters on this board are indeed, "blinded by certain ideological commitments."

Barkhorn.

[I]Undecided;
He didn't advocate killing 495,000 Americans, learn how to read properly. He was saying if the death that American brought upon Iraq was done to the United States that would be the figure.

Read this part again;

Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans).

How can you fail to detect the gloating here? Does your limited intellect and ideological orthodoxy render you incapable of rational thought?

Barkhorn.

Fire him for being a bore. Fire all the dippy-hippy professors who made nests for themselves in academia decades ago. Their minds are frozen in the late 1960s.

Time for new blood.

How can you fail to detect the gloating here? Does your limited intellect and ideological orthodoxy render you incapable of rational thought?

No the only thing here that is limiting is your understand of the english language and its meanings. Again this professor did not endorse, or support the 9/11 attacks he stated only the obvious the United States over the past 50 years has destroyed economies, overthrown democratic governments, killed up to 3 million Vietnamese, supported terroristic regimes from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile and China, all the while has prided itself as being the "bastion of democracy"? What the author is telling you nationalistic ideologues is simple, America is not special, American actions over the past 50 years needed a counter-reaction. 9/11 didn't happen because those terrorists hated your "freedom", they did it because America has acted like a dick. I am obvious more intelligent then you, more rational, and more philosophical in my approach, sorry if your faggy feelings got hurt, do what so many millions of American fags do, put a stupid flag on your big and tough SUV and pretend to be an American.

I am obvious more intelligent then you, more rational, and more philosophical in my approach, sorry if your faggy feelings got hurt, do what so many millions of American fags do, put a stupid flag on your big and tough SUV and pretend to be an American.

Yes, you advertise your scary level of intelligence via your avatar. Your use of the flag of the now (deservedly) defunct DDR says so much about your fascistic sympathies and your lack of understanding of complex historical/political issues. Capitalism EVIL, Marxism GOOD, ugh! :rolleyes:

Oh, and calling me a fag? What are you a friggin’ 12 year old? I should not be surprised here, as ad homs are usually the next step for a “progressive” who so obviously and completely looses an argument.

Barkhorn.

Forget all the personal stuff Bark.....Undecided does bring up a good point.Do you think that 9-11 happened because "terrorists" were jealous of American freedom(as Bush says) or as a result of American foreign policies?

Yes, you advertise your scary level of intelligence via your avatar. Your use of the flag of the now (deservedly) defunct DDR says so much about your fascistic sympathies and your lack of understanding of complex historical/political issues. Capitalism EVIL, Marxism GOOD, ugh!

If you had any idea of who I was, or what I believe you would know that I am not even close to be a Marxist, not like it would matter to you I doubt you even read Marx just hate him because the elite in your society where scared shit less of the man.

Oh, and calling me a fag? What are you a friggin’ 12 year old?

No…I called you a fag because ur acting like one…and I don’t mean to insult homosexual posters because anything associated with you would be insult enough. We should come up with a new name…I know Republican.

I should not be surprised here, as ad homs are usually the next step for a “progressive” who so obviously and completely looses an argument.

What argument was presented here? I pointed facts about American foreign policy history, and like a fag (sorry to homosexuals) you are avoiding dealing with it. Here let me quote the important part of my paragraph because you seem to piss ur hot pants reading the rest:

No the only thing here that is limiting is your understand of the english language and its meanings. Again this professor did not endorse, or support the 9/11 attacks he stated only the obvious the United States over the past 50 years has destroyed economies, overthrown democratic governments, killed up to 3 million Vietnamese, supported terroristic regimes from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile and China, all the while has prided itself as being the "bastion of democracy"? What the author is telling you nationalistic ideologues is simple, America is not special, American actions over the past 50 years needed a counter-reaction. 9/11 didn't happen because those terrorists hated your "freedom", they did it because America has acted like a dick.

Stop being a child and deal with that…or be quiet.

If a white American were to speak of any foreign people or nation in anything like the way Churchill discusses America and Americans, the fascist character of his work would be obvious to everyone.

Funny, white Americans do speak of other foreign people in the same manner. So are you too saying that fascist trends here in America is happening? ;)

I am obvious more intelligent then you

ObviousLY more intelligent thAn you. ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. If one is going to make a claim like that, even if true, at least get the spelling of THAT part correct. :p

- N

Sick, so very very sick. Thank goodness you are all pretty much irrelevent to what goes on in the real world.
beautiful. i'm going to add this to my personal collection of quotes.

i don't know why this Churchill guy badmouths those "evil capitalists". they're just people who work for their families' and their own success. and their success is everyone's success. a robust economy allows people to borrow large sums of money, at a decent interest rate, so they could own a house, a car or two, buy education for their kids, and plan for their retirement. those evil capitalists are heroes and nothing less.

to suggest they had, or were part of, a major plan to take over the world to fulfill a capitalist scheme of exploitation and destruction, is sinister, cynical, jaded, dishonourable, and so many other words.

that Churchill guy is gloating in his article. you could even see the zeal in his eyes as he writes those words.
he reminds me of Vince McMahon from WWE... the shock jock. testing the limits of extreme. how far can you go with your fascist ramblings before something bad happens (like one of the wrestlers dying in an accident on live TV infront of a live audience). how far will he go before someone dies? this sort of incitement will breed and encourage violence and most likely death

Barkhorn, you said it best: "do you want this guy teaching your kids?"
for a second i pretended having kids, and for another second i pretended this guy being their prof. it gave me a good shudder. i'd probably punch him in the mouth if i was a parent.

this guy should answer for his diatribe. just firing him is not good enough. all his works should be published and made available for everyone to read. everybody should read his stuff and see what kind of person he is. after that, he won't find a job volunteering serving soup in homeless shelters. (except maybe in North Korea)

the height of his hypocricy is that this guy lives in the US... that damn capitalist country which he hates so much.

a good thing about him is that he is a useful idiot. just like the Hollywood "elite" helped Bush with his campaign by enlightening everyone with their anti-Bush diatribes, so will this guy make "middle America" a little more right-wing.

beautiful :)
maybe him and his type are not that irrelevant after all

The point we forget and the one we ought to be discussing is the nature of "the marketplace of ideas". In a true democracy everyone ought to be able to express their ideas, no matter how ridiculous they may be. If nothing else, they provide fodder for discussion and a source of material for those learning how to do critical thinking.

Churchill is employed by one of the markets of ideas, a university. It seems to me that if his ideas are a problem, then "market forces" within the intellectual domain should be capable of dealing with him. People ought to be discussing the issues he raises. Let them find the holes in his reasoning. Let students decide whether or not they wish to sit in his class - they are adults, after all. I suspect that if cooler heads could prevail that Churchill would soon be relegated to a very peripheral footnote in the academic world. His core thesis questioning what responsibility "ordinary" citizens have for the actions of their country is a compelling one, though. It won't go away even if he is silenced and the anger that he has spawned shows that he has touched a nerve in American culture.

In a wider sense, though, the "marketplace of ideas" is a rather apt concept. It presumes to treat intellectual discourse as a sort of capitalist pursuit. The forces currently driving the U.S. constantly harp on the theme of unrestricted trade, open markets and so on. But they do not seem to want this extended to the marketplace of ideas. Rather than allowing ideas to be brought forth in the entrepreneurial spirit, they'd rather apply a Stalinist planned ecomony model - ruthlessly promoting certain ideas regardless of their quality and crushing any ideas that might contradict the story they want to tell.

American academia is under attack as a hotbed of liberalism. To me this masks a blatant attack on freedom of thought itself. If we get all caught up on the ravings of people like Churchill, we lose sight of the real issues that threaten us all.

The university has a right to keep or fire who they please. If he's an embarrassment to them, then they can get rid of him.

Those are the rules. Frankly, I don't mind diversity in the campus staff... you want nuts like him around? Fine. But the problem in these places is that they're not very diverse. You have a lot of people that think the same way and perceive a lot of things the same way. They're largely just giving jobs to a bunch of nuts of the same political persuasion. I don't know how they build up like this, but it's retarded. So I'm happy with them getting their ranks thinned out a bit if for nothing other then improving campus diversity.

Liberals have one catch to their "marketplace of ideas" schtick. It in in the small, legal print.

Religion is excluded. You can say America needs more 9/11s and more dead Americans in a state facility, just don't mention God.

That would violate the constitution.

I take that back. If you phrase your statements in accordance with what the ACLU thinks is proper, you probably won't be sued.

Probably.

i just realised something

seeing is DISBELIVING

I can say whatever i want because i dont have free speach and you cant because yours is written down. Once something is on paper they can limit it while using that same paper to say "see we have more rights than you"

After reading all those posts it is becoming increasingly obvious that Americans and their wannabe American friends aren’t learning the lessons of 9.11. Although many may attack the prof. it is not because of him calling those people in the towers names, its because what the prof. is saying makes more sense then what Bush is saying. Does anyone actually believe that Osama foams at the mouth reading the US constitution? Obviously he could less of a shit; US policy is what makes people like Osama popular throughout the Muslim world. Obviously 9/11 was a horrible thing, and no one should die in a war of ideas. But we obviously don’t hold the same standard of emotion, or restrictiveness when it comes to kill up to 100,000 Iraqi’s in a terrorist action which was the war in Iraq, a military action for political purposes (PNAC). Its so obvious that the only reason why the professor is getting all this flak and the US general who said that killing Muslims was fun. If American society is so sick to blame the professor for merely pointing out how wrong the US has been, and protects murderers (because he enjoys killing people) like that general then America, and those who defend this sick ideology of double standards should expect more fear in the future. I hope America will one day learn its lessons.

Undecided wrote: No the only thing here that is limiting is your understand of the english language and its meanings. Again this professor did not endorse, or support the 9/11 attacks he stated only the obvious the United States over the past 50 years has destroyed economies, overthrown democratic governments, killed up to 3 million Vietnamese, supported terroristic regimes from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile and China, all the while has prided itself as being the "bastion of democracy"? What the author is telling you nationalistic ideologues is simple, America is not special, American actions over the past 50 years needed a counter-reaction. 9/11 didn't happen because those terrorists hated your "freedom", they did it because America has acted like a dick.

How can one honestly respond to such an infantile rant? You post as though the world was/is just an innocent little schoolgirl staring with doe eyes at the creepy US child molester. Your post is a perfect example of reductum ad absurdum, as it is totally lacking in any sort of context.

It is no wonder that Ward Churchill’s larger message totally escapes you. Does he need to spell it out for you? Should he have titled his piece, "On the Subject of Chickens and I HATE the Fuckin’ USA!!”, for you to catch his drift? Perhaps you are a bit simple? Whatever the case, you’ve proved yourself to be an irrational hater, and one no longer worth my time.

So, spin all you want you black-hooded hoodlum. I’ll leave you with this very prescient quote from a guy who’s got your game all figured out.

Thus Islamic fascism may be predicated on religious intolerance, gender apartheid, autocracy, homophobia, tribalism, and patriarchy, but inasmuch as it is indigenous, a failure, and shares a long opposition to Western bourgeois capitalism, then its embrace of mass murder, suicide bombing, and beheadings must be contextualized by western neocolonialism and exploitation.
- Victor David Hansen

Barkhorn.

How can one honestly respond to such an infantile rant?

An infantile rant would be something that is wrong, and saying it merely because you don’t want to lose face, alas like this post you posted for our consumption.

You post as though the world was/is just an innocent little schoolgirl staring with doe eyes at the creepy US child molester. Your post is a perfect example of reductum ad absurdum, as it is totally lacking in any sort of context.

Sorry but everything there is proven facts, the only thing that has reduced anything to absurdity is your continual inability to answer some key questions, and your insistence on attacking me. Again why do you think America was attack on 9/11?

Does he need to spell it out for you? Should he have titled his piece, "On the Subject of Chickens and I HATE the Fuckin’ USA!!”, for you to catch his drift?

No because I don’t believe he hates the United States, I think you hate the United States by not recognizing its failures, and pretending to be something your not. By blindly supporting this government, and by not wiling to discuss rationally what is wrong with the United States. What I believe to the least is that the United States is a great country, but one that has squandered its power, its prestige, and its moral power by ignoring the world, suppressing democracy throughout the cold war, and supporting dictators. The greatest irony of all this is that the United States helped create this Islamic menace in the 80’s, and now its bitten the US in the ass big time.

Perhaps you are a bit simple?

Perhaps…but you haven’t shown how and why.

Whatever the case, you’ve proved yourself to be an irrational hater, and one no longer worth my time.

Maybe you can show me where I said anything hateful, if not please don’t slander individuals because ur an idiot.

Remember that in America it is patriotic to support human atrocity but hateful to consider reality honestly.

Good show, Barkhorn. The America you would have us live in is downright sick and depraved.

Applause, applause, applause.

As a general note, I can't believe how cowardly and sniveling and pissy-missy-poseur Americans have become.

Get over it. If a college professor with a sense of honesty about history is enough to frighten you, I'd say the terrorists have already won.

Friggin' disgrace, that's what it is.

Applause, Barkhorn. Applause. I may be unable to give you my respect on ths one, but I can certainly give you my applause: "He'p me, he'p me! Der's a big bad professa triyn' to mess with my head! Facts, oh dear God, facts! He'p me, he'p me! Save me from unpleasant reality! He'p me, I'm an Am'r'can with my values and my red states and no freakin' clue about reality! He'p me, he'p me!"

Really, Barkhorn, how can one respond to such dimsighted paranoia as your own?

With applause: that's a great damsel in distress routine you do.

No because I don’t believe he hates the United States, I think you hate the United States by not recognizing its failures, and pretending to be something your not. By blindly supporting this government, and by not wiling to discuss rationally what is wrong with the United States.

Well said.

The problem with many Americans is that they buy into all this crap of how bad other countries are, whether true or not, but fail to recognize the exact hypocritical things the U.S. does that it's accusing others of doing. What ever happened to "He without sin, cast the first stone"? America is like a corrupt cop that goes around enforcing the same laws in which they themselves break. If one is going to start accusing others of doing certain bad acts, at least be spotless in that same area.

Remember that in America it is patriotic to support human atrocity but hateful to consider reality honestly.

Exactly! What morons.

- N

Well not all Americans are moronseven though half of Americans still believe that Sadaam had something to do with 9-11 :rolleyes: ......The problem with this country is that they believe everything they see on T.V. is real....thats why Reality T.V. is so popular here and thats why the News Stations here should be held accountable also......I mean when was the last time anyone heard the name Fallujah in American News? You hear plenty about the elections in Iraq here but that had nothing to do with Bush....he didnt even want elections!!!! the Elections were because of Sistani(and his powerful influence on the Shia majority) yet you dont here about him here either. The News here always says that "Israel is the only true friend we got in the M.E." but they never stop to ask why it is that the U.S. never really had any enemies there either untill they devolped that one-sided friendship :m:

For the last time - for the slow witted and ideologically handicapped.

http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

Do you see Ward Churchill looking like a latter day Che - with an AK-47 no less?

..and can you read were he advocates more 9-11's?;
What are some of the solutions? Extreme events, like 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, have mobilized people out of such complacency, albeit temporarily.

I don’t have a ready answer for that. One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness.


Got it NOW!!??

Barkhorn.

I don’t mean to minimize the deaths of those unfortunate people who died in the World Trade Center disaster, but if you looked at the list of occupations -- excluding service workers -- you will find most were ‘Investment Bankers,’ ‘International Currency Traders,’ ‘Money Market Makers,’ and other similar titles; people who reaped huge profits for themselves and their employers essentially by moving money around without ever creating any socially useful product, and usually to the detriment of 3rd world countries.
Also, I read somewhere, that when they eventually pulled the cars out of the WTC garage, some 90 % of them were Mercedes, BMWs, Jaguars, etc., overwhelmingly luxury automobiles.
Forget the Muslim view, and the 3rd world view; these two buildings had to demonstrate the height of human decadence in the Christian view as well. Of all the buildings in the world what buildings would Jesus fly an airliner into? The temple of the money changers!
I don’t want to sound like I agree with bin Laden’s actions, but I can understand why bin Laden chose those two towers. I also understand what Churchill is saying. The 9/11 attack was a dastardly deed that all sensible people deplore, but we should not be afraid to look inwardly and ask the question -- why did it happen?

Do you see Ward Churchill looking like a latter day Che - with an AK-47 no less?

It probably took his friends a couple weeks to stop laughing about that one.

Funny picture.

I should think you right wingers would like him better for having his picture taken while holding a gun.

Do you think he is going to shoot someone Barkhorn?

For the last time - for the slow witted and ideologically handicapped.

Well to the illiterate you never showed us that quote now did you? Obviously no one should support violence of any sort; my question to you is this. What is the difference btwn the WTC and a Iraqi village, or a Iranian one? Because we hear the US government officials itching like they have genital warts to go invade defenceless nations like Osama did defenceless Americans.

I take that back. If you phrase your statements in accordance with what the ACLU thinks is proper, you probably won't be sued.

What the hell are you talking about, exactly? I really don't understand republicans when they try to demonize the ACLU. You do realise that these guys defend religious rights too, don't you? They have defended Jerry Falwell and recently a campus Christian group in I can't remember what school (should look that up) who were repremanded by the school administration for handing out candy canes with religious slogans on them.

They're for civli rights, pure and simple, yours mine, and even sleaze bags (but I already said Fallwel, right?) Don't get pissed off because they oppose the idea of teaching the bible as literal fact in public school history classes :p

http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

Hah, ok, some of his points are certainly valid. We've got to wake up and take responsibility for what our country is doing, and yes 9/11 was nothing but the consequences of our own actions, we reaped what we sew that day. However, none of that changes the fact that this guy is clearly a self-absorbed pompous ass!

His terminology is certainly aimed at upsetting, and frankly I think he’s a little too concerned with being the academic equivalent of a radio shock jock. And indeed, as I watched him holding his little press conference today to say that he wasn’t backing down from his comments (understandable) he really did remind me a bit of Howard Stern. It’s a bit of a shame that his message should suffer because of this!

Still, I can’t help but think that the picture on that article is slightly familiar. . . who does this narcissistic joker remind me of. . . http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/10730068/ Oh, that’s right--embarrassing.

Mystech...the ACLU has nothing to do with liberty. Read their history. Yeah, the ACLU defends some who are not gramscian socialists and/or cultural marxists but that is cover. It primarily serves as an arm of the ADL.

That is what defending Neo-Nazi marchers was all about. The ACLU sues to allow the march, then the ADL, PFAW, the NCJW or the AJCongress show up and troll for donations. Done over and over but the rubes never get it.

Even the term "civil liberties" is a neologism. English and American common law, Blackstone, the Federalist papers, Justice Story and American jurisprudence until 1940 almost never used the term. "Civil liberty" is the American tradition. If you don't know the difference and what a radical change it was, again, read up on it.

But back to Ward. He's got a 401K, makes nearly $100,000 a year and good taxpayer funded Health Care.

Why can't he hire someone to wash his hair and buy some new teeth?

Oh ok, so the ACLU is a group exploiting the first amendment for the purpose of funding greedy jews. I stand corrected.

A good article I found today .
What Ward Churchill Didn't Say: (It's the Singer...Not the Song)

By Mickey Z.

My sources tell me that U.S. intelligence has just uncovered a chilling pre-9/11 edict from Osama bin Laden on the topic of striking the infidels where it hurts:

"What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties...we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent."
Actually, not only do I not have any “sources,” but that quote does not come courtesy of the reigning bogeyman...it’s a January 1, 1948 diary entry by one of Israel’s founding fathers, David Ben-Gurion (talking about the Palestinians, of course.)

It’s the singer, not the song...and when those crooning are Israeli, the tune they carry is never panned by the American corporate media. Golda Meir can declare, “There was no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed” while Menachem Begin can conversely admit the existence of Palestinians but paradoxically call them “beasts walking on two legs” and “cockroaches” but the H Word isn’t uttered.

Thanks to Ward Churchill, we have a good idea of what provokes the H Word in today’s McSociety. But is he really guilty of hate speech for what he said? In the end, that’s a matter of opinion...but I do know what Churchill didn’t say.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” That was George W. Bush, twice un-elected president of the United States of Advertisement.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.” That was John F. Kerry and he was still considered soft (he just didn’t hate enough, I guess).

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building” or this: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” That was the noted humanitarian Ann Coulter.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.” That was Nobel Peace Laureate, Henry Kissinger

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country” or this: “Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portions of the earth’s surface.” That was Mount Rushmore’s own, Teddy Roosevelt.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today,” or this: “Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals,” or this: “The Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.” That was political power broker and God’s best friend, Pat Robertson.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty; we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.” That was the very holy Randall Terry, founder of “Operation Rescue,” speaking to a like-minded audience.

Ward Churchill didn’t say this: “Racism isn’t holding blacks back, it’s their own laziness!” That was Bill Cosby (net worth: $540 million).

And here’s one more thing Ward Churchill didn’t say: “Freedom of speech...just watch what you say.” That was Ice T (before he started playing a cop on network TV).

One last note: The last time I checked Ward Churchill’s most recent book, “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality,” is ranked #365 at Amazon...thus proving yet again that hate sells.



http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz02092005/

he didn't say these things, but he did say "those little Eichmans" about the 9/11 victims

he also said "i'm 1/8th Cherokee on a good day"
then he said "i'm 3/16ths Cherokee on my mother's side"
then he said "it was general knowledge in my family that i'm a real Indian"
even though he's not registered in any Aboriginal registry (kept in the US since 1800), and not a member of a single tribe.

how is it relevant, you say?
it's relevant because his whole life is built on one big lie - one which he has been forcefully trying to deny (mostly to himself than other [real] Natives and his critics).
a guy that confused can come up with some real crazy shit - a vomit that comes straight out of his demented sick mind

That depends on what kind of a hatchet job the media is doing on him ! The quotes attributed to other Americans in the above article are atrocious yet because this individual hits on a scared cow its open season . Do you feel Americans bear responsibilties for their Goverments actions or do you believe in the Eichman defence " i was only following orders " .

Also he has said that not all victims of 9.11 were little Eichmann's, he exempted the firefighters, the children, the janitors, etc. He was talking about the technocrats in the towers who did represent international capitalism, to him and to millions around the world represents evil at its core. This war on terror as the US calls it is really a war against Globalization and capitalism, to stop the cultural homogenization of the Middle East, to control the natural resources of the Middle East, etc. Now it can be argued that the Muslim world would be better off co-opting rather then rejecting capitalism, the fact remains that 9.11 was deemed a legitimate target because it propagated capitalism (which I don’t really believe because the propensity of innocents dying is too great). It is true that in a military sense at least the Pentagon is a legitimate target, it is a military target and by definition well you get the gist. Now imo violence of any sort that is not necessary is immoral and that goes both ways for the Al Qaeda men and the US.

.. a vomit that comes straight out of his demented sick mind

A right wing Jesus nut used the very same words when telling me what he thought about this at work.

Later, I listened to one of my city's fascist talk radio host use that same quote.

Funny, no?

Johnny Bravo--Honest? A fascist radio host? William Joyce? Raymond David Hughes? They are still alive? Where is the station?

Yep.

Hannity- I hate to print the shithead's name and give him free publicity.

I think he calls himself "Freedom's Voice" rather than my "fascist" tag. Lol!

You need to upgrade your selection of fascists, Bravo. Hannity is dedicated but he's from a working class background. He pitches to his level and lower.

Those who savor fine fascist radio listen only to Laura Ingraham. BA Dartmouth. J.D. from UV Law. Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thomas. Criminal defense attorney at Skadden, Arps et al.

There is none finer. Mildred Gillars at her prime does not compare.

I don't know if Ward Churchill should be fired for what he said, but he should absolutely be fired over lying about his claim of Indian heritage. That was a major point that got him into the Ethnic Studies department. What else has he lied about? I don't think any definition of academic freedom allows for lying about your qualifications. I say fire "professor" Ward Churchill.

So, he just got demoted. It was always up to the university, not you modern day McCarthys.

Brutus, a huge majority of Americans probably have Native American, as well as African American genes, even if they are white.

So, he just got demoted. It was always up to the university, not you modern day McCarthys.


...hey, you got a McCarthy reference in - real good dude. :rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

Thanks, I did try to work in a "doomed to repeat it" reference, but it didn't really work out.

he didn't say these things, but he did say "those little Eichmans" about the 9/11 victims

he also said "i'm 1/8th Cherokee on a good day"
then he said "i'm 3/16ths Cherokee on my mother's side"
then he said "it was general knowledge in my family that i'm a real Indian"
even though he's not registered in any Aboriginal registry (kept in the US since 1800), and not a member of a single tribe.

Aborginal registries are not always accurate, especially with the Cherokee.

1. After the Trail of Tears some of the Cherokee stayed behind, and basically hid out to avoid being deported. Naturally, they weren't enthusiastic about signing up on a list that said, "Hey - you missed me when you deported everyone else."

http://www.visitsmokies.org/HeritageJourney/hj8.html

This has led to two divisions of Cherokee today - the Eastern Band (Carolinas) and the Western Band (Oklahoma). Another group in hiding merged with the Shawnee.

2. Aboriginal records also require that the natives had any respect or recognition of written records - a questionable assumption.

3. Given that aboriginal records could also be used against the whites in land claim disputes, the white Americans had plenty of incentive to keep the number of Indians on those rolls to a bare minimum.

In short, your reliance on the aboriginal rolls as any kind of authoritative source is shaky, to say the least.

I abhor everything that Ward Churchill stands for.

You mean like, honoring the treaties we signed?

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

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

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

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.


Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005

I abhor everything that Ward Churchill stands for. I think he is dangerous and he poisons the minds of impressionable young people. However, I do believe in freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is freedom to poison young minds. Maybe it's time to stop using "freedom" - a meaningless term - and look instead and consensus?

:m:

What consensus can there be with a power that doesn't give a shit about what you have to say? Who's sole aim is to shut you up? That doesn't fulfill it's own laws? The controversy over Ward Churchill is due to him telling the ugly truth about our nation, and the ones most in fear of him are also the most criminal. It is patriotic to hold our government to account for their secret actions, unless we are to be like those German citizens who knew what was happening in the camps and did nothing. I believe now that the Bush administration expected a terrorist attack, and were giddy in anticipation, because it would be the pearl harbor they needed to gain support for their agenda.

Those Americans who died on sept 11 bore a collective guilt , as they are aware of what global criminality their plutocratic government is responsible for . the victims all voted for either the Democrats or the Republican parties , which these 2 parties alternate in leadership and determine the projection of American foreign policy . By voting this meant endorsement of their government , this makes the American people co- conspirators with their goverment , giving carte blanche approval for criminal behaviour . Then the American people stand by their government , American people must accept the consequences of their actions .This attitude is justified by Americas defence of terror bombing of German cities , which was unnecessary and barbaric which led to the deaths of 3 million German non-combatants . The American justification for this atrocity after the war ended was that seeing the German people gave the Nazi government a 99% approval in a referendum in 1939 that made them complicit and just as guilty so this action was justified .
Awesome.

If Bin Laden and his fuckjob mullah friends are going to hold American citizens responsible for American foreign policy, I am going to hold the citizens of Mecca, Medina, Becca Valley, Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut responsible for the acts of terrorists who attack our territory, citizens, or military units not engaged in direct action against them.

I will further propose an exchange rate of fifty kilotons for every American life lost to their actions both deliberate and accidental, to be delivered at our liesure against a target of our choosing. Current nuclear stockpiles should suffice to meet this requirement.

I like the way you think.

That's not what Ward Churchill is saying, though. He does not think every worker in the World Trade Center was responsible for oppressing muslims, just some financial companies and the CIA office located there. And what's the difference between the rest of the innocent cleaners and food service people and the "collateral damage" of 100,000 Iraqis and those that died as a result of our sanctions there? Basically he's saying that those particular targets were picked because many of the people there were NOT innocent victims. I think that's an important point to make.

How many died as a result of the US supporting BOTH sides in the Iran/Iraq war? ...or supporting Pinochet in Chile? Do we deserve eternal immunity from these kind of actions? ...or is some violent reaction to our government's occasional criminality entirely appropriate?

Bin Laden, unlike Churchill, does hold all American citizens responsible for their government's actions.

Ward Churchill is very articulate - that's about the only thing that's positive about him. other things about him: derangement, CPD (chronic plagiarism disorder), pathological lying, being the ugliest SOB in Colorado, and being on the extreme fringe. i mean, extremists would talk about him and say "damn, he's extreme".

what the hell is he doing teaching at a university?

Churchill is a product of the "Long March" through the institutions the New Left began in the early 1970s after their dream of a revolution died with the end of the draft.

Knew a guy at Wesleyan in Connecticut who help lead the troops. All he did at the university that I could discren was write grant proposals and lobby for tenure. His professors fawned over him as he did have a knack for getting government money. He landed tenure before he was 28. And then he helped others of similar political views to also get tenure.

Been a nice racket for the New Left. They review each others books with glowing praise, train new members, give each other prizes,hire each other and get each other speaking fees. They often go round and round from academia to government to NGOs to the media and back to academia.

That is why Ward is being protected. He knows how the racket operates and they are afraid of what he will say if fired.

Bin Laden, unlike Churchill, does hold all American citizens responsible for their government's actions.
Point taken, and agreed with. I was just responding to Brian's post, which I found a bit offensive.

Mulenburg, there's no racket going these days better than being a member of the Republican party. What are Bush's qualifications for his position? ...other than being a C student, avoiding National Guard responsibilities, and being born with a silver coke spoon in his nose? ...and being a member of Skull and Bones...

What are professors supposed to do besides teach and write grants, lobby for tenure, and review books? He is being protected because he has something to say, and it would be wrong to kick him out just because some neo-con jackass calls him a communist..., er, traitor.

Sieg Heil.

Churchill represents everything that is vile with America, but he also represents what Americans should stand for and that's the right to speak. Eventhough the man is an idiot for what nonsense, and purposely hyperbolic commentary to get attention. He has a right to say what he feels he believes in, frankly the men and women who were working the WTC were not greedy so much as trying to better the world economy by making it more free, and thus allowing economic freedom to reign over the world to make all our lives better, that's the way neo-liberalism works. To make everyone richer, and allowing people to decide for themselves what they want in their lives instead of some government telling them.

Churchill represents everything that is vile with America, but he also represents what Americans should stand for and that's the right to speak. Eventhough the man is an idiot for what nonsense, and purposely hyperbolic commentary to get attention. He has a right to say what he feels he believes in...Remember, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that there are never consequences for what you say. He has a right to say what he wants without being punished by the government – but that’s about as far as his (or anyone’s) free speech rights go.

Also, a don’t think that a university is obligated to tolerate anything and everything that a professor might say simply because they’re a professor. While it’s important to allow free expression of potentially unpopular ideas, what a professor says can be major evidence toward his basic competency. For example, if an astronomy professor at a university publicly announced that he was sure that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited the earth, then clearly he is incompetent to teach astronomy and should be fired.

Churchill represents everything that is vile with America...
I say again, he represents the "revolutionary" notion that the United States should honor it's own laws, but I guess that's a pretty vile idea to people like you.

The university that employs him is not obligated to tolerate his opinion, but I see no reason why they shouldn't. Nothing that he has said, as for as I know, is incorrect.

I say again, he represents the "revolutionary" notion that the United States should honor it's own laws, but I guess that's a pretty vile idea to people like you.

Sometimes America needs to follow its ideals as well, if it didn't American wouldn't be worth the land its on.

Since when is propping up the Saudi Arabian monarchy an American Ideal?

frankly the men and women who were working the WTC were not greedy so much as trying to better the world economy by making it more free

Wow, I didn't realize so many people think of freedom so much during the day, let alone while working at their job. And here I thought the only real thing people care about their job is trying to make as much money as possible (not even counting certain jobs who's sole purpose is to make as much money as possible or those with commission).


To make everyone richer, and allowing people to decide for themselves what they want in their lives instead of some government telling them.

Trying to make everyone richer? What, that's not greed? And how in the heck does their job allow people to decide what they want to do with their own lives rather than the government doing so? Cool, both freedom and democracy talk all in the same post while making the rich look like good people. Sorry while I pick my ass up off the floor from choking laughter, Mr Hannity.

- N

Wow, I didn't realize so many people think of freedom so much during the day, let alone while working at their job.

The beauty of it is that they don't have to remind themselves of that, in a communist society you have to remind yourself that your working a menial job for a ideology, here you don't need to remember instead of being outside the ideology here you are it, and what you are doing is liberalistic and thus endorses freedom.

And here I thought the only real thing people care about their job is trying to make as much money as possible

Its that greed that actually makes all winners, because in order for those people to get more money, they have to invest and thus create jobs, and a higher standard of living.


Cool, both freedom and democracy talk all in the same post while making the rich look like good people. Sorry while I pick my ass up off the floor from choking laughter, Mr Hannity.

Rich people aren't good people, they are people, a poor person would act in the same way as a rich person lets not fool ourselves. There are some problems with capitalism I don't question that, but those problems don't stem from the system itself but by what Keynes stated were the "animal spirits" of man. We are fallible not the system, that's why capitalism doesn't always work.

I guess it's OK then if I don't want the government telling me to give up my life for Halliburton.

this caricature really brings in the message of how f*ckd up this Churchill guy is (and that's even if you ignore his plagiarism, lies, and aggression):



he sure is a hero alright - a real all-American gent

Mod edit: no pitures

That's all the right's criticism of Churchill is- a caricature of an argument.

Did you actually read his essay?? The "Eichmann" comment was really the tip of the iceberg.I read the post and I didn't think anything was wrong at all. All that is being made is a point of reference so that his students can get an idea of the sorts of percentages of Iraqis (many innocent) that have died relative to the number of Amercians.

What's wrong with that?

Not that it matters, Saddam didn't attack the US so I don't know why he is using 9-11 as a reference?

Anyway, so what if he was insenstive to the plight of the people who died in on 9-11?

" 100,000 Iraqis and those that died as a result of our sanctions there?"
Now this is bullshit. Those 100,000 Iraqis died because their oh'glorious leader was buying gold sinks and tanks instead of spending the money on his people. Those sanctions wouldnt have been there if he hadnt decided to go and invade his neighbors. So stop with the "oh its the U.S.'s fault" crap.

And Foley you are a fool. 3 Million Germans died in a bombing campaign *sigh* And who started WWII?? Who Invaded France and Russia?? Who Bombed England? Who invaded Africa? Who systimaticly slaughtered 6 Million Jews?? They started the war, too fucking bad. Maybe if your glorius Germans had surrendered it wouldnt have happened?? Maybe if you didnt have some psychopath leading them it wouldnt have happened! But nooooooooo blame the U.S. Youre a tard.

Let me see here . . . .

you are a fool. X Million Iraqis died in a bombing campaign *sigh* And who started The Iraq War?? Who Invaded Baghdad and Fallujah?? Who Bombed Tikrit? Who invaded Iraq? Who systematically slaughtered X Million Muslims?? We started the war, too fucking bad. Maybe if your glorius Iraqis had surrendered it wouldnt have happened?? Maybe if you didnt have some psychopath leading them (GW Bush) it wouldnt have happened! But nooooooooo blame the Iraqis. Youre a tard.:)

I am glad that the concept of "political correctness" is now understood and I congradulate the American Conservatives for creating and popularizing the term political corrrectness. But let's be honest, conservatives are now and have always been much worse than liberals about enforcing their political correctness on America. McCarthyism was political correctness far beyound anything the liberals have ever done.

This self-righteous shock that Ward Churchill could be on the public payroll at a University is just another example of the Conservative belief that they have the right to impose their political correctness on the rest of us. Ward Churchill's explanation for why America was attacked much closer to the truth than the "They hate our freedom line" that has been repeated over and over again is.

Yes the Universities are out of step with America but that is because they are the part of America least dominated by mindless patriotic conservative political correctness. As long as Ward Churchill continues to be more honest than Bush and the mainstream media are, let him teach.