Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:08 PM

Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. If can be verified that this not only got his job but also his tenure from Colorado under the premise of his minority status.... shouldn't he be fired ?

Quote:
Churchill attacks essay’s critics
University of Colorado president calls for calm

By Craig Gima
cgima@starbulletin.com

Ward Churchill, the outspoken Colorado professor who created a national uproar by comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis, told an overflow crowd at the University of Hawaii last night that he is the target of a right-wing strategy to attack academia.

"I was targeted because they thought I would be an easy target," Churchill told the crowd of about 800. "That was a mistake.

"It's not just an attempt to purge me," he said. "It's a purge of the academy."

The crowd was mostly sympathetic to Churchill, a University of Colorado ethnic studies professor. He was applauded more than a dozen times and was greeted at least three times with standing ovations.

Before the speech began, about a dozen members of a UH college Republican group protested.

"I never wanted to be a poster boy for academic freedom," Churchill said. "You can't give an inch. If you let this one down, you've lost it all."

Much of Churchill's speech was devoted to explaining and expanding on his essay written on Sept. 11, 2001, that called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns."

He said the theme of his essay and a later book was that the United States has been involved in violating international law and killing innocents and should not be surprised that some people would want to kill Americans -- the "chickens coming home to roost," as his essay is titled.

He argued that the World Trade Center could be considered a legitimate target because it is a symbol of the financial power that allows the United States to flex its military might.

He said if you read his essay, he called the "technicians" in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who actually did not kill any Jews but made it possible for the trains to run on time and for the Holocaust to take place.

It's obvious, Churchill said, that he did not mean to say children, janitors, firefighters and innocent bystanders were part of that group. Instead, he said, he was referring to investment bankers and others who make the killing of innocents by the U.S. military and U.S. policy possible.

Churchill did address the issue of his ethnicity, admitting that he is not Native American.

"Is he an Indian? Do we really care?" he said, quoting those he called his "white Republican" critics.

"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," he said.

His pedigree is "not important," Churchill said: "The issue is the substance of what is said."

He went on to explain that the issue of whether he is Native American has been blown up by sloppy reporting and reporters quoting other reporters.

His speech drew mostly positive reaction from those who attended. But Tyrone Hogenauer said he was disappointed.

"I thought he was going to talk on free speech," Hogenauer said.

Instead, Churchill talked about himself and attacked his critics the way they are attacking him, Hogenauer said: "It's a sad thing."

UH student Kirsten Chong said her professors assigned her to listen to the speech.

"He was humorous and he certainly didn't pull any punches," she said, adding that because she is native Hawaiian, she agrees with much of what he said.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:02 PM

And the point is....? UCo would not give a position OR a tenure to someone just bc of their "minority" status. If you belive that, then you don't know nothin'.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And the point is....? UCo would not give a position OR a tenure to someone just bc of their "minority" status. If you belive that, then you don't know nothin'.

Thats avoiding the issue. Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? It doesn't have to be solely on his minority status, but any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating. And lets be fair here. Anyone so naive to think that, all things being equal, a white man stands on equal footing w/ a Native American in a job interview for the Dept of Ethnic Studies .... don't know nothin. That is, unless the white man lies about who he is.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:23 AM

Maybe you should take that up with U of Colorado and let us know their hiring policy. I've prolly interviewed and ranked over 500 people in my career (and will prolly interview a few hundred more before I'm done) so I KNOW something about hiring and promoting. All I'm hearing from you is a lot of VERY UNSUPORTED suppositions verging on slander.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:42 AM

I totally believe they could have hired this guy based purely on his supposed Native American background. Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. Higher education in this country is pretty damn Left-wing, but I can’t believe it’s this stupid.

Although I could be wrong, but if this clown is a fair representation of American Academia, we just need to shut down the colleges and start over from scratch, because there’s no fixing something that broke.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:06 AM

One of the achievements of liberals during the sixties and seventies was the creation of Ethnic Studies Departments/Programs and tenured faculty positions for researchers in those related fields. Historically, these Departments are underfunded and understaffed.

What we have here is a more overt form of attack against tenure in Ethnic Studies programs in particular and academic freedom in general. The only question that should be asked is: does the professor in question conduct quality research that advances the level of understanding of his/her particular field?

Make no mistake, this is a test case for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (a rightwing organization), the National Association of Scholars (a group created by ACTA), and Republican student groups nationwide pushing for an Academic Bill of Rights - like all good marketing (probably focus group tested) it's got a wholesome great sounding name.

It's based on the inability of people to acknowledge things they do not agree with. It goes further than that. It's an attempt to silence research that the dominant political party disagrees with.

The movement conservatives (not real conservatives) are attacking liberal successes. Social Security. Tenure for Ethnic Studies. Ethnic Studies programs themselves.

Ward Churchill is the first. He's an ideal target for all the groups who are behind this astroturf swelling.

Here's a list of some of his publications:
"Agents of repression : the FBI's secret wars against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement"
"Perversions of justice : indigenous peoples and angloamerican law"
"The COINTELPRO papers : documents from the FBI's secret wars against dissent in the United States"
"Struggle for the land : indigenous resistance to genocide, ecocide and expropriation in contemporary North America"
"Fantasies of the master race : literature, cinema, and the colonization of American Indians"
"A little matter of genocide : holocaust and denial in the Americas, 1492 to the present"
"Since predator came : notes from the struggle for American Indian liberation"
"Indians are us? : culture and genocide in native North America"

That is the real reason why he is a target.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:12 AM

bologna

He's a fruitcake.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:20 AM

But does he conduct quality research?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:38 AM

I guess that depends on what you mean by quality research. My intern does quality research, but that doesn’t mean she can do the kind of work that the modelers do. If she could, she wouldn’t be an intern; we'd hire her on full time as an engineer or scientist. It doesn’t make any difference how many papers you cite, or write or how many hours you spend in the library, if at the end of the day you draw completely fallacious conclusions.

I’m sure Mr. Churchill would make a good intern.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:47 AM

If your intern is conducting quality research that advances the level of understanding in your particular field than I think you're getting a great deal. If she has also published multiple books than I'd say you're getting a fantastic deal.

* editted to add: I am not an expert in the particular field that Ward Churchill writes in. All I can say is that he has published a substantial body of work. The tenure review process is designed to address the issues I bring up. That is why I find it highly amusing that a bunch of people who are not experts in his field are calling for his dismissal.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:02 AM

Any idiot can publish a book. That's more dependent on public interest then on the advancement of knowledge.

As far as advancing the level of understanding within a particular field, I have yet to see anything from Chruchill that would convince me he has made any such significant advances. Your assumption that the quality of his research necessarily means his conclusion advance anything is precarious at best. I would argue that making the breakthrough discovery that innocent victims of a terrorist attack are equivalent to Nazi executioner of Jews is probably not as great a leap forward as one might think.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* editted to add: I am not an expert in the particular field that Ward Churchill writes in. All I can say is that he has published a substantial body of work. The tenure review process is designed to address the issues I bring up. That is why I find it highly amusing that a bunch of people who are not experts in his field are calling for his dismissal.

I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:20 AM

I am speaking strictly about the work that he has done in the field of Ethnic Studies.

*editted to add: Time to go to sleep. Have a good night

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:46 AM

Good night then.

I should get to bed myself.

But too many Diet Cokes.

EVILMIKE

Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:11 PM

Make no mistake, this is a test case for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (a rightwing organization), the National Association of Scholars (a group created by ACTA), and Republican student groups nationwide pushing for an Academic Bill of Rights - like all good marketing (probably focus group tested) it's got a wholesome great sounding name.
------------

So, what is wrong with these Academic Bills of Rights?

I thought the intent was to protect viewpoint discrimination for everyone.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:15 PM

Quality research- discovering facts that have not been previously known and connecting them together in new and insightful ways.

Without having read Churchill's publications, I can't verify that his writing falls under the tile of quality research, but the titles themselves do not indicate that "the guy's a fruitcake"... only that you're unfamiliar with that line of research. Seminal publications that have affected western philosophical thinking for decades include such fruitcake titles as "Witches, Midwives, and Nurses" (Erenreich, English) and "Man Against Myth" (Dunham).

Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, February 25, 2005 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by evilmike:
So, what is wrong with these Academic Bills of Rights?

I thought the intent was to protect viewpoint discrimination for everyone.

"students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught"

That's the best, most straightforward, description I've read of the goals of the people behind the strategically named Academic Bill of Rights (I am constantly impressed at the salesmanship of movement conservatives - they know their marketing). It was from an article written late last year by Justin Pope for the AP titled, " Conservatives Flip Academic Freedom Debate".

* okay, I'm done editting (1:35 am PST)

AURAPTOR

Friday, February 25, 2005 2:58 PM

Quote:
All I'm hearing from you is a lot of VERY UNSUPORTED suppositions verging on slander.

What am I saying that's unsupported? I'm asking a quesiton and expressing my opinion.
Where's the slander ? Care to point it out ? Can't a person voice their opinion?

Quote:

Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.

Here in lies the REAL heart of the matter. Yes, read his works, maybe catch a lecture or two. Like Michael Moore, this clown is just trying to make a name for himself. He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position. Not bad work, if you can find it.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KNIBBLET

Friday, February 25, 2005 3:38 PM

Quote:
All I'm hearing from you is a lot of VERY UNSUPORTED suppositions verging on slander.

Quote:
What am I saying that's unsupported? I'm asking a quesiton and expressing my opinion.
Where's the slander ? Care to point it out ? Can't a person voice their opinion?

Here's where the pain in the butt wordsmith inserts her two cents.
Slander is spoken.
Libel is written.
Ergo, this would be libel not slander.
Personally, I don't agree with the professor's position but believe he has a responsibility to state his case.
You can look at this from two angles.
1. How dare he not fall into line and salute our version of the truth.
2. At least we know what he thinks and where he is.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

EVILMIKE

Friday, February 25, 2005 5:27 PM

"students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught"

That trivializes the issue, doesn't it? As Pope also mentions:

"But in a recent survey of students at 50 schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which argues that there is too little intellectual diversity on campus, 49% reported some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter. Thirty-one percent said they believed that there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's views to get a good grade."

If there wasn't a widespread concern that viewpoint discrimination was occuring on campus, the academic bill of rights wouldn't be an issue.

Moreover, I am still left wonder what specific problems you see the Bill of Rights as problems as causing.

KNIBBLET

Friday, February 25, 2005 6:05 PM

I don't know about you, Evilmike, but I've gone to colleges all over the globe and there's nothing that professors like to hear more than the sound of their own voice in their ears.
I can count on one hand the number of instructors I had in ANY subject that didn't think their viewpoint was the valid one and anyone else's was inferior.
No matter what you study, professors love to hear themselves in your paper.
This doesn't mean the student actually agrees with them - it just means the student is bright enough to know which side of the bread is buttered.

As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say, I'll just refer back to the blonde bimbette who was whining about Michael Moore visiting the University of Minnesota last fall. To quote, "It's just too painful to have to listen to the liberal point of view."
Boo friggin who. Now we don't even have to listen to people who don't goose step along with our particular view? It's too painful?!?
Poor blow-dried thing doesn't have a chance once she enters the real world. Can't wait until her employer's view is that she get out of bed at a reasonable hour and show up for work every day. ... "It's just to painful to have to listen to the business owner's point of view."

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

EVILMIKE

Friday, February 25, 2005 6:49 PM

"As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say"

Except that, as I understand it, the intent of the ABoR is to allow everyone to have a voice. I'm not sure legislation is the best way to deal with this issue, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as a trick of the right.

Does this 'poor baby' statement also apply to the Seattle Central Community College students who chased Army recruiters off campus? Or to the University of Washington students who harassed an 'Affirmative Action Bake Sale' protest until authorities shut down the sale?

KNIBBLET

Friday, February 25, 2005 7:50 PM

I'm tired off all the poor baby students on all sides. You cannot censor your opponent without endangering yourself.
I don't care what your personal beliefs are, you should show everyone respect and allow them to speak. Listening is not endorsing.
This is usually the most effective way to allow a moron to prove themselves moronic.

My politics? I view myself as a fiscal conservative - social liberal. I'm a 10 year veteran who believes that the goverment shouldn't waste my money on 'Star Wars' anti-missle defense or on studying artificial rain forests in Iowa. Both are waste.
Also, keeping your morals off my womb is a wonderful idea.

Quote:
Originally posted by evilmike:
"As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say"

Except that, as I understand it, the intent of the ABoR is to allow everyone to have a voice. I'm not sure legislation is the best way to deal with this issue, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as a trick of the right.

Does this 'poor baby' statement also apply to the Seattle Central Community College students who chased Army recruiters off campus? Or to the University of Washington students who harassed an 'Affirmative Action Bake Sale' protest until authorities shut down the sale?

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SIGNYM

Friday, February 25, 2005 8:24 PM

Knibblet- libel then. (I kept trying to think of the word but was too tired to look it up. Thanks for the correction.)

And this is the libel: "He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position." Can you prove both accusations? (One against Churchill and the other gainst the U of Colorado.)

Now I realize that you have a right to your opinions. Most likely, nobody is going to nail your *ss to a wall because of your accusations unless they can prove harm (As I understand it, in civil law the rule is "no harm, no foul") and quite frankly none of us is significant enough to really harm anybody. (Unless of course you criticize a company's product or policies on the internet, and then you WILL be sued. Ah well... so much for free speech! I guess it costs a lot of $$$$ to be able to speak freely!) But just as you have a right to your opinion, no matter how baseless it may be, so does Ward Churchill. So far, I think Churchill has demonstrated more foundation for his position than you have for yours.

AURAPTOR

Friday, February 25, 2005 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Knibblet- libel then. (I kept trying to think of the word but was too tired to look it up. Thanks for the correction.)

And this is the libel: "He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position." Can you prove both accusations? (One against Churchill and the other gainst the U of Colorado.)

Now I realize that you have a right to your opinions. Most likely, nobody is going to nail your *ss to a wall because of your accusations unless they can prove harm (As I understand it, in civil law the rule is "no harm, no foul") and quite frankly none of us is significant enough to really harm anybody. (Unless of course you criticize a company's product or policies on the internet, and then you WILL be sued. Ah well... so much for free speech! I guess it costs a lot of $$$$ to be able to speak freely!) But just as you have a right to your opinion, no matter how baseless it may be, so does Ward Churchill. So far, I think Churchill has demonstrated more foundation for his position than you have for yours.

I'm not making a formal CHARGE against anyone, but merely posing a question. It is no secret that Mr. Churchill has claimed to be of Native American heritage. As for how much he makes, I've not done any cross reference, but what I heard was over 100k. As he is an employee of the state of Colorado, I'll bet an exact figure can be found. Sorry, but that ain't 'libel' on MY part, no matter how you parse it. And it's really bizarre that you'd even make such a suggestion.

I also don't see where you get off saying that, he has demonstrated more foundation for his position than I have. All I've done is asked a question based on what is known. I would say that he as absolutely no basis for calling the victims of the 9-11 attacks " little Eichmans ", but even though he's wrong, he still has the right to say it.

Trust me, far worse has been written and spoken about Mr. Churchill than you'll see here.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:48 AM

I didn't see a question mark at the end of your accusation, so you weren't asking a question. Now, I COULD rephrase your STATEMENTS as questions... "Did Churchill misrepresent his ethnic heritage? Did that give him an unfair advantage?" But that wouldn't really lead to the demand to "fire him", would it?

Don't worry about being accused of libel. You really only have to worry about businesses suing you. So don't diss anyone's product and cost them sales, or you WILL wind up in court!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.

This is a red herring. I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:45 AM

How familiar is that? You read a headline that contained two words out of many pages, and decided that was familiar enough? Since you apparently have NO intellectual rigor, why should I pay attention to anything you say?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 26, 2005 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How familiar is that? You read a headline that contained two words out of many pages, and decided that was familiar enough? Since you apparently have NO intellectual rigor, why should I pay attention to anything you say?

Familiar enough.

As far as my intellectual rigor is concerned and why you should pay attention to what I say is a topic for another conversation. The fact remains, however, that you do pay attention to what I say, or you wouldn’t have replied to my post otherwise.

But to elaborate on your first question:

"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."

-- Ward Churchill on why innocent victims of the 9-ll terrorist attack are tantamount to Nazi executioners of millions of Jews, and why the attack that killed 3000 innocent people was not only justified but befitting. When questioned about this statement, Churchill simply defended it (attempted to in any event). This statement, among many other gems, is from one of Churchill’s, apparently enlightening papers. Well, I’d really be interested in hearing about the so called “quality research” that brings an intelligent person to this conclusion. Until I am convinced of such “quality research,” Churchill will remain a fruitcake.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 26, 2005 2:35 PM

Not being Churchill, I can't explain his position for him. However, I don't find what he said to be strange. I'm sure you will DISAGREE with my position, it has to do with the USA having a long... very long... history of sending in troops and installing USA-friendly, dictatorial governments. I could bring a wealth of facts to the table including recently declassified quotes from Kissinger and so forth, and I have done so in the past. I'm not going to repost on that issue, but the fact is that the United States has militarily and covertly "intervened" dozens of times since 1900 and currently has over 800 military installations around the world. YOU can say- probably have said- that the Russians did it too and that it was because of the cold war. Guess what? When the Russians did it, we were BOTH hated as imperial powers. Now that we are the premier imperial power (and have been for over 15 years, so WHY are our troops all over the world?) we are also the premier object of fury.

You can explain it all you want, and you might even convince Americans, but you can't control how our conquests feel. Just don't be surprised about it, or dismiss them because there are a LOT of them- and they can be dangerous.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 26, 2005 4:55 PM

There is some of what you have said here that I would disagree with and some that I would agree with, but none of it is pertinent so I won’t go into it.

None of this is justification for the murder of innocent people. None of this is support for the statement Churchill made. None of it. If we apply the same logic to the former Soviet Union, does it hold water? Where have we held that the People of the Soviet Union were directly responsible for the horrendous and genocidal actions of their government? Are Germans, in general, responsible for the actions of Hitler? The French government tramples around African like they own the place, should we declare open season on French civilians?

If indeed Churchill is correct and we can say that an attack, targeting civilians, which succeeds in killing 3000 innocent men, women and children simply because of actions of their government’s foreign policy, then civilians the world over are in horrible danger. If this statement is true then where does the complaint, often concocted, of the US targeting civilians in Iraq come from? It shouldn’t matter. Saddam Hussein was a barbarous ruler whose own foreign policy resulted in two wars of aggression for the purpose of the expansion of his totalitarian rule and the deaths of millions. If Churchill is correct then the Iraqi civilians are responsible for that government and should be killed.

That’s not a position I believe is reasonable. In fact, I believe it no different from hate speech. I can’t, nor would I want to, prevent Churchill from believing such things, but that doesn’t mean that I believe evidence exists to support such claims. And Churchill is therefore a fruitcake.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:05 PM

Apprently you missed the part where Churchill went on to say that he was NOT inlcuding the busboys, janitors, waitresses, children and other victims who were not trading stocks or fixing interest rates or otherwise engaging in international commerce. Again, I can't speak for him. I draw my own distinctions. But based on his list of publications, my guess is that he is drawing an analogy between the people who appropriated Native American land and livelihood to international debt collectors and international capitalists. Just a guess, tho.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:45 PM

So what. Anyone not making minimum wage should be killed because someone doesn't agree with their countries foreign policy?

This is the kind of twisted logic used by fruitcakes.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:29 PM

....

RUE

Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:10 AM

Taking your usual swipe at whatever you can't understand? I have to applaud you though, for at least looking up some news articles, even if it was only to better argue your arguments of control and punishment.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I didn't see a question mark at the end of your accusation, so you weren't asking a question. Now, I COULD rephrase your STATEMENTS as questions... "Did Churchill misrepresent his ethnic heritage? Did that give him an unfair advantage?" But that wouldn't really lead to the demand to "fire him", would it?

Don't worry about being accused of libel. You really only have to worry about businesses suing you. So don't diss anyone's product and cost them sales, or you WILL wind up in court!

You didn't see the question mark in the subject line .. Ward Churchhill NOT a Native American*? Fire him.
*It's right there...I'm pointing at it.

Seems clear to me that the preface is well layed out here. That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. There's nothing remotely 'libel' here what so ever, so any such suggestion of such is utter nonsense.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Taking your usual swipe at whatever you can't understand? I have to applaud you though, for at least looking up some news articles, even if it was only to better argue your arguments of control and punishment.

My arguments of control and punishment? What exactly are those arguments? That I don’t agree with fruitcakes? In general, I don't. And poor Mr. Churchill; he must live under the yoke of the oppression of me not agreeing with him. What will he do!

DAIKATH

Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:38 PM

Why should his heritage have any effect on his ability to do his studies? If firsthand experience is so important everyone can do his own studys on it and get the mentioned $100k.

If he lied, so what? What does it really do other then confirm poeple have to lie about their heritage? Why should it matter if he is or not?

It should't and even if it gotton him that position then the poeple who gave it to him are to blaim. Promoting poeple on this type of thing based on their heritage is close to discrimination, even if there is possible firsthand experience.

I think his comparison of 9/11 victims to Nazi's has been blown up. He was merely trying to explain what their role has been in the whole thing (wether they were or were not aware of it is a whole other matter).

Did he genuinly justify the killings of the 9/11 victims or did he merely explain on how the terrorists came to see it as a genuinge target?

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 28, 2005 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
Why should his heritage have any effect on his ability to do his studies? If firsthand experience is so important everyone can do his own studys on it and get the mentioned $100k.

If he lied, so what? What does it really do other then confirm poeple have to lie about their heritage? Why should it matter if he is or not?

It should't and even if it gotton him that position then the poeple who gave it to him are to blaim. Promoting poeple on this type of thing based on their heritage is close to discrimination, even if there is possible firsthand experience.

I think his comparison of 9/11 victims to Nazi's has been blown up. He was merely trying to explain what their role has been in the whole thing (wether they were or were not aware of it is a whole other matter).

Did he genuinly justify the killings of the 9/11 victims or did he merely explain on how the terrorists came to see it as a genuinge target?

In a perfect world, I agree, it shouldn't matter. But in todays world, when trying to fill a post in the 'Ethnic Studies' program....

However, your comment ' If he lied, so what?'.... that's a bit alarming. People go to jail for lying, Presidents get impeached for lying, and football coaches at Notre Dame lose their job for lying. Thats what.

And no, him comparing the victims of the 9-11 attacks to NAZIS wasn't 'blown up', as you so aptly put. He meant what he said, and he's said there should be MORE attacks just like that. He clearly attempted to justify the utterly unjustifiable. He really is that delusional. Call that libel if you want, I don't care. Ward Churchill is delusional. Period.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, February 28, 2005 6:16 AM

Okay. Some scattershot after a few days off.

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet
I don't know about you, Evilmike, but I've gone to colleges all over the globe and there's nothing that professors like to hear more than the sound of their own voice in their ears.
...

Ain't that the truth. Try sitting in on research group meetings with professors from a number of disciplines and keeping to a timetable. It just won't happen. Recently I was embarassed to realize that I have absolutely no problem speaking for an entire class period. I guess that's one part of my professor-in-training requirements that I've met

.

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet
I'm tired off all the poor baby students on all sides. You cannot censor your opponent without endangering yourself.
I don't care what your personal beliefs are, you should show everyone respect and allow them to speak. Listening is not endorsing.
This is usually the most effective way to allow a moron to prove themselves moronic.
...

Okay. It's official. Knibblet: YOU ROCK!!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor
...
Seems clear to me that the preface is well layed out here. That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. There's nothing remotely 'libel' here what so ever, so any such suggestion of such is utter nonsense.

Okay. I couldn't resist channeling Jayne, "You know, I'm smellin' a lot of 'If' comin' offa this plan." To get more serious, I agree with Daikath's first sentence of response.

To bounce a little in another direction, in my first post I stated that Ward Churchill was an ideal target. What I meant by that was that the stated reasons for going after him are because of the statements he made - statements that I don't think a majority of people agree with yet, and maybe won't ever agree with. But to use those statements to try to get him fired is an attempt to sidestep the whole tenure thingie. It's very easy for opponents of Churchill to paint those who oppose attacks on the tenure of people who do countercultural work as being supporters of his statements. Nuance doesn't play well. [Or maybe it's just that confusing long sentences don't play well

- first impression after re-reading this post]

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 4:34 PM

Auraptor- I see you edited your text. How very brave. But you missed this part:

"He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position. Not bad work, if you can find it."

Finn- You said" I would argue that making the breakthrough discovery that innocent victims of a terrorist attack are equivalent to Nazi executioner of Jews is probably not as great a leap forward as one might think."

First of all, Eichman was not an executioner. He made the trains run on time. He was a technocrat. So let's look at the analogy that Ward Churchill used- Nazi Germany. Of course, the top poltical and command structure are responsible- Hilter, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Eichman etc. But do we, or should we, hold the firms that designed, built and profited from the gas chambers accountable? What about the weapons firms? The prison ("Arbeit Macht Frie") guards? The "average" German citizen who ignored the thick, oily black smoke? The average German citizen who VOTED for Hitler?

Don't forget that Hitler was ELECTED. This is the history:

Quote:
In Jan., 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor without an absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27, 1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly. The elections gave a bare majority of seats to Hitler's National Socialists (Nazis) and their allies, the German Nationalists.

How close is the analogy? Close enough to be instructive?

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 4:48 PM

"Presidents get impeached for lying"

Only if you lie about sex. Lying about WMD and getting us into war, lying about taxes and blowing up the budget, lying about social security and trying to destroy it... well, THAT'S OK!!! And dont' forget that someone on the upper Administration committed TREASON by outing an active undercover CIA field officer. That must be OK too because I sure haven't heard anything about impeachment!

BTW- I will post this separately but... I just heard an alarming interview with Scott Ritter, who is an ex-Marine and was the chief USA weapons inspector in Iraq (as part of the UN team). He has been very forthright about his experiences- the bad (Saddam jerking them around, lack of UN support) and the good (but they did their job, there were NO WMD).

He say he has information that Bush has already decided to bomb Iran. The actual date will be dictated by event, but tentatively set for June.

I've been shouting my fool head off for the past five years about how dangerous the Bush administration is. But half the USA is still marching in step. How culpable are we?

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 28, 2005 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Presidents get impeached for lying"

Only if you lie about sex. Lying about WMD and getting us into war, lying about taxes and blowing up the budget, lying about social security and trying to destroy it... well, THAT'S OK!!! And dont' forget that someone on the upper Administration committed TREASON by outing an active undercover CIA field officer. That must be OK too because I sure haven't heard anything about impeachment!

BTW- I will post this separately but... I just heard an alarming interview with Scott Ritter, who is an ex-Marine and was the chief USA weapons inspector in Iraq (as part of the UN team). He has been very forthright about his experiences- the bad (Saddam jerking them around, lack of UN support) and the good (but they did their job, there were NO WMD).

He say he has information that Bush has already decided to bomb Iran. The actual date will be dictated by event, but tentatively set for June.

I've been shouting my fool head off for the past five years about how dangerous the Bush administration is. But half the USA is still marching in step. How culpable are we?

Bush hasn't lied about any of those things, so what ever point you're attempting to make is moot.

Bush won't be bombing Iran unless Europe begs and pleads him to - and I doubt even then. Bank on that. So please, crying wolf about that non issue is a useless waste of time.

You've been shouting your fool head off - on that, we agree.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 5:59 PM

Oh please, Auraptor. If you have to post, at least try to keep one foot in reality. When the Bush admin gave figures to Congress about the cost of adding drug benefits to Medicare, and then told the actuarial (who had calculated a less political, more realistical/ expensive figure) to shut up or he would lost his job.... BTW, the actuarial figures were eventually proven right

Or when Joe Wilson told the Admin that Iraq did NOT try to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and was rewarded by having his undercover CIA-officer wife "outed".... BTW, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter and the other dissenters where eventually proven right.

Or when Bush goes around the country yelling "CRISIS!" about Social Security, when even large, commercial annuity administrators say there is no such thing...

If Bush isn't lying, then he's got to be the most incompetent President that we've ever had. So go back and change your previous text to at least LOOK mentally competent, OK?

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 28, 2005 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh please, Auraptor. If you have to post, at least try to keep one foot in reality. When the Bush admin gave figures to Congress about the cost of adding drug benefits to Medicare, and then told the actuarial (who had calculated a less political, more realistical/ expensive figure) to shut up or he would lost his job.... BTW, the actuarial figures were eventually proven right

Or when Joe Wilson told the Admin that Iraq did NOT try to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and was rewarded by having his undercover CIA-officer wife "outed".... BTW, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter and the other dissenters where eventually proven right.

Or when Bush goes around the country yelling "CRISIS!" about Social Security, when even large, commercial annuity administrators say there is no such thing...

If Bush isn't lying, then he's got to be the most incompetent President that we've ever had. So go back and change your previous text to at least LOOK mentally competent, OK?

Joe Wilson? LOL! Please! Iraq HAD indeed bought yellow cake from Niger , back in the 1980's, for their nuclear power plant. Then Israel blew that facility up. And it was the BRITISH who said that Saddam was snooping around in Niger again for more yellow cake, and they STILL stand by that report! Joe Wilson has no say in this matter, what so ever.

Changing my text? What the hell are you talking about? Any editing I do is up to me, but if you can't cite a specific comment , then don't bother. I'm not allowed to fix my own typos? Man, you're paranoid.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 7:51 PM

There was a comment earlier about letting morons speak, as it was the best possible demonstration, and I whole heartedly agree. But a word of friendly advice: Please stop whiddling on yourself, it's embarassing. Plus, you're giving your fellow Bushies a bad rep.

Since I see that you have only a tenuous connection to reality there is no point in discussing w/ you further. I may, however, point and suppress giggles.

Cheers!

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 28, 2005 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There was a comment earlier about letting morons speak, as it was the best possible demonstration, and I whole heartedly agree. But a word of friendly advice: Please stop whiddling on yourself, it's embarassing. Plus, you're giving your fellow Bushies a bad rep.

Since I see that you have only a tenuous connection to reality there is no point in discussing w/ you further. I may, however, point and suppress giggles.

Cheers!

If all you have is inane ad hominems, I'll keep this brief. Rational discussion is lost on you anyways. Since you dug up Joe Wilson....

Quote:
BUSH'S IRAQI URANIUM CLAIM VINDICATED

Another blow to the Bush haters and the "Bush lied" crowd. No less than the left-leaning Associated Press is reporting that President Bush's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa wasn't completely false. Stop the presses! How can this be true? I thought Bush lied!

Two recent reports say Bush may have not been totally off-base. Now, never mind that Bush didn't lie at all whatsoever.....he was simply stating what British intelligence had reported. His statement was true by any logical standard. But now a British report now says that the claims about Iraq were "well-founded." In addition, the otherwise worthless Senate Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron if there ever was one) report says Iraq sought uranium in Africa. So where's Joe Wilson now...and who's that anyway?

You remember him...he's the liar hired by the CIA (after being recommended by his wife) to go to Niger to investigate the uranium claim. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that transaction was unlikely and the administration was manipulating intelligence. Few people seem to know that in a later book the very same Joe Wilson said that not only did Iraq make overtures to Niger about purchasing uranium, but that the very person making those overtures was the famous Baghdad Bob! Predictably, the media played up the Wilson comments that contradicted British intelligence and President Bush, and ignored his writings that supported the British claim.

How about Kerry and Edwards...are they going to stop saying we were misled? Will Michael Moore make a retraction movie? Al Gore? Somehow, I don't think so. After all, facts have never been a liberal specialty.

The more time that passes...the more the action in Iraq is vindicated. The appeasers are going to have to find a new angle. http://boortz.com/nuze/200407/07192004.html#uranium

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 8:50 PM

The book says:

"It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium."

He went to discuss trade, hoping to get an angle on a uranium deal. However, since Niger yellowcake production and trade is heavily infiltrated by foreigners, any deal was impossible, and the minister apparently never got around to broaching the topic. And what about that fake paper that was prodcued as evidence? So much for the Mushroom Cloud that Rice scared us with.

As far as that "British report"... I can't find hide nor hair of it on the internet, so other than the apparent citation by some right-wing columnist... a citation he didn't see fit to even reference... where izzit?

You dancing around the whole yellowcake issue very much reminds me of Clinton dancing around the definition of sex. "He didn't SAY it, he was just quoting!" Please, take responsibility for what you say! Take responsibility for what you quote! (oh, wait... Bush doesn't either. Why should I expect more from his followers?)

LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!!

(mmmpphf! gurgle!! snick!)

SIGNYM

Monday, February 28, 2005 9:08 PM

I noticed that you didn't address Bush's other demonstrable lies. I replied because I want to make it plainly obvious that you lie, routinely and blatantly. When caught in a lie you resort to distraction, or more lies. I think I've made my point: you can't be trusted because you have no respect for the truth. You will dance around the defintion of a single word to avoid taking responsibility for what you say and what you quote, just like your fearful leader. What could be more cowardly?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I noticed that you didn't address Bush's other demonstrable lies. I replied because I want to make it plainly obvious that you lie, routinely and blatantly. When caught in a lie you resort to distraction, or more lies. I think I've made my point: you can't be trusted because you have no respect for the truth. You will dance around the defintion of a single word to avoid taking responsibility for what you say and what you quote, just like your fearful leader. What could be more cowardly?

You're delusional. Bush hasn't lied anywhere in regards to Iraq. Sorry, but that's the hard cold fact. If you want to bring up irrelevent political issues on appropriations and what not , that's fine. You want to call me cowardly? Say that to my face. This forum clearly has gotten you worked up, no doubt because you're wrong and you just can't handle the humilation. Seems to me you'd be use to it by now. Oh well.

P.S. 4 more years.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 3:15 AM

"Bush hasn't lied anywhere in regards to Iraq." And all the OTHER lies are irrelevant? Sort of like lying about... er... sex??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! aheh aheh heh gurgle...snick!

I'm sorry, but you just gave me the biggest chuckle of the day. Thanks!

heh heh heh..... mmmphh!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How close is the analogy? Close enough to be instructive?

Yep. The analogy is pretty clear. Not only are you surprisingly ignorant of history, but you condone the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians in much the same way that Hitler did. The only difference is the number, and I’m sure that not even Hitler knew just how many he and his Nazi minions would actually end up killing in the end. If this is really the kind of idiotic ideals you subscribe to, then you are as much a fruitcake as Churchill.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 2:50 PM

I'm not condoning it, I'm trying to prevent it. Like the Germans who were stampeded by fear when the Reichstag was burned, we were stampeded by fear when the Twin Towers came down. And look what happened- we "pre-emptively" invaded Iraq. And what were we preventing? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, didn't have WMD, didn't even have a delivery system- in other words, posed no threat to us or to its neighbors. Nonetheless, we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in an entirely preventable war.

Mass fear is a tool of the powerful. If a people believe that they are facing life or death, they will round up and gas the "conspirators" en masse, machete their neighbors, bomb and invade irrelevant nations.

I listened to the makers of "Downfall" yesterday. Their point is that Hitler was nothing special- just a man. The phenomenon of Nazi Germany is quite ordinary and can occur anywhere.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 3:30 PM

Intelligent people can disagree on whether going to war with Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do. I don’t have any problem with you not agreeing with the war in Iraq, and if that is what we were talking about then I might even be willing to concede that you may be right about some of that.

However, regardless of what you claim now, you have been defending Churchill’s comments. And Churchill clearly said that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent civilians was “befitting” based on some hand-waiving about the evils of “technocrats” and “stock brokers.” It is interesting to note that one of the common ethnic slurs used to justify the hatred and subsequent murder of Jews by Nazis during the holocaust was to dismiss Jews as a bunch of corrupt bankers and lawyers. Effectively the exact same bullshit that Churchill is spewing. Your position only now has changed to the war in Iraq; your position previously was defending Churchill’s logic.

Furthermore your analogy between the US and Nazi Germany is completely fallacious. Regardless of one’s position on the issue of Iraq, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the US is hording civilians into concentration camps and committing genocide. Claiming so, without solid evidence is a lie, and there is no evidence. It’s irresponsible and I would even say idiotic to make those kinds of fabricated analogies.

So effectively, you have been defending comments by a man who claimed that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people was “befitting” while concocting lies about US foreign policy in an attempt to cultivate justification for a position you know is nothing short of condoning murder. Not only are you defending Churchill, but you are doing so under a deceitful pretense.

The “phenomenon of Nazi Germany” was that people like Churchill were in power. People who believed that targeting and murdering innocent people to achieve a political goal was completely justifiable. Fortunately, no one like Churchill is in power in the US today. But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds, maybe someday you’ll get your analogy.

Hitler was just a fruitcake who happened to be in power.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 5:35 PM

Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9-11. I'll buy that. Since 9-11 wasn't the primary reason for attacking Iraq in the 1st place.

...didn't have WMD Umm..., yeah it did. Zero doubt about that. Did we 'find' stockpiles like we were told Saddam likely had? Nope. Doesn't mean Iraq hasn't buried them, or moved them across the border to Syria, like so many of Saddams henchmen and relatives.

.., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War. No delivery systems ?

Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination.

Oh, and did you forget that we invaded Afghanistan a full YEAR before engaging Iraq ? Did you even remember al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and was the guest of the Taliban Gov't ? Sure seems like you did. .......................

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, March 3, 2005 3:31 AM

As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.

And then these good folks here started baying that it wasn't b/c of what he said but because of how he got his job. Why, it was outrageous I tell you! It DESERVES punishment!

But this is what you DIDN'T see when the hotmilitarystud boy-toy entered the White House press room ...

AUraptor: Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. ... Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? ... any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating.
Finn: Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.

ttp:// www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/

Quote:
Gannongate: It's worse than you think
Feb. 23, 2005 | When the press first raised questions about why Jim Guckert had been awarded access to the White House press room for two years running while he worked for Talon News, critics charged that Talon, with its amateurish standards and close working ties to Republican activists, did not qualify as a legitimate news organization. It turns out the truth is even stranger: Guckert was waved into the White House while working for an even more blatantly partisan organization, GOPUSA.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly." But that's when the questions were about Talon. More recently McClellan offered up a new rationale. Asked by Editor and Publisher magazine how the decision was made to allow a GOPUSA correspondent in, McClellan said, "The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed." (Emphasis added.)
That, apparently, was the lone criterion the press office used when Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) approached it in February 2003 seeking a pass for White House briefings. Not yet working for Republican-friendly Talon News, which came into existence in April 2003, Guckert, using an alias and with no journalism experience whatsoever, was writing on a voluntary basis for a Web site dedicated to promoting Republican issues. To determine whether Guckert would gain entrance to the press room, normally reserved for professional journalists working for legitimate, recognized and independent news organizations, the press office simply logged on to the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA "existed," and then quickly approved Guckert's access. In a White House obsessed, at least publicly, with security and where journalists cannot even move between the White House and the nearby Old Executive Building without a personal escort, Guckert's lenient treatment was likely unprecedented.
....
Unlike Guckert, though, Kinsolving has an authentic background in journalism, having worked for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Indianapolis Star. Talon's defenders suggest that it too is a legitimate news outlet. But providing some insight into how it operates, Eberle told the New York Times last week that he rarely monitored Guckert's White House work. "Jeff did his thing. I did my thing," Eberle said. In other words, it appears that Guckert, who often cut and pasted White House press releases and posted them on Talon as "news," did not even have an editor. As Media Matters for America noted, Talon "apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers."
Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in reg

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 3, 2005 11:16 AM

rue -

Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere. Tonto now has more troubles, as he's been copying art work from other artist, reversing the images, and then selling the pieces as originals......that HE made! This guy is a wall to wall con artist, and nothing less.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 3, 2005 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.

Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 3, 2005 8:17 PM

Been busy- quick replies:

"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"

No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia.

".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."

The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe.

"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."

Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 12:19 AM

Originally posted by SignyM:
Been busy- quick replies:

"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"

No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia. - The UN inspectors ( those not on the take ) said they didn't FIND any WMD. Doesn't mean there wasn't any. HUGE difference. Remember all those pesky U.N. Resolutions ? Yeah, sure you do. Iraq had the burden of proof to come clean on the WMD's THEY THEMSELVES said they had. They could not account for where their WMD went, nor how they 'disposed' of them or the facilities.

".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."

The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe. - Iraq had illegal delivery systems. Now you're pushing back the goal post to fit your definition. How quaint. Sorry, but the U.N. didn't buy it, nor did the rest of the world.

"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."

Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point. - Heh heh heh....figured you come up w/ some lame ass attempt to weasle out of your silly analogy. Blame ME for taking you to task, when your comparison was so inept. Classic.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, March 4, 2005 12:33 AM

My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 3:35 AM

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Quote:
Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:08
Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? It doesn't have to be solely on his minority status, but any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 13:20
He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position. Not bad work, if you can find it. Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:58
That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 05:06
People go to jail for lying, Presidents get impeached for lying, and football coaches at Notre Dame lose their job for lying. Thats what. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 14:57

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 3:47 AM

Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in.

So here is a selection of these double-duty statements:

Quote:
Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42
He's a fruitcake. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 22:12
I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

And, you do want to distract from that Guckert em-'bare*ss'-ment.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in..

What reason do I have to defend those statements? I meant every word of them; that’s all you need to know.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

Yeah. My issue is with what Churchill said. You’ve managed to deduce through tricky logic and slight of hand what I’ve already told you. Good deduction, Einstein.

Maybe instead of deriving the obvious you might try a little critical analysis of your own thoughts. You could start with, what exactly about disagreeing with what someone says means I “have a problem with free speech.” Condonation of murder is generally something I do tend to disagree with, call me crazy. You seem to disagree with me; does that mean you have a problem with free speech? Or does that little loophole only apply to me? If you believe disagreeing with what someone says is against the axiom of free speech, then the only way anyone could have free speech is if everyone agreed, which seems rather self-defeating logic.

Although I do want to thank you for good laugh.

And your Guckert hang up is your story not mine.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 4, 2005 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.
Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.

Me too

. That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

I honestly think we as a country are too close (temporally) to the tragic events of September 11th to discuss them dispassionately.

On an unrelated note, I do see the similarities Rue pointed out between AURaptor's original post and some of the commentary I've read on the James Guckert story. I was actually hoping someone would start a Guckert thread. If I needed additional proof that the mainstream media in this country is not liberal, the fact that this story has not gained traction over the past month would be it. I mean, just imagine the same events playing out eight years ago. The press would've had a field day.

In terms of Ward Churchill, I also see similarities to the Lawrence Summers thing (although, granted, there is a difference between calling for somone to step down from an academic administrative position and calling for someone to lose tenure). I'm not sure the Summers case qualifies as a witch hunt but some of the rhetoric I've been reading makes me nervous. I much prefer the point of view that Dean (now Chancellor) Denton presented in a piece for the UC Santa Cruz paper where she talks about using this as an opportunity (a little background - Denice Denton was attending the conference where Summers made his remarks. At the time she was Dean of Engineering at UW. Now she is the Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz. I've had the pleasure of listening to her speak on a couple of occasions on the topic of minority issues in engineering education and she's one of my personal academic heroes.).
http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/02-07/opinion-denton.asp

Once again, I think I'm all over the map on this one...

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 6:05 AM

Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...

Quote:
fruitcake

or that

Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.

If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

Regarding the free speech issue, you did a pretty good job of hand-washing. It's not that YOU want to do anything to Churchill PERSONALLY because of his publicly expressed opinions.
But you did call for dismantling colleges b/c of his statements.

Quote:
Higher education in this country is pretty damn Left-wing, but I can’t believe it’s this stupid. Although I could be wrong, but if this clown is a fair representation of American Academia, we just need to shut down the colleges and start over from scratch. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42

And then you posited his removal by third parties b/c of what he said.

Quote:
Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

Then you characterized his comments as 'hate speech', a designation I'm sure you know has legal, criminal implications.

Quote:
In fact, I believe it no different from hate speech. Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 06:55

And then you implied that Churchill shouldn't be allowed free speech b/c it would implant Nazism in the US.

Quote:
But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds ...

OTOH, maybe you did leave a good trail for your position that only some opinions should be heard in this land of free speech.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...
Quote:
fruitcake
or that
Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.
If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

This discussion is about Churchill. This Guckert thing is something unrelated that you dragged in, apparently out of the blue. How do you know what I think about Guckert? You’re kind of conceited to simply assume that I think about something.

Also I never said or in any way implied that Churchill shouldn’t be allowed free speech. That’s some story you made up. Here’s an idea, let’s examine something I said without running through the rue-filter first.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children.

Huh, that does throw a monkey wrench in your little story. Funny, how with all the comments of mine you took out of context, this one seemed to be missed.

So let me see, I openly and quite fervidly disagree with statements made by Churchill condoning the murder of innocent people, and you throw a fit because I don’t agree with him? What exactly do you have against me disagreeing with Churchill?

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

Not a threat to its neighbors ? Oh dear lord!! Did you munch on lead paint as a child ? Iraq attacked 4 of its neighbors under Saddam, and wasn't complying to U.N. or cease fire agreements. Geee, sounds pretty stable to me. Your point is only on top of your head, and no where else. There is no evasion going on here except from you, which seems to be your s.o.p.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:20 PM

Quote:
RUE
"You can see anything, if you use the right filters ..."

Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 21:35

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Does Guckert have tenure? Does Guckert make a living off of the very people he ridicules and compares to NAZIs ? I susppose if you want to compare the tenured position of a University prof to that of merely asking the President some valid questions ...sure, you may have a point. But so what ? By bringing Guckert into this discussion, you draw attention away from the orginal issue of Tonto (aka Ward Churchill ). Guckert's situation has no bearing on Tonto's in the least, but to serve as a red herring.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Me too . That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

It is true that Churchill’s position as an instructor of peoples’ children is definitely likely to make aforementioned peoples rather uneasy. But in general, if one is labeled a “right-wing vigilante” for not agreeing with someone who condones the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people, then there is something terribly wrong with the Left.

It is likely that I will disagree with some of the more Left-wing types on this board, just as I am likely to disagree with some of the more Right-wing types, what I can’t understand is why I can’t come to this thread and find unanimous agreement on the absurdity of what Churchill has said. Why there is a discussion at all on the ‘befittingness’ of the murder of 3000 people is unconscionable. One should not need be labeled “too close” to 9/ll in order to realize that there was nothing befitting about it.

But I come to this board and what I find is right the opposite. You’re trying to deflect the argument away from Churchill with some thin ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ argument. SignyN is outwardly defending Churchill, and Rue is trying to deflect the issue to some Guckert thing while giving me some Orwellian crap about not disagreeing with what Churchill says. Now I don’t believe that any of you actually believe that condoning murder is a good thing(an assumption on my part), so why is it such a difficult thing for us to agree on this matter?

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 4, 2005 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But I come to this board and what I find is right the opposite. You’re trying to deflect the argument away from Churchill with some thin ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ argument. SignyN is outwardly defending Churchill, and Rue is trying to deflect the issue to some Guckert thing while giving me some Orwellian crap about not disagreeing with what Churchill says. Now I don’t believe that any of you actually believe that condoning murder is a good thing(an assumption on my part), so why is it such a difficult thing for us to agree on this matter?

You're absolutely right that I have avoided making any judgement on Ward Churchill's statements. This is intentional on my part. I hinted at part of the reasoning in my last post but I'll try to go into more detail. There are certain topics that I personally think are extremely difficult to discuss (not argue, discuss - I love a good argument as much as the next fireflyfan

) in the message board format and so I just opt out. September 11th is one of them.

I come from a culture (by way of training) that encourages brainstorming. One of the trilogy of "rules" is to withhold judgement - lay anything out on the table, whether it's offensive, stupid, or whatever. This is the hardest thing to get used to if you have never done it before (and something that I have to continually work at). It's hard enough to do when all we're talking about is generating ideas for redesigning a mechanism. And this absolutely doesn't work (and shouldn't) for arguments - which is mostly what we do in this area of the board (which is a good thing - in my opinion).

Couple that with the problems of asynchronous communication that are present in a message board and I just don't want to go down that road. How many of our discussions devolve into a back and forth based on one sentence? (I'm guilty as charged).

I'd love to brainstorm on reasons why the hijackers did what they did. The simple, "they hate America and our freedom" just doesn't go far enough for me. But I'm not going to do it on a message board. If we were sitting down having a beer, it would be a different story.

So...

I wouldn't have said what Churchill did. That's about as far as I'll go.

This probably doesn't hang together well. I just wanted to quickly get back to you because you're absolutely right that I haven't addressed Churchill's statements. I'm not sure I would classify it as a deflection since I do think that there are organizations out there dedicated to identifying liberal academics and working to change, or bypass, the tenure process. I don't know if this qualifies as a vast right-wing conspiracy or not...

editted to add: There is no way in hell, in my mind, to justify the terrorists' actions on September 11th. Nobody deserves to die for any reason in my book. I just don't understand how they could justify it to themselves. And when I don't understand something I want to change that state.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 4, 2005 8:28 PM

Trying to make a rational point here...

I don't have the full text of what Churchill said, so I can't either defend or castigate it. It may be that what he said was "This is how THEY see it."

I personally don't condone the murder of innocent or even complicit civilians. If I did, then I would be calling for the execution of all Sunnis, since they benefitted from Saddam's rule whether they actively participated or not. But whatever ill we have done around the world has evoked a sense of emnity and outrage. And since we are a democracy, and the government does this with our tacit or explicit approval, we are therefore complicit with its actions and that was my point.

Does this mean we all deserve death? No. Does this mean we are innocent? No.

However, Auraptor is demonstrating a pretty obvious double standard here that is typical of the far right. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told some pretty damnable lies. So did Bush. So did Guckert. It just doesn't seem to ring any bells with Auraptor that those are consequential lies because THAT'S DIFFERENT (somehow). His emotions are clouding his reason.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 9:35 PM

Quote:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told some pretty damnable lies. So did Bush. So did Guckert. It just doesn't seem to ring any bells with Auraptor that those are consequential lies because THAT'S DIFFERENT (somehow). His emotions are clouding his reason.

Cite some lies, please. I'm all eyes.

(wonders what Bush or Guckert has to do w/ the issue of Tonto )

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, March 4, 2005 10:21 PM

I and others already did. You blew past them because they were "irrelevant" or something. Please read previous posts to find the info you requested.

RUE

Saturday, March 5, 2005 6:22 AM

Finn,

Don't be childish. You use words like: but, although, however, yet, still etc to negate what you said earlier.

A simple example: "Yes, but ... " translates as "No."

Most haven't formalized their perception of this use, but they understand it when they use it, and when it's used on them.

So the statement "I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children."

Let's see, what else .... Actually, if you go back and, you know, READ what I read, I said the baying right-wing vigilantes were calling for Churchill's dismissal NOT b/c of what he said, but b/c of how he got his job. Certainly you are part of that group.

But don't worry about your postings, or mine. I think most people here have well-founded ideas about you and what you stand for. There's not too much either of us could say to change them.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 5, 2005 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I and others already did. You blew past them because they were "irrelevant" or something. Please read previous posts to find the info you requested.

Not one has ever been posted. I'm beyond tired of this game, as well as this thread. I'm done w/ it.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Saturday, March 5, 2005 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Trying to make a rational point here...

I don't have the full text of what Churchill said, so I can't either defend or castigate it. It may be that what he said was "This is how THEY see it."

It's right here.

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

I had not read the entire thing either, until now. I don't believe that it could possibly be described as anything other than a "Rant". If this is a sample of Mr. Churchill's normal point of view, he makes even you and Rue look like knuckle-dragging ultra-rightwing neo-cons.

While I firmly respect Mr. Churchill's right to say whatever he wants, anyone with half an ounce of sense would have to know that such a screed would draw a negative response from a large portion of the public, not just the Right. My cynical side suggests that this was the plan, and that he wondered why it took so long.

I am having a hard time finding Mr. Churchill's curriculum vitae anywhere, although it is exhaustively discussed. Just google "ward churchill" "curriculum vitae" for a load of opinions. The American Indian Movement doesn't think much of him. http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 5, 2005 3:58 PM

Auraptor- Since your vision is selective to the point where you (apparently) literally can't even see printed words, how can you possibly respond to discussion in a meaningful way? All I can say is-

Don't let the door bump you on the way out.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 5, 2005 4:08 PM

Geezer- Hi.

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, March 6, 2005 9:30 AM

Hey Geezer! Good to see you around. Thanks for the link, I had only read excerpts before that.

I've been reading through it (in bits and pieces) and I have to say it does sound like a polemic. I wonder if Churchill might be projecting Indian-American relations onto current affairs a bit much.

It doesn't surprise me that AIM is not a fan of Churchill's. He's definitely one of those people who do not tone down their rhetoric for political expediency.

GEEZER

Sunday, March 6, 2005 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
...I've been reading through it (in bits and pieces) and I have to say it does sound like a polemic. I wonder if Churchill might be projecting Indian-American relations onto current affairs a bit much.

It doesn't surprise me that AIM is not a fan of Churchill's. He's definitely one of those people who do not tone down their rhetoric for political expediency.

Yep. Most of his publications I can find are pretty much takes on the "Evil White Man" theme. Not much on the traditional ethnic studies front. I'd be tempted to classify him as a one-note poseur who is intentionally provocative so he can gain the admiration of like-minded haters. A final determination requires more study.

Apparently several tribes and Native American organizations have been complaining to UC-Boulder for the past ten years or so about Churchill donning the mantle of noble defender of his oppressed kinsmen while not being able to provide any evidence that he is Indian at all.

I doubt he'll lose his job over this unless his resume was horribly padded. after all, the university wanted him so much that they hired him as a department head without the normal prerequisite of a doctorate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 12:13 AM

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

What I wonder is how this thread - which was speculation about what should be done to Churchill, based on speculation about CU hiring practices, based on speculation of Churchill's ancestry - could be seriously posted. There was not one ounce of fact about Churchill's heritage, and not one ounce of fact about how he got his position, and yet people (you know who you are) leapt to uncalled-for conclusions.

More interesting, substantiated and consequential, is the Guckert humiliation.

It's true he was NOT a journalist when he interviewed Ari Fleischer. How does something like that happen, when real journalists, even those who covered the WH for over 10 years, couldn't get an entry? And why was Guckert called-on so frequently? Of course Guckert should have resigned (he did). In addition, the speculation of how he got there and how he knew so many details ahead of time, is ample, and rightly so. And now he's under investigation about Plame, too. It just keeps getting better.

As to Churchill, the item below is interesting, if true. I'm willing to wait to see if this proves out.
http://nativenationsnet.net/

Quote:
Ward Churchill tests positive for Indigenous genetic markers.
Posted by: Admin on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 02:21 PM
by Ernesto Cienfuegos
La Voz de Aztlan
Los Angeles, Alta California - February 7, 2005 - (ACN) The results of a much awaited ancestry genetic test of embattled American Indian scholar Ward Churchill conclusively proves that the professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder is in fact of both Creek and Cherokee descent. Professor Churchill has recently been the victim of a campaign of disinformation claiming that he was not a Native American.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 11, 2005 7:16 AM

I'm shocked, shocked to see that no one from the right side of the aisle wants to talk about James Guckert.

BARNSTORMER

Friday, March 11, 2005 10:05 PM

Churchill admits he's not a Native American, and now it comes out he was accused of plagiarism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/

I promised myself I would'nt post in political threads anymore, but Churchill is such a D*ckhead, I could'nt resist.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

RUE

Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:13 AM

Quote:
Churchill admits he's not a Native American

Actually, what Churchill said was

Quote:
"I'm not a Native American, I'm an Indian."

Very different from your twisted half-*ssed version, you may have noticed.

And despite everything we know about Guckert, somehow, you can't bring yourself to call him a D*ckhead, though the idiom is refreshingly appropriate in his case.

BARNSTORMER

Monday, March 14, 2005 5:21 PM

You know, until I read your post, I had'nt heard that he was misquoted in Hawaii. My bad.

I read the retraction in the paper posted, so
what he did say was he was less than 1/4 Indian.
Zero is less than 1/4 isnt it?

All these real Indian groups seem to agree he is not an indian.....and have been petitioning CU to dump him for years. Mmmmmm.

How come you did'nt comment about the plagiarism Rue. Just curious mind you.

It's apparently not the first time he has done it, and not the first time he's threatened violence either.

It looks like he may lose his golden tenure parachute from CU due to the Plagiarism and threatening of the female Nova Scotia professor.
Not to mention his physical attack of the Journalist who dared to ask him about the Native American artwork he copied and passed off as his own. Or the female CU professor who was physically threatened by him on campus.

Why do you defend this Turd Rue?

By the way, what does Guckert have to do with the subject of this thread?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Monday, March 14, 2005 8:20 PM

Oooh, let me answer for Barstormer.

Because Guckert's lies, which gained him a professional position (White House reporter) is nothing like Churchill's lie, which MIGHT HAVE gained him a professional postion (professor). Because that's DIFFERENT. Guckert is cleaner. Guckert has an upstanding personal history. Guckert is clearly unbiased.

Actually, the interesting thing about Guckert is that he apparently knew things MONTHS in advance of White House annoucements, even months in adavcne of becoming a so-called White House reporter. Nothing like benefitting from a little pillow-talk, eh? So, who in the WH like boy toys, hmmmm? I think that's why the right doesn't want to talk about him.

BARNSTORMER

Monday, March 14, 2005 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oooh, let me answer for Barstormer.

Because Guckert's lies, which gained him a professional position (White House reporter) is nothing like Churchill's lie, which MIGHT HAVE gained him a professional postion (professor). Because that's DIFFERENT. Guckert is cleaner. Guckert has an upstanding personal history. Guckert is clearly unbiased.

Actually, the interesting thing about Guckert is that he apparently knew things MONTHS in advance of White House annoucements, even months in adavcne of becoming a so-called White House reporter. Nothing like benefitting from a little pillow-talk, eh? So, who in the WH like boy toys, hmmmm? I think that's why the right doesn't want to talk about him.

Wow SignyM,

Thats alot of innuendo you put in that post. Pillow talk? Boy toy?

You know, I really have'nt been following the Guckert deal closely at all. You make it sound very "Peyton Placeish". Maybe you should start your own internet rumor, call it "Faggot-gate" or something.

For some reason I just can't do the visual on Guckert and Condi.

How come no one will comment on the Churchill Plagarism deal? I mean after all, it included both written essays and works of art. Coupled with threats of violence if his accusers don't keep their mouths shut?

Never mind the 9/11 essay or the dubious ancestry, this turd is disgrace to his supposed profession.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:18 AM

CONDI???? Perhaps you haven't heard of Guckert's...er... predelictions? I was picturing Karl Rove; it's much more interesting that way.

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CONDI???? Perhaps you haven't heard of Guckert's...er... predelictions? I was picturing Karl Rove; it's much more interesting that way.

Hah!

I could'nt do a visual with Condi.....
but I don't WANT to do a Visual of Karl Rove..
Yech

Oh, God.....The Horror....The Horror...

I've heard of Guckerts "Predelictions". It seems to me that's his business, not mine.

But again, what about the plagiarism??????
Last I heard, that was real reason for dismissal from an educational post.

So, what do you think?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
How come no one will comment on the Churchill Plagarism deal? I mean after all, it included both written essays and works of art. Coupled with threats of violence if his accusers don't keep their mouths shut?

Never mind the 9/11 essay or the dubious ancestry, this turd is disgrace to his supposed profession.

Sort of telling isn’t? :D

It really puts things into perspective to see where some people’s priorities lie. Here we have the pedantic ramblings of a man who condones the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians based on some misguided fantasy of nationalistic pride. The psychosis of Hitler almost to the letter and some people can’t bring themselves to denounce this guy, apparently because he’s a fellow Left-winger. Instead they try to deflect the issue to the Right. The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all. It's telling. It's very telling.

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:27 PM

Yes, it is very telling is'nt it.

Of course they should be given the benefit of the doubt. They could be researching their responses after all.

Maybe....

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:01 PM

"The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all."

He didn't "sneak" into the White House, he was given clearance as a White House reporter even before he started working for the so-called news publication Talon (which itself is a front for the Republican Party).

As far as Churchill is concerned, you really just want to go after this guy because of WHAT HE SAID, not because of plagarism, or because he said he was an Indian, don't you? Conversely, it doesn't matter HOW hypocritical the whole Guckert situation is, the guy gets a pass because he's pro-Bush, right? It's called "conflating" issues- a favorite word of the right, look it up.

If you want to talk about what Churchill said, and you feel he should be nailed for it, fine. But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis. Whatever.

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all."

He didn't "sneak" into the White House, he was given clearance as a White House reporter even before he started working for the so-called news publication Talon (which itself is a front for the Republican Party).

As far as Churchill is concerned, you really just want to go after this guy because of WHAT HE SAID, not because of plagarism, or because he said he was an Indian, don't you? You just want to nail this guy for ANY reason. Conversely, it doesn't matter HOW hypocritical the whole Guckert situation is, the guy gets a pass because he's pro-Bush, right? It's called "conlfating" issues- a favorite word of the right, look it up.

If you want to talk about what Churchill said, and you feel he should be nailed for it, fine. But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis. Whatever.

Whoa SygnyM, Whoa

Temper now, watch the Temper. Did I twang a sensitive nerve there?

I never did present this as a "Plagiarism Horror story" as you put it. I was merely pointing out some additional facts about Ward Churchill that I felt were a good barometer of his character (meaning he has no character).

I've not tried to keep it a secret that I think Ward Churchill is a "Turd". Here, I'll say it again, under oath:

"I Barnstormer, do fully believe with all my heart that Ward Churchill is truly a TURD"

There, see, no secret agenda there.

I think it is really curious that it was 10 posts ago when I linked to the plagiarism/threats story and since then it's only now that I get a response from either you or Rue that even mentions it. And when YOU do, it's to lash out and call me stupid, and accuse me of having a hidden agenda.

************************************************
SygnyM wrote:

But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis.
********************************************

You don't have an agenda????????

I'm not the one who tried to sidetrack the discussion by insinuating that Karl Rove was having a homosexual relationship with Guckert in order to get WH press passes.

If anyone could use some "Intellectual Rigor", you might want to look in the mirror to see who that might be.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:05 PM

Nah, you didn't touch a nerve. Actually, I'm taking a crack at right-wing-style argumentation. I find it strangely freeing to be able to dish out innuendo, red-herrings, and ad hominem arguments with abandon. After you stooped to calling Churchill a "turd" (a laser-like perception which opens up all kinds of avenues for thoughful debate) hearing you complain about my lack of rigor is pretty funny. So, to reply in kind- Bush is JERK. Nyah nyah nyah.

Did you look up "conflate"?

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:37 PM

SygnyM,

You keep dodging the question....
Dodging to the left I might add.

After finding out about Wards other transgressions, what do you think of his professional integrity now????????????

That was after all the entire point of MY post.
So far, your responses have been nothing but raging adolescent innuendo, insults, and defiance of answering a simple question.

How old are you by the way? I hope I'm not having this inane discussion with a junior high school student. It would however explain alot about the way you chose to post.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

RUE

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:29 PM

Quote:
I read the retraction in the paper posted, so what he did say was he was less than 1/4 Indian. All these real Indian groups seem to agree he is not an indian.....and have been petitioning CU to dump him for years. Mmmmmm.

Quote:
It is not unusual for Americans who have some Native American blood, but whose families live within the mainstream community and who know their heritage only from family tradition, to encounter difficulty proving their ethnicity to the satisfaction of administrators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

It used to be that 1/4 Indian was the federal rule for being considered Indian (1/8 for females), but I believe the tribes now decide who is and isn't Indian.
As an example - there are many people with majority Indian blood - the freed slaves who went to live with the Seminoles way back when around the Civil War, if I remember correctly - who have lived with and intermarried with the Indians, and lived on the reservation with the Indians for the last ~140 yrs, who are not now considered Indian. (I think it was an effort to cut them out of the Indian gaming bonanza.)
But Churchill didn't claim to be a blood member. He was an 'enrolled' Indian - at one point he was admitted to the Cherokee tribe as a non-blood member, but that program was later terminated.
I personally know two people (one of whom appears Black, the other Hispanic) with substantial Indian blood, who nevertheless are not members of any Indian tribe.
Finally, I posted a story (above) which indicated Churchill has Indian genetic markers from both sides of the family tree. If it is true, he does have Indian ancestry.

Quote:
How come you did'nt comment about the plagiarism Rue. Just curious mind you.

Because, like a lot of things said about Churchill, at this point it's only an allegation. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about things that may not be true. I'm willing to wait to see if they prove out.

Of all the things said about Churchill and CU - not qualified, not an Indian, plagary, threats, corrupt hiring etc, I haven't seen any proof. Perhaps you could point the way?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:36 PM

Of course he can't point the way- because he deals in allegations and innuendo.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:41 PM

I’ll take another stab at this and try a different approach (and jump into the middle of things since, by the time I finished working on this entry, more posts accumulated).

Before the brouhaha erupted, if you would’ve asked me to name some authors associated with Native American ethnic studies I could’ve only come up with three names off the top of my head: Ward Churchill, Vine Deloria, and Sherman Alexie (and Alexie, as an author of fiction, is more along the lines of Native American literature). I haven’t read any of these authors extensively (and Churchill, not at all). Their names are imprinted in my head through conversations with people who are more conversant with Native American ethnic studies. I’m more interested in Chicano/Chicana studies myself, specifically of the California variety (call me self-centered ). This is more self-educational reading on my part completely unrelated to my field of study and endeavor in mechanical engineering design.

Ethnic studies work, in general, is not valued by the majority of Americans (bold sweeping generalization). We tend to like our history neat – black hats and white hats and to the victor go the spoils. By presenting a point of view sometimes in contradiction to our accepted historical narrative (manifest destiny, bringing the light of civilization to the savages, the only good Indian is a dead Indian, etc.- to focus more on Native American studies for the purpose of this discussion) scholars are walking into cultural minefields. Many people see no need to learn anything about the multiple points of view of minority groups and actually feel threatened when those views are discussed. There is resistance because that’s not the way these people learned their history. I personally think this is a close-minded approach. It’s like saying that the British narrative is the only valid point of view for all things related to Northern Ireland. (And that’s assuming that there is a coherent monolithic British narrative).

A common complaint of those who dislike ethnic studies in general is that their point of view (the majority historical narrative) is not given equal treatment. Hence, the push for the misleadingly named Academic Bill of Rights (which is an attack, not just on Ethnic Studies, but a large number of other fields of study). They want to force those who teach in this field to give equal time to the majority viewpoint. This is the height of arrogance. The whole point of ethnic studies is to provide a counter, a space where minority viewpoints are discussed. It reminds me of an old joke that I was reminded of recently. A kid asks their parent, “There’s a Mother’s day and a Father’s day. How come there’s no Children’s day?” The parent responds, “Because every day is Children’s day.”

So that’s one push against those doing research in Ethnic Studies. Another push comes from groups who want to change the nature of academia in general. A belief from many on the right is that universities are hotbeds of liberalism. I concede that the percentage of liberals found in academia is probably higher than the percentage of liberals found in the overall population but I also think these people are overstating the case. They see this rampant liberalism as a threat and are trying to change what they see as an undesirable situation. So we see groups, such as Lynn Cheney’s, identifying those academics they see as too liberal.

All of this is background. This is where I’m coming from at the start of this conversation. I’m skeptical in general of any attack against an academic in the field of ethnic studies and tend to see it as part of a larger narrative of coordinated effort among various conservative groups to remove people they deem as a threat. I’ve mentioned previously that none of this furor from the right erupts if Ward Churchill is not who he is. He was already a target. The goal is to remove him from his position. So it doesn’t matter what rationale is used, as long as one works. And he’s provided a lot of good ammunition to his

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:13 PM

Rue

Down at the bottom of this link is the admission by Ward Churchill himself that he copied the painting in question. The owner of the copyright to the original painting denies any permission was given to anyone, ever, to copy any of this artists work.

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

Also, from that same link is a video of Ward wailing on the reporters who asked about the copying of the painting.

See the msnbc link in my previous post for the copied essay he passed off as his own after being denied permission from the actual writer of the essay.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE