| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,979 Views) | |
| sylley2000 | Feb 11 2005, 08:56 PM Post #166 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
It's my understanding that he did indeed write it in on his own time. I don't have access to all 24 of the books that he has written or the 70 articles that he published in journals, but I suspect that he is an admirable teacher judging by students who have been in his class and have defended him. What is your concept of teaching "ethnic studies" properly? Ethnic studies is about the whole world, not just the United States -- he would have to have a global perspective to teach those subjects with any depth of understanding. Sylvia If you took a course in ethnic studies how might you apply that in professions or in real life? Would it have any use? |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Feb 11 2005, 09:00 PM Post #167 |
|
Member
|
Teaching properly: Using fair and correct analogies, using acurate facts and not twisting the truth to make your argument stronger. He did not do this in his essay. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 11 2005, 09:02 PM Post #168 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
It was a rough draft, iirc, for a book he later wrote. But that does not release him from responsibility for intellectual honety. And that's the trouble, unless you can show him dishonest, purposely dishonest, how can you decide? I may truly believe Ford trucks are better than Chevy or Dodge, and be honest in voicing that opinion. You might then point out some fact I did not know and reveal to me a new truth that I would later repeat elsewhere. Was I initially being intellectually dishonest? You might show where his statements are false, obviously so, and then claim that, given his position as a porfessor, he should do due diligence in checking his facts so he can support them. But that is not fraud. If you could show he plagiarized, that would be fraud and likely breach his contract. I realize that is verging on legalities. To justifiy your feelings of insult you needn't go anywhere near that far. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Feb 11 2005, 09:08 PM Post #169 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Here is one syllabus of a course in ethnic studies: http://www.jsu.edu/depart/library/graphic/ethnic.htm That requires in-depth knowledge about a lot of cultures, their government structures, their constitutions and laws as well as an understanding of how their culture impacts their structures and constitutions. Culture is very inclusive -- it would include their religion, and their customs. Sylvia One day, I hope to have enough time to take such a course...have always been interested in modern history. I know I wouldn't run to the door if the professor compared some aspect of my culture to what happened in Nazi Germany. I would hope I could learn from the mistakes that were made from another culture, another time, that 'may' be making its way into mine. I.e. have a look at American present laws about giving up your rights vis-a-vis programmes that have been put into place to apprehend terrorists in the United States and you will see parallels between it and what the Nazi's did that allowed Natzism to become a power in Germany. Having said that, "No, No, No ... I am not saying that America is becoming Natzified!!!" |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2005, 12:03 AM Post #170 |
|
Member
|
You keep calling him a moron and saying you have appointed out his mistakes yet you have not pointed out any mistakes by the editor. What the Prof said is quite clear. You want to change it to mean something else. Well you can’t do that. You don’t know enough about him to tell us what he was thinking. We have to rely on what he said.
I attempted to hide nothing. You DID NOT explain anything. You simply said what you “thought” he meant and tried to give an analogy. If you had read enough of what the Prof has said about this event you would realize the analogy he was trying to make in his own words given in an interview one on one in Boulder. I will explain it to you and maybe you will understand. Here is once again exactly what he said: “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.” Now it isn’t really difficult to know what he is saying as it is very clear. He says he would like to know a better way to inflict penalties on the inhabitants of the twin towers, who he called “little Eichmanns, rather than the way the penalty was inflicted. You don’t have to be a genius to understand this. What YOU don’t understand or haven’t read was his explanation of what he meant during the interview he gave in Boulder. He uses the term “little Eichmanns” to refer to the inhabitants of the twin towers who “killed 500,000 little children in Iraq”. Because they did not do the damage of 3,000,000 Jews Eichmann was directly responsible for and the other 3,000,000 Jews who died under his planning, he referred to each of them as “little Eichmanns”. Now you can say that he isn’t saying little Nazis all you want to but we all know Eichmann was a Nazi of the worst sort and that is what Churchill meant. You talk about two editors on a “rant.” Strange you would think that. I don’t think that at all. I think it is much more obvious Churchill was the one ranting and raving. He seems to do that in all his writings. Apparently it is his style. Also you keep saying you have shown the facts to be wrong and you have NOT shown the facts to be wrong. Maybe you think they are wrong but you have not shown that. You are quick to ask someone else to prove something but when you prove something, you just “say” it. Just as if your word was final. You don’t prove anything…
On the contrary, you haven’ proven anything, just attempted to “explain” why they were wrong. Why can’t we just read what he says? Should we have to interpret everything he says?
Excuse me but Eichmann WAS a convicted Nazi who was executed for his crimes and Churchill specifically referred to the “inhabitants of the twin towers.” Are we all missing something here? Are you changing history or something. You have said several times now Eichmann was not a convicted Nazi but I know you know better than that. Your explanation of what happened defies belief. I just can’t understand how you arrive at your conclusions. There is no validity of your mental acceptance of the words written by this man. You accuse me of twisting your writings but I say to you that is not necessary. You do quite well twisting your own statements. I don’t have to twist what you say in this case. You are so far off base it is beginning to get comical. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2005, 12:33 AM Post #171 |
|
Member
|
|
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2005, 07:50 AM Post #172 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Well, Cal, let's try this one more time, because you just don't get it. This is what I pointed out. The editor says this: "I think it's fair to state that a majority of reasonable Americans find Churchill's contention - that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were justified and the victims weren't innocent but rather Nazis - reprehensible." That's what you keep repeating. However the professor does not say that. The professor does not call 9/11 victims anything. And he doesn't use the word Nazis. The editor claims that, you claim that but it is false misrepresentation to rant about someone hating American. What the professor did was compare some of those in the towers to "little Eichmanns". You already agreed to this interpretation in your Feb 11 2005, 04:54 PM comment on the Goldburg editorial: "I had read this piece and I agree with everything he said." Goldberg said: "it came out that he had written an essay comparing the civilian victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns."" That is not what the editor claimed. It is not what you initially claimed, then changed your mind, now change it again--flip flopping like Kerry, or Bush, take your pick. It is semantically impossible to start with the specific Eichmann and meaningfully arrive at general Nazis. That's the same as saying All Eichmanns are Nazis or All Nazis are Eichmanns. That is logically preposterous. Conversely, you cannot say a group of people are an Eichmann. Not all are men, not all are German, not all speak German, etc etc etc. Only Eichamann is Eichmann. It is logical baloney to go further. Rather, it was a comparison, an analogy, and was simply not name calling or equating. Analogy (dictionary.com) is "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." The task then remains to distinguish those similarities from the dissimilarities. And you are not free to imaginatively invent meanings, but must restrict yourself to what the author said, supporting that with what he has said on the matter elsewhere. That is what I have done when I pointed out the similarity the professor drew on what technocrats--his word, not mine--who support the American empire, one support the Pentagon, the other Wall Street. As he says in his essay, when questioning innocence: "There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly." That is, Cal, the context that supplies meaning to the simple, single similarity he is drawing attention to in his little Eichmanns analogy. You say I never pointed this out but indeed I did in my Feb 8 2005, 12:37 PM argument against the professor: "I agree with your interpretation of his analogy. It is such a simple analogy. And simply wrong. It is a socialist view. Even Bin Laden with his fascist view is wrong in his similarly seeing the capital of the free market world as part of his enemy. It is the only friend liberal democracy has with which to survive and exand." To fully grasp what I was saying you have to include the context of what I was agreeing with, Alan's Feb 8 2005, 09:43 AM post: "This guy is a tenured professor who makes an incorrect analogy between accountants, programmers, and marketing people in the financial industry and Adolf Eichman." Unless you can ground your fancifully fabricated interpretation on the text of the essay, Cal, it is simply and plainly bullshit. I rest my case. I refuse to answer your incessant ranting repetition of that bullshit. Argue with Alan. Argue with Goldberg. Continue your rant all you want. All newly started threads on this topic will be merged here. Flooding the forum is considered a form of baiting and merging threads a pain in the ass, so I suggest you limit your self to adding to this topic by adding to this thread. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2005, 11:43 AM Post #173 |
|
Member
|
I knew you would have the final word. It is apparent from your postings you will not allow any other views to prevail so I will have to give up. I can not compete with your twistings and explanations of what the professor said. Most people can read it for themselves and understand what happened. The same thing happens in every thread with which you disagree. Not just this one. I believe however, that others see what you are doing. That is why I have continued to point these things out to you. It seems you don't really read what is posted or else don't understand it. It is amusing to see the "robotic" responses of those who believe you can do no wrong. It is also encouraging to see that not everyone follows your line of reasoning. It appears to me that you have an "Asian-American" point of view on most everything. But I'll turn my attention elsewhere until something new develops in the Churchill case. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2005, 12:41 PM Post #174 |
|
Member
|
"And just who do you think on this forum is "objective?" You obviously dismiss Chris as non-objective and it is even more obvious that you are no where near to an objective state. Just to whom are you referring as "objective?" Lowell, it is obvious I am not talking about you. You are about as far left as I am to the right. I do believe there are a few on this forum who are objective however. I just think they are afraid to speak because they know they will be attacked by the "rulers" of this forum. And before you ask, I am talking about those who are NEVER wrong and ALWAYS expect their word to be final just because they said it. You know who they are. It is not necessary for me to list them. You know I am not objective but you should admit I manage to bring out all sides of an argument..That doesn't always happen on this forum. Many really good subjects get shot down before the discussion really begins. It comes from people thinking they have the final authority on everything. Maybe I am just a maverick but I get results in my own way... |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Feb 12 2005, 01:20 PM Post #175 |
![]()
Member
|
|
|
Jim Pennsylvania in the Summer Florida in the Winter | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2005, 01:21 PM Post #176 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
:kiss: |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Feb 12 2005, 01:47 PM Post #177 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Oh, please may I be on your bad list? That would be an honour--somehow, I think my username would be close to the top!!! I can't thank you enough for excluding me from your list of favourite members! And I'm not speaking as a facilitator ... just as a person who happens to be a member of this board. Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| pentax | Feb 12 2005, 02:25 PM Post #178 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
Well actually, Sir, I think it might be quite helpful if you WOULD do us the favour of listing the "robotic Rulers" - I, for one, would like to know if I am on your esteemed list. And if so, Sir, you can fully expect me to take umbrage at that form of Elitism.... |
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Feb 12 2005, 02:38 PM Post #179 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
This is quite a lively discussion over here.
I've been following the series of articles in the Denver Post about this situation and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Churchill will be dismissed. Not for his "bomb throwing" but because he has falsified his background, engaged in plagerism and deliberate misrepresentation of source material, called for violence in his classroom and retaliated against student(s) who challenged him. All are ground for dismissal of a tenure professor on the grounds of academic incompetence and misconduct. For sure, it shows that if you are going to toss bombs, better make sure you are bomb proof first. What I also find interesting about this case is that even cursory checking on the part of those who hired him would have apparently raised warning flags all over the place about Churchill's education, ethnic claims and writings. As this is definitely a part of the inquiry by the Board of Regents, it will be interesting to see how the College explains hiring and promoting him. We're hearing a lot about professors' rights of free speech and "academic" freedom but precious little about taxpayers rights not to employ people who advocate/support/endorse the killing of said taxpayers and the end of this country. And the University of Colorado is definitely a public entity as I detailed with revenue numbers over on The Breach. Does the public have to tolerate the employment of people in governmental entities who advocate/support/condone terrorists who are trying to kill the public? I hope not. In a more general sense, I would suggest this to those of you here that seem to advocate free speech no matter what. History is replete with examples where freedoms have been lost because of wanton abuse. Society as a whole can only be pushed so far, and when pushed too far they tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. This situation is analogous to stepping out in front of a speeding car because, "Hey, I have the right of way." Yep, you did and now you're dead right. Real smart. Dan |
![]() |
|
| cruiser | Feb 12 2005, 03:14 PM Post #180 |
![]()
Member
|
I don't concern myself with freedom of speech, I happen to enjoy the teaching of prof's who are PROVOCATIVE. IT MAKES PEOPLE AND COLLEGE STUDENTS THINK. Maybe not for junior high mushheads, but for college a must. Meaning #1: serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; stimulating discussion or exciting controversy Antonym: unprovocative (meaning #1) |
|
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |













8:22 AM Jul 11