Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children
Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,985 Views)
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
Cal,

I don't necessarily agree that he should be fired. Perhaps he should be demoted to the custodial staff where he can't do any harm. :floorrollin:
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Cal "Finally, someone else who is not afraid to speak the truth."

As you see it. As he sees it. Am I not allowed to speak the truth as I see it? And Alan? And Sylvia. And others? Why are you trying so desparaely to stop that?


Cal "It has been apparent on this forum for quite a while that the pseudo-intellectuals want to remain in complete control and NEVER admit being wrong."

Nice name calling: "pseudo-intellectuals". It is very familiar. Why are you so desparately trying to stop others from saying what they see as the truth?

Complete control? Am I trying to stop you from speaking the truth as you see it? Could you point out when and where?

What I am doing is simple. You started a topic on a forum indicating you wished to discuss it. You expressed the truth as you saw it. When others came along and expressed the truth as they see it but disagreeing with you, instead of engaging in discussion you repeat the arguments of those you agree with and attack those you disagree with--distoring their statements, misrepresenting their intentions, employing innuendo when challenged, and calling people names.

Why are you so desparately trying to stop others from saying what they see as the truth?


Cal "I HAVE admitted being wrong before but I am not wrong here."

Everyone does that. Good for you. Is saying what you see as the truth and defending your position not admitting you're wrong? Or is it attempting to engage in discussion of the issue?


Cal "I agree with the constitutional right of free speech but not to the extension some would like to see it. It does not cover free expression for example or burning an American flag, etc."

This is exactly what I have argued. You want to limit free speech, or to use your words "free expression".

I would agree with you that it is unfortunate flag buring is included in free speech.


Cal "Where is the constitutional right to work for a University?"

It isn't. No one is talking about that. What we are talking about is the academic freedom enjoyed in or colleges and universities since the first were constructed, as opposed to the repression of that in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, among other tyrannical governments.


Cal "Where is the constitutional right to spew hate to students in a controlled environment while being paid by their parents?"

Loaded question. Unravel all its hidden implications. With regard this incident, was the prof paper read in class? Assigned as homework? Moreover, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this hate in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.


Cal "Where is the constitutional right to get tax payers money while calling them ALL cowards and murderers and wishing them harm?"

This is off topic so I don't know one way or another. However, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.


Cal "You can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater. There is no constitutional right to do that. You do not have a right to call for murder. You do not have the right to excuse murders."

Agreed. This is off topic so I don't know one way or another. However, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.

Cal "Governor Owens says he can be removed because of numerous reasons. He has been called a plagiarist. That is one ground to fire him. If it is proven he is not an Indian, he can be removed. If he is shown to have a lack of integrity, he can be removed. If he is shown to have professional incompetence he can be removed. He is under very careful scrutiny now and he should be."

If these things are his contract and it is shown he broke that contract, then he as anyone breaking a contract should be fired. Somewhat irrelevant to the issue though.


Cal "He called every one of us cowards and especially referred to our young men fighting in Iraq."

This is off topic so I don't know one way or another. However, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. Simply saying it's so doesn't make it so. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.


Cal "Get this guy out of the job we are paying him to do and let him go to any street corner in America and say whatever he wants to say. Of course he wouldn't do that. The first U.S. Marine that came along would take care of him quickly, or just about any veteran of any of our wars."

Very ominous and somewhat threatening tone.

But I ask, the same Marine who just fought and maybe lost a buddy doing so for the very freedom you wish to deny? Not likely.


Cal "If you read his essay carefully you will find he is, in effect, including us all in his "cowards" statements. He calls the people who bought tickets on an airplane to go home to see their family cowards. He calls everyone involved cowards except the real cowards, the terrorists. He calls the clerks who were simply trying to make a living working in the twin towers cowards."

This is off topic so I don't know one way or another. However, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.


Cal "He said he wants the U.S. out of North America. He says he wants the U.S. off the planet, the U.S. out of our lives. He also said in the same speech that more 9/11s were necessary."

This is off topic so I don't know one way or another. However, without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation.


Cal "Where does he condemn the mass graves and torture chambers we found in Iraq? Where is his condemnation of Saddam Hussein when he killed 10,000,000 of his own people in the 35 years he has been in power? Where was this guy when Saddam gassed his own people? It wasn't America that invaded Kuwait. It wasn't America who stored their weapons and ammunition in schools and mosques so they would not be bombed."

Agreed. His world view is very narrow.


Cal "The only people defending this guy are the few that feel Academia is merely a platform for them to do or say anything they want. Notice how there are certain people who always defend such subjects. They are in the minority. The problem is that some of those that disagree with them will not speak out against them for fear of being attacked."

This must be a general statement for it is untrue on this forum and in this thread: No one has defended him that I recall. I can say that I have not defended him. I defend free speech and academic freedom from those who would limit it like you--your words: "I agree with the constitutional right of free speech but not to the extension some would like to see it."

I am curious whether you could draw a line and apply it without moral relevance to all.


Cal "Ward Churchill has no right to show his blazing hostility toward the entire concept of America as a subsidized teacher of young people. He should be fired and then let him go to work for Michael Moore as a speech writer or script writer. He would fit right in. Michael Moore can well afford to pay him much more than he currently makes."

Churchill is as wrong-headed in his world view, I believe, as Moore. But free speech gives then the right to say what they say. And academic freedom gives Churchill the right to write that essay and continue to teach.


The ball is in your court, Cal, to show us in his essay where any of your claims hold true. The Nazi claim as well--or have you dropped that claim? You need to establish that before arguing limiting free speech.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jim Miller
Feb 9 2005, 11:51 AM
Sylvia, I agree with you that President Bush is a RINO. For some reason Chris gets his nickers in a knot when you call someone that. Better be careful! Naw, never mind. Have at it, you are a favorite daughter.

Finally getting back to this nonsense--busy day at work.

Calling Bush a RINO or Kennedy a killer or any public figure a name here is perfectly fine. There is nothing against or simple rules about that. Well, unless, you do it constantly just to bait people to anger.

However, calling members here any name is considered against one of our three simple rules, specifically flaming. As I have explained, the reason it is a rule is it is such uncivil expression detracts from members feeling free to express their opinions and ideas--detracts if it is not a deliberate attempt to disrupt discussion by someone lacking simple arguments and desperate to just shut others up.

This and our other two simple rules are applied to everyone, even me--yes, I have been so advised. Most members here understand it and never need to be asked not to break those simple rules. There are some who do, it's normal, natural; but most of those members who on occasion do need to be asked or advised to stop and even undo, respond with an apology and appreciation for the civility we try to maintain here in our discussions on the forum.

It is really quite simple but my guess from your repeatedly bringing your example of calling members names, you do not understand that. Well, I cannot help that, it is your choice whether or not you join in and contribute to a civil discussion.

As for RINO, while some like you continue to use it disparagingly, the way it was perhaps 10 years ago, it has already been explained here as a badge of honor more and more for those fiscal conservative going against if not breaking from the social conservatives not ruining the Republican Party. Since I agree much with the former and disagree much with the latter, why would that get my nickers in a knot.

Moreover, calling members names as you have in the past does not get my knockers in a knot, I simply point out where I see flaming and ask or advise it be stopped. That is my responsibility here in my role as admin.

Given the fact that it was, what, 3 months ago since I asked you not to call members names and you went elsewhere whining about it, but still in this thread now continue raise a fuss about it, I have to ask whose knockers are in a knot?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
Feb 9 2005, 12:03 PM
Jim...I don't think your being fair to Chris. He is just saying the guys should not lose his job for his extreme views. He said several times that he thought Ward was wrong.

I, of course, think that he should loose his job, but because of tenure, it doesn't matter what I think, he can legally keep his job. I think tenure is a bad thing, and Ward is a good example why.

Ward has a right to say what he said. We do have free speech in the USA. He should not be suprised when he gets death threats. He deserves them for his irresponsible statements.

You have to understand, Ward insulted me personally. I want to punch his face in, for comparing me to a nazi. I won't do it though, because he is just spouting words out of his big mouth, and doesn't really deserve a beating.

He does deserve to loose his job though. Why?
1. For saying something stupid, when, as a professor, he should be saying smart things.
2. For saying something imfamitory. Imagine he compared gays to nazis instead of people in the financial services industry. Do you think he would still have his job then?

Where I work, I would get fired for saying what he said. I do not have tenure, and I have to watch what I say.

Alan, finally, some discussion with substance. Wanted to reply earlier but you know how software projects go, wait, rush, wait, rush. You're lucky if yours don't. Anyway....

You are correct, I think the prof wrong in his views but do not believe he should lose his job for it for the sake of free speech and academic freedom afforded to those who earn tenure.

I also agree the prof should not be surprised at the reaction. His rhetoric is a little too subtely nuanced for the public arena--just look at Gore or Kerry. I don't believe it is in an academic setting where his paper likely met with a great deal of substantive disagreement similar to your argument against his view. I remember sitting in on many a forum at the university where such discussions and debates took place. That is the purpose of universities.

I can understand your belief he should lose his position for his extreme views. My only argument is that would threaten tenure for anyone with extreme, extreme? different views--just because you disagree with them, eventually, yours--a weak slippery slope argument but I think you get what I'm getting at.

I just don't see how you can measure that without including views you might agree with but I might disagree with. As I asked Cal, what line would you draw you could apply in a morally absolute way?

I do, however, definitely disagree that he insulted you personally or that he called anyone a Nazi. The nature of analogy does not stretch that far.

Had he compared gays to Nazis I would argue the exact same. He would be wrong to say it but have the right to say it.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Much of what this guy has to say, from my point of view, in many ways resembles the southbound effluent of a northbound horse, but he got me to think and he is correct that many of our foreign policy positions and actions do have consequences to other nations and ourselves.

Should he be fired? His course(s) do not appear to be compulsory so no student is being forced to endure his class. What law says that all professors of history and such must teach what the current politic party in powers version of the world is? Sounds kind of totalitarian to me, kind of like history in Russia used to be, but this would make the Red Guard of the Republican Party happy so let’s hang the guy
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/ar...3534140,00.html

That is the latest article concerning Professor Ward Churchill.

Chronology of this controversy with links to articles:

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/archive...=ward_churchill

It will be a sad day for academic freedom and of speech, when a professor who has written more than 24 books and 70 chapter contributions to other publications, is intimated by pundits vandalizing his car and making death threats against his life.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Chris

You keep saying "show us where he said those things" and I have posted with highlights what he has said numerous times as has others. You are still saying he didn't call anyone Nazis.

Have you even read the essay? You couldn't have read it and still ask those questions. I printed the entire thing on this forum hoping everyone would read it. It seems from your remarks you have not. If you have read it then you don't believe he "really meant what he said."

Which is it? have you read the essay?

Practically the entire state of Colorado thinks he has gone too far. We will have to wait for the Board of Regents to act to see the final results. It will be a sad day for Academia if he is allowed to stay.
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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Cal, you could post the entire essay again. Simply posting it does not show him calling anyone Nazi. It is for you to show how linguistically you start with an analogy of technocrats with little Eichmanns, and arrive at his calling all 9/11 victims Nazis.

It is not in what you quote. It is in your head. Apparently it is in Jim's too. At least he tried to show how by insisting it's because Eichmann was a Nazi. However, that does not work linguistically, analogy does not work that way. And the theme of the paper--the context, something like what Alan (abrad) has stated it, what th prof stated in a later interview, simply does not support that argument.

Of course I have read the entire essay, and his remarks to his detractors, and his remarks at a recent rally in support--not of his opinion but academic freedom. Proof of my reading can be found in my post agreeing with Alan, phasing it in my words, arguing with it, and presenting my own view in opposition.

Did you not read that? Apparently not because you keep saying I am defending him, which is utter nonsense. It is putting words in my mouth I did not utter, the same as putting Nazi into his essay.

What's even more nonsense is you asking me a question about reading the essay and then answering for me, and then going so far as restate your question as an accusation. How do you manage to argue all that from unknowns?

One wonders whether you read it, since the only thing you have said about the entire essay is he called 9/11 victims Nazis--which is not even there.

There you go again: "Practically the entire state of Colorado thinks...." My previous reply to all your outrageous accusations requested: "without fallacious appeals to authority or popularity do us all the favor of showing us this claim in his paper or his subsequent explanations. If you cannot, this is a misrepresentation."

That is exactly what you have done to me. You accuse me of not reading the essay--when clearly I have. You accuse me of defending the prof--when clearly I have argued against him. You accuse me of controlling what you say--when clearly I have not. You accuse me of saying Eichmann was not a Nazi--when clearly I did not. Do you want more examples? Challenged, you fail to substantiate any accusation against me or the prof.

It is pure innuendo, hoping some fool will come along and buy it. You attempt to use the same tactic to discredit me as you do with the prof. It doesn't work because it is so transparent and easy to expose. Do you think members here, "the pseudo-intellectuals" as you name call them, are so stupid?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
May as well give it up Cal. It is his sandbox. You lose! What the professor said has no relevance. It is only what Chris wants it to mean that has any importance or relevance here. Because someone calls the 9/11 victims little Eichmanns certainly cannot mean they were Nazis. :floorrollin:

I wonder if he said "The President should be shot." would fall under the guise of freedom of speech? :dunno:
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jim, I have just explained why your parsing and interpretation--and it is yours and an interpretation--fails. I will go into further detail if necesaary but I doubt you are interested. It has nothing to do with me, seemingly your real interest, it has to do with the way language works.

What is it, Jim, that you cannot do more to address the issue being discussed that to repeat what others say, that he called 9/11 victims Nazis? Go back over your posts. That is all you have said, jumped on the bandwagon of what others say. Repeating does not add substance to the discussion.

What is it, Jim, that 90% of what you have said in the thread is not even about the issue but about participants in the discussion? None of that adds substance to the discussion. Continually insulting me simply shows you to be an insulting person.

Now you pose a question, an aspect of this issue that has already been raised by Cal and annswered by me. Why don't you give shot at answering it and then showing the relevance to the prof's essay?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
You are right Chris. You win. :floorrollin:
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jim, it is my contention that no one ever wins an argument on the Internet. You simply present your opinion and do the best you can to back it up while you challenge others to do the same. Some do, some refuse, some can't.


Quote:
 
Feb 6 2005, 03:53 PM "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."

Wasn't Eichmann a Nazi?


Feb 6 2005, 04:52 PM Wasn't his explanations that you quoted offered after all of the backlash that he received? Too little, too late! I will take him at his original word and not his frenzied back-pedaling. "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."


Feb 6 2005, 09:40 PM
Report Post Where did I say that he had no right to say what he said? I just answered your question..."Help us out, where exactly is he "comparing victims of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis"? He called them little Eichmanns, Eichmann was a Nazi. Not too hard to figure out now is it.

"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."

That is not quoted out of context. Those are his words and not my interpretation. If you don't like it, too bad. Neither do I.

You seem to accept his belated back-pedaling explanation that was used to try to cover his ass rather than his original words. Why?


Feb 8 2005, 09:14 AM :floorrollin:


Feb 9 2005, 07:04 AM I think Cal's, and all of those other people, points are well taken. Call 9/11 victims little Eichmanns is free speech but call someone a RINO is blasphemy. You crack me up Chris. Am I allowed to say that?


Feb 9 2005, 11:46 AM I am not back-pedaling Chris.  Eichman was a Nazi.  Not to hard for someone of low intellect like myself to figure it out.  I know, Kerry wasn't a war criminal either.  Go figure.  Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha.  :floorrollin:  You crack me up.  With your logic, it is hard to take you seriously, so I won't.


Feb 9 2005, 11:51 AM Sylvia, I agree with you that President Bush is a RINO. For some reason Chris gets his nickers in a knot when you call someone that. Better be careful! Naw, never mind. Have at it, you are a favorite daughter.


Feb 9 2005, 01:21 PM abradf2519,

I don't recall ever saying the guy should lose his job either and I agree he has a right to speak his mind.  Along with rights comes responsibilities.  He should be held responsible for his words as I have been held accountable for mine.  To Chris it is ok to call someone a little Eichmann (who just happened to be a Nazi Chris).

Cal,

"I believe it is simply the fact that you never can be wrong... "  BINGO!  Nail on the head. ect., etc., etc..    :clap:    :clap:    :clap:    :clap:



Feb 9 2005, 04:30 PM Cal,

I don't necessarily agree that he should be fired.  Perhaps he should be demoted to the custodial staff where he can't do any harm.  :floorrollin:


That's the entirety of your posts in this thread. Green the substance of your argument. Attacking the messenger, Chruchill. Attacking the messenger, me.

If you weren't so busy attacking messengers, you'd see the only disagreement you have with what I have said is whether he made an analogy or called names. And your only defense of your contention is the self-annihilating contradiction that you will take him at his word but you will not, the essense of your attacking him in blue. Otherwise, you agree with what you found so offensive in my asking, that he should not be fired, and that he should be responsible for what he says. That's essentially what I'm saying. But caught up in attacking me you agree with Cal and thereby disagree with yourself.

You win, no, you lose, you beat yourself.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Just to put some of this in perspective, Mike Littwin, who writes for the Rocky Mountain News, pretty well nails the situation when he says "Now, it's all Ward Churchill, all the time."

Quote:
 
February 10, 2005

Let's see if we can deconstruct the situation as it stands today.

Ward Churchill wrote an essay on 9/11 in which he uses the term "little Eichmanns" to describe the victims, or at least some of the victims, at the World Trade Center.

He used this term, we'll assume, understanding the reaction it might provoke. (See: Prince Harry and his swastika.)

He used it - just guessing here - because it's provocative and he's a provocateur and he had something he thought was important to say: that the 9/11 attacks were the inevitable result of U.S. foreign policy.

And, by being provocative - does anyone, even Churchill, really believe that selling bonds at Cantor Fitzgerald rises to the Eichmann "banality of evil" level? - he thought someone might pay attention.

Let's just say it didn't work.

The article in question - written on 9/11 - became an article that no one took the time to question, or even notice.

Why?

Maybe because the argument wasn't well argued. Maybe, it was, as one my favorite e-mail correspondents wrote, that Churchill's essay reminded him of "Bluto in Animal House re-creating his 'was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?' speech." He added that "Churchill's essay might better be retitled Don't Stop Him - He's On A Roll."

Maybe, as an obscure professor, even one who casually tosses out Eichmann references, he didn't have a sufficiently large platform. Certainly, others were able to make critiques without blaming the innocent victims and without resorting to Nazi analogies.

Here's what the late Susan Sontag wrote that September in The New Yorker:

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"

In any case, Churchill wrote his article and then went back to teaching at CU, where he has been a tenured professor for years. The only time we heard of him - and, then, only if we read deep into the story - was when he was being arrested as an American Indian activist.

A full three years later, the furor erupted. And here's what has come of it: Churchill's newfound opponents have built a platform for him.

If you're wondering, the material came from that well-known tree that falls silently in the forest. Suddenly, everyone has heard.

And so:

The state legislators couldn't wait to condemn him. In a moment that's a personal favorite, state Rep. Lynn Hefley said that she believed in free speech, but not "on my time and on my dime." This gave Churchill the chance to note that the state contributes less than 10 percent of CU's budget, meaning her dime is worth more like a penny.

Meanwhile, the CU Board of Regents - apparently more concerned with talk-show callers than academic freedom - contributed to the anti-free-speech movement (where's Mario Savio when you need him?) by calling a public meeting on Churchill and not allowing any public comment.

And when two people were arrested at the regents meeting while trying to speak, Gov. Bill Owens warns us that speech is a dangerous matter. That was after he used his free speech, and a free phone call to CU President Betsy Hoffman, to insist that CU fire Churchill.

Which brings us up to Tuesday night's rally in Boulder and one clear observation: Ward Churchill is obscure no more.

In fact, Churchill is now a minor phenomenon, which would account for the turnaway crowd of over 1,000 that showed up to see him despite the fact that, for much of the day, it looked as if the speech had been postponed.

This was the night he had.

He had his own security detail. I know "rock star" is the cliche of the day, but for a while I thought I was at Altamont.

If he didn't set a record for most standing ovations given a CU ethnic studies professor, it's only because we're just now starting to keep records.

He walked into the hall with an American Indian escort and, in effect, dared anyone to challenge his bloodlines.

When he wasn't condemning the government, he was calling out the governor and the regents and the legislature and the talk shows and all his other critics, each time to greater cheering.

The anti-Churchill crowd at the rally could barely form a crowd. A few did show up to ask questions. One asked how Churchill could criticize "little Eichmanns" and yet keep his - as Mel Brooks once put it - phoney-baloney job. It just gave Churchill the chance to say he, too, was guilty - to more cheers.

But what Churchill mostly got - while saying he wouldn't "give an inch" - was the opportunity to make a virtually unchallenged critique of U.S. foreign policy before a full array of cameras and reporters.

When he got to the stage, he looked around approvingly and said, "Bill Owens, do you get it now?"

I don't know what Owens got.

But you couldn't help but see what Churchill was getting - everything he could have hoped for.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
Essays like churchill's are intended to be thought provoking, wrong or right he has accomplished his goal. I would have loved to have a prof like him while I was in college rather then a bunch of PC eggheads
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cruiser
Feb 10 2005, 10:33 AM
Essays like churchill's are intended to be thought provoking, wrong or right he has accomplished his goal. I would have loved to have a prof like him while I was in college rather then a bunch of PC eggheads

Yet I am sure those "PC Eggheads" taught you things that you were actually able to use when you got out into the big bad world.

Proffessors like Ward Churchill are completely useless IMHO, only misleading people for their own personal gain.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply