| 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 (2,982 Views) | |
| CalRed | Feb 11 2005, 03:19 PM Post #121 |
|
Member
|
Actually he was protesting the name of the Washington Redskins, the Kansas City Chiefs and other such names of sports teams named after Indians. Remember now this is the guy who calls ordinary Americans "little Nazis", "murderers" and described our military as "murderers" and much worse. He doesn't like it when a sports team is called the Indians but feels free and justified in calling Americans all those names. Do we now add Hypocrite to his many names? You must know he wrote his famous "Hate America" essay long before the Iraqi invasion, and after we had waited for more than 10 years for Iraq to comply with the inspection program and after numerous United Nations Resolutions demanding Iraq comply "or else." Also during which time Hussein murdered millions of his own people with the mass graves, torture and rape chambers. All this was happening before we invaded Iraq but of course he doesn't mention that. I would not agree with him that the names HE picked for sports teams would be good for America but I see no problem with the Cleveland Indians or the Kansas City chiefs. Nothing derogatory there. If he wants to buy a sports team and call them "slopes," "Dinks," "Gooks," or "Zipperheads, I guess he has the right under the first amendment but would a "sane" person do that? Don't ask him because he has absolutely no idea what a sane person would do in any circumstances. |
|
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 11 2005, 04:28 PM Post #122 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Cal "I would not agree with him that the names HE picked for sports teams" The names he picked were picked to shock and make a point that even the ones we are accustomed to can be demeaning. His expression was spirited but not mean spirited. Cal "Remember now this is the guy who calls ordinary Americans "little Nazis"" Your arguments might make more sense if they were based on fact. Or did you manage to insert "Nazi" that 3 year old essay? Every single copy? Here's a good example of such an argument, Masters of the Game: The Left on Churchill and Summers, where Goldberg makes some of the points you're trying to but in a much more listenable manner like Alan argued his points, with clear distinction between fact and speculation, reasonable and, thus, persuasive. |
|
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 11 2005, 04:43 PM Post #123 |
|
Member
|
Chris You asked what makes me think someone on this forum is defending him. Would you please re-read your posts and tell me if it would seem that you are defending him to someone else? Someone who may be objective. And on the subjects of personal attacks, would you also check your posts and see the number of things you have had to say about me? Should I take any of those things personal? Such as being called dishonest? cmoehle Posted: Feb 2 2005, 01:25 PM “Is he a moron because you disagree with a biased third party news editor's distortion of what he actually said? I may not agree with his views but wouldn't call him a moron--I would call the editor a moron for knowingly distorting facts” You are calling the editor a moron but don’t say what facts he distorted. Can we say this is a defense of Churchill?s Or is it just an attack on the editor? cmoehle Posted: Feb 2 2005, 05:07 PM “The teacher's rebuttal provides context that clarifies his intent was nothing like the editors' ranting claims.” You are pretty quick to condemn the editor’s “ranting claims”, is this a defense of Churchill? You certainly aren’t defending the editor. cmoehle Posted: Feb 6 2005, 09:15 AM “And many are making claims about what he said, and others condemning him on that basis, instead of what he actually said. I'm not defending what he actually said, but this is typical BS we see all the time from the media like FOX or CBS, see how it can be spun to rile people up and start a big brouhaha group-grope because no one will actually check the facts and those all riled will condemn anyone who does by association and innuendo. Really rather silly.” Here again you say you aren’t defending him but keep saying the facts are wrong. cmoehle Posted: Feb 6 2005, 03:55 PM “Perhaps you like others jump to conclusions too quickly. Did you happen to read the prof's explanation of that?” OK, you aren’t defending him but you believe his explanation but not what he said??? cruiser Posted: Feb 6 2005, 05:41 PM “Even though I am an a American, who served my country, I feel that what he has postulated lets me reflect about where we are going and what we have done in the past. He gives us a lot of food for thought and if you cannot digest it, to bad!” Is this a defense? cmoehle Posted: Feb 7 2005, 05:22 AM “He didn't backpedal, Jim. His later explanation sticks t his earlier point. It is your interpretation. Eichmann as explained was not a convicted Nazi and the comparison was not with the victims of 9/11. Note, he was not calling anyone anything, he was making an analogy, not with a Nazi criminal but a technocrat for that empire. But, you see, you'd have to actually read all of the piece to get that, not quote out of context: By removing it from the context of the entire piece he wrote, you have changed its meaning to suit your purpose--that, btw, is what quoting out of context is all about, linked for your convenience. Are you backpeddling, Jim? If you aren't questioning his right to make that analogy, then why do you find it necessary to accuse him of saying something he didn't, calling 9/11 victims Nazis, and support your accusation with a common logical fallacy? Not a defense-------eh? cmoehle Posted: Feb 7 2005, 05:33 AM “Cal, where do you see him saying he hates America? Where do you see him calling 9/11 victims Nazis?” Did you read what he actually said? cmoehle Posted: Feb 7 2005, 07:09 PM “On edit, I will note one further distortion on your part, your insistance I am defending him.” Now why would I think that??? cmoehle Posted: Feb 8 2005, 12:37 PM “Now that what the prof said has been clarified and what was wrong with it pointed out “ No comment cmoehle Posted: Feb 8 2005, 05:10 PM “Calling him a moron and other names, trumping up charges against him, misrepresenting his position, etc, are the weakest forms of arguments.” “I don't agree he is a moron. He is not a dolt, not like the idiot author of the lead in piece to this thread. If you read the two pieces of writing posted here he is quite logical, intelligently so, within the confines of his point of view.” Oh now I get it. Churchill isn’t a moron for writing the essay but the editor is a moron for publishing it… Now I understand. You sure aren’t defending the editor. cmoehle Posted: Feb 9 2005, 07:21 AM “The fact remains, you nor Cal nor any of the people he quotes have shown that the prof called 9/11 victims Nazis” Again---same old, same old… "Little Eichmanns" - "Little Nazis" What else could he possibly have meant.? cmoehle Posted: Feb 9 2005, 06:34 PM “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.” Maybe you should tell those of us who aren’t so smart why he called those people “little Eichmanns” if he didn’t really mean “little Nazis.” Is there any other possible explanation why he used that term if he didn’t mean “little Nazis?” Eichmann was only known as the Nazi who exterminated 3,000,000 of the 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust. He had no other claim to fame. What else could the professor have possibly meant? Eichmann was convicted and executed for what he did so I can’t imagine any other reason Churchill would say that. Can you? You can say he was using an analogy but I believe most people know exactly what he was saying and what he meant. Should he have said, “I am going to use a linguistic analogy here now so listen carefully to what I say.” You can interpret it any way you want. I prefer to believe what he actually said, not what he may have meant. cmoehle Posted: Feb 10 2005, 05:22 PM “Are you speaking of someone here defending him?” Now why would I think that? |
|
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 11 2005, 04:54 PM Post #124 |
|
Member
|
From your source: "Meanwhile, Ward Churchill, whose scholarship is a joke, whose evidence is tendentious at best, and who called the victims of 9/11 the moral equivalent of a man who sent babies to the gas chambers, is a hero of free speech. He has refused to apologize. Many conservatives are forced to defend free speech and "diversity" in academia while liberals let the NOWers feed on Summers's flesh. Liberals may despise what Churchill said, but it's a matter of principle now. The normally insightful and fair Mort Kondracke declared on Fox News, "I really think it's useful for universities to have people like this around, to show students and the rest of us just how odious some of the ideas of the far Left are." Would Kondracke punt on a professor who'd endorsed slavery? I somehow doubt it. Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel at how the other side has mastered this game." I had read this piece and I agree with everything he said. The difference is that he is a journalist who knows how to write and I am an old retired military man who knows how to kill the enemy so that we may have the country we now have. Most of us would not have fought to allow people like Churchill to say the things he says about the country we all so dearly love, and so many have died for, while the government is paying his salary. We would invite him to leave and go somewhere else to spew his hate of America. In fact I could arrange for a flight in an F-14 to take him anywhere he wants to go as long as it was out of this country and over a deep sea. |
|
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 11 2005, 05:09 PM Post #125 |
![]()
Member
|
|
|
Jim Pennsylvania in the Summer Florida in the Winter | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 11 2005, 05:49 PM Post #126 |
|
Member
|
Whom does Churchill work for? By Jim Spencer Denver Post Columnist The final exam in Witch Hunt 101 at the University of Colorado boils down to a single essay question: Whom does Ward Churchill work for? Churchill made his position clear in a campus speech to 1,000 mostly adoring students Tuesday night. Speaking with what my friend Ray Schoch of Loveland likes to call a "junior high sneer," Churchill proclaimed to his faithful, "I do not work for the taxpayers of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you." Later in the evening, when a student asked Churchill if he would abide by results of a student vote on his continued employment, he wouldn't agree. Apparently, he works for CU students only in a metaphorical sense. Source |
|
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 11 2005, 05:54 PM Post #127 |
|
Member
|
The fall out keeps coming - and rightfully so. Article Published: Friday, February 11, 2005 N.Y. professor loses post over Churchill controversy By The Associated Press AP file CU professor Ward Churchill. Clinton, N.Y. - A professor at a small New York state college has stepped down as a program director after igniting a furor by inviting Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis, to speak on campus. Nancy Rabinowitz of Hamilton College said she was resigning "under duress" as director of the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture. She will continue to teach comparative literature. Rabinowitz extended an invitation to speak to Churchill, whose essay written shortly after the 2001 attacks compared the World Trade Center victims to "little Eichmanns," a reference to the Nazi who organized details of the Holocaust. "I would have preferred to stay on until I took my long-awaited sabbatical," Rabinowitz said in a statement released by the school. She has been the project's only director since its founding in 1996. "What the project needs now is someone more adept at the kind of political and media fight that the current climate requires. Therefore, it is in the interests of the mission of the project itself and for no other reason that I am yielding to requests that I resign," she said. Churchill, a tenured professor, recently resigned as chairman of the ethnic studies department amid the uproar over his essay. The school is investigating his writings and speeches to decide if he should be fired. Rabinowitz also drew fire in November when the program offered a temporary teaching position to 1960s radical Susan Rosenberg. Source |
|
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 11 2005, 06:23 PM Post #128 |
|
Member
|
Churchill's accuracy challenged Scholars say phrases used out of context By Elizabeth Mattern Clark and Ryan Morgan, Camera Staff Writer February 11, 2005 Embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill used a passage from a well-known colleague 99 years out of context to support an argument detailing anti-Indian policies of the U.S. government, a New Mexico scholar says. Among other challenges to Churchill's accuracy, University of New Mexico law professor John LaVelle argues that Churchill misused a passage in fellow CU professor Patricia Limerick's work to support "incendiary" remarks in a 1994 essay titled "Indians Are Us: Culture & Genocide." Both LaVelle and Thomas Brown, assistant sociology professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, say Churchill has misrepresented works by Russell Thornton, an anthropology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. Brown said Churchill misused a passage by Thornton to back up his claim that the Army deliberately spread a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan tribe in 1837. "He's making up a story out of his imagination," Brown said. "It's so amazing that a tenured professor at a top university would do something like this. It's hard to get your arms around." LaVelle asserted that Churchill was attempting to lend the names of acclaimed scholars to his "hostility toward Indian tribes." Churchill criticizes current American Indian tribes for using blood-line requirements for membership. In several published works, Churchill wrote that the requirements constitute a perverse irony because they originated in the federal government's attempts to drive American Indians off of their lands. Churchill has said he is one-sixteenth Cherokee but does not think he should have to provide documentation of his ancestry to the media. Source |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Feb 11 2005, 06:42 PM Post #129 |
![]()
Lowell
|
It appears that primarily because of the hue and cry stirred up by Bill O"Reilly of Fox News, a true witch hunt is on concerning Churchill. It appears that O'Reilly is out to make his future on the demise of Churchill just as some folks in the 50's made their political careers by hunting "communists," many non-existent ones. I wonder of O'Reilly will join "Tail-gunner" Joe McCarthy as an historical figure who went down in absolute shame for his self-aggrandizing behaviors, usually at someone else' expense. |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Feb 11 2005, 06:52 PM Post #130 |
![]()
Lowell
|
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?" |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Feb 11 2005, 06:54 PM Post #131 |
![]()
Member
|
"Ward Churchill used a passage from a well-known colleague 99 years out of context..." "Churchill misused a passage in fellow CU professor Patricia Limerick's work..." "Churchill has misrepresented works..." "Churchill misused a passage by Thornton to back up his claim..." ""He's making up a story out of his imagination,"..." "Churchill was attempting to lend the names of acclaimed scholars to his "hostility toward Indian tribes."..." Just how far does "free speech and academic freedom go? Certainly not that far. I would have been fired for any one of those offenses, let alone all of them. Along with academic freedom goes academic responsibility. |
|
Jim Pennsylvania in the Summer Florida in the Winter | |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | Feb 11 2005, 07:13 PM Post #132 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
I knew this guy was full of it, we were always fair and above board with those filthy, murdering savages, killed them fair and square. |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 11 2005, 07:22 PM Post #133 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
You asked what makes me think someone on this forum is defending him. Would you please re-read your posts and tell me if it would seem that you are defending him to someone else? Someone who may be objective. And on the subjects of personal attacks, would you also check your posts and see the number of things you have had to say about me? Should I take any of those things personal? Such as being called dishonest?[/quote] I'll be glad to. First, let's include a few other things I said to provide full context--I will continue to do that. Cal
These are important points. They are themes I develop in detail later: One, that is indeed what you have tried to do, poison the well, meaning try to paint anyone who disagrees with you in a negative light. You don't like that, do you, Cal? Having people disagree with you. Really seems to bother you. Two, in order to interpret what anyone says you must do so in context. Stripping away the context introduces ambiguity that disingenuous argumers try to take advantage of. Three, the real point of this thread was to denigrate teaching and education. In fact most of the first page of responses got into that. Something you have failed to do because you got so hung up on attacking the professor and anyone who disagreed with you--like Jim, hung up on a word--so instead of arguing the main point, you attack the prof and insult others. Problem is attacking messengers leaves messages untouched and, it seems, in this case, forgotten. Oh well. So now on to all your challenges. Cal
I think that's quite clear, the editor, because he misinterprets and misrepresents what the prof actually said, is moronish. Throughout this thread I have indeed pointed out the main locus of his, and your, and Jim's, misinterpretation--changing was is clearly an analogy into name calling, changing what is clearly Eichmann into Nazis. The editor I believe does it purposely. I'm beginning to think you do too. Jim, he doesn't get it. As for a defense of the professor, you, Cal, can claim anything you like, and, as evidenced by many of your posts here and elsewhere, you have no trouble at all making wild accusations, but never, not once, when challenged, ever backing them up. Hmmmm. Here's another case, you keep repeating that I defend the professor, but never once show where I do that. That would difficult since, as you know, I have explicitly disagreed with him and said he was wrong. So, no, Cal, showing where the editor made mistakes in his argument is not defending the professor. Here's what makes your argument so patently false and your tactics so transparent. What did you just say? "You are calling the editor a moron but don’t say what facts he distorted." Is is not odd that when you asked earlier I responsed in my next post where exactly that was. And isn't it oddly convenient that you omit in your quote--which I will add in red. Cal
Can you possibly explain why saying the editor was wrong in his rant implies defending the prof? But, Cal, I did explin. And the proof, Cal, is in the words in red that you attempted to hide. Do you do that on purpose? And, again, showing where the editor is wrong is not defending the professor. If you think so, would you care to explain the logic behind your thinking, if there is any? Hopefully it is better than an either/or binary bit. Cal
Yes, indeed the facts the editor, FOX and CBS, and you and Jim are wrong as I have explicitly shown. The professor is wrong not for their or your misreading and misleading claims, which, BTW, you have never supported, but wrong in his world view as Alan and I have explicitly argued. I ask again, where is my argument, Cal. Do you deliberately leave that out? Don't you think others are beginning to wonder? Cal
Nice twist, Cal--maybe that's what Jim applauds. Cal, did you mistake me for Jim. That is what he is arguing, the he believes what the prof says but does not believe what the prof says--sort of reminds me of Kerry and his voting. At any rate, Cal, that is an outlandish distortion of what I said. Throughout this thread I have repeatedly said you and Jim and the editor and others are wrong in your interpretation. I have also explained what he actually said, based on the larger context of his essay and his later explanation, and argued where that is wrong. Cal
Uh, Cal? You OK? I mean, really, are you OK? Hello in there, Cal. First you mistake me for Jim about believing/not believing the prof. Now you mistake me for someone else again. Look close, Cal, that was not even my post. This is getting ridiculous. .... OK, breaks over, dinner done. Where were we? Oh, your argument with Jim, your argument with cruiser, let's get back to your argument with me... Cal
No. It's an explanation to Jim about how important reading things consistent with context is. Jim never did support that, did he? Nor have you, have you? You two just keep repeating. Clicking your heels and hoping to be back in Kansas again, are we? Where is my defense? Where do I say anything for the professor? Where do I say anything positive? In your imagination? I can't help that. Cal
Yes. You have asked that and I have said yes. And I have asked you have you read it. Have you? Please point out where he calls anyone Nazis. How many times have you been asked to show that? Quoting passages where he does not do that does not show him doing that. Well, except in your imagination. patience, you posted a lot of garbage...take a while to get it all in....skip to next post.... |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cruiser | Feb 11 2005, 07:25 PM Post #134 |
![]()
Member
|
Let me reiterate that I would have loved this guy as one of the profs that I had in college under the GI bill. He is certainly thought provoking, and that is reason enough to let him say what says right or wrong. It seems to me, that a few that are on this forum are very narrow minded, and I wonder how they got through college. |
|
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 11 2005, 07:27 PM Post #135 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Hi, cruiser. Cal
Me getting tired of you distoring what I say. Repeatedly, without backing it up. It begins, Cal, to look like you are deliberately distorting what I say just to bait me, and that, Cal, would not be nice. Let's look at the your post and mine, shall we, Cal, the parts you leave out. Me
Compare you quote out of context with the full post. Speaks for itself. Cal
I guess after you cut out your further accusations about what I said and had others challenge to to put up or shut up and whimper a little innuendo and then shut up, you had nothing left to comment here on. Let's look at what you cut out... Me agreeing with Alan's interpretation Feb 8 2005, 12:20 PM, Feb 8 2005, 12:37 PM
See, Cal, there's one of those explanations of how the prof is wrong. Why didn't you quote that, Cal? Is it deliberate? Is it so important for you to be right? Is it so troubling to you to have someone disagree with you? Cal
Again, Cal, what I have to believe is deliberate distortion of what I said. I'll simply provide the complete context. Me agreeing with Alan's some more the prof is worng, Feb 8 2005, 05:10 PM Report Post
What, I said the prof was wrong! If I say he is wrong, how is that defending him? And by your logic, Cal, you are also accusing Alan of defending him. And Jim. And yourself. I have noticed you do often contradict yourself. You throw so much spaghetti at the wall hoping some will stick it's bound to get tied in a knot. But don't let it tie you stomach in a knot, Cal. Ah, I see I'm getting to the end of this boorishness. Cal
First, already explained. Quoted above. Second, you have back pedalled on your accusation that he called 9/11 victims Nazis. You now drop the name calling accusation and claim he only meant Nazis. Third, a short proof: Premise: If Eichmann is all Nazis then the prof meant Nazis. Fact: At least Hitler was a Nazi. Thus, Eichmann is not all Nazis. Conclusion: Therefore the prof did not say or mean Nazis. Fourth, it was an analogy, explained in your next quote, whose meaning can be easily, simply derived from the essay. I have already shown that. Quoted above. Firth, explain to us where the rest of the essay supports your accusation that he called 9/11 victims Nazis. Cal
Well, Cal, would you tell us? You sure have failed to do so in any of the above. And, I ask you again, why are you for limiting free speech and academic freedom? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










8:22 AM Jul 11