the ward churchill thread

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This is here in case you care. U of Colorado ethnic studies professor in the media's doghouse for claiming 9/11 was a taste of USA medicine. Attachments give different sides of story, different aspects, blah, blah, and blah.

Center view
http://www.slate.com/id/2113358/

Churchill
http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill02032005.html

Coulter
http://www.uclick.com/client/ven/ac/

leftie view
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey02092005.html

― sponge bob, Friday, 11 February 2005 01:10 (twenty years ago)

I just don't have a dog in this hunt. On the one hand, you have someone making irresponsible statements and on the other, you have the media whipped up into a frenzy and misrepresenting everything.

Fuck'em both.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

What he said was stupid and uncalled for, whether his reasons are logical or not...but he has every right to say it......now the article from 1987 about teaching terrorists to make bombs is another story...

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 01:45 (twenty years ago)

pretty solid demolition on marc cooper's site:

http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2005/02/ward_churchill_.html

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:29 (twenty years ago)

this whole thing is so stupid. our democracy is over.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

not until the GOP wins a third term in the white house

― TOMBOT, Friday, 11 February 2005 04:44 (twenty years ago)

well, okay, maybe. but we're already on that slippery slope.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:49 (twenty years ago)

I saw Churchill last week being grilled by an unduly stroppy and incredulous Paula Zahn on CNN. His lack of eloquence was frustrating, but she wasn't really giving him much time to properly respond to her questions, I suppose.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:50 (twenty years ago)

hello, that's what cable news is. it's a wonder that we even have the pretense of free elections any more.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:52 (twenty years ago)

No, I know..outrage is what sells. It just seemed like such a kangaroo court. She had the opportunity to really get into it with him, and she blew it by being all witch trially. It was a farce. Regardless of what he might've had to say, he never had a chance.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 05:01 (twenty years ago)

thaaaaaaaaaat's entertainment!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 05:01 (twenty years ago)

too true.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 05:04 (twenty years ago)

How is our democracy over? Especially considering the US is technically not supposed to be a democracy.

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 18:42 (twenty years ago)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 18:49 (twenty years ago)

I don't subscribe to Chruchill's views but the whole point of free speech is protecting unpopular views so that we don't all become lemmings and careen with one orthodoxy off a cliff. Similarly, tenure was designed to free professors from mundane 'political' worries so they could pursue academic studies without fear. As much as I find Churchill's POV puerile and sterile, the ignorant, vindictive reaction to it bespeaks a terrible lack of understanding of the underpinnings of pluralism.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

michael otm.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

Yeah? The government has no interest in it. With the exception of possibly the school, the media is the only group with any real issue with it. His statement is not in violation of anything, and everybody but the media knows it. Consequently even the native american tribe he claims to be a true member of has no interest in the issue. How that became news I don't know, though....

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:05 (twenty years ago)

the colorado state legislature is looking at ways to revoke his tenure, dummy.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:07 (twenty years ago)

Yes...now...because of the possibility of his teaching known terrorists how to make bombs while employed with the school, jackass.

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

Except his governor, Bill Owens, has decided to make some political hay out of this by taking the populist low road.

xpost

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

yes, the government would rather have it that they have the bomb instruction to "known terrorists" monopoly.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:10 (twenty years ago)

If we're going to go after everyone who taught known terrorists how to make bombs most of the CIA and Reagans's cabinet would get the klink.

Q, the guy who said democracy's dead may have been talking about how we have a goverment who bullies the media into approving bullshit wars and hounding professors who speak their minds (however puerile or whatever). Someone should say maybe we deserved it instead of just being all like "terrorists are evil!" Controversial debates keep democracy alive. But what we have now is more like a plutocracy. For instance, why isn't Britt Hume getting busted for quoting FDR out of context the other night? That's worse because way more far-reaching than anything this Ward guy wrote.

― sponge bob, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

I didn't say the government was perfect. But where's your proof that the media's been bullied? Especially considering the general status of the media today and their bleeding-heart-liberal-the president-is-an-idiot-so-we'll-make-up-anything-we-can-and-spin-anything-we-can-to-make-him-look-bad-whether-he-deserves-it-or-not attitude? ....with few exceptions...

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

aw, poor mr. pwesident!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

What country do live in, Q?

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

why do conservatives pretend that the amount of ire directed bush's way is any different from what any president has received, ever? do they not remember what they said (and still say) about clinton? hell, at least nobody's had their brains blown out like jfk rolling thru dallas...

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

what a great day for the left. having to defend the concept of tenure, political speech, and academic freedom by defending a hack, a fraud, a moron. it's enough to make you pull a hitchens, i tell you.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

Local conservative talk radio fool was going on and on last night stating that Churchill originally sought employment with the school under an affirmative action claim, re-asserted the claim on subsequent app, and so should be dismissed for cause. That assertion may be in the articles linked but I will waste no more time on the matter.

I did enjoy hearing callers stating that they were outraged due to CU's loss of academic credibility. And stating that despite their tax contributions to the elite institution, they would discourage thier kids from attending. Excuse me, do you mean the CU where kids have been dying of alcohol poisoning? Do you mean the one ranked as the #1 party school? Do you mean the one where kids were raping women for football recruiting? Do you mean the CU that harrassed one of its players sexually with the victim dismissed by the coach? Do you mean the CU whose female chancellor described the word "cunt" as a term of endearment?

This is not to dismiss the tragedy of any of those events, only to try to place pinhead Ward Churchill in perspective.

― Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:22 (twenty years ago)

Q, the president is an idiot. He and all his representatives either lied about WMD or they're incompetent. Either way, he's an idiot. The media are supposed to call them on bullshit and they didn't. Everyone knew Saddam had no weapons. Hans Blix said so a long time ago. And yet somehow our media beat the war drums instead of questioning the very bullshit reasons why we were going to war. There's something like 50,000 dead people in Iraq now because of the bullshit of our government. That's just facts, and the media, had they not been bullied into blowing the "patriotic" party line, might have helped us head off all this useless slaughter.

― sponge bob, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:24 (twenty years ago)

i agree with dahlia lithwick, let him keep his job, it's u colorado's fault for hiring him, even tho his academic work is garbage and he's been wrong about nearly everything (including his own "heritage" as it happens) before comparing dead people who worked in finance to genocidaires.

higher ed is on the right's target list, and now that they have increasing legislative control over purse strings, every ward churchill puts a big fucking target on the whole enterprise of research and learning. seriously fuck this guy, fuck everyone involved. fuckers.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:28 (twenty years ago)

I don't know man. Ad hominim is a bad argument. Maybe he's a fucker. But what about his point that we're asking for it fucking with everyone the way we do? Not saying I agree, but I'd like people to discuss that, not whether or not teh dude's really Native American.

― sponge bob, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:30 (twenty years ago)

I am not defending Chruchill, who, considering his views, should assuage his conscience by going to join some underground, revolutionary cell. I am defending 'American' values like free speech and pluralism from 'tyranny of the majority', 'never-met-a-pitchfork-wielding-mob-of-yokels-I didn't-like' populists.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:36 (twenty years ago)

well ok yes but let me just say that IF "THE LEFT" IS GOING OUT OF ITS WAY TO RECONCIEVE VIOLENT ULTRACONSERVATIVE ISLAMIST TERROR OUTFITS AS SOME KIND OF "RESISTANCE MOVEMENT" TO CAPITAL, IT SAYS MORE ABOUT THE IDEOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL LAZINESS OF "THE LEFT" THAN IT DOES ABOUT AMERICA, ISLAM, TERRORISM, OR CAPITAL.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:39 (twenty years ago)

god what a shitty position we're in.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:40 (twenty years ago)

Churchill's haircut and shouty style with a mic tell me most of what I need to know about him. That said, if there had ONLY been financiers and stockbrokers in the WTC on 9/11, the "good start" joke would've crossed my lips.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:42 (twenty years ago)

Hans Blix also said that he was positive that Saddam Husein had the capabilities to make those weapons, and was given the impression that Saddam intended use those capabailities in the not so distant future. And if anybody remembers the media at the time, it didn't back the president, it started right then trying to spin the facts and taking them out of context to question the justification. Even so, general concensus is that the bush administration, as well as nearly every other semi-powerful government in the world, was basing decisions on intelligence and information that was not entirely correct...not just collected by the US, but by Great Britain, Russia, and even France.

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 19:44 (twenty years ago)

look it was war first, justification later. the decent pro-war people said as much, and still do.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:46 (twenty years ago)

Gee, I'm glad I hadn't been born yet in that turnip patch, Q.

― Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 11 February 2005 19:48 (twenty years ago)

Q, nice repeat of false republican talking points. Jesus.

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:00 (twenty years ago)

f--gg, this is the great mark of fuzzy-thinking ideological bullshit: we can't stay on subject 'cause you're more interested in giving the left a well deserved thrashing than in talking about the subject at hand. Saying the left r dumb for agreeing with Churchill's content while failing to point out the right are being downright un-American for wanting to get him canned shows either remarkable bad intellectual faith or meer feeble-mindedness. It's as if people said that we should get rid of the jury system because OJ wasn't convicted: a case of political naivete and historical myopia.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:00 (twenty years ago)

This is bread and circuses, btw. Typical bullshit from reactionary wingers who are trying to change the subject. "Hey, I know, let's find some nutjob professor try to get him fired! It'll kill like three birds with one stone! We can stomp on free-speechers, left-wing academics, and the media all in one fell swoop! Plus, they'll stop talking about Iraq and Social Security!"

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

As opposed to the nearly verbatim pseudo-intellectual repetition of left-wing propoganda?

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

Such as? Name it, or you're just trolling and beneath my attention.

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:05 (twenty years ago)

i assume eveyone here has read the linked articles discussing this issue, so that when I said "i agree with dahlia lithwick, let him keep his job" it would register. bill oreilly is a prick, is that news? ok, BILL OREILLY IS A PRICK, i said it, happy? fuck ward churchill, and fuck you too, "feeble minded," get bent.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

f--gg, yer alright!

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

our democracy is over

not until the GOP wins a third term in the white house

Gee, I'm glad I hadn't been born yet in that turnip patch, Q.

― Q, Friday, 11 February 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

maybe i need to start a "jeff gannon" thread to keep my left credentials in order.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

hey ease up q, mine has at least the virtue of being true.

― f--gg (gcannon), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

Q, the only one of those that is even *remotely* a 'talking point' is paragraph 3. Stence and Tom's were quite obviously jokes of exasperation, para 4 is A STATEMENT OF FACT, and 5 IS A COMMENT THAT YOU'VE GOT YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.

Now, let's unpack 4. the only arguable thing in there is that "[e]veryone knew Saddam had no weapons. Hans Blix said so a long time ago." Admittedly, Blix's pre-war statements were more equivocal than that; but the bottom line is that SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS, and those of us WHO SAID SO AT THE TIME WERE RIGHT AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS WRONG! The fact that I, with my lack of insider knowledge about the situation, could have been right and George Bush could have been wrong . . . that should scare the piss out of you. But apparently it doesn't, because you're either drinking the Kool-Aid or trolling my ass. Anyway, that's enough response from me until you provide something worthwhile to the discussion.

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

That referred to para 3, obv.

― J (Jay), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

Q, either be an enemy of cant and kick in both directions or shut up and get out of the way. The left is often full of shit. Does that make you feel better? There also not in power, not tinkering massively with 60 plus years of policy that has delivered a stable economy that has been growing over the long term, not involving us in an ill-conceived and unnecessary war (about which the right is lying, propagandizing, stalling, splitting hairs, bullying, and generally so intellectually bankrupt as to either seriously marr this republic or render us risible), nor are they aiming to degrade the level of discourse and citizenship by pandering to the basest, most jingoistic elements of our country, by slashing at our civil rights, leaving our environment more squalid, and prostituting our government to the highest bidder. And trust me. When (if?) the Democrats get back in power in either branch, they'll get the same treatment from me.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)

ok, BILL OREILLY IS A PRICK, i said it, happy? fuck ward churchill, and fuck you too, "feeble minded," get bent.

My bad, I hadn't seen that.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

f--gg, i agree with you, ms. lithwick's article was otm.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 February 2005 21:13 (twenty years ago)

oh boulder

― lemin (lemin), Friday, 11 February 2005 21:25 (twenty years ago)

neo-con/nihilist/lib techno musicians chew over the same subject

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 11 February 2005 21:29 (twenty years ago)

Why is Ward Churchill losing his job, but these people aren't? Liberal biased media my fucking ass.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

― sponge bob, Friday, 11 February 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

on a related note:

Conservative State Senator in Ohio Submits Legislation to Limit "Controversial" Classroom Topics

― Kingfish MuffMiner 2049er (Kingfish), Friday, 11 February 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.