Godwinized on the Factor?
February 1, 2005 6:26 PM   Subscribe

Comparing the victims of 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann has lead to controversy and credible threats of violence toward CU Professor Ward Churchill and the small liberal arts college where he was scheduled to speak on the "limits of dissent." A pacifist and human rights activist, Churchill claims that, as Eichmann ran the machinery behind the Holocaust, the "technocrats" of the WTC facilitated the execution of a destructive U.S. foreign policy.

A tip to Bill O'Reilly led to the death threats against Churchill and other bizarre forms of protest (PDF). Major media outlets cite the comparison of 9-11 victims to Nazis out of context without tackling Churchill's views on American foreign policy. Is this just another typical dismissive reaction against the radical left?
posted by themadjuggler (107 comments total)
 
(is it bad form to bring to the table current happenings at my own school? i felt this would appeal to mefites regardless.)
posted by themadjuggler at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2005


i wonder if these rightwing freaks who broadcast and twist others' words would be held accountable if their target is actually killed? i know it's bound to happen one day.

that guy is right--your "technocrats" link shows what he said.
posted by amberglow at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2005


Nice meaty post, juggler, a fine stew. Still reading -- the credible threat thing is kinda shocking. Not as shocking as Land of Fags, of course, but FUCKINGHELL HANDBASKETS FOR ALL OF US

Sorry, had a little breakdown there.
posted by undule at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2005


Is this just another typical dismissive reaction against the radical left?

Yes and no.

A reasonable person could definitely infer that 9/11 was a reaction to some bad foreign policy. Of course any reasonable person would also infer that it was an unjustified and unjustifiable one.

But when someone says things like "What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," one can't be surprised at the reactions one gets. It's an example of someone burying themselves in their own rhetoric. And if he actually believes that, he's myopic to the point of true blindness. If one speak provocatively, he shouldn't act shocked when he provokes.

But I still don't think he deserves to be threatened with death for it. A reasonable person can merely ignore him. But a publicity seeking talk show host with a scandal hanging over his head can't. Richt-wing morons and left-wing morons need eachother to survive.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm all for free speech and all, but really, what did Churchill expect to happen? You can say "chickens coming home to roost" all you want, but "little Eichmanns"? Idiot.
posted by fungible at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2005


This guy isn't the radical left. He's a frigging idiot. There are perfectly reasonable ways to critique horrible US foreign policy without demeaning the victims of 9/11. No, there shouldn't be death threats put out against him, but he should be scorned by anyone with half of a brain.
posted by owillis at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2005


Another thought criminal brought to justice! God Bless America.
posted by mek at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2005


mek: he's free to think whatever he wants. And others are free to think him an idiot when he expresses them. The only problem I have is those threatening him with violence, even though I might understand their taking offense.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2005


Thanks undule. There's a lot of indignation to be had in the story, unfortunately.

To clarify, the initial link is the article in question, and "technocrats" is Churchill's response to the scandal.

It saddens me that the school decided to forego their freedom of speech to cancel the event, but it really did seem like someone was going to get hurt (it's a tiny school in the middle of nowhere, I don't see how there could be enough protection).

And owillis-- I think the point is that he was explaining why the civil workers in the WTC didn't appear as "innocent civilians" but as logical targets for the attacks. I don't think he's exactly demeaning the victims by explaining how the 9-11 terrorists could have viewed them in that context.
posted by themadjuggler at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2005


He makes many fine points, tho --

The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law.

The idea of the American citizens compelling their government to do anything is laughable -- and for so many unfunny reasons. And how is he an idiot by making the argument that the supporters of government policy are responsible for it? That's his essential message.

But I will admit that calling him names is a great way to tackle the issue.
posted by undule at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2005


I don't think he's exactly demeaning the victims by explaining how the 9-11 terrorists could have viewed them in that context.

Disingenous, themadjuggler. He's a professor. If he wanted to say that, he could've said that. It was a statement designed to provoke.

Of course a reasonable man tears him apart with his own statements, not threats.
posted by jonmc at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2005


Ah, Metafilter, I remember you well. Makes a diehard liberal like me feel like a total right-winger.

What part of saying the victims of 9.11 had it coming doesnt strike y'all as a cogent criticism of US foreign policy? Please think.
posted by owillis at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2005


Some right wing outfits cannot grasp the details of this story, so they re-arrange the facts into what they think must be the case.

For example The Conservative Voice writes Conservatives Blast Hamilton College for Inviting Nazi Sympathizer.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2005


Heh, and the guy's a vietnam vet, too. Up against the 9/11 victims. Which sacred cow will win out?
posted by mek at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2005


owillis, I've missed you tremendously at moments like these. I'm tired of holding down the fort myself.

Tear 'em apart, you magnificent bastard! ;>

Heh, and the guy's a vietnam vet, too. Up against the 9/11 victims. Which sacred cow will win out?


Neither is a sacred cow, mek. How about actually sticking to what he said instead of trying to impress us with how above-it-all you are?
posted by jonmc at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2005


And how is he an idiot by making the argument that the supporters of government policy are responsible for it?

Since when are the 9/11 victims responsible for government policy? (Outside of a few in the Pentagon.)
posted by fungible at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2005


monkeysaltednuts: that headline shows that all Churchill ultimately accomplished was to pump fuel into the rightwing psuedo-outrage tank. See my earlier comment about how superficially antagonistic extremists actually have a symbiotic relationship.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2005


Ward Churchill might be many things, but anyone here who thinks that they could take him on in a debate and win should take one of his classes and bring a clean set of underwear to put on after he mops the floor with their ass.

Here's his response to the brouhaha:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2686093,00.html

I see no problem with his statements.
posted by eener at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc: 9/11 victims absolutely are. More people die annually in the USA of starvation, and nobody gives a flying fuck about them.

This man is guilty of political analysis of a touchy subject. The backlash is raw emotion groping at straws. Hence "nazi sympathizer," etc. I find his arguments rather compelling, actually.
posted by mek at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2005


Whoops sorry for duplicate article Re: his response.
posted by eener at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2005


He's a professor. If he wanted to say that, he could've said that. It was a statement designed to provoke.

I just feel like it fits in too well with the rest of his conception of U.S. foreign policy. He's framing the civil works in the twin towers as the 9-11 terrorist would see them. After talking about hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children, is this really that much more provocative?
posted by themadjuggler at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc - how are 9/11 victims not akin to a sacred cow? I take mek's comments as saying they are beyond reproach, and doesn't the near-universal condemnation of Churchill's comments support that?

I also think that while your comments re. symbioltics between extremists is valid, it's a far, far cry from that to 'Nazi Sympathizer'
posted by cosmonik at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2005


Ward Churchill might be many things, but anyone here who thinks that they could take him on in a debate and win should take one of his classes and bring a clean set of underwear to put on after he mops the floor with their ass.

A good debater could argue either side of an issue and win against an inferior opponent. It proves nothing about the actual moral fiber of their positions. You sound like some jock bragging about his schools football team.

jonmc: 9/11 victims absolutely are. More people die annually in the USA of starvation, and nobody gives a flying fuck about them.

First of all, don't presume to know what I give a shit about. And believing that what happened that day is unjustifiable is not sacred cow thinking, it's plain-as-day logic.

I'm galled at O'Reilly's opportunism here. But that dosen't prevent me from thinking this guy is an ass and saying so.

cosmonik: I don't think he's Nazi sympathizer, just a jerkoff who had the bad luck to be heard by some O'Reilley staffer.
posted by jonmc at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2005


Since when are the 9/11 victims responsible for government policy? (Outside of a few in the Pentagon.)

The victims who were American citizens share responsibility concerning the policy of a government ostensibly representing the people. This should be obvious, but perhaps its a philosophically subtle point.

If you live in a democracy which allegedly responds to the dictates of the people, and that democracy commits what some see as a crime or an injustice, it naturally follows that retaliation will target the demos.

I mean wtf. You could argue that democracy doesn't reflect the opinions of the people in so much as they are translated into foreign policy -- or you could argue 9/11 is a form of collective punishment, good points certainly. Either way, responsibility is there.

And besides, another interesting point here that could be argued is that foreign policy is the sole purvey of the President -- it is not, strictly speaking, a democratic affair. So maybe that's a tack for you.
posted by undule at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2005


What if someone said the Iraqi people brought Hussein's reign muderous upon them because they didn't rise up against him? They'd be stupid. Like this guy.
posted by owillis at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2005


He's framing the civil works in the twin towers as the 9-11 terrorist would see them.

Then the simple addition of the phrase "In the terrorists deluded minds.." would have saved him a lot of aggravation. And, yeah, 9/11 is a touchy subject. And this guy's smart enough to know that. So, I can only conclude that he wanted to provoke anger in people and gain notoriety. There's ways to make his valid points without angering people needlessly.
posted by jonmc at 7:10 PM on February 1, 2005


What if someone said the Iraqi people brought Hussein's reign muderous upon them because they didn't rise up against him? They'd be stupid. Like this guy.

The analogy you make, I presume, is that citizens making decisions here, in the US, iare functionally identical to citizens making decisions in pre-invasion Iraq. Yes?

In which case, that's stupid.
posted by undule at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2005


mek, seriously, who is dying of starvation in America (other than anexorics and nutcases who either can't or won't partake in social services.)

Seriously. Who? Where? How come this isn't an incredibly big national story? Front page of the papers, on the nightly news, all over blogs complete with photos of dying babies who simply don't have access to any food at all, on a systemic basis?

Oh, because it's not the case. Never mind.

OT, Churchill is a major league asshole provocateur masquerading as an acacemic. But maybe I repeat myself.
posted by 1016 at 7:16 PM on February 1, 2005


This is my ultimate criticism of his statement and one's like it. If we (meaning American liberals and leftists) want to actually accomplish some of our goals, we need to stop being provocative and hyberbolic for no other reason than self-satisfaction. It prevents us from being heard.

He published a provocative paper full of fiery language and now he's being provocatively critiqued in fiery language. Instead of discussing the actual issues, we're discussing him and O'Reilly. See the problem?
posted by jonmc at 7:16 PM on February 1, 2005


"9/11 was unjustifiable" seems to be the off-switch for rational discussion, eh? What does such a statement have to do with Churchill's arguments, if anything?

"In the terrorists deluded minds.." is another one of these off-switches. "Oh, they're crazy, why even bother about what they think." How do you think you're going to win a war on terror without knowing what's causing the terror?
posted by mek at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2005


mek, acknowledging that if someone thinks that murdering three thousand innocent people en masse is a valid means of accomplishing political goals != shutting off discussion. Actually, I think any truly rational discussion has to begin with that acknowledgement.

I fully understand that, to Al Qaeda, our foriegn policy may have justified 9/11. I also fully acknowledge that our foriegn policy in the Middle East is ofetn misguided and wrong. However, under no circumstances will I equivocate about the utter wrongness of what happened that day.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2005


Churchill's convoluted rationalization for the murder of all those people in the WTC attacks was not cool.

A quote from Churchill: 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.

Still, it was less convoluted than the rationalizations that Reagan, Nixon, LBJ and Kennedy used to justify the atrocities they committed in the name of Anti-Communism.

Force should only be used for protection against immediate threats, and only against those directly responsible for those threats.
posted by VP_Admin at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2005


Is this just another typical dismissive reaction against the radical left?

Do you mean as opposed to another typical dismissive reaction against the radical right?

Both extremes have assholes.
Though one side usually bears more of the consequence while the other gets a free ride.
posted by HTuttle at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2005


Churchill set out to provoke and now he regrets his success. He is well known among those who study American Indians for his essays, which are combative and wonderfully witty, though not all that substantive. He claims membership in a non-federally recognized band of Cherokee. His remarks regarding 9/11 are true to his usual form and not at all an abberation.
posted by LarryC at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2005


I suspect Churchill hoped his header above the controversial section - 'Meet the Terrorists' - would serve as a shorter way of saying 'let me take you into the mind of the terrorists and play Devil's Advocate here'. He was, clearly, wrong.

It makes him somewhat of a tool in the way he executed it, but it's an interesting piece nonetheless. If you look past the bad delivery, I think there is actually something of value there.

eener: anyone here who thinks that they could take him on in a debate

When you consider the poor phrasing in his essay, he really doesn't seem that intimidating as a debate opponent.

(on preview: amen, jonmc, on the damage these statements do.)
posted by cosmonik at 7:26 PM on February 1, 2005


add "is deluded" befor the "!=" in my last comment.
posted by jonmc at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2005


This is my ultimate criticism of his statement and one's like it. If we (meaning American liberals and leftists) want to actually accomplish some of our goals, we need to stop being provocative and hyberbolic for no other reason than self-satisfaction. It prevents us from being heard.

Here, jonmc, I totally agree with you. However, would there not be the same reaction (or worse, no coverage whatsoever) of a rational discourse saying the same things? There are plenty of level-headed leftist thinkers who just aren't considered by mainstream media.

Both extremes have assholes.
Though one side usually bears more of the consequence while the other gets a free ride.


Not to pick nits, but in recent American politics one of these extremes is much less concerned with hatred, religious intolerance, and bigotry.

And VP_Admin, that's exactly the selective quoting that made this a scandal in the first place. He's putting himself in the shoes of the 9-11 terrorists, if rather obtusely. The point is, there would be no better way for them to respond than to do what they did.

Unfortunately, it's almost 5 am here so I have to duck out of this conversation a bit early...
posted by themadjuggler at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2005


This is a perfect example of how the U.S. is effed and will stay that way until something REALLY bad happens.

Getting caught up in and being confused by stupid rhetoric, steals our attention from our common goals, i.e. good foreign and domestic policy.

What nation could ever take us citizens of METAFILTER seriously. We're here, we're there and all over the fucking place. But what do we really want. World Peace, or cheap fuel? Not to mention all the cheap products we purchase everyday from K-mart and walmart and everyother goddamn place. We have the most inexpensive goods in the world. Are you willing to give them up? Are you willing to pay premium? I am.
posted by snsranch at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2005


Just an honest question for people who are on the anti-Churchill bandwagon:

How is what Churchill doing any different from what Bush does? Bush regularly invokes the name of 9/11 victims and rescuers to either justify or mask the reasoning for his war efforts overseas. He did so at his campaign, inaugural and previous SOTU speeches and will like do so again at his SOTU speech this week.

So where is your equivalent outage?
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2005


1. It is true that the USA has committed an extraordinary range of misguided policies leading to millions of deaths. Churchill has in mind, especially, those in our Western Hemisphere. North, Central and South America.

2. Bin Laden could care less about these. We all know his very specific litany of grievances against USA's policies.

3. So is Ward C. saying this is karmic revenge or something? I've been following the story (it's local, for me), but I still don't get his logic.
posted by kozad at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2005


However, would there not be the same reaction (or worse, no coverage whatsoever) of a rational discourse saying the same things?

Not from me. And not from the near-majority of voters who voted against Bush, and I suspect even from some of those who did. This guy is angering people who are (to some degree) on his side.

My uncle used to to work in one of the Towers. He's a banker, which makes him a rich capitalist. He knew about 20 people who perished that day Another uncle used to be an exterminator in the same area. My best freind is a paramedic, whose unit lost 3 guys that day (He was on vacation, but I spent that day imagining him at the bottom of a pile of rubble. )

People say that George Bush is playing power games with people's lives for his own gain. They're mostly right. But the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are no different.

alexreynolds: I voted against, marched against, and have mefi'd against Bush. That dosen't mean I'm going to go easy on Al Qaeda or those who equivocate on their behalf.
posted by jonmc at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2005


And VP_Admin, that's exactly the selective quoting that made this a scandal in the first place. He's putting himself in the shoes of the 9-11 terrorists, if rather obtusely. The point is, there would be no better way for them to respond than to do what they did.

themadjuggler,
I admire the guy, personally. I like his politics for the most part. It's just that I don't agree with justification for violence, even if it's against corporapists who are sitting on top of the world, economically.

It's one thing to explain that the reaction of Islamic terrorists to the greivances of their people is predictable and expected, it's another to say there's no better way for them to address their greivances.

There is a better way to respond than how the terrorists responded. Acknowledging that doesn't mean I don't hold the terrorists in the Pentagon and the Oval office responsible for their violence as well.

The only violence I won't judge is that which is used directly to protect one's self or family against an immediate threat. For that reason, I do not begrudge the Iraqis their right to defend their neighborhoods. It's a terrible shame for our soldiers to be pitted against men who are protecting their families.
posted by VP_Admin at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2005


Need help with the archives, Alex?

No, thanks. Can you answer the question without asking one in turn? Both people are (ab)using dead people to an ideological end. So where's your outrage when Bush does it?
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2005


As a last note (I promise!) I agree with you VP_Admin except I think I see Churchill's "justification" a bit far from any kind of "approval" of said violence.

As far as I can tell, the guy's a completel pacifist, which makes me marvel at the violent response by O'Reilly and his fans.
posted by themadjuggler at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc, I respect your comments, but I continually find issue with them:

acknowledging that if someone thinks that murdering three thousand innocent people en masse is a valid means of accomplishing political goals

But history would maintain that murdering innocent people is a great way to accomplish political goals. The problem, perhaps, is the moralism inherent in the semantics: That is, what constitutes murder and what constitutes legitimate warfare?

To be sure, 9/11 was tragic and I by no means support the "murder of three thousand innocent people." But the issue remains, at least as a philosophical discussion. Also:

Instead of discussing the actual issues, we're discussing him and O'Reilly. See the problem?

Well, no. There is a fair amount of discussion - -or at least an attempt at discussion -- of the issues at hand, and some keep returning to insulting the man or hurling around wanton "fucktards". Is this metafilter or something awful forums? At any rate, belaboring the lack of discussion on the issues does not constitute discussion of the issues.

Indeed, a commenter has been referred to as a "fuckwit" for suggesting Mr. Churchill might, in fact, be rather clever. That seems out of order and far beside the point.

Meh.
posted by undule at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2005


People say that George Bush is playing power games with people's lives for his own gain. They're mostly right. But the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are no different.

alexreynolds: I voted against, marched against, and have mefi'd against Bush. That dosen't mean I'm going to go easy on Al Qaeda or those who equivocate on their behalf.
posted by jonmc


I agree totally. Bin Laden and Bush are both decadent men, born into great wealth and power, who use that power to play games with other men's lives. Bin Laden is more charismatic, articulate and intelligent than Bush, but he is definitely a pompous, sanctimonious, murderous asshole.
posted by VP_Admin at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2005


So where's your outrage when Bush does it?

Again, alex, plenty of people on MeFi have expressed outrage at Bush for using the 9/11 dead to justify a morally, strategically, and politically wrong war in Iraq, including myself. So many of us are quite comfortable taking this guy to task. And while we argue over what amounts to an academic spat with very little real-world impact, the bullshit goes merrily on.

on preview: undule, you're off in some academic ozone that I don't understand. Arguing about semantics and abstractions here is like fiddling while Rome burns.
posted by jonmc at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2005


Arguing about semantics and abstractions here is like fiddling while Rome burns

The hell it is.

Is the killing of innocents in Iraq with our military action the equivalent of murder? Many think so. It's hardly fiddling to ponder the difference.

But flippancy will rule the roost, so rock on.
posted by undule at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2005


Quit playing dumb. It's all over the archives.

Quit being disingenuous. Just about all of the people, with few exceptions, throwing insults and threats Churchill's way give and continue to give Bush a free pass; that the participants in your linked thread are not found in this thread demonstrates this. So again: where's the outrage from the right about Bush's abuse of 9/11 to political ends?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2005


trharlan, are you or have you ever been Bush-supporter?
posted by VP_Admin at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2005


undule, I'm not being flippant, I'd just wish that everybody involved with this debate would get down to business and that the Churchill's and O"reilly's of the world would just go screw.

I knwo several MeFite's who are self-described "extreme lefties" who said that on 9/11 their rage was so high, they were ready to man the barricades themselves. And, you know what? That rage was justified. It's just that GW Bush has pointed it in the wrong direction. The best anti-Iraq war writing has acknowledged this from the get go, both because of political expediency and because, well, they probably agree.

So again: where's the outrage from the right about Bush's abuse of 9/11 to political ends?

OK, you've qualified it with "from the right," so in that respect you're correct. But allow us non-rightists our outrage at this guy.
posted by jonmc at 8:05 PM on February 1, 2005


"Churchill's and O"reilly's of the world"

I strongly object to this equivocation. Churchill has approximately 12.7 Billion times the integrity that O'reilly has.

Again, trharlan, are you or have you ever been Bush-supporter?
posted by VP_Admin at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2005



Kinda reminds me of the German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen, who infamously described the WTC attacks as "the greatest work of art ever".

That caused a bit of a fuss, IIRC.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2005


I guess I misused "equivocation".
posted by VP_Admin at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2005


I strongly object to this equivocation. Churchill has approximately 12.7 Billion times the integrity that O'reilly has.

One's devoted to ratings and money. the other to his ideology and ego. they're both doing the same thing here and that's mucking up the waters on an issue of the utmost importance.

Again, trharlan, are you or have you ever been Bush-supporter?

Why not just ask if he's a witch?

Lay off. I may not agree with tharlan much of the time, but he's a civil and intelligent poster. Cool yer jets.
posted by jonmc at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2005


But allow us non-rightists our outrage at this guy.

Jon, read the FPP: "Major media outlets [including Fox, via O'Reilly] cite the comparison of 9-11 victims to Nazis out of context without tackling Churchill's views on American foreign policy." Regarding where the threats of violence are coming from, it seems pretty clear who my question is directed at. And those people are mute in the face of their hypocrisy. It is frustrating.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2005


Have you people even read the article?
posted by mek at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2005


As a student of the college in question (Hamilton), I'm kind of bummed out that the whole panel was cancelled simply for the sake of this one asshat. I was very much looking forward to one of the other panel speakers who was to talk about similarities between COINTELPRO and the USA PATRIOT act. This will be the second time in only a few months that the college has knuckled under and refused a controversial individual due to public pressure, the first being Susan Rosenberg, a former member of Weather Underground who was set to teach a short class but eventually declined to come because of the controversy she generated. Rosenberg lost her job as a result of the controversy generated here, and now Churchill's job is coming under scrutiny from his own university. We seem to have a knack for getting people canned.

In other news, we had a speaker last week named Elizabeth Fox-Genovese who compared the practice of abortion to the holocaust and abortion doctors to Nazis, but where's the harm in that? It's only when you compare WTC victims to Nazis that you run into problems.
posted by Ndwright at 8:21 PM on February 1, 2005


Have you people even read the article?

Yes, I read the Gospel and was not converted. There is a heretic in your midst.

And those people are mute in the face of their hypocrisy. It is frustrating.

Sure. But it's not my, or your, or anyone who's not them's job to speak for them. We're just articulating our own reactions.
posted by jonmc at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2005


Fanboy war-ship of mediocre self-styled intellectuals is worthy of my derision. And I find your revisionism and mischaracterization of commenter's comments to be a little dishonest.

Yah, perhaps you're right in this regard -- though my comment wasn't a mischaracterization so much as a possible misunderstanding of the fellow's point, which I interpreted loosely as his being "rather clever." Further, to accuse me of revisionism is a spectacular stunt, indeed.

To which I must add, defending that statement caused me to laugh aloud. But anyway, I still think if you strip out all the emotion and indignation, Churchill has raised some interesting questions.
posted by undule at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2005


To which I must add, defending that statement caused me to laugh aloud.

*gasp*

did you wake the neighbors?
posted by jonmc at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2005


My last comment was inappropriate. Disregard.
posted by jonmc at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2005


OK, tharlan, alex. Let's relax a bit.

I think alex's only real mistake was presuming that the only people who might be offended or even outraged by Churchill would have to be rightwingers. owillis and myself have demonstrated that's not the case. I'll take the liberty off assuming that his second posing of the question was meant rhetorically to any thoeoretical right wingers who might be reading.

I, of course, could be wrong.
posted by jonmc at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2005


I can't tell which is worse - that we're fighting this same battle again, or that people like owillis are still covering for those trying to keep certain things unsaid. This kind of difficult moment is exactly where these ideological battles over freedom of expression are won or lost; that Churchill overstated his case should do nothing to prevent free speech fans from stomping back hard against the O'Reillys of the world. It's astonishing that folks aren't seeing that.

What a disappointment to see smart people like owillis stumbling over themselves to demonstrate outrage over this one. Congratulations on handing the forces of silence another win.
posted by mediareport at 8:46 PM on February 1, 2005


He seems to have gone further in trying to justify it than anyone I can think of, but doesn't that mean it has at least some merit, and should be discussed or explored?

trharland: If it does make him more than a shit-disturber, what does it make him?

mediareport, you can both express outrage at the message and defend his right to say it, as well as exercise your own right to call him a tool on it. Isn't that what jonmc, owillis, et al have been doing in this thread?
posted by cosmonik at 8:50 PM on February 1, 2005


that Churchill overstated his case should do nothing to prevent free speech fans from stomping back hard against the O'Reillys of the world. It's astonishing that folks aren't seeing that.

owillis, tharlan and myself have all condemned the death threats and O'Reilly's opportunism. I am an absolutist on free speech.

What a disappointment to see smart people like owillis stumbling over themselves to demonstrate outrage over this one. Congratulations on handing the forces of silence another win.

You lost me here. How does expressing our own views and feelings on what Churchill said make us allies of the forces of silence? I thought that was the civilized response to speech you disagree with.
posted by jonmc at 8:50 PM on February 1, 2005


Anytime someone's thoughts are taken out of context and used to bludgeon him with them, its a problem. This guy's an academic (and probably ramping up for a book tour) and might be stirring up some fervor for his words but 99% of the people getting pissed off at his words haven't read the essays that they come from.

They are making ill-informed half-assed reactions to snippets of the texts.

How terrible a person could you be portrayed as if only tiny, tiny portions of your day were reviewed?

Fanboy warship of mediocre self-styled intellectuals is worthy of my derision. - trharlan
and
Lay off. I may not agree with tharlan much of the time, but he's a civil and intelligent poster. Cool yer jets. - jonmc

Um yeah, civil and intelligent. Yep, that's exactly how I'd characterize that parting shot.

At least I think we all agree that people making death threats suck.
posted by fenriq at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2005


I think alex's only real mistake was presuming that the only people who might be offended or even outraged by Churchill would have to be rightwingers.

Nah, the FPP made my question pretty clear. It's funny how this somehow got turned around, though. The silence is as damning as the rhetorical gymnastics.

If it was me, I'd direct my vitriol at people who abuse empathy and sorrow to do evil things. Of either Churchill or Bush, who do you think that is?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2005


I'll just briefly step in to throw a quick statement that is probably a bit off topic out there.

Certainly, d-bags abound on both sides of the fence. Perhaps Churchill is among them. Perhaps Michael Moore. Perhaps Al Franken. On the right, we maybe have people like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh.
This ever was true, and shall be, forever and ever, amen.

However, the problem is the way in which the sane ones on both sides handle these people. The left seems intent on proving their own credibility (at least sometimes), so you have sane lefties slamming crazy lefties.

People on the right don't care. If you're a conservative who thinks Rush Limbaugh is an ass-clown and Ann Coulter is an illiterate hate-monger, you just ignore them. And then you start slamming Michael Moore.

So, to fellow progressives, I certainly understand the rational, admirable, and very correct desire to attack falsehoods and faulty reasoning wherever it may lie. I know I've done it myself.

But shouldn't there come a time when the chips are down (oh, say, like if all three branches of government were controlled by a group of jackasses from hell) when we should just ignore the wackos on our own side and stop doing the Republicans' job for them? Why spend our effort saying, "Well, of course Ward Churchill's rhetoric is flawed and blah blah and Michael Moore's movies are more editorials than documentaries et cetera et cetera" when we could try to make ourselves heard?

Am I misguided here? Maybe I'm just depressed about the state of the world. Criticisms welcome.

On preview: ditto mediareport
posted by papakwanz at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc: Yes, I read the Gospel and was not converted. There is a heretic in your midst.

This is getting a little too S@L for me to participate in, but I'm going to try and wrap up my issue here.

Churchill is asking the sorts of questions we tend to ask about "historical" events such as WW1&2, the Holocaust, Vietnam... "How did this happen?" We can't dive in moralizing, as we want to know the actual cause, be it a "valid" or "invalid" one. The cause is the cause is the cause. Why do we want to know it? Presumably historians and philosophers believe that knowledge of how terrible things occur will prevent similar terrible things from occurring in the future. A great deal of ignorance of the causes of WW1 seemed to contribute to bringing about WW2, for example.

Suddenly, when we ask these questions about 9/11, it's inappropriate? jonmc (and perhaps others) claim that we don't need to know the cause, as it's clearly not a morally justified one. This is not logically valid. A historical event need not be "justified" (and does anyone even have the authority to make such a claim?) for its causes to be worth analysis. Nobody here would claim that the Holocaust had a morally valid cause, but we'd be fools to deny there was a cause of some sort. Therefore, Churchill's project is sound, though his conclusions may draw ire.

It is precisely when seemingly unjustified actions are taken, that we must ask how they came to be. This lack of justification, from our point of view, indicates a disconnect somewhere between the observer and the actor. When you throw your arms back in horror and shout, "How could this have happened??" is precisely when you need to sit down and figure out how this happened.

on preview: JeffL, I wish I could dismiss Churchill's words as easily as you do. But I think they cut too deep for that.
posted by mek at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2005


fenriq: the entire essay was posted. I can't speak for the others, but I read the whole thing. I've known both tharlan and owillis (in the cybersense) to give them the benefit of the doubt, too.

Too much of the response to our comments here has been addressed to an amorphous undefined "them," and not to those responding here.

so you have sane lefties slamming crazy lefties.

You also have sane lefties defending crazy lefties out of some misguided sense of loyalty. and that's killing us in the court of public opinion.

jonmc (and perhaps others) claim that we don't need to know the cause,

Put words in somebody else's mouth. I've mentioned several times in this thread alone that our foreign policy blunders played apart in what transpired. I just refuse to say that what happened was somehow OK because of that. Strawmen belong in cornfields, my freind.

(and does anyone even have the authority to make such a claim?)

Is the color blue to you the same as the colr blue to me? What's the meaning of life. This is what I mean when I talk about getting lostin a semantic swamp while Rome burns.

To accomplish anything in this situation, I think we can start with the assumption that 3,000 people dying at someone else's hand is an undesirable thing. Or is that too much to ask?
posted by jonmc at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2005


well said, mek.

the reluctance to allow questioning and theories is disturbing, to say the least.
posted by amberglow at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2005


amberglow, who is disallowing anything? We're responding, that's it.
posted by jonmc at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2005


Yes, I agree, mek, very nicely said.
posted by undule at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2005


i don't mean here in this thread, jon, but in the country.
posted by amberglow at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc: "I just refuse to say that what happened was somehow OK because of that."

jonmc: "I fully understand that, to Al Qaeda, our foriegn policy may have justified 9/11."

While your first statement may not contradict the second, you wish to portray the first statement as disagreeing somehow with Churchill(who, according to your reading, says 9/11 was OK) However, Churchill is only stating what you do in the second statement - that to Al Qaeda, our foreign policy justified 9/11.

I agree, straw men do belong in cornfields.
posted by mek at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2005


i don't mean here in this thread, jon, but in the country.

well, it's me, tharlan, and owillis, here in this thread who are bearing the brunt of the accusations from mek.

Churchill(who, according to your reading, says 9/11 was OK)

You tell me another way to interpret the passage JeffL quotes here. He's not questioning, he's accusing (or more likely caterwauling to get his name in the paper). And you're hairsplitting for the sake of winning an argument.

And, yes, it's good to know Al Qaeda's motivations, but only for the sake of discrediting and eliminating them.
posted by jonmc at 9:19 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm grateful that there are people on the left who are irresponsible with their choice of words, so the right-wing-nuts can be outraged at them, and those of us who are more careful in our choice of words can be treated with more respect.

It's good to get them stirred up once in a while. You know, the right-wingers have pursued a strategy of exhausting our ability to be outraged at anything, because they heap us with so many profound outrages, we don't know where to begin, and we suffer "outrage-fatigue".

Maybe we should pursue a similar strategy where we outrage them so terribly and so frequently, that they'll settle for a mutually respectful compromise.
posted by VP_Admin at 9:32 PM on February 1, 2005


What if someone said the Iraqi people brought Hussein's reign muderous upon them because they didn't rise up against him? They'd be stupid.

No, they'd be partially correct, as anyone who understands the role of cause and effect in the universe would attest.
posted by rushmc at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2005


Maybe we should pursue a similar strategy where we outrage them so terribly and so frequently, that they'll settle for a mutually respectful compromise.

That seems to be going on already and it's not working very well, mainly since the exteremists on both ends tend to outrage that great mass in the middle.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2005


No, they'd be partially correct, as anyone who understands the role of cause and effect in the universe would attest.

Perhaps, but you could also make the case that people in Iraq (and elsewhere) are kept powerless and ignorant by design.

And cause and effect is certainly worth looking at, but it dosen't neccessarily negate culpablility. The world is not just a skinner box, people are responsible for how the respond to stimuli, however much the stimuli might mitigate things.
posted by jonmc at 9:37 PM on February 1, 2005


Maybe we should pursue a similar strategy where we outrage them so terribly and so frequently, that they'll settle for a mutually respectful compromise.

That seems to be going on already and it's not working very well, mainly since the exteremists on both ends tend to outrage that great mass in the middle.
posted by jonmc


Trust me, I can think of a lot of ways to really outrage them. They've been going ape-shit all over us, and we've been very decent and civil to them.

I say fuck the great mass in the middle - they're shit-for-brains. I have very little respect for them. They're a pliable mass which can be made into anything. The people on the right are even worse.

I like when someone puts a stake way the hell out in left field, because it pulls the whole playing field leftward, as the right-wing-nuts have to attack that position, thereby sheltering the rest of us with the appearance of relative moderation.
posted by VP_Admin at 9:54 PM on February 1, 2005


Yes, it is dismissive. The world hates the United States for no good reason and everyone who hates us with extreme disgust must be radicals. We are a peace loving people. We spread peace and democracy throughout the world. Uh huh.
posted by fleener at 9:57 PM on February 1, 2005


jonmc, I'm not making accusations towards you, trharlan or owillis, I was just pointing out that the vast majority of the people who are having the problems with his writing didn't read it.

They heard some bits and went ballistic.

I've just gone and read the entire thing myself. And you know what? I agree with him. I agree with a great number of his points, but within the context of the essay.

He's attempting to illustrate the rationale and thought process behind the attacks against our country. So what if he uses explosive language, big fucking deal, he admits it at the end that its more stream of conscious and he may be wrong about some points.

But he's right about a great number of points and it is wrong to consider the WTC attacks an unprovoked assault. I don't know about the little Eichmann's crap but I get what he's getting at. That the WTC represented the financial heart of the military and economic beast that had been wantonly steamrolling their countries.

Yes, he stretches it a bit in the pursuit of his point and I don't really buy the willful ignorance in the orgy of excess the 9/11 victims represented. Many of them were just trying to take care of their families.

What's crazy about his essay? That he makes a coherent argument for why we were attacked on 9/11? That in some ways we deserved it and should expect increasing levels of attacks unless we, the people, move to address these failings of our leaders and hold them accountable or allow the international community to hold them accountable.

He makes alot of sense to me. I wouldn't have minded a little more how to fixit in addition to the what's wrong but I think he did a pretty good job of covering the what's wrong.
posted by fenriq at 10:22 PM on February 1, 2005


Ward Churchill: Dick.
Bill O'Reilly: Dick.
George W. Bush: Dick.

Me, I'm all about the left not giving in to the right. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I ain't about to go Sista Souljah on a guy like Michael Moore, because on his worst day Moore doesn't belittle the victims of 9/11 and because what he says is nothing compared to the verbal diahrrea emitting from the Ann Coulters of the world.

That said, I'm not willing to give Churchill a pass the way the right does with their house loonies. He's crapping on my side's lawn and I'm going to say so. VP_Admin: you have no idea how this works. To the righties in charge, Churchill represents what the Democratic Party thinks. I don't define myself by what they think of us (they think Bill Clinton is a radical leftist for chrissake) but a guy like Churchill is a bullet I'd rather not put in their rhetorical gun.
posted by owillis at 10:53 PM on February 1, 2005


"Am I misguided here? Maybe I'm just depressed about the state of the world. Criticisms welcome."

What's odd to me is that the people that are most keen on advocating this strategy are the most ideological of the American left and are not the pragmatists.

As pragmatic liberal, the argument is appealing to me for its pragmatism. But ultimately, I think, it's burning down the village to save it. "Win at any cost", including convenient hypocrisy, are the values of the contemporary Republican leadership, of people like DeLay. That's a good portion of what makes them so morally repugnant. Leftists are self-critical because it's an essential virtue.

I haven't seen anything yet that doesn't strongly give me the impression that Churchill is speaking in his own voice. If so, he should accept the (civil) criticism he's inevitably going to get from such provocative statements. So should his defenders.

And the important point here, in my opinion, isn't that the 9/11 actions weren't reprehensible—they were—but that the deliberate killing of civilians is also reprehensible. The US killed a hell of a lot more than 3,000 civilians, deliberately, in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The US has killed a lot more than 3000 civilians in Iraq during this conflict.

If civilians are valid targets, then so were the victims of 9/11. This distinction between "nation" and "terrorist" in this context is deeply self-serving.

Let's avoid the sort of language like "deserved it". Down that path lies damnation. Seriously. Making calculations like that about the lives of ordinary people is monstrous.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:54 PM on February 1, 2005


I really wish that people would work harder to ensure that they didn't contribute to knowledge drift. There are an embarassing number of posts in the thread above that move the professor's position to an easier to destroy/defend spot. It's probably unintentional, but it's sloppy.

Is his Eichmann analogy stupid? yes.
Does he say that 9/11 victims deserved it? no.
Is it true that we should expect to reap a bit of what we sow? absolutely.
posted by mosch at 10:56 PM on February 1, 2005


"He's crapping on my side's lawn and I'm going to say so."

It's worth pointing out, too, that here in mefi in several threads there's been expressed anger and frustration that "good" Christians don't speak out against "bad" Christians (like Phelps) as if it were their responsibility to do so.

If you accept that reasoning, then it surely applies to us.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:58 PM on February 1, 2005


owillis, I get that you don't appreciate his argument but I'd like to understand why? Because he loads the gun for the other side to take selective bullets from? Okay, how is that different from everything else? Anything the Democrats have done is going to get twisted into a new balloon shape by the GOP, its what they do.

Churchill at least appears to be making a coherent argument for why it happened, not justifying it but explaining why it happened. I'm not grasping why that is so wrong?
posted by fenriq at 11:05 PM on February 1, 2005


Its blaming people for something they didnt do. Furthermore its labeling them with a sick name for it.

Its like someone blaming me personally for dead kids in Iraq because I'm an American under Bush, nevermind I voted against the bastard twice, protested the war and actually raised money and campaigned for the other guy.

It is one thing to give the GOP as good or better than they give (I'm all for that). It's a whole other thing to say people deserved to be killed for what their government did (or didn't do).
posted by owillis at 11:10 PM on February 1, 2005


I got it, thanks for the clarity, I didn't see that in what he wrote. But, yeah, I can see it now.

I didn't see that he was calling the victims of 9/11 to blame for what happened, the Eichmann label was stupid and I would hope he regrets using it.

But regardless, I read his essay and thoughts on the victims specifically in that, from the planners perspective, the people who worked at the World Trade Center were actively engaging in the destruction of their way of life by the sanctions that condemned a half million Iraqi kids to death among the other atrocities being wrought on the region.

I'm willing to see past the stupid label and try to understand the point he's attempting to make. I realize that the bad guys certainly won't even pretend to make that understanding. They will grab onto the juicy stuff and forget about the rest.

Churchill may have chosen some stupid words in the course of making his argument but he does make his argument.

I don't think he's saying that 9/11 victims deserved to die for what the government has done or didn't do. He's saying the attack was inevitable and, in spite of the outrageously horrible nature of the event, it was restrained. Churchill says, and I think rightly so, that a terrorist organization worth its salt would already have thousands of sleeper cells across the world. I believe things like this are a distinct possibility, unimaginable wealth buys unimaginable things. Think about the bankrolls behind all of this. You know far better than I do about the extent and power of Saudi families in the US.

He points out ineptitudes in our own law enforcement and the fact that they are using their newly annexed powers to toss Americans in pursuit of terrorists. He scares me because he points out some of the things I've thought and not said.

Its a shame that his paper will arouse so much fury when the point he's trying to make is a warning that the danger we faced on 9/11 is greater now and getting worse everyday that nothing is done to correct this country's wild global bully act.

owillis, you are one of the good guys, I know that. I like to think I am too, I voted against Bush, I did work for Kerry, I wrote letters, I wrote essays, I talked to friends and family. I pulled hard, I tried and we lost. I'm still pissed, I still think there's some hanky-panky with the vote and I really won't be satisfied until its all open to scrutiny but I also recognize that its time to move on and concentrate on the future.

The reality is that the playing field has fundamentally changed. The GOP has made the old rules of play null and void, they're making them up as they go along and kicking the ref $20 million everytime they screw up bad enough to get caught. If we, the Dems, are to come back, we've gotta learn to fight the new game. You're probably already aware of it but I read this blog post about Chamberlain Democrats that I found insightful and I've wondered what you would make of it.
posted by fenriq at 11:37 PM on February 1, 2005


To some extent, yes, I agree with you. I've said numerous times on my blog that bipartisanship is a quaint artifact at this point in time. And numerous Dems STILL don't seem to get that. For the life of me I'll never understand Joe Biden doing a great job of dressing down Condi Rice... then voting in favor of her nomination going to the floor. Every time I see signs of life, they do something to piss me off because theyre scared of being called obstructionist. Tom Daschle was about as milquetoast as you can get, yet he was parodied as this great obstructionist. The DC Dems do not get it.

That said, Churchill is still a dick. It's one thing to strongly advocate for your issue, its another to be a jackass about it. Personally I find what Churchill said to be repugnant, but the way he said it makes it that much worse.

What people dont understand is that you can be stridently opposed in your rhetoric without being so far to the wayside that you're off the playing field.
posted by owillis at 11:55 PM on February 1, 2005


To the righties in charge, Churchill represents what the Democratic Party thinks.

that's because the other party, the one you seem to worship and seem to consider an actual force for progressive change *snicker*, allowed them to do so for years.
for years Democrats in Congress have allowed a bunch of GOP political thugs to hijack the flag, to hijack God, to hijack any meaningful discussion of patriotism. your party is happy to let the other side frame every debate, happy to finally be kicked in the teeth by the political pros on the other side of the fence -- and then you, Oliver, have the gall to come here and crap on this Churchill guy, a perfect irrelevant unknown until that O'Reilly falafel-fucker, going live on TV clearly with a dildo stuck up his rectum (we cannot see under that desk, can we) decided to turn Churchill into somebody actually relevant?

this Churchill guy is about as relevant as what one random guy writes on Usenet.
feel free to discuss him further, making him relevant when he actually wasn't.

you always allow the other side to frame the debate and to decide what's news. you keep walking right into the GOP's trap and you don't even know it.
posted by matteo at 2:18 AM on February 2, 2005


owillis: Its blaming people for something they didnt do.

Really? He pointed out what he feels the "technocratic corps" running the "engine of profit" have done pretty clearly, it seems to me:

To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants.

Churchill is obviously singling out the folks at the top of the global financial scheme underlying U.S. empire, many of whom had offices in the WTC. He is claiming that those people are involved, through heartlessness or willful ignorance, in an evil system that kills people, and thus should not be considered completely "innocent" victims when others attack them. You can certainly argue his implication that, say, traders at Cantor Fitzgerald bear some responsibility for how capitalism operates in the third world (which is, after all, the heart of his "little Eichmanns" claim), but the least you can do is not pull an O'Reilly and deliberately distort by claiming Churchill is "demeaning" all of the victims of 9/11, as you put it, or is calling all citizens fair game. He's not, and you're being obtuse here as you play the right-wing game.

Note your formulation below:

What if someone said the Iraqi people brought Hussein's reign muderous upon them because they didn't rise up against him? They'd be stupid.

The more clear analogy, in Churchill's view, would replace "the Iraqi people" with "high-ranking Baathist party members who benefited directly under Saddam's regime." If you're going to tell others to "scorn" someone for their ideas, owillis, the least you can to is accurately describe those ideas.
posted by mediareport at 5:27 AM on February 2, 2005


Only reasonable comment I haven't seen yet: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ? Hmmm?

It may not be pretty or pleasant, but this is the kind of free speech that the First Amendment was written to protect.

We better remember that -- especially here on MeFi. I'm certain that many of us have written statements here and elsewhere that are not in keeping with current ideology. How long before those statements will be forbidden? Hmm?
posted by mooncrow at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2005


Y'all make the mistake in thinking that I believe that the Dems have all the answers. It's more a question of redirecting a broken ship. We have a two party system in this country, and only one at the very least gives lip service to progressives. Yeah, I know, the Indymedia guys and the Green party are going to CHANGE THE WORLD! Or not. And this guy was already getting play before O'Reilly latched on.
posted by owillis at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2005


I'm sorry, but: He deserved every death threat he got.

We have the freedom to say what we want, sure, but consequences are a bitch, ain't they?
posted by fungible at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2005


To accomplish anything in this situation, I think we can start with the assumption that over 100,000 people dying at someone else's hand is an undesirable thing. Or is that too much to ask?
posted by jonmc at 9:06 PM PST on February 1


Absoultely! Damn you GW Bush and your cronies!

I eagerly await the day when O'Really chooses me (unknown to all except MeFi'ers) as his target of hyperbole.
And I anticipate the moment one of his mouth breathers threatens me with physical harm!
Some of us learned a long time ago the best thing you can do for a loud mouthed bully is kick some ass.
I guarantee his sinuses will forever be clear enough to use properly.
I intend to make even the most left of the lefties look like moderates.
And I can do it. :-)
I just hope owillis forgives me for giving O'Really another rhetorical bullet to shoot at the spineless groveling fucks in Washington that have the nerve to call themselves an opposition party.
WooHoo!
posted by nofundy at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2005


And cause and effect is certainly worth looking at, but it dosen't neccessarily negate culpablility. The world is not just a skinner box, people are responsible for how the respond to stimuli, however much the stimuli might mitigate things.

Absolutely. And the citizens of Iraq are not exempt from that.

Also, what matteo said above.
posted by rushmc at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2005


Nofundy,
I feel your rage.
posted by VP_Admin at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2005


owillis, I don't think the Dems have all the answers but I do believe that they are far more interested in finding some answers than the GOP. And that's why I count myself as a Democrat.
posted by fenriq at 8:23 AM on February 2, 2005


Ward Churchill is no pacifist. He co-wrote Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America. Ward Churchill calls himself an indigenist and has advocated for the right of indigenous people to take up arms against their colonizers if necessary.
posted by jonp72 at 6:03 PM on February 2, 2005


That crap on your lawn owillis, is there to help it grow -- fertilizer. Which is the point of non-violent theorizing and diseminization of "radical" ideas. In a FREE society that is what we must allow for in order to remain free to be a bump-on-a-log when want to or a radical activist professor on other days. This is the very kernel of freedom.

Owillis, as you run in fear that the mighty rightwing corporate inquisition might call you on some political faux pas, thinkers and agitators such as Churchill are supplying you with peace of mind. He's radical so you don't have to be. And lucky you, you never are.

The University of Colorado is run by adults, that in any other time and place, with a little less of the Fox News sensationalism and generalized hateful jingoism, would albeit still stir controversy by employing a Ward Churchill, but would never have attracted the ire of both the valueless right and the valueless left. The value exists in the thoughts one espouses. In a free country our teachers espouse thoughts and theories and uncomfortable positions. Also, in a free country, you are free to disagree. And that should be it. Pack it up. Party's over. Great job everybody, you've given your life a semblance of meaning.

In this environment of plastic, canned, cartonized propaganda readily available for the reactionary, new modes of thought are disdained. On the "left" and "right".

I'm left to wonder if anybody cares about freedom at all. Apparently not. We only care about what is being said, not that which has been done.

Churchill pointed out what had been done even though he wasn't the one who caused it. Bad move bro. That is why he is now a marked man. Nothing has been done. Churchill needs to get it through his allah-lovin' skull that history and reality are being rewritten and one must update himself to the times. In the 21st century evil comes out of nowhere.

Hell, I've read comments around the web that Churchill isn't even a "real" Native American. Sounds to me Churchill (and the rest of us) gotta get with the program. No time to waste. You might be something you're not.

Freedom is on the march!
posted by crasspastor at 7:49 PM on February 2, 2005


Is it fertilizer in reality, or will it turn out to be just plain old sewage?
posted by shoos at 9:20 PM on February 2, 2005


geez, what took churchill so long? i was saying the same thing the day after. but i'm a nobody so i don't get threatened with death or lose my job: posted by 3.2.3 at 10:34 PM on February 2, 2005


sorry, last link should have been this.
posted by 3.2.3 at 10:36 PM on February 2, 2005




« Older True story: as a teenage waiter, I once...   |   hall of oddities Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments