Spoken like a true American. This conduct belongs on the bumper of your SUV just above your Taiwanese made American flag.Englishman said:
No bashing
crazy Prof. from u of colorado
- Thread starter fletcher
- Start date
No bashing
You know, I really dislike the word, "ironic," these days. Too many people misuse the word and it bugs me. That said, there is some real irony here in the conservative reaction to this and other similar stories nowadays.
I've heard conservatives talk so many times about how one of the great problems with America is that, "we've lost our vision." You can read that as meaning, "we're too secular." (which we are) But the fundamental vision of America was a land where no leader or group could gain too much power, where people were largely free from persecution for their personal beliefs and where criticism and subversion were understood as essential parts of both accountable leadership and personal freedom.
Now here we are with the world (unjustly in many ways) looking down, not up, at this great country, yet it seems like neo-conservatives just want to continue to push in the wrong direction. I am really starting to worry. I mean, first of all, the legislative branch is practically non-existent. It exists, but not as any kind of a buffer for the executive branch's will. I wouldn't be surprised if the judicial branch is next.
In addition, criticism is simply not tolerated by the right. It's f*cking pathetic how the idiots in Colorado (most of whom surely have never even read the offending essay) are now PASSING LEGISLATION DENOUNCING AN INNOCUOUS COLLEGE PROFESSOR. Give me a break. This clown Churchill meant absolutely nothing to anyone a couple of weeks ago and would have continued to mean nothing to anyone had he spoken at that college in New York. Now, because right wing morons see an opportunity to, 1) further their political standing and, 2) send a warning shot to prospective subversives that their opinions will not be tolerated, the poor wacko is certian to garner sympathy from a damn large group of people (O'reilly included!)
I understand where conservatives are coming from. I really do. The country, especially in the late nineties, had gotten way too secular and liberal. We were in danger of becoming France. Just as any oppressed group is bound to rebel, so did conservatives. That's fine. But you f*cking people have to know your limits.
Chill out a bit and try being just a hair more accepting of other people. If you keep pushing this hard, you're going to force a massive cultural change in the other direction.
I've heard conservatives talk so many times about how one of the great problems with America is that, "we've lost our vision." You can read that as meaning, "we're too secular." (which we are) But the fundamental vision of America was a land where no leader or group could gain too much power, where people were largely free from persecution for their personal beliefs and where criticism and subversion were understood as essential parts of both accountable leadership and personal freedom.
Now here we are with the world (unjustly in many ways) looking down, not up, at this great country, yet it seems like neo-conservatives just want to continue to push in the wrong direction. I am really starting to worry. I mean, first of all, the legislative branch is practically non-existent. It exists, but not as any kind of a buffer for the executive branch's will. I wouldn't be surprised if the judicial branch is next.
In addition, criticism is simply not tolerated by the right. It's f*cking pathetic how the idiots in Colorado (most of whom surely have never even read the offending essay) are now PASSING LEGISLATION DENOUNCING AN INNOCUOUS COLLEGE PROFESSOR. Give me a break. This clown Churchill meant absolutely nothing to anyone a couple of weeks ago and would have continued to mean nothing to anyone had he spoken at that college in New York. Now, because right wing morons see an opportunity to, 1) further their political standing and, 2) send a warning shot to prospective subversives that their opinions will not be tolerated, the poor wacko is certian to garner sympathy from a damn large group of people (O'reilly included!)
I understand where conservatives are coming from. I really do. The country, especially in the late nineties, had gotten way too secular and liberal. We were in danger of becoming France. Just as any oppressed group is bound to rebel, so did conservatives. That's fine. But you f*cking people have to know your limits.
Chill out a bit and try being just a hair more accepting of other people. If you keep pushing this hard, you're going to force a massive cultural change in the other direction.
Nick;
Being accepting of other peoples opinions is fine - but surely you admit there is line between acceptance and outrage, whether its politcal or anything else. To call the victims of the WTC disaster nazis really is beyond the pale of decent people, IMHO.
This guy has a right to say what he wants - he doesn't have a right to a forum. It's like the Bill Maher thing, he had a right to say it, but he doesn't have a right to a soapbox from ABC.
Being accepting of other peoples opinions is fine - but surely you admit there is line between acceptance and outrage, whether its politcal or anything else. To call the victims of the WTC disaster nazis really is beyond the pale of decent people, IMHO.
This guy has a right to say what he wants - he doesn't have a right to a forum. It's like the Bill Maher thing, he had a right to say it, but he doesn't have a right to a soapbox from ABC.
Read the actual essay. He never called the WTC victims Nazis. He made a referance to one famous Nazi. It was one objectionable sentance in a multi page essay. The press and right wingers are jumping on one tiny item because they didn't like the overall message of the piece, which is actually somewhat insightful in some parts.
Lessons Not Learned and the War on Free Speech
by Ward Churchill
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 3, 2005
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."
In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-11 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill is professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a writer and activist who has authored numerous books on Native-American issues, human rights, US foreign policy and genocide, including On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections On The Role Of Armed Struggle In North America.
by Ward Churchill
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 3, 2005
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."
In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-11 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill is professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a writer and activist who has authored numerous books on Native-American issues, human rights, US foreign policy and genocide, including On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections On The Role Of Armed Struggle In North America.
He was on Paula Zahn tonight and dame near made sense. Did say he has been miss quoted. But stood by what he wrote. He's trying to tell the American people we don't understand why were hated. Im not sure about that after reading some of what he said. But He is right we need to be able to do more then just fight wars.
yeah all we are doing now is fighting wars
good point
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3519179,00.html
good point
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3519179,00.html
I'm losing all respect for you people, giving this pathetic cunt any credibilty.
What the **** is wrong with you people? The WTC workers were like Eichmann?
How can you defend this cunt, Nick. Or don't you think Eichmann was a Nazi?
Jesus ****ing Christ, you people are killing me here.
What the **** is wrong with you people? The WTC workers were like Eichmann?
How can you defend this cunt, Nick. Or don't you think Eichmann was a Nazi?
Jesus ****ing Christ, you people are killing me here.
you sound like we're too late. Do you have ane concept of history or just what they taught you in Catholic School. Happy life.
Ahh...two of my all time favourite calls in this thread...
The old, "If you don't like it, **** off" trick!
That's right! Anyone who disagrees with the powers that be simply should leave! Rational debate? Out the door.
Anyone that listens to something 'contraversial' that the majority of people don't like/want to hear...OUT!...
...Hardly worth commenting on really.
And, the assumption, or assertion at least, that College/Uni students are somehow more receptive to brain washing than anyone else....
...Don't get me wrong, I know there is an ingrained willingness to rebel at that age, and there socialist alliance is always trying to save the world!...But to be of the belief that intellegent/rational people can't use their own minds when listening to anyone or anything is (IMHO) rediculous.
So, here is a man ranting and raving about some 'cunt', having (I am assuming) never read a word he has written.
Why? Because his trusted news/media outlet has told him so.
I'm not going to say ironic either....but it is a funny world we live in.
The old, "If you don't like it, **** off" trick!
That's right! Anyone who disagrees with the powers that be simply should leave! Rational debate? Out the door.
Anyone that listens to something 'contraversial' that the majority of people don't like/want to hear...OUT!...
...Hardly worth commenting on really.
And, the assumption, or assertion at least, that College/Uni students are somehow more receptive to brain washing than anyone else....
...Don't get me wrong, I know there is an ingrained willingness to rebel at that age, and there socialist alliance is always trying to save the world!...But to be of the belief that intellegent/rational people can't use their own minds when listening to anyone or anything is (IMHO) rediculous.
So, here is a man ranting and raving about some 'cunt', having (I am assuming) never read a word he has written.
Why? Because his trusted news/media outlet has told him so.
I'm not going to say ironic either....but it is a funny world we live in.
Last edited:
MrChristo:
I read exactly what the man said - you obviously didn't. He is a revolting cunt, unfortunately he has the right to say what he wants.
Just because you have the right to say or do something, doesn't mean you should.
As for students.....well, that's a whole other topic, but this man is beyond the understanding of normal people.
Natutrally, you seem to have a pretty good handle on him.
I read exactly what the man said - you obviously didn't. He is a revolting cunt, unfortunately he has the right to say what he wants.
Just because you have the right to say or do something, doesn't mean you should.
As for students.....well, that's a whole other topic, but this man is beyond the understanding of normal people.
Natutrally, you seem to have a pretty good handle on him.
I still cant understand why anyone gives a chit. If it is true he wrote this almost three years ago. How come everyones worried about it now. And yes it's true he can say what he wants. But it does not make it right. Would be good to here it argued in front of the supreme court. But because of the attention it would get there, it never will happen. A act of war. Or terror. Is that what he's trying to say? There is no question we are at war. Hey is he a guy with a screw lose or another one that was talking to god. It's hard to tell now days.
Last edited:
Dr.Freeze says "Liberals spend way too much"
OMG LMFAO! Have you been awake the last 5 years? Your "boy" W is racking up the biggest financial meltdown in the history of the world!
You are a COMPLETE idiot!
OMG LMFAO! Have you been awake the last 5 years? Your "boy" W is racking up the biggest financial meltdown in the history of the world!
You are a COMPLETE idiot!
Just so we all know. Dr. Freeze obviously despises the poor so if you needed medical attention and couldn't afford his exorbitant rates well I guess you would be out on the curb in your death throes.
Obviously the good doctor must be practicing in some metro area where there are lots of wealthy clients willing to get boob jobs. And who would be better qualifies in the boob field.
Obviously the good doctor must be practicing in some metro area where there are lots of wealthy clients willing to get boob jobs. And who would be better qualifies in the boob field.
ocelot said:
That's been clear since he started posting here. At least he's been consistent, I guess.
did i ever say that bush was not a spending liberal?
its funny how some simpletons cannot distinguish between ideology and party, but apparantly this is a concern that i should address in every post i make
dr. freeze loves the poor, dr. freeze just defines "poor" differently -- dr. freeze does not think the bottom 25% of wage earners in this country are all poor as many of these folks live in the top .1% with regards to standard of living in the world we live in
dr. freeze also does not believe in policies that keep the poor -- poor forever -- with a measley welfare check in exchange for their vote
dr. freeze also does not think it is very compassionate to deliver policies to the poor which as a result help potentiate crime, child abuse, addiction, and the passage of such traits to children
dr. freeze also thinks that the government is inefficient and horrible at solving social ills and thinks that money would be better served through charity
dr. freeze also does not believe in promoting class envy and resentment at those who work productively and are successful
dr. freeze also believes keeping the american dream alive so people who were raised at income levels below middle class can achieve, produce, and help the disenfranchised later on in life
dr. freeze also does not like the liberal elitist thought police
obviously, the liberals are not open minded enough to discover other worldviews....but that has been apparent since some of the started posting also
its funny how some simpletons cannot distinguish between ideology and party, but apparantly this is a concern that i should address in every post i make
dr. freeze loves the poor, dr. freeze just defines "poor" differently -- dr. freeze does not think the bottom 25% of wage earners in this country are all poor as many of these folks live in the top .1% with regards to standard of living in the world we live in
dr. freeze also does not believe in policies that keep the poor -- poor forever -- with a measley welfare check in exchange for their vote
dr. freeze also does not think it is very compassionate to deliver policies to the poor which as a result help potentiate crime, child abuse, addiction, and the passage of such traits to children
dr. freeze also thinks that the government is inefficient and horrible at solving social ills and thinks that money would be better served through charity
dr. freeze also does not believe in promoting class envy and resentment at those who work productively and are successful
dr. freeze also believes keeping the american dream alive so people who were raised at income levels below middle class can achieve, produce, and help the disenfranchised later on in life
dr. freeze also does not like the liberal elitist thought police
obviously, the liberals are not open minded enough to discover other worldviews....but that has been apparent since some of the started posting also
Last edited:
