Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Wa., has cancelled a scheduled talk by purported Native American activist, vile 9/11 apologist and controversial University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill, stating there would be a threat to public safety if he is allowed to speak. EWU president Stephen M. Jordan had this statement. (Hat tip: Sound Politics reader John Buchanan, of Cheney). (Update: Churchill was invited to speak by the university's American Indian Studies program and was to be paid $3,000. Meanwhile....., porn star Ron Jeremy's Feb. 16 speaking gig is still on during "Violence Against Women Week" at EWU).
Churchill had another speech cancelled recently, at Hamilton College, in upstate New York. In a noted essay titled "Some People Push Back: On The Justice of Roosting Chickens," he wrote that 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center "toiled for the mighty engine of profit," and were "little Eichmanns." Here is the key passage.
As to those in the World Trade Center . . .Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite.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. 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.
Writing in City Journal, Katherine Ernst says it's perfectly appropriate for CU to be reviewing whether Churchill shall stay employed there, and perfectly reasonable for publicly-funded universities to disinvite or reject him as a speaker.
These First Amendment-based arguments miss the point: the right to free speech is not a right to be heard or a right to hold on to a job. Would these schools hire or invite to speak a biologist who claimed that alien gamma rays caused cancer—even if that someone held a Ph.D. from a prestigious school? Of course not. So why is a psuedo-intellect—who thinks that stock traders, accountants, and Windows on the World busboys are comparable to genocidal Nazis—given intellectual time and respect? Just to prove that officials at these schools have read the Bill of Rights? CU is also a public university: Why should Joe Taxpayer be subsidizing such idiocy?
The Denver Post editorializes here on the growing Churchill controversy, noting that CU must accord the free speech "arch-hypocrite" due process in his job-status review. Indian Country Times worries Churchill puts a poor face on Native American activism.
EWU's Jordan states worries that Churchill's presence could lead to "panic" or "an immediate breach of the peace," the clear intimation being violence from those to the right of Churchill politically. I find that worry somewhat offensive; and further note that such antics usually come from The Left, as occured recently at Seattle Central Community College. I would expect heckling and protests of Churchill at EWU, but I wonder if - as repugnant as some of his views are - it would not have been in the public interest to let him be hoisted by his own petard.
What do you think? Should EWU have allowed him to speak?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 05, 2005 01:38 PM | Email ThisUntil a Hercules cleans up the Agean stables, Ward Churchill moments will occur again and again. Cleaning up the Agean stables is hard dirty work and so far the majority of the citizens have not been willing to do the work.
Posted by: Not a Yank on February 5, 2005 01:44 PMThat 'panic' or 'breach of the peace' excuse is what universities use when lefties bust up campus anti-affirmative action bake sales. No, heaven forbid that campus security restrain the violent students, they just support the hooligans' 'cause' by chasing away the targets of the violence.
So now they're supporting the anti-Churchill 'cause' by preventing him from speaking.
Voltaire loses in both cases.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 5, 2005 01:48 PMDepends...
Would he be paid by the school to come speak, as some guest speakers are?
In a scenario in which he is paid either for his apperance or travel by the school as a guest speaker: NO. I don't support any ideology that compares the 9/11 dead to "little Eichmanns." I don't want my tax dollars going to sponsor him or his rhetoric.
He has the right to freedom of speech, but he shouldn't be compensated for it, not by my tax dollars!
AMEN!
Posted by: Adriel on February 5, 2005 02:27 PMHis contract to speak should be cancelled, and he should be fired from his "teaching" job. He can always get a job filling in for Daily Kos.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on February 5, 2005 02:29 PMI agree with Joe, who says free speech is not the issue or the problem, but tax dollars paying for this speech is the problem.
Would you support university dollars going to teach, as "Free Speech" that every Muslim, without exception, is a terrorist?
And would you PAY to teach others to celebrate when they are killed, good, they deserve it!? Somehow I doubt it.
But that is exactly what Churchill said. Every janitor, babysitter, parking lot attendant, waitress, and even visitors and job applicants of WTC deserved to die, whether they understood the big picture or not. And three cheers now they are dead.
When you say "of course" to PAY churchill, you are saying "of course" to PAY every hate group to promote their violence.
Free speech? Yes. Even and especially when I disagree with it. The alternative is a dictatorship.
But PAY someone with tax dollars to encourage and promote this as worthy of learning and emulation. Lucy--get your head on straight.
The Left has been given free hand for much too long in distorting Constitutional rights in public discourse and legal proceedings. It's far past time for the pendulum to start swinging in the direction of reality and sanity.
Posted by: Bill on February 5, 2005 02:50 PMHowever, the Constitution does not reinforce his right to force his views on any person who does not desire to hear what he wants to say. He cannot force any institution give him time and location to say what he chooses, and then demand honorarium. He must be That is what the left refers to as intellectual robbery, and that is exactly what liberals have been perpetrating against our youth in our tax-funded public schools.
With regard to any agreement hat he may have had with EWU, as the consumer EWU has the right to cancel services that it deems are contrary to the needs/desires that they espouse. That is why we have the "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" law.
So EWU, after receiving more information on Mr. Churchill, decides that his product is not what they want. Anything that is provided in exchange for money (a bar of soap, or a radio, or a speech) is a product. EWU is thus perfectly within their rights as consumers to refuse, particularly since Mr. Churchill has not delivered his product as yet.
Free speech is a marvelous thing for all. I am glad that I live in a country where everybody- without exclusion- can speak their minds and disagree without fear of reprisal.
That is a freedom worth defending. But let us be sensible here.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 5, 2005 03:00 PMI just wish they had not taken the weasel way out by blaming it on the threat of violence. I would prefer they had stepped up and said they had reconsidered after learning more about his vile pronouncements. He has advocated violence in pursuit of his agenda...that alone should have caused them to cancel.
CU should fire him. He can speak and write all he wants, but there's no constitutional right to be paid to spread hatred, pollute young minds and call for violent revolt. Let him find a publisher if he needs the money. At least it would be his own dime.
Our consititutional right to free speech does not mean that any government body (or anyone else) has an obligation to pay for any particular person to speak or provide any particular person a venue to speak.
However, the left-wing concept of free speech goes like this: if it's a cause we (the left) support, then the government should pay for it. If it's not, then the person shouldn't be allowed to say it anywhere at all.
Thanks for the reminder, Lucy.
Posted by: Boonie on February 5, 2005 03:09 PMPraying for the day when moonbats become an endangered species.
ERN
Posted by: ERNurse on February 5, 2005 03:25 PMSomehow schools have successfully screened out the most offensive and egregious speakers in the past. So why shouldn't they use some sort of standard to prevent something like Churchill (Duke, OBL, etc., etc.) from presenting filth to students?
Unless there is a way to neutralize Churchill's evil sophistry when he speaks, providing him an opportunity to present his profoundly anti-American and anti-Western philosophy backed up by lies and selective data does not serve our society in the least.
Posted by: Iconoclast on February 5, 2005 03:45 PMHis position at CU is a tougher issue, and that's what I'll be interested to see unfold. I assume he's tenured, and tenure is a tough thing to overcome. The university is certainly wise to take some time to be certain that decision is made correctly. But I have a pretty good idea that if this were a case of a faculty member being caught with (even perceived) racial bigotry or sexism in their writings, there'd be hell to pay for it. And if the stated views were as outlandish as Churchill's (but again on race or gender issues) the offending faculty member would almost certainly be out of a job, tenure or not.
It's always entertaining to watch left-leaning university administrations confront the ugly consequences of leftist ideologies on campus.
He's full it shat, of course, but that is a different issue.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 5, 2005 04:05 PMNo, the issue is simply one of Mr. Churchill's intellectual qualifications. In appointing him to a professorship, then granting him tenure, and finally making him chair of his department, the University of Colorado warrants his standing as a serious person, a man whose moral and intellectual calibre entitles him to a respectful hearing from a serious audience. EWU implicitly makes the same claim in inviting him to speak. One can now see from Mr. Churchill's remarks how much reflection goes into these academic judgments.
Will dis-inviting Mr. Churchill "chill" the speech of other academics? For those of a timorous nature, quite possibly. Will it be a blow to "academic freedom"? If "academic freedom" means immunity from censure while trashing the country that affords it, no doubt.
Will it incite left-wing faculty to upset the intellectual balance of universities by driving the left-wing/right-wing ratio from 10 to 1 to, say, 20 to 1? I guess we will just have to take our chances, won't we?
Did this fellow offend some people? Obviously. Truth often hurts & offends. I think Mr. Churchill badly over-generalized, but there is a seed of truth there Americans are still in denial over, and that at our peril. Our government has done just as much or more to instill hate as love worldwide, and the arrogance of the manifest destiny driven Capitalist, treating the world as a commodity to be exploited, has done even more to instill fanatic hate and incite retaliation.
The chickens aare indeed coming home to roost.
The greatest irony of all though is that even as "we" win the battles we lose the war. It isn't our army that makes us powerful, it's our economy, and long before we run out of GI's we'll run out of money to pay for their adventures.
Posted by: Gadfly on February 5, 2005 04:18 PM"If people wanted to hear him talk, he should have been allowed to give his speech."
The second half is: Those who wish to hear him should pay for it themselves.
And Churchill is, without question, full of shat...a reason why he should be afforded JC's suggested platform:
"...Mr. Ward Churchill should be giving the "key note" address at the Democrat Convention in 08."
Yet, Gadfly insists on babbling:
"and the arrogance of the manifest destiny driven Capitalist, treating the world as a commodity to be exploited, has done even more to instill fanatic hate and incite retaliation."
Professor Churchill must be proud to have taught Gadfly...
-Gadfly.
This is the rhetoric that they spew everyone!
FACT: We continue to be the worlds largest supply of humanitarian aid. The 2nd closest giver to the US gives less then half as much.
FACT: We defeated the Nazis in WWII and saved the world from Hitlers attempt at world domination.
FACT: We helped bring down the iron curtain and Berlin Wall.
FACT: We are the the biggest contributor to the world wide war on terror.
FACT: We freed Iraq from a brutal dictator.
FACT: More people immigrate to this country then any other in the world.
Let me explain something to Gadfly. I don't know if he will get it! To be proud of the above listed accomplishments and many others is not arrogance. The hatred for the United States doesn't come from anything we have done wrong or mostly right globally! The hatred comes from jealousy of something we have. That is freedom! It is not a coincidence that places where hatred resonates from are places in the world that don't have freedom. They resent us because we have the ability to control our own destiny. Gadfly you are confused and wrong just like your friend Ward Churchill.
Posted by: Joe on February 5, 2005 04:56 PMWeep not, lefties. He's giving you guys a worse name than you already had.
And yes, she's right. He can say what he wants. Just don't make sane people pay him to say it!
Hey, isn't he committing 'hate speech'?????
Posted by: Michele S on February 5, 2005 04:59 PMOk, actually I might just be eager for blog fuel.
Posted by: Mark on February 5, 2005 05:06 PMI am not in denial, but I think Gadfly is. This kind of anti-American Marxist rhetoric is used by the leftists to justify why America is hated by certain elements in the world.
America is hated primarily because are a prosperous nation, and because we are a friend of Israel (as we should be). The hate is real, and America is NOT the cause of it. What we should do is stop ALL foreign aid to nations that support anti-Americanism, which would be most nations. Maybe then they would like us better. Or at least respect us.
But who cares if they like us or not? I don't.
It is not America's job to instill "love" in the world. America's record as a peace loving, generous nation is unsurpassed in history. Take your lesftist false guilt somehere else, please.
I must admit, you are sounding a bit more "lucid" than normal except for this:
"governor's race that I explained to you months ago that you lost for good."
Your doctor can still make a refinement on your medication, right?
Well at least Ed has it half right. Israel is a big part of the problem. When you help establish an illegetimate Nation, you should expect to take some heat.
And as a good conservative, I am all for stopping all foreign aid. Let private organizations do the charity work and even give them tax breaks. Let all support whoever they choose. But get Uncle Sam out of it, and stop using money & the army to push an agenda.
The rest of you are just ignorant ideolouges. There would have been no Hitler to stop if we hadn't meddled in 1917. Likewise, there would have been no Soviet Union.
Today in Iraq, a nation invented at Versailles, we are certainly setting up the next round of war. Oh well, at least it's job security for the army and the military industrial complex.
The fact is, for every "good guy" we have supported we have supported at least one b*stard. And some b*stards, like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, we supported as long as they were our b*stards.
You guys will never learn.
And "we" had it coming.
Posted by: Gadfly on February 5, 2005 06:16 PMSince these problems have been going on so long, over 100 years bare minimum, and since our government apparantly is still picking b*tards to support, and we are such ignorant idealogues, and obviously aren't listening to your wisdom, why don't you just go where someone has the right ideas, like you?
Retorts aside---why? And which country would you pick as our example. Or are you the idealogue, if you can't find better?
Posted by: tinwhistler on February 5, 2005 06:27 PMYou are a disgusting idiot
Posted by: Terry , Clark C on February 5, 2005 06:30 PMCareful, now...
"Much like our vice president's at the State of the Union speech."
What did VP Cheney do to deserve that? He doesn't call himself d!ck-ch**se...
Posted by: smegma on February 5, 2005 06:33 PMI'm not being glib, as in "love it or leave it" I work to effect political and social change because I feel my voice counts.
It doesn't seem yu have that same faith, or at least I can't see why you would.
My request is for a serious response. Why would you stay in a country so worthless, so evil, and so resistant to what's right and good, when in this day and age you don't have to?
Posted by: tinwhistler on February 5, 2005 06:35 PM"Well at least Ed has it half right. Israel is a big part of the problem. When you help establish an illegetimate Nation, you should expect to take some heat."
Posted by: smegma on February 5, 2005 06:38 PM"Well, at least Churchill didn't call himself,smegma!"
Why would he call himself? He would be more screwed up than I thought if he did...
Anyway, I thought you would like my compliment after all my acidic vitriol I threw at you before. Oh, well, no making up sweetie? Is this the end?
Posted by: smegma on February 5, 2005 06:46 PMBut seriously, let the luny tune speak, even if our tax dollars go to fund his whacko logic. Hell, i'd definately pay to see his delivery- you can't better get entertainment acts on college campuses! More speech, NOT less, will help us in our Revolution! But if he gets fired- or if people throw tomatoes at him, that's ok too!!!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on February 5, 2005 06:53 PMI would think any person familiar with the carving up of the Ottoman Empire knows what a ghastly job they did. I understand your logic in believing that such has caused all the misery we see in the MidEast region.
What I don’t see from you is a method to turn the clock back and make it right (impossible), or some other idea which will make up for the shortsightedness of our forbearers. You label the disagreeable as “neocon,” which may be correct. I think they are “practical” since the world descending into chaos while we close up would inevitably lead to our downfall.
So, if you have any ideas, I’m all ears…
To support Gadfly's view of the world would be to do absolutely nothing for anyone ever because you fear a consequence. Similar to not pulling someone out of a burning car because you yourself fear being burned, or being sued if you accidently broke their arm while doing it. This view point also requires a deep self shame, and a perpetual negative attitude.
I'll pass!
Posted by: Joe on February 5, 2005 07:19 PMBesides, I like my Ottoman...
Hey, knock it off! I know what you are trying to do, and it ain't gonna work...
*END FEED*
Posted by: smegma on February 5, 2005 07:39 PMThere is no way that a fight is going to break out. There might be a shouting match, but that's a question or rudeness, not security.
Universities are increasingly using this lame excuse to get themselves out of a jam. It's bogus and it's a cop out.
And it's something everyone needs to worry about. If they use this idiotic excuse against one person we might dislike, you can bet that they'll soon be doing it against people we like (see the Marquette University problems this week (here or here) or David Horowitz's problems getting onto campuses.)
Posted by: Ann on February 5, 2005 08:23 PMFor those who are asking to "balance" the discussion by bringing a conservative speaker, that's not neccesarily effective either.
Why couldn't EWU guarantee his safety? Not enough police or security, or was it too expensive? EWU is a pretty mellow campus- I'm willing to bet there is a hidden reason...
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on February 5, 2005 09:45 PMI believe I explained in a previous thread that 'smegma' was in fact the by-product of the microorganism mycobacteria smegmata, which grows in the folds of skin around the female human genitalia.
Your revisionist microbiology fails you. AGAIN.
I find it quite edifying that you and Gadfly (as well as this nebulous army of 'millions' to which you previously alluded) have fallen back on that timeless Liberal tactic of confronting truth with childish insults and hollow threats. (Poorly-worded and grammatically-primitive threats at that.) Your liberal education betrays you once again. You and your SCCC cronies are the best that the liberal intellectual elite can offer. I am unafraid.
Tell us more about your fellow liberal millions who are in the wings ready to take over. Everybody here, including you, knows that Liberals can't fight. Liberals don't know HOW to fight.
Instead of learning how to fight, liberals learned how to spray paint vile (and misspelled) words on walls and break into businesses. Liberals learned how to bully the defenseless, vandalize government property, defecate on the steps of federal buildings, and key cars. But liberals NEVER learned how to fight.
History shows us that liberals are by nature afraid to fight. If liberals weren't afraid to fight, they would not be hiding behind the Constitution like loudmouthed sissies hiding behind the skirts of their mommies.
Your oft-vaunted 'millions' could not fight their way out of an overturned outhouse. History has proven it again and again. And history will continue to prove it. And your liberal millions KNOW it, which is exactly why they have NEVER come out to toe the scratch, and why they NEVER will.
You wrote that you intend to amuse your readers. Well, you certainly amuse me, though not in the way that you may have intended. This amusement is exactly that which one would feel while viewing the three-headed calf at a roadside freakshow: borne of pity.
Your childish (not to mention biologically inaccurate)insults and filthy invective accomplishes nothing but to remind the rest of us that the days of liberal influence are drawing to a close. Again, you devour yourself with your own words.
However, I will credit your millions of fellow liberals with this one thing: they know better than to challenge the majority of Americans to a real fight, because they know that the moment they do, we will push them into the sea.
Lord, haste the day...
Posted by: ERNurse on February 5, 2005 10:59 PMFIND A BETTER COUNTRY
Posted by: BlueKnight on February 6, 2005 02:21 AMIn the second place, the rest of the world is just as ugly as this if not uglier. Such is the nature of the monkey who calls itself man.
If you are posessed of the view The United States is right even when wrong you are a nationalist.
If you think The United States must speak with one voice, and dissent must be encouraged to "move on" you are a socialist.
And that's what the neoconservative wing of the Party of Lincoln has degenerated into: The modern incarnation of the NAZI party.
Not only did we have it coming, but we're earning more every day.
You see, here's what you new NAZI's don't understand. The kind of consensual politics that was formerly the hallmark of this land is something the overwhelming majority of have to want or it won't work. Our style of liberal democracy won't work, for example, in Iraq, because it will never meet the needs of a large enough proportion of the population. It will never, for example, satisfy those who believe perfect freedom is found in Islam. To them, we are an abomination. And the only answer your bunch has to that is, more or less, "they're evil!Kill them!" you and they are peas in a pod.
Look at this election farce. I didn't vote for either of these sorry party hacks. I wouldn't sit in the same room with either chrissi or dino. But I still want a revote, because I think the ruling political class has taken "we the people" for granted too long.
I am a scientist by trade and statistical analysis is second nature to me. A couple of hundred votes is a tie; too close to call. We don't know who "won" and never will. A revote might or might not answer the question. But if your bunch can get ahead by one vote, you'll do high-five hail Mary's all the way to Olympia, just like the other side did. Again, peas in a pod. You and they have so much mutual animosity there is no longer room in your worlds for the other guy.
That's not the kind of democracy that made The United States admirable, and having lost it we are no longer great.
We have it coming.
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 10:14 AMGadfly, I'll bet you are a hoot at parties!
Posted by: Joe on February 6, 2005 10:49 AMFinal solution? I don't advocate anything. I merely note you lie in the bed you make. And while I won't presume, as you do, to put words in other's mouths, I do note that all too often those who are obsessed with the survival of the modern Israeli state are so inclined because it is linked inextricably to their dark, barbarous biblically inspired armageddon fantasy. If you are one of those so disposed, I suggest your god is a fantasy, as are all gods. Grow up.
Practical? I am nothing else. I don't accept right & wrong, but I do accept smart & stupid. Our current policies are stupid.
We're bogged down in the middle east for a lot of different reasons: Unfinished business, the shrub's revenge, Israel, oil, etc. The only good reason is oil.
So to better ideas.
1) Get independent of foreign oil entirely. This environmentalist is for massive expansion of nuclear power, specifically breeder reactors. Make 'em huge, and use them to make hydrogen. Make 'em big enough they can be massively defended by that army we're wasting in foreign adventures. This takes the power away from the oil cartel that in some cases has spent their money to our detriment, and it takes a big bite out of global warming.
2) Get control of the borders. That's another job for the army.
3) Use the extra effort being put into these side-shows to address our real foreign policy problems. The chinese are cleaning our economic clocks. This nation has all too often chased the mouse while ignoring the elephant.
4) Pursuant to the above, create good jobs at home to buoy our economy, which is our real power. Then we won't need cheap goods from nations that employ slave or near slave labor and use their surplusses to our detriment.
And let the rest of the world solve it's own problems. A hundred years of meddling has left us with two choices: continue to meddle, and race everyone to the bottom in the process, or stop, and innovate our way out of this mess. Go back to being the example, the city on the hill... With a moat around the damn thing...
In only another hundred years or so, everything will fix itself.
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 11:17 AM-Gadfly
I'll take that as a compliment!
Posted by: Joe on February 6, 2005 11:21 AMThat's obvious, I realize, but sometimes it is productive to be master of the obvious.
Don't know how to fight? you poor fool, your side doesn't know how to do anything else... Like win in the long run. And spare me the prattle about the last two elections. All you have done is set Hillary up to be the first woman in the oval office not under somebody's desk... It serves you right. By 2008 we will have been bogged down in so many fruitless foreign adventures, have lost so many men, and will have spent so much money in the process people will be begging for a new government. What we will get stuck with will be as bad as what we have, just in a different way.
Into the sea... At least you have a sense of humor... You're bunch will be running for the sea!
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 11:34 AMI see you didn't understand my request for a "serious response" to understand YOUR views. Here was your chance to enlighten me---and you call me names? Not a very intelligent way to debate. In fact, neither intellligent nor a debate.
Your statement that you are a scientist and a statistical analyst seems highly suspect to me in light of your lack of logical thought, response, and inability to analyze a simple statement.
I do not believe the US is 100% right even when they are wrong.. hence my statement, "I work to effect change". Hence also my question soliciting YOUR serious viewpont, (not mine or the US's.)
Since you feel the rest of the world is even uglier, I guess that makes this the best place on earth. Glad you're finally on board!
My children are Jewish so I'll thank you not to call us Nazi's. Is this how you treat people whom you say "have a right to be here" Is this how you speak to others who disagree with you? Who'se the dictator here, Gadfly?
You say our brand of liberal democracy won't work in Iraq. I agree. That's why IRAQI's voted for IRAQI candidates in an IRAQI election. Our brand of liberal democracy would have dead amrican housepets voting in Iraq.
Interesting your view of liberal democracy is to give up and let the even uglier people blow us up.
I do not advocate killing Muslims. I do advocate stopping terrorists, whatever their religious or national stripe. They were given many options other than fighting. But when you drop (4) 100,000 ton missiles on my kid's head, you've pretty much blown your last chance with me.
Interestingly, you never answered my question---
Why would you stay in a country, that's by your own statement better than anywhere else, and let us be deservedly killed by "even uglier" people----yet you don't want to go live there, because it's ugly.
I want to live, and since you don't, go away, or quit yer bitching that I am fighting to survive and effect change.
When I say that you never answered my question. Please understand that's now a rhetorical question. You're not serious, just nasty, and I no longer care to hear your nasty, foolish, ill-conceived ravings.
Posted by: Tinwhistler on February 6, 2005 02:08 PMTo describe your worldview as ‘narrow’ would be an understatement.
On point #1: Environmentalists would never allow it. On your sub point; Global Warming is a theory...
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
- Mark Twain
On your remaining points (some of which I grant validity to), they don’t matter without #1’s inception, so you have failed to specifically and realistically address a fitting process.
And stop sullying my good name...
Your question was not worth answering. As is common on the right, you attempt to control by defining the terms. It's my country. You leave.
I think you are paranoid. Paranoid people should not be changing anything other than their undies, and that only with supervision. 9-11 didn't emperil "us." It was a fleabite on an elephant.
As for the Iraqis, we'll see. My bet is that after the shiite theocrats take over, the shrub finds a way to invalidate the whole process. Lapdogs is exactly what he wanted.
And I really don't care what ethnicity you or yours are; you are as you do. As for "jewish vs NAZI," I'll direct your attention to the Israeli treatment of the palestinians and concerned Americans like Rachael Corey...
Peas in a pod.
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 02:36 PMWhen Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections and in that time captured the House, the Senate and made gains in state legislatures and governorships, most people I think would agree that is significant and long-term, the opposite of prattle.
If Hillary is to be the first woman in the Oval Office not under the desk, that WOULD be an accomplishment, since all women to date who've been under that desk have been there thanks to democrat presidents.
As for fuitless, fruitless is what Clinton did for 8 years, flying 50k sorties over Iraq while leaving Saddam free to terrorize his own people, fund the terrorism of others, attempt the assassination of an American president and shelter and train terrorists. That's fruitless. Bringing democracy, liberty and the rule of law to the last remaining region of the world, so obviously desired when vast majorities turn out at mortal risk to vote, literally sticking the finger in the eye of so-called "insurgents", THAT is NOT fruitless. Democracy is fruitful.
Or isn't that obvious enough for you?
Liberal is as liberal does.
Your sentiment echoes the threat of Kruschev: "We will bury you!" But it was freedom that buried socialism.
As long as you see man as nothing more than a highly evolved primate, you will continue to revolve around the axis of nihilism and hopelessness. Even your best and brightest hope is meaningless. How sad.
When given the freedom to choose between either life in the collective or life in a society that gives one the opportunity to forge one's own path and to do one's best using the talents with which one has been Divinely endowed, whether to rise or to fall, one will always choose the latter over the former.
Socialists and liberals ply the old magician's sleight of hand trick: distract your audience with elequent and seductive words and ideas so they will not see what you are doing and thus realize that you have no power at all. "Don't judge me by my actions- just follow my words." The trouble is that people really are judged by what they do, and the only people in danger of falling prey to the liberal lie are those who cannot or will not think for themselves.
The truth hides nothing; it invites all to examine for themselves every corner of every room; to investigate and to dig; to apply all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength toward proving or disproving an idea. The truth needs no defense. It stands for itself and cannot be altered. It can be attacked and impugned, and even hidden for a time; but it cannot be altered.
Those who embrace a lie will go their graves defending themselves and their ideas, and along the journey will threaten, deceive and murder anyone whom they fear may be close to discovering the truth.
The cruel irony of any humanist doctrine- whether it be called socialism, liberalism, anarchism, or post-modernism- is that it cautions its adherents to be 'free thinkers' while demanding that these same adherents listen to no other voice. Thus when exposed to the light of truth, the humanist doctrines scatter like cockroaches, because none of them can withstand reasoned and purposeful scrutiny.
Socialism has always collapsed under the weight of its own decay because it is based on the lie that the collective can provide what God cannot. We all know that socialism and liberalism are predicated on the idea that life is meaningless, government is god, the indivudual is worthless apart from the collective, the unproductive and weak are fit only for euthanasia, and that there is no hope beyond the plow and the grave. This is why socialism and liberalism fail: because there indeed is hope and freedom, and because there is a God.
You and your cohorts may scream a hundred billion threats; you may attempt to sway the minds of your less-sophisticated audience through your TV networks, newspapers, and Hollywood propaganda machines; you may pound your empty doctrine into a hundred million impressionable young heads in ten million classrooms. But you cannot and will not win as long as the message of a future hope, of individual freedom, and of the opportunity to determine one's own path are held out to just one person, simply because in every human heart a small voice whispers that there is more to life than this.
And you may think that you can crush this hope through stripping all visible and audible vestiges from the eye and ear; by eliminating the Ten Commandments from every public building in America, through erasing "In God We Trust" from our money, through banning prayer in public, and through suing every person who has the audacity to sing a Christmas carol in public.
But your plans are damned to failure because they have never succeeded, and they will never succeed, in silencing that little voice in each heart. You may have succeeded in your own heart, and for that I mourn. But you cannot open what God has closed, and you cannot close what God has opened.
You can erase the name of God from your schools and your communities, but you cannot erase the truth of God from the human heart.
Liberals declare that there is no absolute truth, but that very declaration is predicated on an absolute, and thus the very ideal upon which is hung the whole of humanism is proved a lie. Thus the core principle of humanism is found to be as enduring and dependable as a wisp of smoke.
Go ahead: hurl your insults. Voice the same threats of national dominion that have escaped the lips of a million tyrants throughout history. Smear your opposition any way that you can. Scream and spit and lash out; break every window in every business; burn down whole cities and round up your enemies into ghettos; murder them and gas them, and burn their bodies. Your forebears have tried these tactics before, and they have never succeeded in destroying the truth.
I will close this with Pascal's Wager, paraphrased:
"If I have lived my life guided by the principle of absolute truth and Divine purpose and I am wrong then I lose nothing, for I have lived to the fullest and given all I had for the benefit of others. If you have devoted yourself to denying God and to living for only yourself at the expense of others and at the last are proven wrong, then you are to be pitied above all creatures."
Posted by: ERNurse on February 6, 2005 03:08 PMIf you want to be taken seriously in an open forum, it would serve you well to demonstrate a little of that tolerance that you and your fellows keep shouting about.
God bless you.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 6, 2005 03:16 PMThat was the second sermon I had today, but it was more eloquently put than the first!
I don’t have the answers. That is why we elect people who profess to have them. When they fail to adequately follow their professed vision, we get rid of them in favor of another. Thus our representative republic is preserved.
Granted, I would love to cast my ballot to specifically silence Gadfly, yet his graceless employ of invective is a useful reminder to all of us that we should be grateful not to be on the lunatic fringe of the Left, at least.
I was wondering when Heedless would come out and talk about furniture, but it appears she only wants to shout you down.
Heedless: Answer: Lincoln. The Civil War. I bet that still upsets you that Lincoln was a Republican…
Posted by: smegma on February 6, 2005 03:44 PMWhy, Chuck, do so many on both sides assume if you're not with us, you're again' us? I didn't vote Gore because he proved to be a liar. I didn't vote Clinton becase he was well-known as a crackpot well before '92.
I didn't vote Bush 43 in '04 because he proved to be a liar.
We'll see about the Iraqi elections. I wish them well, but I'm not making any assumptions... The forces that put Saddam Hussein into power and kept him there are still operant. Iraq is still united only in its divisions. My bet is we are stuck there for a very long, very expensive while yet. Iraq has never been a viable geopolitical entity and never will.
And you can prattle about the last remaining region of the world when the chinese vote...
BTW, the democrats held power for a very long time, and lost it. Their excesses were their undoing, as yours will undo you.
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 03:44 PMAs for environmentalists and nuclear power, many of us are coming to the conclusion that the only non-nihilist approach to the conundrum offered is what I suggested.
And if that's your name, I don't want to meet your mom... :-)
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 03:56 PMBut we are monkeys... And gods are a fantasy. Now it is true that many if not most people require this fantasy to avoid degenerating to the point that society becomes impossible. That's why evolution built the fantasy into you, and you are welcome to it. For myself, I have long since outgrown any such need. I can face the truth about man without the pretty makeup, and in fact be happy with that.
And as for the survival of socialism, all the middle eastern derived religions, including christianity, are socialist by paradigm. And they have been around a long time.
BTW,American christians, who purport to follow a man who claimed to own nothing, demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy as they drive their SUV's to church...
But that's OK, because the monkey acts first and rationalizes after the fact. If "you win," you will write the histories, and your "god" will be vindicated. If, for example, unlikely as it seems, modern Western society is supplanted by, for example, an Islamic society, they will write the histories.
But it is fascinating to see the cliche`s unfold. I don't care if you pray, even in public, etc... I'll even strike up a chorus of "Oh Come All Ye Faithful" with you. It's harmless, after all. Just keep your silliness out of laws I'm expected to follow, please. That's all I want and the least I'll accept.
And as for fenced ghettos, the only ones currently operating, now that our former ally Saddam is gone, are full of palestinians and chinese dissidents and are being ran by our current allies... So much for "the good guys."
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 04:28 PM“The effect of that push is somewhat speculative. Most of us expect weather related disasters - expensive ones - to increase greatly in frequency & fury.”
I am happy you qualified that as you did, but I remain skeptical of the very notion that our 0.1% fossil fuel emissions can have any effect on the 99.9% of naturally occurring “greenhouse gas” emissions. An extra volcano eruption would push the ratio down even further...
“And as for fenced ghettos, the only ones currently operating, now that our former ally Saddam is gone, are full of Palestinians”
Those troublesome Jews again? Please, I would suggest from your own wording:
“2) Get control of the borders. That's another job for the army.”
Precisely what the Israeli Army has done with their border.
"BTW,American christians, who purport to follow a man who claimed to own nothing, demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy as they drive their SUV's to church..."
I don't get it...what else would a person drive their family to church in?
"And if that's your name, I don't want to meet your mom... :-)"
Me mum was fine; I am the flawed one…
Sorry- my intent was to outline certain tenets, not to preach a sermon. Thank you all for very kindly bearing with me. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, or to agree with my way of expressing myself. Forgive me for getting carried away. In the future, I will try to keep my posts short and succinct.
Lucy, please bear with me as I say this, so as to avoid misunderstanding. I may not agree with you, but I do believe that you are as valuable, and are to be as valued, as any other person. I acknowledge in front of all who read this that your value is not dependent upon your agreement with me- and it should never be so.
I do not believe that America has always been wise in our dealings. I certainly and strongly disagree with some of President Bush's policies. I know that we have warts. This would be a perfect country only if it was not populated by human beings. Neither political party holds a monopoly on virtue or evil. But neither is America the great horror of the world. Were that so, Canada and Mexico would be filled with American refugees. To date, I have yet to hear of the actual mass exodus of so many who swore they would move to Canada upon the re-election of President Bush. Having said that...
If I am reading correctly your most recent statements and your description of the fear that one experiences in combat, I would conlude that you were a combat veteran. But correct me if I am wrong: are you not female?
If you indeed did serve in combat- that is, on the front lines, slugging it out with an armed enemy in field of battle, then it would not have been in the uniform of the United States military, who expressly forbids the practice of posting females at the point of the spear. I have yet to read of any female who has served at the point of fire by any circumstances other than accidental. If, however, you happened to be one of those rare American females who have come under direct enemy fire, please accept my most sincere admiration for your courage. In fact, if you served in the military at all and in any function, I applaud you and thank you for your sacrifice- and I sincerely mean that. I served, but I was never in combat. I still have one set of my old BDUs, and I keep them in a tote with my ribbons (of which I have only three), jump wings, and beret. I was not the best soldier, but I was glad to have had the opportunity to voluntarily serve my country.
Lucy, and everyone else for that matter, I will never expect you to agree with everything I say. And in the view of all here who read this, I will give you this pledge: that I will give careful consideration to what you have to say, insofar as it is said with respect and thought.
If you think that because I disagree- and at times very adamantly disagree- with you that I somehow think of you as less than human, you are mistaken. ALL people are priceless. I do not see you as an enemy, and I ask your forgiveness for giving you reason to think that I do.
However, I will not hesitate to take up arms- or the pen- against any ideology or philosophy that asserts that certain people, because of their own ideologies or beliefs, are deserving of ridicule, oppression, subjugation, or death. I will side with freedom, but I will never embrace or promote the allowance of freedom for any group or political system that desires only to oppress others, either ideologically or physically.
You may say that that is exactly what America seeks to do. I happen to disagree. But I also know that whatever you and I may say, history will be the ultimate judge of America's policy and actions.
I will gladly apologize for any post in which I have impugned your personal character. But I also trust that in the future you will not be so presumptive as to declare that you know my most intimate thoughts and motives. You are valued, but you are not God.
From this point on, I will try to keep my posts brief, folks. Thanks again for bearing with me.
And you gotta admit the old Soviets know how to poison... That was the nastiest dioxin they used on whatshisname... 2,4,7,8,TCDD. The real thing! They must have brewed it special.
If only I could remember people the way I remember chemicals. :-)
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 07:43 PMYou must have mistaken me. Your posts have been spot-on. I was not trying to denigrate you, or turn you from your path (each of us has one).
"However, I will not hesitate to take up arms- or the pen- against any ideology or philosophy that asserts that certain people, because of their own ideologies or beliefs, are deserving of ridicule, oppression, subjugation, or death."
Remember, I have called for the banning of Gadfly, jim, HL and others, which puts me in the crosshairs of your above statement. I remember (usually afterwards), every once in a while they serve to remind us that not all truth is locked within our own system of beliefs. I think Gadfly borders on anti-Semitic, but I am a sensitive person in that regard.
Relating to HL: "But correct me if I am wrong: are you not female?"
I leave that to others to decipher...and perhaps it is not really that critical.
“that I will give careful consideration to what you have to say, insofar as it is said with respect and thought.”
True, I grow tired when they reiterate the tired and failed policies of _______(name the issue). And should my sorry name be impugned, for no other reason than that is what I am called, I let loose with both barrels. No difference with you, I suspect, though your name is infinitely more respectable :-)
Cheers, my friend. You have done well, and I wish you continued success!
Not right & wrong. Smart & stupid. Israel isn't demographically or goepolitically / bioregionally viable. It can only exist by oppressing it's neighbors. If the powers that were at the time, including the UN, had given them the whole region, it would have at least been viable if still stupid. As it is, it's never going to work.
It's been said the commercial airline industry is an industry that's never turned a profit. Israel is a nation whose existence will never profit man.
And bravo headless Lucy about the repubs & Desert Storm.
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 07:56 PMNot that the religious right could ever admit that...
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 08:02 PMGoodnight, all. Don't forget to check for homosexual anti-semitic Islamist commies under your beds before you say your prayers...
Posted by: gadfly on February 6, 2005 08:10 PMIt started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.
They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.
Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss.
Why did O'Reilly target Ward Churchill?
Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.
That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.
Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust
In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.
But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.
“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”
What are you willing to do?
Posted by: kstreetfriend on February 6, 2005 08:25 PMBut as far as respectable names go, you must bear in mind that even the most unglamorous things serve very important and even noble functions.
Besides, I think your handle has a certain, shall we say, pizzazz. ;)
Posted by: ERNurse on February 6, 2005 08:32 PMBut if that is what you really believe- if that is the best that you can say of yourself- then you are in a most wretched place indeed.
What proceeds from a man's mouth is the fruit of his heart. If one is to believe your own nihilistic profession, it must be reasoned thus that all your words are the sterile fruit of a lifeless heart; if your heart is dead, then of what merit are your words?
Posted by: ERNurse on February 6, 2005 08:35 PMWhoa. I think I need a cervical collar after that ride. Help me to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that what appears on the surface to be an issue of free speech is really an attempt by the Bush administration to eliminate publically-funded colleges?
Is this really not an argument over whether or not a person who promotes hateful ideas has the right to demand a publically-funded platform from which he can spread them?
Is it not about whether or not an institution has the right to terminate an employee who publically expresses views that undermine the integrity of that institution?
I respectfully contend that Mr. Churchill wrote his essay with the goal of having it published. One does not write essays for the purpose of lining one's drawer. Public denunciation by Bill O'Reilly to his millions of viewers and listeners has given Mr. Churchill a degree of publicity beyond his wildest dreams. Do you really think that Mr. Churchill has a legitimate complaint?
Furthermore, Mr. Churchill has the right to say whatever he pleases, but institutions, private or otherwise, have the right to deny him a paid platform if his views are contrary with the institution's.
I also respectfully submit that the media's outcry against the general was far more unfair than O'Reilly's lambasting of Churchill. "Yet another bloodthirsty Marine boasts of his bloodlust!" Please. It is common knowledge that the MSM loathes all things military. Nobody from the Washington Post or the New York Times is hurrying to the general's defense. But a leftist professor who is rejected because of his viscious and despicable commentary, portraying the victims of 9/11 as ruthless nazis, is idolaized as a free-speech martyr. I see a huge inequity here.
The General was speaking to other Marines about what he knew best- the art of war. What should we expect a decorated warrior to talk about in such a forum? Needlepoint?
If indeed this is what you are describing it to be, the MSM will waste no time at all in making sure its concerned public hears about it, particularly since the MSM routinely expresses outright hatred of anything associated with President Bush.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 6, 2005 09:52 PMI think that if the situation in Washington does not imporve, the same thing will happen as in the Kalifornia Soviet Socialist Republik; that is, it will finally dawn on taxpayers that there are better and cheaper places to live, and the state of Washington will be reduced to yet another west-coast ghetto for the socialists.
Washington is a beautiful place, and I think that if ever there was a place to stop liberalism, this is as good as any. I think that people are so angry with the current leadership here that they are willing to wait another four years and eject the current batch od sea-lawyers for somebody- ANYBODY- who will uphold the will of the majority 2/3 of the state. (No experience required! Liberal Socialists need not apply!)
Maholo, J.C. Enjoy your dive. Think of me while you bake in that beautiful Hawaiian sun. :(
The reason that you hear so little about the KKK is that since one of the KKK's members happens to be a senior Senator (Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia), the MSM has been told that the issue is off-limits.
The only time you will ever hear the press and activists shouting about violations of free speech is when the person is speaking anti-American diatribe.
And Mr. Churchill most certainly DID say that he'd like to see another terrorist attack:
"...it's becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose."
If that doesn't smack of the desire for further attacks, I don't know what does.
Like so many others from outside our borders who are quick to paint us all with a broad brush, you see through a glass darkly. That is, through the eyes of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, and your own networks up north.
Considering the fact that American tourists are routinely bludgeoned by you peace-loving Canadians simply because they are American, I think that you are among the last nations to be giving us advice on tolerance.
You guys slay me. Canadians take advantage of our technological advances and our medical care, wreck their own healthcare systems, allow international criminals through your borders into my country, and then turn around and harp on us about how unjust we are.
When was the last time the Canadians put their balls on the block in any meaningful way to defend the cause of freedom?
When was the last time Canada refused to toe the scratch like a good neo-Euro UN lackey and stand up for principle?
How much does Canada invest in her own defense? Who protects Canada? Who provides Canada with a huge percentage of the means to protect herself? The UN? France? Germany? Russia? Please. Let us not be foolish.
You may sit up there and imperiously cast your judgments against the United States to your heart's content. But you are in no position of moral advantage when your nation obediently follows the UN master in refusing to acknowledge the genocide that has been perpetrated in Sudan & Rwanda. Canada has no record of substance with regard to standing up for human rights and individual freedoms, or of taking the lead in tearing down oppressive regimes. Don't presume, therefore, to pontificate to us when you know that the blood of innocents is on your hands. And history shows that when given the opportunity to promote international human rights instead of whitewashing the truth, Canada backed down every time.
Mr. Churchill has the right to speak his mind. Remember, this nations protects the rights of woman-trashing and bigoted scumbags like Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner. Churchill's rights are equally covered.
Mr. Churchill does NOT, however, have the right to demand that colleges pay him.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "Your civil rights end where the other fellow's nose begins." I think that Churchill has bloodied enough noses without consequence. It's time he got a taste of life in the private sector away from the taxpayer's teat.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 7, 2005 11:59 AMListening to the patriots in the group attack this guy in the name of free speech and tax-dollars and "when was the last time so-and-so died for freedom" is, well, kind of funny. No?
I wonder why the stakes are so high for these patriots?
What does that mean for them if Churchill's observations are true? Ha. Or even spoken for that matter?
No matter. It is like madmen screaming at the waves. The storm doesn't mind.
Well, at least he's asking the tough questions.
I guess in fifty, sixty years or so, we'll see how it all pans out.
Or something.
You're weird...Is there a question you had?
Posted by: smegma on February 8, 2005 06:49 PMAt issue is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The current administration is attempting to change the 50 percent rule. That is, financial aid is available for postsecondary education provided at a college or university that has at least 50 percent of its students campus-based.
Corporations have paid Senators and Congress men and women well, attempting to change the 50 percent rule. The rule is necessary to prevent fraud (absentee students and/or diploma mills).
As provided above, it appears at least three corporations have abused the administration's Distance Education Demonstration that wavied the 50 percent rule.
Creating the free speech issue is a "red herring" that draws attention away from the plain and clear evidence of the Pittsburgh Federal Court proceeding and allows authorities to "cover-up" the best example of the corruption.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems. However, the investigation is just spin to make it appear the administration (federal government) is doing its job.
On the other hand, Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company and for-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around. Individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. The administration is attempting to protect the rich and powerful.
In short, Ward Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss. his provacative essay was written more than three years ago.
In the Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion.
Lucy, if you're really asking for the name of a war won by a republican leader that you would acknowledge then I suspect there has never been one. That does not, however, mean that no republican leader has won a war. All it shows is that you prefer revisionist history over actual history. What leftie wouldn't? Actual history proves over and over that leftist policies don't work.
Lucy's next question: "What does 2 + 2 equal - and don't say 4 because I don't like that answer!"
Posted by: Kate on February 10, 2005 11:08 AMIntroduction: In a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested a novice "free speech" argument and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Creating the free speech crisis is a "red herring" to draw attention away from the plain and clear evidence of the Pittsburgh Federal Court proceeding (best example of the corruption).
Ward Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss. His provacative essay was written more than three years ago.
The connection:
Ms. ElizaBETH Hoffman is the President of Colorado University. Go to http://www.hss.caltech.edu/Photos/Alumni/HoffmanElizabeth.jpg and/or http://www.colorado.edu/Carillon/volume47/images/1.jpg to view her picture.
Ms. BETH (Rue) Kotcella Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Go to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2002-02-26/PH_2002-02-26_iattorney-b.jpg to view her picture.
Background: I attended undergraduate school with Ms. Buchanan. At the Pennsylvania University I succesfully re-established (and served as president) the pre-law society and graduated in 1983. Here Ms. Buchanan would become interested in the law. She graduated after me in 1984.
In addition, I was listed in Whose Who Among American Colleges and Universities, and given the 1983 Progressive Leadership Award, and 1983 Distinguished Honor Award.
Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1988 Ms. Buchanan secured a clerkship with U.S. District Judge Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Judge Cohill is the Western District Judge responsible for enforcing a consent decree governing United States of America v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, Docket No. 91-CV-1694. However, he turned a blind eye to my case Docket No. 95-CV-00339. I had organized (secure a union) of a political sub-division.
During that same year members of the state judiciary were charged and convicted for violating my civil right (fixing cases against me in retaliation of Docket No. 95-CV-00339).
In a case related to Docket No. 95-CV-00339, an alleged EEOC investigative file was prematurely purged and the U.S. Department of Labor refused deliver its copy despite a subpoena, FOIA Request and Motion to Compel. See Docket No. 98-CV-230. That is, the Department of Labor closed its investigation based on the alleged EEOC decision. But, I had proffered to the court EEOC's writings that demonstrated no investigation was conducted.
Discussion: At issue is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Bush administration is attempting to change the 50 percent rule. That is, financial aid is available for postsecondary education provided at a college or university that has at least 50 percent of its students campus-based.
Corporations have paid Senators and Congress men and women well, attempting to change the 50 percent rule. The rule is necessary to prevent fraud (absentee students and/or diploma mills).
It appears at least three corporations have abused the administration's Distance Education Demonstration that wavied the 50 percent rule.
The Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Nonetheless, the S.E.C. and FBI investigation is just spin to make it appear the administration is doing its job.
The Pittsburgh case involves Kaplan, Inc., who is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around. Individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than antoher Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion.
So, while it's great that you have pride in your country, please refrain from slandering mine based on ignorant stereotypes and stupifying opinions.
Posted by: Kate on February 15, 2005 02:17 PM
Demosthenes,
Yeah, I think you guys are pretty bad-ass up there, too. That Neil Young's a bad ass. Keep up the good fight.
nyc, 2/15/05