Professor argues that 9/11 was justified as retaliation for Iraq sanctions [Archive]

Yevgeny

01-28-2005, 03:57 PM

wow. the guy is nuts.

Up next, the justified bombing of France, Brittian, Russia, and China for all imposing sanctions on Iraq. While we're at it, kill the Jordanians, Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians who also helped kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Oh, and bomb the Kuwaiti tank divisions that helped to retake their country.

Re: 9/11 hijackers being combat teams and not terrorists fails on the simple condition that according to the Geneva convention, combat troops must wear uniforms to differentiate them from civilians.

The guy is wacky and is probably enjoying his 15 minbutes in the sun.

Further, if you accept his arguments, then you can do all sorts of bad things. To wit: lets say that he is right and that there is no difference between civilian and military personnel. All of a sudden, the distinction between military target and civiian casualty is gone and killing civilians is fair game, ala WWII bombing of cities.

Yevgeny

01-28-2005, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break." Ward Churchill Prof CU

In the Chomskyite sense, they are not innocent because they represent and carry out economic oppression. The world trade center wasn't a homeless shelter- many financial institutions had offices there. Of course, I disagree with Chomsky's politics.

giant

01-28-2005, 04:01 PM

Yeah, I read about this in the context of the wingers trying to say that universities hate anything that's not far left.

In other news, northwestern won't fire a tenured prof (http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz/) even though he's a Holocaust denier. edit: The university does not support his views and neither do the students. Note to those who thought I was serious: get some help. You'd have to be completely out there to see that in any context and think it was anything but the extreme opposite of the truth.

also, look up the word 'sarcasm' so you know what it means next time someone explicitly refers to part of their post like that.

Yevgeny

01-28-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by giant
Yeah, I read about this in the context of the wingers trying to say that universities hate anything that's not far left.

In other news, northwestern won't fire a tenured prof (http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz/) even though he's a Holocaust denier. Thus, it's clear that they must endorse his views and, in fact, most of the student body now shares his position. [/sarcasm]

Sadly, you can't fire tenured professors, even when they should be fired and publicly tarred and feathered. That is what tenure is all about- his not being fired has nothing to do with the university agreeing or disagreeing. Why is an EE prof writing about such things? :rolleyes:

Sad that most of the student body shares his position. Is that heresay or do you have a link?

BRussell

01-28-2005, 04:11 PM

A quick search turned up the essay in question (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html) immediately.

What's so stupid about it is how he links Iraq to 9/11. It's like he's a dupe for the Cheney administration. (Err, I mean Bush. :p ). Al Qaeda didn't give a damn about Iraq. They were targeting the US because we were buddies with Saudi Arabia and had troops stationed there, and they hated Saudi Arabia. Sanctions on Iraq were a minor reason, if it even existed.

You couldn't ask for a more perfect leftist dupe - caricature pro-terrorist views and then suggest that Iraq was the reason for 9/11. Good going, moron. :no:

BRussell

01-28-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Sadly, you can't fire tenured professors, even when they should be fired and publicly tarred and feathered. That is what tenure is all about- his not being fired has nothing to do with the university agreeing or disagreeing. Why is an EE prof writing about such things? :rolleyes:

Sad that most of the student body shares his position. Is that heresay or do you have a link? You can fire tenured professors, just not for their opinions. Arguably you shouldn't fire anyone for their mere opinions. And I doubt that giant really believes he should be fired.

giant

01-28-2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Sadly, you can't fire tenured professors,
Not sad, unless you are an advocate of oppressive governments or the institutions that support them by discouraging and punishing intellectuals with opposing politcal views.
Sad that most of the student body shares his position. Is that heresay or do you have a link?
Apparently you somehow missed the sarcasm tag. I'm honestly completely and totally blown away that you would actually believe, even for a moment, that a major US university endorses his views or that anyone on campus takes him seriously.

Obviously, the sarcasm was making the point that the only people who would believe such a thing are nuts and/or hopelessly drunk on their political bias.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Sadly, you can't fire tenured professors, even when they should be fired and publicly tarred and feathered.

And this is what freedom of speech is all about...freedom until you express an unpopular opinion/theory/viewpoint.

:\

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Why is an EE prof writing about such things? :rolleyes:

What difference does it make? Is he only allowed to express opinions on topics of EE?

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Sad that most of the student body shares his position. Is that heresay or do you have a link?

This is a tad disconcerting though. Especially given the school proximity to a number of predominently Jewish communities. Nah. Nothing bad could possibly come from this.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
This guy is too far out for me. Yes, the US has done alot of questionable things, but wow. ( I have not seen the full manuscript yet.)

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break." Ward Churchill Prof CU

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

So, let me see if I have this right...19 arab terrorists (18 of which were from Saudi Arabia) attacked the U.S. because they were pissed off about U.N. sanctions against Iraq (whom the U.S....10 years earlier...defended from an approaching Iraqi army)?

Okay...Got it all now.

giant

01-28-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is a tad disconcerting though. Especially given the school proximity to a number of predominently Jewish communities. Nah. Nothing bad could possibly come from this.
It's fucking completely mind blowing that anyone would believe this for even a split second. If there ever was an indication that your entire outlook on the world around you is totally warped and needs to be completely reassessed, it's when you believe things like that.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by giant
It's fucking completely mind blowing that anyone would believe this for even a split second. If there ever was an indication that your entire outlook on the world around you is totally warped and needs to be completely reassessed, it's when you believe things like that.

I'd agree...though people believe a lot of whacky things.

giant

01-28-2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'd agree...though people believe a lot of whacky things.
We aren't talking about wacky. Please edit that out before some else equally as clueless sees it and adopts asinine beliefs.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by giant
We aren't talking about wacky. Please edit that out before some else equally as clueless sees it and adopts asinine beliefs.

Sorry that my choice of verbiage isn't to your liking or as emotional as yours.

:rolleyes:

How is someone reading MY post going to suddenly adopt "asinine" beliefs?

giant

01-28-2005, 05:44 PM

In the same way you just read Yevgeny's and adopted a completely asinine belief.

If anything, you guys have thoroughly demonstrated how utterly out of touch it's possible to be. Honestly, I would never have thought it was possible until I just saw it here.

People on AI have expressed some stupid beliefs, but this is unquestionably takes the cake.

giant

01-28-2005, 05:50 PM

It's also very interesting that you aren't willing to edit out your comment even though it's based on an ridiculous, nonsensical false belief.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by giant
It's also very interesting that you aren't willing to edit out your comment even though it's based on an ridiculous, nonsensical false belief.

Which ridiculous, nonsensical false belief are you speaking of? Oh wait...I'm all caught up now... YOU were being sarcastic about the STUDENT BODY. Okay. Whatever.

Oh...and are you trying to bully me into posting what YOU think I should post?

:lol:

giant

01-28-2005, 05:55 PM

Don't act like an idiot.

Chris Cuilla

01-28-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by giant
Don't act like an idiot.

Stop it now. I wasn't acting like an idiot. I mis-read your post (and didn't even realize it was yours originally). Get off my fucking back already.

giant

01-28-2005, 05:58 PM

then edit out the part of your comment that assumes a major us university is populated by a bunch of holocaust deniers. That's the stupidist thing I've seen or heard someone express in years. years.

Scott

01-28-2005, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Sadly, you can't fire tenured professors, even when they should be fired and publicly tarred and feathered. That is what tenure is all about- his not being fired has nothing to do with the university agreeing or disagreeing. Why is an EE prof writing about such things? :rolleyes:

Sad that most of the student body shares his position. Is that heresay or do you have a link?

Not entirely true. Tenure is not a safe haven from being fired. You'd have to look thought the faculty handbook for a particular university but at least at my university tenured faculty can be fired.

Common Man

01-28-2005, 06:05 PM

This guy has a right to say this stuff if he wants to. He Should not be fired. Part of being a scholar is stirring up discussion and not parroting the popular line.

BRussell

01-28-2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Not entirely true. Tenure is not a safe haven from being fired. You'd have to look thought the faculty handbook for a particular university but at least at my university tenured faculty can be fired. A friend of mine is an ADA in the education division of a large state, and her job involves firing tenured professors. Some of the stories she's told me are pretty funny, because when they're told the news, well apparently most of them also believe they can't be fired. So they come to class drunk every day or they have affairs with students, or whatever, and they can't believe it when someone fires them.

(Disclaimer - I'm a tenured professor, but I've never screwed a student. I mean I've never had sexual intercourse with a student.)

Scott

01-28-2005, 06:23 PM

One person I know was invited to the University President's house to a dinner for newly tenured faculty. The president of the university at that time was a lawyer. She says, "What exactly does it mean to be tenured." And he say, "We don't know because it's never been fully tested in court."

johnq

01-28-2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
You couldn't ask for a more perfect leftist dupe - caricature pro-terrorist views and then suggest that Iraq was the reason for 9/11. Good going, moron. :no:

Exactly. :no:

Boston, Massachusetts had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did. ;)

johnq

01-28-2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
This guy has a right to say this stuff if he wants to. He Should not be fired. Part of being a scholar is stirring up discussion and not parroting the popular line.

Ok....kudos for the changes of heart you've seemed to have, truly stunning.

On the other-hand, is anyone else concerned that the real Common Man is tied up in his basement somewhere? Seriously, I think the real one is in danger. :err:

Well...if not...kudos again...:???:

midwinter

01-28-2005, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
(Disclaimer - I'm a tenured professor, but I've never screwed a student. I mean I've never had sexual intercourse with a student.)

Ah ha! So you do NOT deny teaching your classes drunk day after day, hmm?

Said the untenured professor.

e1618978

01-29-2005, 12:26 PM

I read the article, and I agree with two of the four points:

- The 9/11 hijackers were military teams, and they had plenty
of grevences with the US. The term terrorist vs "military commando"
is largely a matter of termonolgy.

- The pentagon was a military target.

I don't agree that the residents of the trade towers deserved to die,
they were obviously civilians - saying that they deserved to die
is really twisted.

Bin laden and company obviously have reasons for doing what they
did - but we should still go over there and waste them. We did
all kinds of things to the rest of the world during the cold war and
the war on drugs. The US has done really horrible things, some out
of nessessity - but does that mean that we are going to let them
"get us back"? No. We are going to kill them.

The middle east is a thorn in our side. The best way to pull that
thorn out is to topple the current governments and install friendly
ones. There is no good or evil that matters, just self interest and
the safety of the world.

a_greer

01-29-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
This guy is too far out for me. Yes, the US has done alot of questionable things, but wow. ( I have not seen the full manuscript yet.)

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break." Ward Churchill Prof CU

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html This explains why he teaches at a university, he is too stupid to get a job in the REAL world...outside of academia.

Those who cannot do it teach it (there are exeptions, usualy in sciences and computer science, but for the most part, I have fould this true)

midwinter

01-29-2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by a_greer
This explains why he teaches at a university, he is too stupid to get a job in the REAL world...outside of academia.

Those who cannot do it teach it (there are exeptions, usualy in sciences and computer science, but for the most part, I have fould this true)

/me resists the urge to say nasty things to a_greer that would probably result in his banning.

I'll just put it this way: I've never heard anyone with a lick of sense say what you just said.

johnq

01-29-2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
I read the article, and I agree with two of the four points:

Everyone says a certain percentage of things that are factual and easy to agree with. Name an evil person, and I'll quote something they got "right".

However, usually it is soon sullied with their personal prejudices and vices and goes off on an unfortunate tangent.

It's just bait.

johnq

01-29-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
/me resists the urge to say nasty things to a_greer that would probably result in his banning.

I'll just put it this way: I've never heard anyone with a lick of sense say what you just said.

I guess George Bernard Shaw didn't have a lick of sense then? :)

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22He+who+can%2C+does.+He+who+cannot%2C+teaches. %22++shaw&btnG=Search) -George Bernard Shaw (1856- 1950)

midwinter

01-29-2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by johnq
I guess George Bernard Shaw didn't have a lick of sense then? :)

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22He+who+can%2C+does.+He+who+cannot%2C+teaches. %22++shaw&btnG=Search) -George Bernard Shaw (1856- 1950)

Considering Shaw's politics in the 30s, one could make a powerful argument that, however witty he is, he had not one lick of sense.

johnq

01-29-2005, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The middle east is a thorn in our side. The best way to pull that
thorn out is to topple the current governments and install friendly
ones. There is no good or evil that matters, just self interest and
the safety of the world.

That is so frigging back-asswards it is terrifying.

Bin Laden WANTS those countries to be invaded by the U.S./West (effectively "Christians & Jews" in his rhetoric).

Bin Laden WANTS the people in all those invaded countries to then resist the newly established U.S. backed governments.

Bin Laden WANTS the tensions between the U.S. and E.U. and the rest of the non-Muslim world to increase, so that investors pull out of the dollar, so it bankrupts the U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/)

Bin Laden WANTS this ultimately to lead to the Saudi people overthrowing the Saudi Royal Family.

The more chaos, the more illegitimate new governments look, the weaker the U.S becomes, both in reputation and militarily.

MEANWHILE Bush/Republican's back door draft is in full effect and we will have a crisis of seeing volunteer rates drop to zero and even an increase of our own soldiers resisting. (By the way, it is happening now).

Why volunteer now, knowing they will not let you out when your duty is supposed to be over?

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE TESTING ARMED ROBOTS. (http://news.google.com/news?q=robot%20%20U.S.%20Army%20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn) One pimpy gung-ho kid and a joystick 1,000 meters away can kill the same as a squad of trained 40-year-old reservists.

Go ahead, believe, trust your beloved Condi, Don, Dick, W.

I'll have none of it.

Play into Bin Laden's hands all you want...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

e1618978

01-29-2005, 02:58 PM

Bin Laden wanted us to invade and lose, we invaded and won.
We will invade more countries, and win also. The government
is Iraq only looks illegitimate because there are a lot of westerners
who want it to look illegitemate, out of self hatred.

Bin Laden came up with that dollar/debt stuff as an effort to
make it look like things were going well for him ("That is what
I meant to do").

Thr Saudis will fall, it is only a matter of time. And then we will
make sure we get democratic governments there.

midwinter

01-29-2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Bin Laden wanted us to invade and lose, we invaded and won.

You seem to be operating out of the standard American military definition of "winning," which, so far as I can tell, is "we didn't get beaten."

Worked for Korea. Worked for Vietnam. I suppose it'll work for Iraq.

e1618978

01-29-2005, 03:31 PM

At no point was Vietnam as secure as Iraq is now. We control the territory, we have installed a temporary government, and a democratic one is on the way.

Iran will be easy, I think. Iran has two governments that hate each other - we just need to arange things before hand with the secular government, and they will send out the religious forces in the first wave. We could be in and out in 2 weeks.

johnq

01-29-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
At no point was Vietnam as secure as Iraq is now. We control the territory, we have installed a temporary government, and a democratic one is on the way.

Iran will be easy, I think. Iran has two governments that hate each other - we just need to arange things before hand with the secular government, and they will send out the religious forces in the first wave. We could be in and out in 2 weeks.

Common Man, the above is what you used to sound like, not long ago.

Care to tell e1618978 what made you have a change?

midwinter

01-29-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
At no point was Vietnam as secure as Iraq is now.

Waitaminute. Iraq is secure (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iraq+bomb&btnG=Search+News)?

Iran will be easy, I think. Iran has two governments that hate each other - we just need to arange things before hand with the secular government, and they will send out the religious forces in the first wave. We could be in and out in 2 weeks.

The next time anyone wearing an I *heart* Leo Strauss (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/leo_strauss/noflash.html) button offers you kool-aid, turn it down.

Jubelum

01-31-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by johnq
That is so frigging back-asswards it is terrifying.

...

Play into Bin Laden's hands all you want...

VAMPIRES! EVERYWHERE! VAMPIRES!

Jubelum

01-31-2005, 02:29 PM

I remember reading this guy's stuff when I was doing an AIM ethnography. He knows his shit about the American Indian Movement, but other than that, he's your usual liberal university professor, nothing more.

If this shocks anyone, they have not been on a college campus in the past 40 years. My Soc/Anthro department was full of morons like this.

No big surprise here. Just keep writing those tuition and donor checks, parents and alums. We need our "academic freedom" to promote ideas counter to your well being.

I'd like to send him to Iraq- to where I was. Vacationland.
This chickenshit, armchair intellectual would not last a week, I assure you.

Next....

Common Man

01-31-2005, 04:50 PM

This issue is heating up. Churchill will be speaking this week at Hamilton College and the College is under fire to cancel the talk (from Bill O' and others

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels/viewoutragefunnel?petitionID=-737137665418590961 .

The College will also have a debate between Churchill and some of Hamilton's faculty Thursday . This guy has a right to talk, no matter how off base one may think he is.

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9011

dmz

02-09-2005, 08:53 AM

Looks is if the smallpox blanket story may have some problems. (http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm) This may involve perjury as well.

Conclusion
Is it conceivable that one could become a holocaust denier by denying a holocaust that never happened? Is it possible in today’s political climate to deny a non-existent genocide, and retain your reputation within the academy?

Ward Churchill has carefully framed his smallpox blanket canard in precisely these terms. Anyone who would speak truth to fraud must be willing to face Churchill’s trademark firestorm of ad hominem accusations. Churchill accuses his white interlocutors_ of being neo-Nazis, his Indian interlocutors as being hang-around-the-fort sellouts.[23]

It is obvious how research fraud harms the academy, which is why it is the ultimate sin among scholars. But do frauds such as Churchill’s also do damage to the efficacy of Indian political activism, especially activism on behalf of historical memory?

Ultimately, yes. Ward Churchill has attained status as the most prominent voice currently articulating Indian political interests to the broader left. When Churchill’s credibility is shredded—a process begun in the pages of Wicazo Sa Review by John LaVelle, one that is being continued in this article, and one that will certainly not end here—what will be the result in the way the broader polity views Indian issues—especially considering that many interested readers were first introduced to Indian issues through the writings of Ward Churchill?

The fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” comes to mind here. True historical instances of genocide may well become delegitimated by the promiscuous promulgation of mythical genocides such as Churchill’s. The triviality of Churchill’s falsifications comes into sharper focus when you consider that he originally invented his story of the Mandan genocide in order to evade an indictment that carried a maximum penalty of a $1500 fine and six months in jail.

Hassan i Sabbah

02-09-2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by dmz
Looks is if the smallpox blanket story may have some problems. (http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm) This may involve perjury as well.
The article you link to appears to be, well, very dishonest.

The author points out that in the court case, Churchill cites a single reference, a guy called Russell Thornton. He then points out that Churchill and Thornton's stories differ.

His conclusion, which is what we call 'bullshit', is that Churchill invented it all. He doesn't actually cite any other sources that might corroborate Churchill. Not a single one.

It appears to be a politically-motivated hack job. A blatant and internet-friendly cynical load of fucking crap (if I may be frank amongst friends.)

dmz

02-09-2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
cynical load of fucking crap

Not the cynical load of fucking crap!! Nobody ever expects the cynical load of fucking crap!!

hmmmmm..... I'll bet there is some fire to go with that smoke. I would imagine if he wants to rock the boat he would also want to be beyond reproach. Should be interesting.

BRussell

02-09-2005, 11:39 AM

Apparently there is some truth to the story that American Indians were intentionally given smallpox-infected blankets as a kind of primitive biological warfare. But I think most Indians who died from smallpox brought over by Europeans were not given it intentionally.

midwinter

02-09-2005, 12:06 PM

Here's what I want to know: where are the legions of people crying foul when a conservative professor makes a conservative point in a class?

Why is it only the liberals who need to be "outed" in this way?

dmz

02-09-2005, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Here's what I want to know: where are the legions of people crying foul when a conservative professor makes a conservative point in a class?

Why is it only the liberals who need to be "outed" in this way?

Conservative What? Is there such a thing? And in a public institution?:wow:

dmz

02-09-2005, 01:46 PM

Come on guys!! lets buuurrrrrrrnnnnnn the little Eichmanns -- hey, they 'derserve' it! Why looky here, this one REALLY got what she 'deserved'.

Burn Baby! Burn!

NYPOST
WTC BURN VICTIM LOSES WEEKS-LONG STRUGGLE
By JOHN LEHMANN and JESSICA SOMMAR

October 24, 2001 --
For 41 days, World Trade Center attack victim Jennieann Maffeo clung to life, refusing to surrender to the torturous burns that covered 90 percent of her body.

Her tenacity amazed doctors at New York's Cornell hospital who had feared she would not survive for more than 36 hours. As the hours turned into days, and then weeks, her family's hopes grew that she would pull off a miraculous recovery.

But yesterday, those hopes turned to tears as the Maffeos were forced to deal with the news that their loved one had lost her valiant struggle. "It's a horrible, horrible time," her sister Andrea Maffeo said yesterday as the family mourned at their Brooklyn home. "She fought and fought for as long as she could. She was so strong. But now she's gone, and our hearts went with her."

Maffeo, 40, who worked at Wall Street brokerage firm UBS PaineWebber for five years as a senior associate, was waiting for a bus outside the World Trade Center when the first plane crashed into the north tower on Sept. 11. She was doused with burning jet fuel and a colleague, Wai Chung, was killed.

A bystander, New Jersey architect Ronnie Clifford, saw Maffeo with her clothes burned to her skin and shielded her with his coat when the first tower collapsed. Clifford's wife, who declined to be named, said yesterday the entire Clifford family, including relatives in Ireland, had been praying for Maffeo's recovery. "The last time we saw her in the hospital she was doing so well," she said. "This is so upsetting."

UBS PaineWebber senior executive Joseph Grano told staff yesterday that their colleague's six-week battle had ended."She will be greatly missed," he said. A Mass will be held at 9 a.m. Saturday at St. Mary's Catholic Church, 23rd Avenue and 85th Street in Brooklyn.

..and don't forget this Eichmann, he sure got what he deserved:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/terroristattack/july-dec03/0911recover1.jpg

:no: :no: :no:

Can anyone say "massive hemorrhage of cultural sensitivity"? Hey, but don't worry, he "not backing down an inch' on this.

You see, this is like Farenhiet 9/11 getting the Award at Cannes, or bowling for Columbine winning A FRELLING OSCAR, or Pete Singer in the "ethics" department at Princeton, or the government telling concerned parents to check their stupid religious beliefs at the public school door.

You can't BUY strawmen this good. When a decietful movie wins an Oscar for a documentary, or an ethics professors gives besitality his seal of approval, or some asshole points his finger at burn victims and says 'you deserve what you got', it allows people to see what these institutions in a much more practicle way.

I say get all of churchill's friends and hire them too, get that guy who flunked anyone who critisised evolution, too --- hell, FILL the state universities with as many of these sorts of people you can. It makes the difference that much more tangible.

midwinter

02-09-2005, 05:08 PM

Originally written by Thomas Hardy

As far as could be learnt it appeared that the poor young dog [named "George's son"], still under the impression that since he was kept for running after sheep, the more he ran after them the better, had at the end of his meal off the dead lamb, which may have given him additional energy and spirits, collected all the ewes into a corner, driven the timid creatures through the hedge, across the upper field, and by main force of worrying had given them momentum enough to break down a portion of the rotten railing, and so hurled them over the edge.

George's son had done his work so thoroughly that he was considered too good a workman to live, and was, in fact, taken and tragically shot at twelve o'clock that same day -- another instance of the untoward fate which so often attends dogs and other philosophers who follow out a train of reasoning to its logical conclusion, and attempt perfectly consistent conduct in a world made up so largely of compromise.

This aptly describes this professor's statement.

I ask again: why is it that only liberal college professors are being outed?