The Distortions of Acumen: Liberals Trash Ward Churchill

[Freedom_from_Chains]

I find it disturbing and strange that I have encountered so many on this site that are going to great lengths to vilify and trash Prof. Churchill concerning his article, "Some people Push Back" Here is a man of great learning who has dared to point out the truth about what America has become, imperialistic builders of empire, and is ran over the coals by the people who should be the antithesis of the current regime.

Unfortunately, I must concluded this to be evidence of how ineffective and emasculated the Democratic party has become as an opposing force against American, dare I use the word, fascism.

The Distortions of Acumen: Liberals Trash Ward Churchill

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Frank0207.htm

I am sure you’ve heard of Ward Churchill’s latest tribulations -- so I’ll save you the repetition. However, I bet what you didn’t know was that liberals were running hand in hand with conservatives in hopes of clothes lining the radical professor.

In a recent CommonDreams.org column titled “Ward Churchill's Banality of Evil,” Anthony Lappé argues that Churchill’s critique of 9/11, along with his calling the workers in the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns,” was utterly reprehensible:

Consider the professor’s twisted logic: People who work in the financial industry are legitimate military targets. Where do you draw the line? What about the secretaries who serve coffee to the little Eichmanns? They keep the evil system caffeinated, should they die? What if you own stock? Does earning dividends on GE mean your apartment building should be leveled with you in it? What if you keep your money at Chase or Citibank? Buy stuff at Wal-Mart? Pay federal taxes? Or better yet, what if you work for the government? Churchill himself works for a state university. He takes a paycheck from an institution that in all likelihood does military research and is probably ten times more complicit in the actual machinery of war than any junior currency trader.

To start, Churchill never actually said that WTC workers should be legitimate targets. What he did say was that using the US governments’ own rationale, the WTC would most likely be a target for a military attack -- for if no other reason than it housed a large CIA office and was an economic bastion of the military industrial complex.

(Continue) http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Frank0207.htm

[vi5]

1. I agree. This is a big liberal problem....

Conservatives never, I repeat NEVER have to apologize for their Limbaugh's or their Hannitys or their Coulters and Hewitts and Savages no matter how offensive their statements. Even when public outrage gets someone like Savage fired from a gig, nobody asks conservatives to distance themselves from him.

And the ones I listed are a bunch of minimally educated jugheads with no background of which to speak on any of the subjects that they do. Churchill is an activist and a professor of many, many years and yet liberals feel the need to disavow themselves.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. That would seem to be the case.

And while I understand that the message he brings is certainly not a pleasant one, I have know doubts after watching this unfold for the last twenty years, it is in fact a correct message.

When the embassy in Tehran was taken over and the Americans were held hostage for 400 and some days, our situation in the M.E. took a nasty turn for the worse. The only thing that surprised me about the events of 9/11 were 1.) It took so long to happen, I originally estimated 10-15 years, and I was surprised that it took twenty. And 2.) that people where surprised that it happened. The writing had been on the wall for the previous 20 years and in the last 10 and been in big capitol letters with flashing neon bulbs around it. All one needed to do was take a look at it.

But of course America has always been of the mindset, at least during my lifetime, that no one would dare to attack us. They just wouldn't, after all, we're Americans. So when the events of 9/11 occurred it unfortunately was just incomprehensible to most.

[leveymg]

2. I read Churchill's piece a couple nights ago - do not recall his mention

of the specific rationale cited for targeting the main towers. You should go back and read the article - here is the link to Ward's article. http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
- my recollection may be incomplete. It was very late.

Even if a CIA office was the target, that would have been faulty targeting. The NY counter-terrorism office in which the UBL unit was located was in one of the smaller, outer buildings in the complex, which is still standing.

Ward's argument is more generalized. My reading tells me that he finds justification for the WTC attacks in revenge for all the atrocities committed by America and the West upon the Islamic world, and other Third World peoples, during the past millennium. I have to say, I'm not persuaded by that argument.

[The Magistrate]

3. Indeed, Sir

The defense put before us above is simple craw-fishing. Any group of persons described as "little Eichmans" are certainly viewed, by the person doing the likening, as legitimate objects of violence....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. do not recall his mention

of the specific rationale cited for targeting the main towers...my recollection may be incomplete. It was very late.

It is incomplete. The rational is presented in the sentance below.

As to those in the World Trade Center 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.

For a resistance that has limited resources, planning a strike at the heart of the economic engine of the opponent, the engine that animates the war machine, makes complete sense.

[EST]

6. Since UBL, according to his own words,

was mistaken about the efficacy of his chosen weapons and only expected to take out the upper floors of the towers, has anyone a record of just which offices were expected to be the most affected?

I am certainly no apologist for bin Ladin, but I have to wonder, isn't the hiding of US operatives in the midst of innocent civilians exactly the behavior that His Vileness, the Chimperor likes to heap scorn upon?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. It certainly isn't in the best interest of private citizens.

"isn't the hiding of US operatives in the midst of innocent civilians exactly the behavior that His Vileness, the Chimperor likes to heap scorn upon?"

Although I don't know if Bush would have a problem with it as I'm sure he and others would have no problem in rationalizing such people as collateral damage in the effort to protect this great country of ours.

I do find your comment about Bin Laden interesting. Would you perchance have a link to it? I have not heard any claim to particular floors being targeted, but it was stated during the investigating of the bombing of the WTC that the goal of those who had carried it out was to bring the building down. Apparently though they did not have a sufficient enough background in mathematics and engineering to make the correct calculations to accomplish such.

However on 9/11 when the buildings did come down it the question immediately came to my mind as if they had been able to procure an engineer, as I saw that event as the accomplishment of previously stated goals.

[EST]

8. Bin L, himself has a degree in mechanical engineering.

During the early portion of our Iraqi holocaust, about June, 2003, I think, there was a video tape (of bin Laden meeting with some of his admirers) captured, as I recall, in either a cave or a building in Afghanistan. It was shown on MSM for many weeks. UBL was yucking it up about succeeding beyond his wildest imaginings. He expected the destruction of the targeted floor and those above it, but had not fully taken into account the effect of a hundred thousand pounds of JP4 and the chintzy shortcuts taken in the floor construction of the towers. A later hour long show on PBS showed the construction details for the floor attachments and made the point that no floor had the capacity to hold much more than its own design weight, especially with the over 2000 degree heat softening the material. Whet the first collapsing floor hit the one below it, there was no chance of it holding, so it collapsed into the one below. Voila-instant catastrophe!

I have not dug this out of the internet, as there was no need, given the repeated coverage on msm. If you like, I could do some googling-I would imagine there are plenty of references. With a very slow dial-up connection, this can be quite time consuming, but I've done a lot of it.

Oh, also, I think UBL's degree was gotten in the early expectation that he would go into (which he did) his father's construction business, although, obviously, he had even greater talents and ambitions for work in a larger arena.

[maxsolomon]

10. read OBL's "letter to america"

he talks about what they had hoped the attack would do to the towers. didn't plan on them coming down.

and his justifications for al queda's action on 9/11 is almost exactly what ward churchill says it is.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

12. Well yeah they are the same points

outlined by Churchill because that is the thrust of the argument. They are tired of us occupying their countries and raping them for their natural resources. So I am not sure what your point is.

However I did not see in the article what there expectations were for the towers, i.e. I assume that you are referring to the other posters comment that by the towers falling was "beyond their expectations"

[The Magistrate]

14. The Point, Sir

Is one of political impact, and the perception of the mass of people. If a left figure offers a critique, in approving tones, that tracks closely the actual statement of the country's acknowledged enemy, the former will be seen readily as on the same side as the latter, and by extension, all leftists will be tarred with that same broad brush. Thus, all this fellow at the Colorado university has accomplished is to hand the enemy a useful bit of coal to keep stoked the popular perception that the left is unpatriotic, and that in times of conflict, the people must trust the right alone. Doubtless he enjoyed the rush of righteous anger in compiling the piece, but he might as well have taken money from Mellon Scaife to do it, for all the good it has done the side he doubtless actually does support....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[bpilgrim]

18. better shut down the DU...

:evilgrin:

but seriously, if he was working in the DNC pr dept. or an actual politico you might have a point... but this is nonsense and UN-AMERICAN to denounce scholars for their writings that are factually ACCURATE :sheesh:

the establishment better prepare themselves for a great many more 'outsiders' speaking up because it's only gonna grow and simply ATTACKING folks who aren't towing the PARTY-LINE is so 910, IMO.

sup hommie :hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

20. The Same Points, My Friend

Could have been made in more measured language, and tempered by a critique of the reactionary nature of the attackers. The resultant product would have carried farther, and been much harder to turn into an cudgel against the left. The man lapsed into mere self-gratification: radicalism requires self-discipline above all else.

[bpilgrim]

21. now he's a 'radical'

come on... we haven't begun to see any radicals howl yet ;->

anyways, you just repeated your previous point... should i repeat mine?

he's an educator NOT a politico.

peace

[The Magistrate]

22. He Is A Radical Activist, Sir

That is hardly a perjorative term, merely an accurate discription.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

25. And your point is well taken

Although vigorously disputed.

What the good professor has chosen to do with his writing, at substantial risk to his career and given the current tone of nationalism, possible his life, is to point out the pink elephant in the living room, (a euphuism for stating the obvious). And what the Democrats seem to be doing, as opposed to being a viable counter force to an over reaching government, is preoccupying themselves with putting forth a likable image. But then again that is American, it really is all about image isn’t it?

So let’s review some of the brighter points of what the politics of appeasement has given us.

1.) A dry drunk with substantial anger management problems, although well funded, in the White House. A man who is convinced that it was not the voters who put him in office, and I suppose there is some validity to that position, but was in fact appointed by God because God has a special mission for him to carry out. I for one certainly hope he’s not talking about that milieum Armageddon thing seeing how the nuclear launch and control system is never more than about 50 feet away from him.

2.) A minority militant group of religious zealots who has acquired, what at the minimum can be constructed as, significant political control of the functions of government. A group who plainly and boldly states that their vision of a “more perfect union” is that of a theocracy and has dedicated all of its resources towards achieving said goal.

3.) A group of idealogs who’s principle object goal is the creation of America as a global empire, who as a core of their philosophy espouses the idea of a winnable nuclear war to achieve such goal if necessary. I certainly hope I don’t live near a city that has found its way to the acceptable expenditures list, don’t you?

4.) The complete shredding of the Constitution under the guise of providing security for America in the form of the Patriot Act. An act which was rushed through the Congress, in late night sessions with no time for a reading, via threat of blackmail to motivate those who might have qualms with it.

5.) U.S. citizens who are taking into custody, under suspicion of being involved in some type of nefarious activity against the country, although it is never clearly stated what that activity is, in violation of any and all forms of Constitutional protections and due process. Then incarcerated for over two years without any formal charges ever being filed, and is currently still in custody without filing of charges in support of said allegations. (Jose Padilla)

These are just a few of the benefits that come to me off the top of my head that have been accrued as the result of the political plan you propose.

So how are the Democrats positioning themselves as the opposing political force and defender of the Constitution. Well last week we saw Hillary out among the country’s faithful proclaiming the virtues of the Faith Based Initiative program, a clearly unconstitutional program by even the most lax definitions, and currently being funded through executive order outside of the conventional will of the people method of Congress. I guess Hillary has concluded that if she too can be seen as part of the “God squad” maybe she will still be able to play with the big boys in Washington after 06 rolls around.

Then we have the party itself fighting with each other as to what is the best way that they can be seen as having religion too for the next election cycle, when it might be more appropriate to contemplate the probability of their being a next election cycle.

But hey, everyone’s looking real good and by doing such not running the risk of anyone talking bad about them. That’s so comforting in our current situation and such a well thought out game plan. Unfortunately, if this is what the Democratic Party holds out as opposition to the current regime, they have effectively rendered themselves as being as useful as tits on a bull.

[The Magistrate]

28. Very Few Of Those Things, Sir, Result From Sensible Action Or Expression

Indeed, essential to the enemy's success in these matters has been the widespread popular feeling that figures of the left cannot be relied on in matters of national security, because their views in such matters are commonly perceived as, to put it kindly, otherworldly. This fellow's effort makes an excellent example for persons attempting to press that case.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

29. I would have to respecfully disagree

[The Magistrate]

31. And You Are Free To Do So, Sir

Any number of people make that mistake every day....

Happy hunting, Sir!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

38. I find it interesting

that you consider any opposing argument to your own, by definition, false. It would be most illuminating if you could provide a point-by-point refutation to support your supposition.

[The Magistrate]

44. That Is The Law Of Opinions, Sir

In any instance where yours differs from mine, you may rest assured that yours is wrong....

"Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt yourself."

[Freedom_from_Chains]

45. LOL That was kind of what I thought

[The Magistrate]

48. Comedy Is Best Left To Professionals, Sir

And the same thing that aids me at cards can produce misunderstandings on occassion elsewhere.

Clearly we disagree on this matter, and just as clearly there is no absolute standard to which we can appeal for settlement of the difference. Therefore each must stick to his guns in the certainty of his own conviction, and there is no help for it.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

49. There is no absolute standard

to which we can appeal for settlement of the difference.

Sure there is an absolute standard available. All you have to do is stand tall and face reality head on. You will immediately find an overwhelming need to capitulate your argument and experience a freedom which was beforehand unknown to you.

[lyonn]

67. Guess you don't think there is anything to be

gained by debate? Only conclusions.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

36. thank you for your critique, that is most helpful

[maxsolomon]

9. spot the logical fallacy from the governor of colorado!

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/bill_owens.html

<Dear Friends:

We have come to a teaching moment at the University of Colorado. I applaud every person on the University of Colorado campus who has come to speak out against the indecent, insensitive and inappropriate comments and writings of Ward Churchill.

All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill. Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history. The thousands of innocent people - and innocent they were - who were murdered on September 11 were murdered by evil cowards. Indeed, if anyone could possibly be compared to the evildoers of Nazi Germany, it is the terrorists of the 21st century who have an equally repugnant disregard for innocent human life.

No one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill's right to express himself. But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under the banner of the University of Colorado. Ward Churchill besmirches the University and the excellent teaching, writing and research of its faculty.

Ideas have consequences, and words have meaning. If there is one lesson that we hope that all Coloradans take from this sad case - and especially our students - it is that civility and appropriate conduct are important. Mr. Churchill's views are not simply anti-American. They are at odds with simple decency, and antagonistic to the beliefs and conduct of civilized people around the world. His views are far outside the mainstream of civil discourse and useful academic work.

His resignation as chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department was a good first step. We hope that he will follow this step by resigning his position on the faculty of the University of Colorado.

Sincerely,

Bill Owens>

what a tool. "all decent people", "simple decency", & "evil cowards" my leftie ass. did you even read halfway? point out the incorrect statements IN THE PIECE, bill. you can't, because you don't have the sack to READ IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

11. Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable

I would be interested in knowing which points it is that Bill find "insupportable."

*Shouldn't that be unsupportable?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

15. Did the Gov. write this about Ashcroft? Alberto Gonzales? Bush**?

People who actually HURT people, not just writers.

Churchill handed the right a whip to flay him with the "little Eichmanns" comment. The propaganda uses are myriad for the fascists to exploit.

But he should've re-directed the outrage to people who are much more easily described as blood-letting war criminals. Perhaps even outed the Bush**s for financing the rise of Hitler and promoting eugenics.

That's how the game is played. Keep hitting them with the truth when they try to distract with mock outrage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Churchill should have apologised, not tried to change what he said

Remember, he said the deaths of the people in the WTC were fitting: "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." He didn't say "from the point of view of the hijackers ..." - he offered it as a straight opinion, and so presumably his own.

And his claim that he only meant the 'technicians' is thin - his original article just referred to all the people in the WTC as a technocratic corps. True, it can exclude the passers-by, police and firemen - but not anyone who works there. They're all part of the same 'corps'.

[Selatius]

16. This is what he said after the furor erupted:

"It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."

[struggle4progress]

26. Colo. Prof. Says He Mourns All Killed 9-11

DAN ELLIOTT
Associated Press

BOULDER, Colo. - A University of Colorado professor who once compared some of the World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal said Tuesday he mourns for everyone killed on Sept. 11 and conceded that he could have explained himself better. <snip>

"I wouldn't retract it. I would explain it better," Ward Churchill told The Associated Press. <snip>

"If someone were to ask me, 'Do you feel sorrow for the victims of 9-11,' of course I do," he said. "Let's begin with the children. Yes, they were innocent. And I mourn them. But they were not more innocent than those half-million Iraqi children." <snip>

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/10849808.htm

[indigobusiness]

57. He has nothing to apologize for.

It's time we took the gloves off. This is not a tea party. This is not a "how's your father" moment. America hangs in the balance.
Candor is called for---on all sides. Enough with the bs.


Alice tried another question. "What sort of people live about here?"
"In THAT direction," the Cat said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Hatter: And in THAT direction," waving the other paw, "lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

[lyonn]

68. C-span showed last night a speech he gave in Colorado recently

Think he was trying to speak of the attack from the attckers point of view, such as, the attackers have issues with our govt. and they attacked us. He described last night how the U.S. has imposed our wars and war like ways on other countries. He of course mentioned S. America, Viet Nam, etc. I'm not saying I agree with him only that he has a view of why we were attacked. And said it rather harshly!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

19. not according to our rules of war...

or haven't you been paying attention to the last 100 years :shrug:



peace

(on edit: of course, i agree that ALL civilian 'soft targets' should be avoided at all cost, but recognize that i am considered a lefty kook by the boyz who make the rules so what does it matter?)

[Peak_Oil]

23. You're being sarcastic

They were saying the same thing, and were not being sarcastic. They wouldn't let it go, repeating that the towers were legitimate military targets. It's like somebody stole their brains and replaced them with evil neocon brains.

[indigobusiness]

35. Qadafy's tent was seen as a legitimate target by Reagan

and his baby girl was killed.

The only difference is scale.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

53. Are you calling me a "tool"?

I'm going to have to sharpen up my name-calling.

(give me a second...)

Semantics...sheesh.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

54. How about baby formula factories?

hmmm?

[applegrove]

24. Democrats hate Ward for trashing Victims. Nothing else.

He exploited the victims of 9/11 to get some 'much needed' press for himself. He belongs on the heap of people who exploit & hurt victims of crime for their own selfish use.

Many others feel that America is too "Patriot the Patsy" at this juncture and many talk and write about it. For him - an easy move to be heard above the fray (when he was saying nothing new about America's current empire building and therefore did not garner press attention)was to use shock and awe of the victims. The same propaganda tools of the neocons he decries.

*******!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

27. Democrats hate Ward for trashing Victims. Nothing else.

And that would be all well and good if that was what he had actually done.

[applegrove]

30. Okay in this day and age - you cannot be vague - cause patriot patsies wil

Okay in this day and age - you cannot be vague - cause patriot patsies will hear what they want to hear. He said chickens coming home to roost and he mentioned the victims of 9/11.

You cannot do that!!!

Propaganda works on vagueness. That way people will hear what they want to hear and the evil-mongers can always deny what they are up to. This Churchill ******** will just be used to motivate the base. Does us all a great dis-service. In the past if he said something that was taken the wrong way - he could clarify.

These days - with anti-clarification Bush/Rove - that will not be aloud. What the hell do you want Democrats to do? Support him? He is an unknown academic who is using horrid concepts to get attention for his ideas that are not out of the ordinary. I say - his name gave him a complex of sorts. He bought his own myths. He belongs back in obscurity.

[indigobusiness]

34. You are misrepresenting facts in your muddled diatribe.

Your criticism is vain and suspiciously motivated. You judge and vilify with indecipherable statements like:

"These days - with anti-clarification Bush/Rove - that will not be aloud."

What the hell does that mean?

And what do you mean when you say:

"What the hell do you want Democrats to do? Support him?"

Supporting him is individual choice, by intellectually honest individuals. Democrats are not some single-minded herd. If anything, we should encourage genuine candor, and applaud the conscientiously outspoken.

The point is the right to expression. And our duty not to get swept up in some witch-hunt by misrepresenting touchy assertions. America is hanging by a thread over just such as this.

[applegrove]

37. Oh please - his use of the term 'little Eichmann' was

Oh please - his use of the term 'little Eichmann' was baiting the victims who did work in the financial industry. Just don't bait victims okay! He could have made his point w/out being incendiary towards the victims and that trauma within many Americans. He could have called the owners of big oil Eichmann's. He could have called Hawks and right wing operatives Eichmann's. He chooses to apply the term to innocents. He got the attention he wanted.

And be clear instead of playing mind games. There is enough bullshit crap floating around. We don't need democrats playing that game "I was only applying hawk logic to the whole thing". You do not win against monsters by playing their game. Unless you are a monster yourself - you will not win that way. Democrats have a hard enough time getting their anti-terror message out w/out being forced to deal with an opportunist with a Churchill complex who cares not for victims from their own side of the bench.

One is enough!! And Bush is it!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

47. My point is that 'baiting victims' is never okay. And you have to

My point is that 'baiting victims' is not a universally accepted way of getting attention for your arguments. And do not start with the scolding when something not universally accepted, is 'not universally accepted'. It should be obvious. His message got lost in the way he delivered it. He miscalculated and has only himself to blame.

Try as hard as you like to blame the listener - he played with fire (as intellectuals will do at times) and he got burnt.

[indigobusiness]

58. He didn't get burned.

If anything, he became celebrated.

But, that's not the point. He wasn't playing petty games, as you suggest. He was making a seminal point. Not baiting, but merely being candid in order to be heard above the fray.

There is nothing as smallminded as what you suggest, blame-casting and moralizing are far lesser things and beside the point.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

50. Democrats have a hard enough time getting their anti-terror message out

And seeing how they have been being so effective with it I can understand why they might not want to consider another, more aggressive, approach.

[bloom]

43. You're pretty funny

How you seem to like to tell Democrats how to be Democrats.

"Okay in this day and age - you cannot be vague - cause patriot patsies will hear what they want to hear."

How about the "Fargo 42" some of which wrote letters to the editor criticizing B**h - or "gasp" signed up for Dean for America. (Were put on an exclusion list).

So Republicans hear what they want to hear. That doesn't mean that Democrats should just say what the Republicans want to hear.


Too bad there aren't more Ward Churchills. If he were a majority - then speaking up for victims (real instead of imaginary) would be normal.

[indigobusiness]

33. In mixing the issues, Fascism reigns-- right, left and center.

His point was clearly no trashing of victims: a ridiculous misrepresentation. He was pointing out the hypocrisy in America when the shoe is on the other foot. No one squeals louder than hypocrites, when poked with their own stick. His overarching point is a good one, and we fail to learn from it at great peril.

It is frighteningly clear that even Liberals have trouble sorting out the conceptual issues when an opportunity to jerk a knee arises. The criticism of Churchill is emotional and reactionary. It illustrates the low level of critical thinking skills across the political spectrum in America. Fascism is bleeding into the Left as a result of this lax, undisciplined self-indulgence. This is the scary aspect...the chilling lesson in all of this.

[blindpig]

39. "It is frighteningly clear..."

You're telling me. Why is it that the other side gets away with statements every bit as outrageous? Why must the Left always fight on enemy ground?

I have an ugly little theory. It is that many supposedly on the left have the same bottom line as those on the other side. They are comfortable with their lives and would not see their lives changed if realizing their stated goals required that. That many in the Democratic Party, activist and rank & file, are indeed repub-lite. All of the talk and posturing is mostly a salve for the conscience. By this theory the difference between them and many of us is that they have no conscience.

Consider the environment. How many could accept $5+ gas, policies strongly encouraging one child families and other strong medicine?

I don't think that people will get really serious until they have things taken from them. Might be too late by then.

Please don't think that I am speaking from some lofty place, I am as lame and sorry(in the southern sense) as any other.

[indigobusiness]

41. You have pegged the scariest element in this. I admire you

when you sum up with:

Please don't think that I am speaking from some lofty place, I am as lame and sorry(in the southern sense) as any other.

The scary part is not just our fate at the hands of those who have already sold out, but that we might have a price, as well. Will we stand firm in our convictions, or do we merely rally around them in the abstract? Are we Patrick Henrys who will stand firm, or are we ultimately free-agents who will sign the cushiest contract regardless of the team...if the going gets rough?

Or maybe it is the reverse, and the rougher it gets the more Patrick Henryish we'll become. I hope it turns out to be the latter, because the dark clouds are surely gathering and we're going to find out, one way or the other, when our mettle is truly tested. I just hope we don't all end up wearing brown shirts.

I'd sure hate to find out I had a price.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

46. It illustrates the low level of critical thinking skills

across the political spectrum in America.

From the reaction to his paper that I have seen here it is causing me to reevaluate the conservative position on public education in America. Not that they have the correct answer but that they may be correctly identifying the problem.

[indigobusiness]

55. Exactly.

The babble shrouds the meaning and significance.

[indigobusiness]

42. Churchill---In his own words

Your recent works detail the documentable history of the consequences of U.S. imperialism. After reading On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and listening to your two CDs, what do you want your audience to walk away with?

A fundamental understanding of the nature of their obligation to intervene to bring the kind of atrocities that I’ve described to a halt by whatever means are necessary.

The predominating absurdity in American oppositional circles for the past 30 years is the notion that if one intervenes to halt a rape or a murder in progress, if you actually use physical force as necessary to prevent that act, somehow or other you’ve become morally the same as the perpetrator.

What do you think those oppositional circles need to do to really effect change?

Stop being preoccupied with the sanctity of their own personal security, on the one hand, and start figuring out what would be necessary. That might require experimentation with tactics and techniques. Not how, like an alchemist, you repeat the performance often enough to make yourself feel good in the face of an undisturbed continuation of the horror you’re opposing. If your candlelit vigil doesn’t bring the process you’re opposing to a halt, what do you do next, presuming you actually desired to have an effect.

snip

---

This man is no monster.

[rodeodance]

66. I agree, Churchill is no monster-!!

[bloom]

51. You might appreciate this:

(I imagine that what Ward Churchill wrote was not as unusual as some people would like others to believe).

Misinterpreting Osama's Message
By Diane Perlman,
Diane Perlman, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, is co-chair of the Committee on Global Violence and Security, Psychologists for Social Responsibility and author of "Intersubjective Dimensions of Terrorism and its Transcendence" in The Psychology of Terrorism, edited by Chris Stout

AlterNet
November 21, 2002
 
While media experts were preoccupied with analyzing Osama bin Laden's voice, they failed to comprehend, or even read, his actual words. Speculation about hidden meanings and secret clues totally ignored the obvious intended message, which is so clear that it doesn't even need decoding.
 
Because of the intense hate and fear evoked by Osama, because we are so traumatized by him, we automatically block those dimensions of his communication that are not pure threats. We simplify and reduce complex messages, transforming them into plans to attack unconditionally.
 
We unconsciously refuse to perceive what he is actually saying, as if understanding this evil person is a betrayal to ourselves and is letting him win. Our dangerous assumptions can lead to self-fulfilling prophesies.
 
The image of the enemy universally generates a powerful emotional charge that distorts perception. Our narrow range of thinking, so deeply ingrained, is shaped by a homogenous media, with constant repetition of a simplistic worldview, characterized by black-and-white thinking, egocentrism and psychological ignorance. Our inability to receive meaning is tantamount to a collective cognitive disorder. <more>

http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/december2002/index.htm

[indigobusiness]

56. Ain't that the truth?

This is the crux of the buscuit. The "where am I, what am I doing here?" moment, in all of this. When you strip away all the emotion, all the propaganda and jingoism...what do you get? Bush makes less sense than his nemesis. How can that be?

This is the lynch-pin of my personal dilemma. How can I, in all honesty and fair-reason, side with the would-be white-hats? It's a tough nut to crack.

[WilliamPitt]

59. I'm sorry

I really wanted to stand up for Churchill, because he made a lot of good sense. But he killed himself, absolutely killed himself, with the Eichmann's comment. Godwin's Law all over again: The first person to use Nazis in an argument automatically loses. This wasn't even the 'Bush is a Nazi' chestnut. He used it in reference to the people who got blasted sideways out of a hundred story building.

Is wildly unrestrained capitalism a prime reason for social and financial inequity? An excellent argument can be made on that score. Did the Towers represent that? Certainly, that's why they were targeted. Is American foreign policy over the past fifty years - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Egypt - a reason why we don't make a lot of top ten lists in that part of the world? That's a no-brainer.

But to throw a loaded symbol like Eichmann into the fray brings utter ruin to whatever point was in the offing, unfortunately. It was a pungent phrase, and I am sure as a writer that he felt a little thrill when he wrote it. But he blew his foot of with that one.

[Karenina]

62. The first person to use Nazis in an argument automatically loses.

It's been an American tactic for DECADES to keep the Germans "in their place." But that's another subject... :evilgrin:

[Cocoa]

63. not trashing, from what Frank pointed to

just disagreeing.

I'm not sure what Frank is objecting to. A liberal can't disagree with Churchill?

[anaxarchos]

64. Disagreeing is just fine...

Piling on when Republican governors and the Republican talking heads have chosen this moment (years after the fact) to at least fire and, if possible, crucify Churchill, is what is at issue here. It is the timing of that disagreement that begs the question.

[rodeodance]

65. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the comment

about the little ichmans was not good. On the other hand, his main point that people who threat others as crap, (meaning the US treatment of "others" in the world), deserves to be heard.