Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
"USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
will be among those briefed and the association already is working
with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
demonstration.


*
http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html

Ward Churchill?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:29:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>Ward Churchill?

This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Why would he do that?

He'd throw a book at 'em: http://www.dickshovel.com/amaChur.html

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
>

Yup.


>
> Why would he do that?
>

Who knows why wackos do what wackos do?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:19:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
>>
>
>Yup.
>
>>
>> Why would he do that?
>>
>
>Who knows why wackos do what wackos do?
>

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?

Can you quote any of his irrational statements?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...


> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?

The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent to
"little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result is
that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
status.

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in the
spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment. I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution, is
calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
because he exercised those rights.

Michael

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
> a little research:
> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>
> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
> perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
> read at that link.
>
>
> Why do you think he's wacky?
>

Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.


>
> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>

I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent
> to "little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
> epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
> the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
> inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result
> is that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
> status.
>

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:53:48 -0700, "Michael 182"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>
>The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent to
>"little Eichmans" seems a little irrational.

The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
legitimately targeted by the Allies.

>I live in Boulder, the
>epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
>the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
>inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result is
>that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
>status.

I'm not familiar with Churchill's work, but if the statement you
quoted is the worst of his "offences," I agree; it is a little
frightening, nearly as much the loss of constitutional rights under
the Patriot Act.

Perhaps what provokes Colorado Gov. Bill Owens to suggest Churchill's
resignation, is his frustration in adequately refuting Churchill's
logic (if he is even capable of understanding it).

Fortunately, Colorado University Chancellor Phil DiStefano is
conducting a 30-day examination of Professor Churchill's writings
ostensibly to afford Churchill his Constitutional rights before he
dismiss him. :-)

>I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in the
>spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
>amendment.

That was my understanding also. However, does the use of
seditiousness exceed Churchill's bounds as a faculty member, or does
he have a First Amendment right to say whatever he believes?

>I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
>theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution, is
>calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
>because he exercised those rights.
>
>Michael

That is ironic indeed, but Owens is a politician, and thus sensitive
to his public image (if he intends to seek reelection). If he fails
to pander to public hysteria, he'll be seen as complicit in
Churchill's ideology. So hypocrisy reigns. Welcome to the 21st
century. :-(

Who was it, that said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."



All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
>> a little research:
>> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>>
>> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
>> perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
>> read at that link.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think he's wacky?
>>
>
>Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.
>

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
–wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
–wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?


>>
>> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>>
>
>I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
>examine the site yourself.
>

But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>
> Main Entry:wacky
> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
> Function:adjective
> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
> Date:circa 1935
>
> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>
> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
> aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?
>

Wrong.


>
> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
> those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.
>

Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

Talk about the pot and the kettle...

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>
> Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
> irrational.
>
>
>

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:10:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>>
>> Main Entry:wacky
>> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
>> Function:adjective
>> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
>> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
>> Date:circa 1935
>>
>> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
>> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
>> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>>
>> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
>> aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
>
>>
>> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
>> those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.
>>
>
>Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
>irrational.

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Talk about the pot and the kettle...
>

We can if you wish.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:19:15 -0500, "mike regish"
> wrote in >::

>Talk about the pot and the kettle...
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
>> irrational.
>>

I haven't found Mr. McNicoll to be irrational in the years I've been
reading his articles posted to this newsgroup. I'd characterize him
as often pedantic, but usually quite lucid and logical.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?
>

I didn't.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>
> The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent
to
> "little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
> epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
> the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
> inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result
is
> that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
> status.
>
> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the
> spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
> amendment.

No more so than yelling "Fire" in a crded theatre.

> I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
> theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution,
is
> calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
> because he exercised those rights.

His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
> the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
> amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that sparked
this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the lecture hall,
or even on the campus.

The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
>> the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
>> amendment.
>
> Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that
> sparked this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the
> lecture hall, or even on the campus.
>

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
semblance of creative thought.

Michael

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
> irrelevant.
>

I was just pointing out that this isn't an issue of academic freedom. This
isn't even an issue of free speech, as nobody is trying to silence
Churchill. The issue is whether anybody is required to provide him with a
soapbox.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context
> of a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
> exactly that, a soapbox to speak from.

Whether he actually earned tenure is also in question, as well as his
qualifications for his position.



Once again, I think his comments are
> absurd, but the university community, including professors and students,
> are rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide
> who should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
> semblance of creative thought.
>
> Michael
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

This idea, BTW, is my idea of tolerance, and I believe it to be the
single biggest factor as to why western culture zipped ahead of all
others the last 500 years. Inventors and persons who are generally
ahead of their time are often considered oddballs and wackos. As long
as they don't do violence to their fellow citizens and we tolerate
them, the occasional genius arises and, unbothered by society's mores,
they make incredible scientific or cultural advances which benefit us
all.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:23:46 -0700, "Michael 182"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>> His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.
>
>Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
>a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
>exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
>absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
>rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
>should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
>semblance of creative thought.


Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:45:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?
>>
>
>I didn't.
>

If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


First you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll" >
Message-ID: t>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me
> to do a little research:
> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>
> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment,
> dissenting, perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational
> enough from what I read at that link.
>
>
> Why do you think he's wacky?
>

Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of
wacky.

>
> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>

I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you
can easily examine the site yourself.


Clearly the topic is Churchill's "irrational" statements.


-------------------------------------------

Then you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll" >
Message-ID: et>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>
> Main Entry:wacky
> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
> Function:adjective
> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
> Date:circa 1935
>
> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>
> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly
> eccentric" aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational.
> Right?
>

Wrong.


[>]
[> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?]
[>]
[]

[can easily examine the site yourself.]
[i]
>
> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational,
> not those [of] Churchill's statements that you feel are
> irrational.
>

Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to
be irrational.
-------------------------------

Now the subject of your last sentence clearly refers to me not
Churchill, despite your contention to the contrary.

Is it because you are unwilling or unable to support your contention
that Churchill's statements are crazy or irrational, that you resort
to unsupportable and libelous invective?



Here's a little quote for you:

What ever became of logic and reason and, maybe most important,
courtesy? I’m talking about the ability to debate a topic using
facts and a constructive argument while avoiding the cutesy
nicknames, innuendoes and inevitably, the personal insult. Does
anyone but me recall the days when the word argument meant a
challenging conversational exercise on the merits of an issue.
-- Ed Rasimus

http://thundertales.blogspot.com/2005/02/death-of-discourse.htm

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.
>

As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:34:26 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.
>>
>
>As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.
>

What I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser."

And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?

>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>
> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a nut on
every street corner nowadays.

However, where his employer needs to become involved is when we find that
this opinion is being expressed by a guy who is actually being paid (by "We
the People") to *teach* this kind of crap to students. At some point you
have to question the mental abilities of a guy who would be ignorant enough
to draw such a comparison.

THAT is why his tenure is under review -- not because anyone wants to deny
him his rights.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:31:16 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53>::

>>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
>It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
>wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
legitimately targeted by the Allies.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>
> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.

>
> The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
> because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.
>
> Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
> majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
> ideology.

and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
comparison is absurd.

>
> Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:
>
> * Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
> as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
> working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
> Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
> but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
> enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
> legitimately targeted by the Allies.

Not much of a justification.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Bob Fry wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
>
>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>
>
> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion.

More likely that he will be fired for various forms of fraud such as
claiming to be an Indian on his employment application.

From: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410347

"Reaction to Churchill in Indian country has been quite the opposite.
Two founders of AIM, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt - for decades,
bitter critics of Churchill - released a statement denouncing him and
his 9/11 essay in the name of the AIM Grand Governing Council. According
to the Feb. 3 statement, AIM ''is vehemently and emphatically
repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic
literary and Indian fraud Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9/11
tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent peoples'
lives.''

The statement read: ''Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an
Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband ... He has
deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naive Indian community
members in Denver, Colorado as well as many other people worldwide.
Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of, the
American Indian.''

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee in Oklahoma repudiated
Churchill's one claim to tribal affiliation, an honorary associate
membership issued by a former chief in 1993. Chief George G. Wickliffe
said the Band ''has no association with Churchill in any capacity
whatsoever and considers his comments offensive,'' adding that his essay
''does not in any way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the
World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United
Keetoowah Band.''"

All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?



On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
>> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>>
>> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>
>you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
>contradicts your claim.

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect. I don't doubt that Churchill chose
Eichmann for his comparison in an attempt to inflame, but apparently
he could have used the names of the German industrialists
"legitimately" targeted by the Allies with the same implications, and
no one would have taken offence.

The offence taken by the American public probably stems from the
general lack of knowledge of Eichmann's role in WW-II (coupled with
the emotional hysteria generated by the felling of the WTC towers); at
the sound of his name all anyone recalls is the gut wrenching images
of emaciated corpses stacked high like firewood created by the Nazis,
and the public's lack of knowledge causes them to believe, that
Churchill is implying that the WTC "technocrats" were directly
responsible for the same Holocaust. Of course, such a comparison
would truly be absurd.

Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
reaction is inevitable.

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.

After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.

Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?

(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")

If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

--

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
> Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
> finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
> The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
> aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
> develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
> who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
> "USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
> followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
> for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
> will be among those briefed and the association already is working
> with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
> system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
> demonstration.
>
>
> *
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html



A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
>
>
> Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:
>
> "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
> be taken seriously."

Too bad there's no right to be heard.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:49 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
>> Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
>> finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
>> The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
>> aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
>> develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
>> who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
>> "USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
>> followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
>> for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
>> will be among those briefed and the association already is working
>> with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
>> system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
>> demonstration.
>>
>>
>> *
>> http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html
>
>
>A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?
>

Given Mineta's statements:

"Shining these lasers at an airplane is not a harmless prank. It
is stupid and dangerous," said Secretary of Transportation Norman
Y. Mineta. "You are putting other people at risk, and law
enforcement authorities are going to seek you out, and if they
catch you, they are going to prosecute you."

"We are treating lasers in the cockpit as a serious aviation
safety matter," the Secretary said. "We must act now before
someone's reckless actions lead to a terrible and tragic
incident."

It certainly seems contradictory at best.

I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
thought.

Has anyone got a link to more information about the technicalities of
what the USAF is planning?

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:17:22 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>>
>>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
>That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
>whatever they want.

Apparently the public isn't paying very much:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27772%257E2704862,00.html
State budget cuts to higher education have left a shell of a
public university system. CU gets only 7 percent of its budget
from state tax funds.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
> overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
> his enabling, managerial aspect.

It's not subtle at all.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>>
>>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
statements, above.

To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.

> That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> whatever they want.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

> I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
> in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
> statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
> thought.
>
I gotta agree. The point of safety , IMHO, comes more with the fast few
blinks of laser, vs extended blinding by Joe Q. public.
--
Jim in NC

In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >>>
> >>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
> statements, above.
>
> To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.
>
> > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > whatever they want.

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.

"AES" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
>
> If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> statements made by you, only quoted by you.
>

Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
form.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53...
> >> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >
> > Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> > western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> > opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
> wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a nut on
> every street corner nowadays.
>
> However, where his employer needs to become involved is when we find that
> this opinion is being expressed by a guy who is actually being paid (by
"We
> the People") to *teach* this kind of crap to students. At some point you
> have to question the mental abilities of a guy who would be ignorant
enough
> to draw such a comparison.
>
> THAT is why his tenure is under review -- not because anyone wants to deny
> him his rights.

His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
drivel.

Interestingly, the same ones screaming about his 1st Amendment rights are
the SAME ones that have been stomping on students and contrary faculty for
YEARS.

http://academicbias.com/bw101.html

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
> > >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
> >
> > I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>
> you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which
actually
> contradicts your claim.
>
> >
> > The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
> > because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.
> >
> > Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
> > majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
> > ideology.
>
> and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
> comparison is absurd.
>
> >
> > Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:
> >
> > * Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
> > as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
> > working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
> > Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
> > but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
> > enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
> > legitimately targeted by the Allies.
>
> Not much of a justification.
>
He certainly has Orwellian double-speak down to an art.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >>
> >>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> whatever they want.

Except in academia and as long as the unpopular speech is leftist, not
rightwing stuff.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
> irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for it.

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > > whatever they want.
>
> Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
>
> If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> statements made by you, only quoted by you.

Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.

Bob Fry wrote:
> >>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Newps and Jay agree that:
> > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > whatever they want.

You guys say he's a "nutball." No doubt many others think he's got
something legit to say. Me, I don't care much what he says 'cause I'm
from California: far out, dude!

So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
are useful or not? Time and history do. That's why tenure exists, to
protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk. Even if you
lived in Colorado, your cost for his salary would be something like 22
cents/year or whatever. The whole "public has to pay" thing is a red
herring. The real issue is you don't like him and want to screw him.

Unless some academic prof does something *really* egregious, I'm on
the side of those defending him and his paid, tenured position. He's
doing what his job description says to do: think, and express the
result of that thinking. Tenure has a long history behind it; are you
so willing to chuck it over one guy? That's scary.

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
> drivel.

True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.

But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "AES" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> > to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> > that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> > posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
> >
> > If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> > "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> > least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> > statements made by you, only quoted by you.
> >
>
> Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
> form.

Wouldn't quarrel with that assessment. Possibly confusing, but not
necessarily illegal.

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "AES" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> > > > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > > > whatever they want.
> >
> > Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> > to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> > that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> > posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
> >
> > If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> > "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> > least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> > statements made by you, only quoted by you.
>
> Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.

Gee, I thought you pilot types were focusing on knowing, understanding,
and following the rules -- even when they got a little complex.

"Matt Barrow" >
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
>> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
>> made
>> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
> it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
> it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts, he'll
eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts. This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

moo

Bob Fry wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>
>>His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
>>drivel.
>
>
> True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
> having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.
>
> But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
> enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
> totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
> hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
> century?

I've avoided this thread, as I try to avoid all threads so far off topic.
However, I've been impressed with your tenacity, and am compelled to at
least contribute a heart-felt "Well said!" to this post, as well as all your
other responses.

I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

Pete

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
>>> >some
>>> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>>>
>>> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>>
>>you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which
>>actually
>>contradicts your claim.
>
> I don't want to defend Churchill, ...snip...
>
....snip...
> Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
> discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
> reaction is inevitable.
>
> At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
> pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
> dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
> a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
> granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
> would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
> by the current administration.
>
> After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
> exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
> the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
> report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
> is ours.
>
> Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
> Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
> disparate opinions?
>
> (Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
> "Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
> their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")
>
> If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
> perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
> Bush" for what he said:
>
> "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
> They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
> and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush
>
> I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
> enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
> totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
> hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
> century?
>

When we don't want our children to notice their conscience, we have two
options: suppress, or distract.
In this analogous case, Suppress: fire the *******... or distract:
stridently highlight only his most extreme inflammatory writings, his
personal hypocrises and flaws, and skip over any of the reasonable parts of
the argument.

We also don't want to trust our children to analyse opposing or ulta-radical
views. That might teach them independant thought. They might actually do
their own research to get closer to truth... so if we can't control our
educational institutions politically, we might want to withdraw their public
money and throw them to the mercy of handouts from somebody who can.

> --
>
> A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
> has destroyed itself from within. ***
> - Ariel Durant 1898-1981
>

Love your signature... been a few months since I've seen it in these groups
:-)

> I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
> getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
> regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

While I agree with academic tenure, and I fully support every professor's
right to say whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, in the context of
"education", without fear of retribution -- I think there is a legitimate
point at which an employer has to start questioning the mental stability and
ability of the person in question.

Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
tenuous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" >
>>
>> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
>>> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
>>> made
>>> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
>> it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
>> it.
>
> Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
> people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
> atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
> quick look back at history shows where this leads.

> If the guy's nuts, he'll eventually be ignored by everyone except other
> nuts. .....
>

I would think a market-driven sort of society would embrace that concept....
or are we a market-driven society only when its our own stuff that is
selling to the exclusion of others?? :-)

"Newps" > wrote in

>> But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.
>
> Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

And, no doubt, you can explain this in a bit more detail. What's the
alternative?

moo

Newps > writes:

> Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

Huh?

Tenure as we're discussing here is university-level, academic tenure.
The USA still has some of the best universities in the world, and I'd
say tenure is partly responsible for that.

Maybe you're thinking of civil-service protection for grade-school
teachers.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53...
>>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
> some wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a
> nut on every street corner nowadays.
>


There is one Chalmers Johnson, whom I never heard of before today:
http://www.jpri.org/about/officers.html

In checking out Ward Churchill, his name came up, not as a wacko, but as
someone who basically warned of a 911-like scenario...in a book "Blowback"
published in 2000...

This interview, January 2004:
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/8641.rm (RealPlayer streaming
video)

brings up some interesting "opinion" about the direction of US policy, no
matter which party is in power.

Beware it is 58 minutes long, but it is an opinion that may be worth
hearing, even if you eventually wish to dismiss it.

----
Oderint, dum metuant
- attributed to Roman poet and playwright Lucius
Accius, 170-86 BCE

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z_9Sd.33326$tl3.26137@attbi_s02...
> [...] I think there is a legitimate point at which an employer has to
> start questioning the mental stability and ability of the person in
> question.

We have appropriate legal channels for determining "mental stability". It
isn't up to the employer to make that decision, and should an employer fire
someone based on an illegal determination of a psychological disorder, they
would be open for a lawsuit for unlawful termination.

Related to that are all the accusations here that Churchill is mentally ill.
No one here is competent to make that determination, both due to lack of
sufficient information as well as lack of sufficient expertise.

> Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
> calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
> academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
> tenuous.

Lots of people pretend to be things that they are not. It's called fraud.
It's not an indication of mental illness. That's assuming the allegations
on that topic are true...I haven't seen any proof that they are, and I don't
know enough of the facts one way or the other to comment on whether they
are.

As far as "calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns" goes, I don't know
if you've bothered to read Churchill's comments regarding that, but I have
and I feel that he has indeed been quoted out of context, and seriously
misunderstood. Perhaps purposefully...it's not uncommon for enemies of
someone to do anything they can to discredit that person, even to the extent
of severely mischaracterizing what they've said.

Nevertheless, even if the general public's misconception of what his
comments meant was accurate, his comments are only an indication of mental
illness if you believe that ANYONE who disagrees with you is by