"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 definition
mentally ill. A perfectly rational person can take the exact same
situation, and come to a completely different evaluation that you do, in
spite of not being mentally ill. It happens here all the time (I don't
think I need to remind you of just how wrong I think pretty much ALL of your
political beliefs are...but I don't consider that a sign of mental illness
on your part).

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the origin
of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As awful as
their tactics are, their motivations are related to our demonstrably unfair
and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.
Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our government's
paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are just as guilty
as our government itself.

The victims in the WTC towers could be thought of as particularly complicit,
in that many of the people who worked there were indeed "movers and shakers"
in the American economy and political arena. They facilitated the American
activities in the Middle East to a much greater extent than probably most
other Americans, simply due to their proximity to the hub of the American
economy.

Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the terrorist
activities. That's not what I'm saying. But to pretend that the terrorists
are just randomly choosing to attack Americans is ridiculous. They targeted
us for a reason, and frankly continuing a policy of aggression rather than
reconciliation is just making terrorism worse.

There. I got sucked in and said my fill. Probably more than I should have.
No doubt people here will jump all over my statements and call me mentally
ill or (worse?) a traitor. Whatever. It would just prove my point.

Pete