Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

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


"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

"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?

"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.

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

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,...704862,00.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.

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"