Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"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.

"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

"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.

"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

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.''"

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion.


Actually, he's doing quite a bit more than that.



The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.


Nobody's being dicked over for their opinions here.

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?

"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.

"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
...

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