Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"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

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

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

"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

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"

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:38:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"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.

I'm sorry, but it just happened (like McNicoll knew it would).

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.

Coming from an astute fellow like yourself, that is quite a complement
indeed. Thank you.

I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
getting what you're saying,

Oh well....

but I agree 100% with all you've written
regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

Pete


100%?! Now I'm truly flattered.

"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
:-)