Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

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