9/11 victims deserved their fate

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Would (or are) these opponents of that policy be guilty if the Sandinistas et al started slaughtering non-combatants as I believe they did with some indian tribe?

I believe you're referring to the Sandinista-Miskito conflict in and around Bluefields on the Caribbean coast .

If you believe in this 'tribal wholesale slaughter', then I'm sure you must have some reason for doing so, and would be able to produce some references to it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious
molly bloom,

Actually I do feel guilty for being an American. I have to function within the society that I live in, but I don't seperate my own guilt from that of my society.

I'm guilty for whatever I do- not for only being white, or born in Great Britain.


I had enough of that 'White skin privilege' crap from middle class Brits who assumed I wasn't the son of working class poor immigrants by virtue of my being paler than milk and being able to speak in coherent sentences.

I dislike all 'hierarchies of oppression' and 'victimology' thinking.

I refuse to countenance blanket assumptions of guilt or responsibility- that's Biblical and fascist thinking.

I gave up my membership of The Rote Armchair Fraktion' many years ago.

[Lincoln]

Churchill, who is under fire for comparing World Trade Center victims to a top Nazi, made the comments in April in Satya magazine, a Brooklyn-based monthly publication that promotes animal rights and social justice...

He is probably still grieving over the animals killed in the twin towers.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by BeBro
Funny in an absurd way that he compared others to the nazis then (or at least to Eichmann). How do such dumbasses make it to professorship anyway? I bet most of the posters here would do better if we teach them the specifics.....

We like to hire dumbasses like him to teach our kids. It gives right wing talk shows something to talk about. Besides, where would a bloke like him find a real job -- at a swap meet selling 'authentic' Indian crafts?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Ah well, I don't think it's really a big deal. I knew a guy once who claimed to be a Native American. Even his mom told him that he wasn't. He was a little bit of a nut. Maybe this guy really thinks he is Native American.

Thank you for making my point. He is either a liar or a nut job (probably both) and as a result completely discreditted which is the point of the post.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yeah, I went back and found it already, hence my next post.

Damn x-posting. You Che-s'd me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Thank you for making my point. He is either a liar or a nut job (probably both) and as a result completely discreditted which is the point of the post.

An opinion can be discredited.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by PeteH


For me it really comes down to what base values a system is built on. I don't believe our current culture or anything resembling it as far as lifestyle and technology can exist without the exploitation and destruction of the natural world, including many humans. I don't believe there is an egalitarian, sustainable form of modern civilization. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but nothing in my own observations or a study of a couple million years of human history and evolution have given me cause to doubt that belief yet.

You could agree with all of that - I agree with some of it - and yet see no reason to believe that a better society could be created by destroying the present one. Does the recognition of the present world order as evil compel one to try for its destruction even if one believes that what rises out of the ashes will be more evil?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm guilty for whatever I do- not for only being white, or born in Great Britain.

I should have said I'm guilty for the my actions, just as they are guilty for their actions. SuperCitizen was not at the World Trade Center on that day.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by mindseye
While IMO the irresponsibility of Americans at the voting booth has bordered on criminal, it was certainly not worthy of death.

Terrorist-jailers

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


An opinion can be discredited.

But the validity of a source can.

[Commy]

Wow...now we have people saying we should all be guilty because we are wigers?

And the Vatican wonders why people dis the pope as much as they dis Bush...never mind the fact they are declining in membership...gee...I wonder why...maybe because you're telling me I'm a wiger and need to give all my money away...

And so now my charity makes another poor person rich now....It's a never ending cycle...

Screw religion and charity, they get us nowhere...at least Bush gets the world moving, even if it negative...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Is Ward Churchill going to be fired?



Some Random Blog

Breaking News: Ward Churchill Probably Going Down
4 February 2005

I think the University of Colorado is about to sell Ward Churchill down the river. Some of my vast throng of reader may recall that I used to work for the UC system; I'm still on the staff e-mail distribution list, and this letter from UC President Betsy Hoffman just came in:

Dear Colleagues:

In the wake of what has been a difficult time in the life of this university, I wanted to clearly state my position and the position of my administration on issues surrounding academic freedom. First, I want to thank the Regents for upholding the Laws of the Regents and the traditions of the academy. I have the utmost confidence in Interim Chancellor DiStefano’s leadership to handle this matter.

All of us are aware that the discussion surrounding recent events strike at our core values and the bedrock on which all higher education institutions in America are built.

Like all of you, I have relied on the principles and tenets of academic freedom as I pursued my scholarly work. But this ideal is not merely a set of rules and rituals; it is the heart that gives life to the body of any university. My administration is, and always has been, firmly committed to the protection of this lifeblood of scholarly debate and discovery.

According to the faculty handbook, a faculty member’s “efforts should not be subjected to direct or indirect pressures or interference from within the university, and the university will resist to the utmost such pressures or interference when exerted from without.” I pledge to you to do all within my power to uphold this important statement.

But the rights afforded those of us in the academic community to pursue our scholarly work come with a heavy responsibility to behave with integrity and professionalism and to meet the highest ethical standards our disciplines demand. These standards create the boundaries within which academic freedom rests. Our work does not happen in a vacuum, but rather is regularly put to the test of scholarly debate and dissection creating another set of boundaries within which our freedom to discover, research and write lies.

When faculty members meet the measure and the moral and ethical boundaries of their disciplines they do and should expect the full support of their university. This relationship between the faculty member and his or her university creates the environment necessary for the nurture of groundbreaking research, essential scholarship and educational advancement that modern society relies upon.

True higher education – the process of debate, discovery and learning – only functions when both sides of this equation uphold their responsibilities. It is my pledge to you today that this administration will do its part.

While this debate has been and will continue to be difficult as we work through issues involved with the situation before us, I believe it will ultimately prove beneficial to all of us in the university community and to those who view it only from outside. Rarely does the issue of academic freedom garner so much attention and reflection. Ultimately, it will be these painful conversations and buttressing of arguments that will ensure the long-term health of academic freedom for generations to come.

Betsy

This reads to me like "we believe in academic freedom but we think the Wardster crossed the line." I think they're going to fire him. I don't think they ought to fire him for what he said. He is a person with vile and contemptible views, and they never should have hired him; his brand of scholarship is an anti-intellectual, politicized, garbage scow of worthless identity politics and eighth-grade Marxist doubletalk. But they did hire him, and now they have to extend the same protection of academic freedom that the non-feces-for-brains faculty have. They might fire him for lying about his Indian ancestry, but that's another matter.

(As far as I can recall, this is the first time my blog has ever actually broken news. Woohoo! I'm a CITIZEN JOURNALIST! I demand a fried egg sandwich.)

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers! Take your shoes off and set a while.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Is Ward Churchill going to be fired?



Some Random Blog

There shouldn't be a line for academic freedom.

[PeteH]

You could agree with all of that - I agree with some of it - and yet see no reason to believe that a better society could be created by destroying the present one. Does the recognition of the present world order as evil compel one to try for its destruction even if one believes that what rises out of the ashes will be more evil?

This is entering a level of hypothetical-ness that will render almost any point meaningless.

I cannot control what comes after in a general sense; however, if the few million years of human histry prior to civilization is any indication, I have no reason to believe that it is 'worse' or that a post-civilization world would be 'worse'.

If I had a crystal ball that would let me see the consequences of every action, I could possibly make a different decision. Since I do not, I must base my decision on the nest information I can gather, and take actions which will serve what I see as the primary moral principals I support. For me, this means that the landbase is primary, and any decision which has the benefit of civilization on one side and the preservation or restoration of the landbase on the other has a clear 'good' decision.