I Can Defend Ward Churchill's Speech But Not It's Content

[DemocratSinceBirth]

My favorite political writing is "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill....

He makes a powerful case for individual liberty but he doesn't argue we have to embrace everything a person does or says only defend his right to say or do what he wants.....


Ward Churchill has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants as long as it's not libelious or slanderous but that doesn't mean we have to defend the content of his speeech...

Words are powerful because they have consequences...

To me that's what being a liberal is all about...

[baldguy]

1. "I disapprove of what you say,"

"but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Damn Frenchmen!

[indigobusiness]

2. His point was basically about hypocrisy.

Who could argue with that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Was Waiting...

He called the people in the WTC collateral damage...


Ever see the movie Scarface...

Al Pacino's character Tony Montana refuses to bomb the car in which the person he is hired to kill is driving...


Why?


Because the guy has his wife and small children in the car...


They would have been "collateral damage"... In fact Tony Montana kills the guy who tries to force him to bomb the car with the wife and kids in it...

Seems like Tony Montana has a better moral compass than Ward Churchill...

[indigobusiness]

4. You are missing his point.

He was drawing a parallel to our claims of collateral damage in Africa, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq...

He said the Twin Tower target was legitimized by the official offices there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Then We Should Nuke All Of Afghanistan And Pakistsan Because Then

We Would Be Sure To Get Bin Laden...


You're fond of Orwell...

Orwell also said "some ideas are so bizarre only an intellecual could believe them."

[indigobusiness]

9. Orwell warned us of just this sort of reactionary logic.

Yes, I am very fond of Orwell. If we had listened to him, we wouldn't be here today.

Your knee-jerk responses are grossly unfair and off the mark.

I suggest you fully digest the info before you erupt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Are You Asserting Your Intellectual Superiority Over Me....

Should I shudder or genuflect?


ROTFLMFAO

[indigobusiness]

18. Set your ego aside...

and look at what is actually at play here.

You puff up so much you can't see what's happenning.

Nothing you have said has merit.

[Zensea]

12. I think his point was even more nuanced than that

It didn't seem to me that he was saying the Twin Tower target was legitimate, but that IF the US policy considered collateral damage legtitimate then US policy has no room to complain about collateral damage with the Twin Towers.
I don't think Churchill considers collateral damage to be legitimate. A major part of his article before his statement about the WTC attacks consists of critiquing the US policy which contributed to the collateral damage deaths of Iraqi children in the decade before the WTC attacks.
For example this passage --
Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them.

Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right...

Whether or not the sanctions were immoral is not contingent on deeming the the victims of 9-11 deserving of their fate and that is the equation Professor Churchill has made...

[Zensea]

Does Churchill say 2 wrongs make a right?

I didn't get that feeling.
Like I wrote above, I got the feeling that he is against collateral damage.
He has said recently
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3525488,00.html

• On how he believes his 9/11 essay "Some People Push Back" has been mischaracterized: "They take, as is usually the case with propaganda, some kernel of truth to anchor, and then they go wild. I never said anything about 'justifying.' I never said anything about 'advocating.' I never called for the deaths of millions of Americans."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Was Watching The Rice Debate...

I 'll use the Senator Mark Dayton standard....


In his vote against Rice he said "We judge ourselves by our intentions. Others judge us by our elections..."


Here's the professor's words unfilterd:



They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

"There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

[Zensea]

40. I read that too, I think it depends how you read this particular sentence

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

I agree that that sentence can be read as justifying the action. However, it could be read as simply a statement of the realpolitik of action and not as a justification of the action itself.

It is possible to abhor violence on either side & at the same time argue that a response such as the attack on the WTC is commensurate with the attack that US policy had been engaged in for a decade.

I think there is some real ambiguity in what Churchill's viewpoint is in that sentence. That's why I think it's important to read the entire essay and his other statements. Since he has explicitly said he was not justifying the actions that needs to be taken into account.

(as an aside, if I had planned my day differently on 9/11 I could easily have been within a block of the attacks at the time. I was going on job interviews in that area around that time for temp positions which if I had been doing so even a week earlier could easily have meant that I would have been working in the WTC at the time of the attacks. Discussion of this stuff is not an abstract issue for me as a result.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. He's Not Saying Some Amorphous Entity Is Deserving Of A Horrific Death...

Read his words closely... He's saying those individuals were deserving of a horrific death...


I know what a metaphor is... I know what an allegor is... And that's neither an allegory or metaphor...

[rodeodance]

66. thanks, I liked your memo about this sentence

[indigobusiness]

28. That's what I meant.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[indigobusiness]

5. Regarding morality

Churchill seems to think war is immoral in general.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Pointing Out America's Checkered History Is One Thing...

Dragging the victims of 9-11 into the debate is absurd...


I certainly won't waste any of my moral capital defending the content of his speech but I defend his right to engage in such speech...

[indigobusiness]

8. It is an ongoing war.

Have you not been paying attention?

[NeoTraitors]

10. The right is using

this guy to make it seem like the left 'hates America.' I understand what he was trying to say, but the reason he is a 'story' right now is to make us look bad.

You have Congressional dems 'going along' with the crooks, then the only other viewpoint they show you from the left is this Churchill.

Be the media or this will continue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. A Person Has A Right To Hate America

but if we are perceived as hating America you can fit the people who will listen to us in this country in a phone booth...

Do we want to be carping internet martyrs or build a better nation or world...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. how do you know "he hates america"...did he say this?..i think NOT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Never Said He Hated America

I said if we are perecieved as hating America our impact on policy will be zero...

[NeoTraitors]

20. Democratsincebirth-

I agree with you. The O'reilleys of the world are trying to pin this Churchill guy's views on us. We shouldn't let them.

I try to build a better nation in my own way, talking to people about how I feel. It is always in the context that I love America, and that is why I am concerned about what is going on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I Have Been Paying Attention...

I lack the acumen you and Mr. Churchill posess...



I don't need to be a tenured professor to know that the victims of 9-11 were innocent as the good professor has denied...

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."


To use a colloquialism since I'm not as learned as the good professor that's some fucked up shit...

[indigobusiness]

21. You are distorting the content

in order to villify it.

Another quality of Liberalism is fairness. Try it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Verbatim...

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.


I think a fair reading of that excerpt from the essay would allow someone to conclude that Professor Churchill would feel that the terrorists would have been justified in bombing the Charles Schwab office in Sugarland, Texas because the account executives there earning $45,000.00 a year are an integral part of the capitalist superstructure

[indigobusiness]

26. The tone is repellant, but the content

is not summed up in a snippet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. At Least We're Making Progress Now..

Has America acted without regard to the suffering of others?

Yes...

Were the folks incinerated at the WTC innocent?

Yes....

The two aren't mutually exclusive.....

If he would have made the "blowback" argument I would have found it more palatable...


Well, after reading his little essay I noticed he has nothing to say about the folks on the three planes... Surely they weren't part of the capitalist infrastructure...

[indigobusiness]

32. As long as you mix the issues, and inject emotionalism into it...

there is no chance for honest resolution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. You And The Professor Are Hoisted On Your Own Petard...

"As long as you mix the issues, and inject emotionalism into it..."


Posted by indigobusiness



Exactly...


Even if we accept the record of American pefidy how does that rob the victims of 9-11 of their status as victims...

[indigobusiness]

53. Show me one petard I've hoisted myself upon.

We are all victims of war.

Hypocrisy is the issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Churchill Was Mixing Issues...

How does American perfidy justify the taking of innocent life...

Churchill recites the litany of American wrongs and then concludes the 9-11 victims had it coming...


They are two separate issues and the truth of the former is not contingent on the morality of the latter....

[janx]

15. Have you read his essay?

?

I myself have not yet. But I'm curious as to whether or not you have.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. i would like to read his essay before comment anyone got a link?

[Zensea]

22. Here you go

http://tinyurl.com/5zyys

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. thank you..i'll be back later

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. just finished reading it - it is a hard swallow, but imho it is TRUTH!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Don't Think Dr. King Would Say The 9-11 Victims Had It Coming...

I don't see how reciting the litany of American wrongs justify the shedding of innocent blood...


In fact how is proving the litany of American wrongs contingent on stripping the folks who were murdered on 9-11 of their status as victims...


By Professor Churchill's calculus I deserve a bullet in the head because I have $6,000.00 invested in a Fidelity account and $900.00 invested in an AG Edwards account...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. oh, so, now you are authorized to speak for Dr. King too?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Is That The Best You Can Do?

Professor Churchill said those killed in the 9-11 attacks are undeserving of their status as innocent victims...


You admire Dr. King enough and rightfully so to put Dr. King on your avatar...


What do you think Dr. King would think of those sentiments?



on edit- I'll be waiting a long time to hear an answer because anybody even casually familar with Dr. King knows of his aversion to violence... God knows his reaction to violence on that scale which respected neither one's race, religion, station in life, or color....

[Zensea]

43. Perhaps there is some confusion about Churchll's meaning of guilt?

I should preface that comment by saying, I don't mean confusion on your part but confusion in the general discussion -- a confusion that Churchill does not do much to sort out, seems like he's using innocence and guilt in both a collective and an individual sense. I'd have to see if Churchill says anything about this, but I think he might be talking about innocence and guilt in a collective sense more than in an individual sense.
That is, we are all collectively guilty since we are Americans and our tax dollars pay for US policy & in that sense we are not innocent.

When I suggest that Churchill is using innocence and guilt primarily in the collective sense, I may be giving him too much credit-- but he does use it in the collective sense at certain points it seems to me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. self deleted

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. tad defensive aren't we? bush tends to convict himself with his own words

too..you're being silly now and i'm done here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. How Is It Silly

He said the folks at the WTC had it coming....

If you like I will repost the quote in it's entirety...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. self delete

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. self delete

one self delete deserves another but it is a waste of Skinner's bandwidth...

[rodeodance]

68. yes, it takes wrapping it around your head a few times, doesn't it

[pretzel4gore]

27. faulty response to a staged event, taken out of context!

in other words a win win situation for bush.....
(churchill spoke in immediate aftermath of the wtc disaster, when we were relentlessly told osama bin laden and the wtc 19 hijacked..jets...crashed wtc, terrible crime etc, but we know alot more about it today. For instance, a wargame execrcise called 'vigilant guardian' was ongoing on sept 11/01, under direction of bush's lil dink (vp cheney)...thus paralysing the US eastern seaboard air defenses, we also know about PNAC and have seen the script followed faithfully until 100,000 iraqis are dead and their country destroyed, and 2 years wasted; we have seen mass media lie month after month, building entire tangents of falsehood upon proven lies, see wmd, but still pressing on, lying to the voters, we have seen the political process hijacked, and 'urban myth' become the news of the day, bush re selected, people powerless)
churchill now must defend bush, in order to defend himself...in order to explain his reasoning, he must promote and fortify the big lie, that terrorists attacked US on 911, which isn't true....bushamerica attacked clintonamerica on 911
now do you see?

[indigobusiness]

30. That's an astute analysis.

The comprehensive effort at clouding the issue and exploiting the lack of clarity is as disturbing as anything in all of this.

Clarity is an enemy in Bushworld.

----

"Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens."

Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Isn't That Another Debate....

Now we are entering the realm of sophistry and obscurantism...


I take issue with Professor Churchill's attempt to strip the victims in the World Trade Center and the three doomed planes of their victim status....



That attempt is what I take issue with....


Proving or disproving the litany of American wrongs is not contingent on stripping the 9-11 victims of their status and engaing in that exercise will win us no friends and nor should it...

[pretzel4gore]

41. if the white people would just go home to yourrup

then none of this would be a problem...'america' doesn't even exist, not legally....and no, it's not another debate.....churchill can frame the argument however he likes, and i have a gun (it's a popgun, but it still can hurt) ...churchill should become a terrorist, maybe that's what olielly etc are saying(?)
btw the innocents of the wtc are like kittens thrown out by hiway in winter, trapped in a tied plastic bag...'men learn by suffering' the ancients once said...so why are stupid people running the USA?
also, please remember, the busheviks are raising this issue cuz they see the left tied in knots trying to get out of it...say fukkem and talk about the 9.7 billion stolen from US taxpayers in iraq by bushinc, or the whoring of the media...
trick- change subject EVERYTIME a bushevik tries to discuss it!

[indigobusiness]

55. Being honest and candid will win us friends, and respect.

Not catering to what we hope will win us friends.

[ynksnewyork2]

38. Anybody else see him on Paula zahn???

The more he speaks the more narcissistic he sounds. This guy's a media whore. Why in the world would he be out giving interviews when he's involved in a lawsuit for his job?? Shades of EGO before Brains! Typical Narcissist!!I think his days as a professor at CU are numbered! The govenor's asking for his resignation, the state legislature issued a publc apology to ALL Americans from CU and local government says they won't defend him! Bye Bye Ward!! See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!!

[AVID]

48. totally disagree with you

the only media whore last night was paula zahn.

he was making a logical argument, based on his beliefs about "collateral damage" in wartime

Zahn acted and reacted on par with jerry springer in her emotionalism, tabloid behavior

He went on the show to correct and add information to his words to clarify

he did that and it made sense to me.

the narcissist? paula zahn!!!

[rodeodance]

63. yes, and for the most part I agree with him

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. hope you enjoyed your short visit to DU...ciao

[robbedvoter]

49. Not worse that Rudy blaming the military for missing explosives, Fallwell

blaming feminists and gays for 911, Condi saying tsunami was great opportunity. Before covering ourselves in ashed on behalf of this guy, remember : his words are going to be repeated over and over to define the "non-BFEE" - while the other examples disappeared even from your memories. Don't take their bait. Don't grovel.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. exactly!..remember who/what/where this all came from...it is putrid crap

from the likes of O'Lielly and from the Heritage/PNAC/ slimeballs who want all liberal professors blackballed from our universites ....and some of us just ignorantly perpetuate their agenda and unwittingly add to their darkness.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. wow ...defender of O'Lielly's talking points still hanging in there

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I'm Not Groveling...

Falwell, Churchill, and Condi are fools and made fololish statements while the latter two are arguably educated fools...


A statement should rest on it's own merits not on the merits of the person making the statements....

[tishaLA]

56. Part of the problem is audience, as I see it

several years ago, I participated in a conference entitled "Aren't Children Queer?" at a pretty famous public university on the east coast. My presentation dealt with the Henry James short story "The Pupil" and I talked about the joyful pederasty in James' story. I also talked about submission and youth in contemporary culture and showed slides that most people would probably consider child pornography; I did not and nobody at the conference expressed revulsion at my slides.

Of course if I had given this talk to a popular audience, instead of working on a theoretical and exegetical level, I would have altered it significantly. For example, I would have spoken euphemistically about sodomy and I would have fore-sworn images; I would have spoken about Plato and Socrates as a model of perversion, perhaps, and ignored the etymological pleasures of "pedagogy." In other words, I could have lied. But the fact was that I was engaging in a discussion of ideas familiar to those in my field and attempting to explore the plasticity (or the limits) of discursive boundaries about various claims about sexuality, gender, and literature.

I suspect that this is what we are missing when we talk about Prof. Churchill's work: that is engaging in a conversation with known quantities to those inside the academy and that it is intended to work out ideas for a specific crowd, not for a general audience (N.B.: Lani Guinier made this same argument when RWers vilified her way back when. Her writings in academic journals, she correctly argued, concern theoretical, and not real world, issues and should not be mistaken for policy decisions. As we know, Guinier lost that argument).

So I don't really intend to defend Prof. Churchill. His career is quite distinguished and he doesn't really need a defense from me.

[Hissyspit]

57. Had you given the talk to a 'popular' audience...

as well, your complicated and nuanced themes probably would have been misquoted, misinterpreted, taken out of context, misreported to the mainstream media, and used for other hidden agendas. When you were then threatened with loss of your job for doing your job, you probably would have tried to defend yourself and been called a 'media whore' and been thrown to the lions. Oh, well.

POPULARITY does not equate necessarily with QUALITY, PROFUNDITY, or TRUTH, but a lot of people think it does. Left-wingers and right-wingers, alike.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I Am Flummoxed....

Maybe I'm not as bright, enlightened, or as nuanced in my thinking as others in this thread...


Here's what Professor Churchill said :

"There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

How can any body of sound mind not wish to disassociate themselves from those sentiments...

I am open to persuasion...

What am I missing?

[rodeodance]

62. O'Reilly said this week he got on U of Col. case -that is why they asked

him to resign--Bill takes the credit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. O'Reilly And Churchill Are Idiots..-Big Time...

The rules are the rules...


You can not fire a tenured professor without cause and cause is usually defined as crimes involving moral turpitude...


Churchill shouldn't be fired but he should contemplate about the wisdom of the sentiment we are discussing...


All these smart guys and gals defending him here....


I have seen him on t v... He thinks this brouhaha is a hoot... Some folks don't know when they are being used...

[rodeodance]

67. there is another serious issue raised with the entry of O'Reilly into

the story. The Right is increasingly trying to influence speech on campus (in the case of O'Reilly--thru this bullying). Chilling speech is a serious issue----whether you agree with Churchhill or not!!

We need to separate these issues.

[rodeodance]

69. transcript between Paula Zahn and Churchill from last night.

Paula Z was not listening to him either--rather she went on and on about how angry the 9/ll families are at Churchill (note this was written on 9/11/.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/04/pzn.01.html

ZAHN: Well you have succeed in evoking a response, sir.

And how can you not say that your writings constitute being proterrorist? You've heard the governor of New York accuse you of that, the governor of Colorado and even some of the folks you just heard in the pieces we aired.

CHURCHILL: I think terrorism as a phenomena should be quelled. But if you deal with any phenomena, you first must define, and more importantly understand it. And what I'm saying this is a perfectly comprehensive response to the way the U.S. projects itself in the world. It is as simple as that.

When you are not only causing the incurrence of -- when you're causing children to die in mass numbers somewhere else and you refer that as to being something worth the price, or when you designate the civilian casualties in another country as being so much collateral damage, you've utterly devalue and dehumanize those people in addition to killing them.

ZAHN: But, sir, you're not saying that there is a parallel universe between terrorists purposefully striking innocent civilians and governments -- are you accusing U.S. government of purposefully killing innocent Iraqi women and children? Is that what you're saying here?

[indigobusiness]

75. She surely was not listening.

He clearly condensed his point, which she convoluted entirely while trumpeting her own reactionary misperceptions.

A lot of that going around.

[tishaLA]

70. I believe he is making a justifiable argument

with which I happen to disagree.

First, I don't believe this is part of an essay, is it? It sounds like a transcription of a talk or a response to a question. The "gimme a break," the ellipses, the "let's get a grip here," etc. would all be foreign to any academic writing I know. So are we talking about a talk here or an essay? Or a talk that has been published as a mock essay? These might be important distinctions, if only because I don't necessarily expect the same kind of precision in speech as in writing.

The more important point, though, is that this is simply an almost rote Marxist critique of corporations and the military-industrial complex; in fact, it's almost a knee-jerk, hackneyed response to them that would have been perfectly banal had he been speaking about something other than an event that has "transformed America," an event in which we had invested far less narrative/emotional energy, or had said it at a different socio-political moment. In the late 60s or 70s, this would have gotten him a job offer at an esteemed second-tier university. In 2005, it's enough to make him a whipping boy on the right and the left.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. We Need A Serious Discussion On Terrorism

I favor a weed and seed approach...


Kill the terrorists (weed) and ameliorate the conditions that give rise to them (seed)....

I give this administration a C- on the former and a F on the latter...


Also, they hate us for our freedoms argument can be classified as a "weak knee jerk response"...

If OBL hated nations for their freedom The Netherlands would be dust....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Here's The Link...

http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1




He's not the first or last polemicist to chronicle the litany of wrongs perpetrated by this country but he has distinguished himself by saying not that America had it coming but that the specific individuals laboring in the World Trade Center had it coming...

[tishaLA]

73. Well, I guess I'll just defend his content then

because its discursive registers are banal and anachronistic. It's like hiring a Sovietologist who earned her doctorate at the same university as the Secretary of State, except that my example is dangerous and Prof. Churchill is not.

ETA: I've now read the article. It's pretty boring, but it's also not in an academic journal...just something that looks like a blog. I know this became part of a book, but is this associated with his academic career at all? And if so how?

[American Tragedy]

76. It is part of an essay, haven't you read it?

[Disturbed]

77. I read his entire rant.

I agree with the main thrust of it. Of course, the RW pundits mischaracterized his main point for their own agenda, getting rid of any criticism of U.S. ME polcies. I don't approve of such attacks on mostly civilians and neither did he. The fact remains that the U.S. ME policies were the cause of the 911 Attacks and the Twin Towers were a legit target from the other side's viewpoint. I also feel that he knew that his language would incense the RW and wrote his piece to gain attention and cause an uproar. He achieved his purpose if he wanted to gain some fleeting fame and attention on the issue. The RW and populace at large of course won't give any creedance to his POV but will villify him personaly. The Left Wing already knows what he is talking about. Imperialism is probably a word that a vast majority of Amerikan have no clue about and will never see Amerika as an Imperialist Capitalist War Mongering Nation that it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Res Ipsa Loquitur

"I read his entire rant."
Posted by Disturbed



"I don't approve of such attacks on mostly civilians and neither did he."



Res Ipsa Loquitur

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

I really should let this thread die... Maybe I am caught up in it because I know people that worked in the Towers... Luckily, they were on low floors and escaped... They weren't the "masters of the universe" that Tom Wolfe described in the Bonfires Of The Vanities but working class Filipinos with a green card trying to make a little money to live and send some back to their family in Manilla.

I like Minister Farrakhan's take on 9-11 better... Minister Farrakhan doesn't ignore America's checkered past or the grievances that motivated the attack but he mours the loss of innocent life on that day and praises the heroism of the policemen and firefighters who arrived at the scene....


http://www.noi.org/press-events/transcript_us.attacked09-16-2001.htm

[IrwinDC]

79. Agreed DemocratSinceBirth

Being a lawyer and a strong believer in the Constitution and the law, Mr. Churchill certainly has the right to say what he said. In addition, I don’t think he should be fired for his comments. Academic freedom is very important and I believe his comments have added to the educational atmosphere at the University of Colorado, especially for those students who have stepped forward to either denounce or defend Mr. Churchill.

That being said, the content of Mr. Churchill’s paper can be described by only one word…despicable. As a person who knew someone killed in the World Trade Center that day, anyone who attempts justify the deliberate targeting of thousands of civilians are on the same moral plane as the people in the Middle East who danced in the street that day. The majority of people working in the World Trade Center that day were not monocle wearing fat men with black suits, top hats and pocket watches. They were simple everyday Americans going about their daily lives, trying to feed their families who were deliberately murdered by a bunch of religious fanatics that share a worldview that most liberals would find completely appalling.

Anyway, I realize I’m new here, yet I’ve been reading through some of the threads for a while. This topic just got my blood boiling a little. You’ll find that I’m not quite as far to the left side of the aisle as some on here, but I hope to have some decent, thought provoking discussions. Cheers everyone.