Manhattan, babes, Ward Churchill’s poisonous lunacy aside, are you suggesting that Iraq is the only example of the USA’s machinations in the Middle East?
No, sweetums, I’m suggesting that Ward’s essay was suggesting that. Well, that and that the terrorists were apperently avenging the Cherokees for the Trail of Tears.
I can’t see the connection, Manhattan. Can you show us where in Churchill’s essay he addresses Blaron’s understanding of his basic point with the idea that 9/11=Iraq?
He’s not talking about the terrorists, he’s talking about us and about how we need to learn how it feels to get screwed over and why it’s bad to screw other people over. Our failure to learn from history is the “ghosts” that he is referring to, not the literal spirits of the deceased. :smack:
What the hell did the people in the Towers have to do with the sanctions on Iraq?
He’s saying that the sanctions in Iraq caused the death of children which pissed off the terrorists so they flew planes into the trade center to get revenge on the people who caused it: the technocrats. 
I’d bet my next paycheck this nutty professor would have an apoplectic attack if somebody told him that the bombing of the Murrah Building was the fault of the US Government for not addressing Timothy McVeigh’s grievances.
Ward Churchill, you know the idiot from the OP, was saying that the trading of stocks in the WTC, somehow was part of enforcing UN sanctions on Iraq. That these sanctions caused babies, Iraqi babies, to die. That because they, the people who worked at the WTC did this, everyone in the WTC should have expected that someone may try to kill them because payback is a bitch you know.
Of course, there are plenty of people who worked at the WTC and who died there that had nothing to do with trading stocks.
And of course buying or selling a particular stock has fuck all to do with the sanctions or the fact that the oil for food program, which was supposed to prevent the babies from dying, was a total clusterfuck.
And of course the people in the WTC that did buy and sell stocks were mostly doing it for other, more powerful, and maybe, more responsible people. Talk about shooting the messenger.
Poor Ward Churchill. Fred Phelps now says he is going to picket the idiot. It’s because Churchill is saying the destruction of the WTC was the work of man, rather than done personally by God Almighty as an act of punishment for how rvil the United States is. I mean, everyone knows it was the gays who brought down God’s wrath on “this irreversibly doomed nation.” :rolleyes:
Two jackassed in such close proximity to each other, surely this can’t be good. 
God also caused me to make all those spelling errors.
Leaving aside the man in question, his opinions, whether they are valid etc, this paragraph is total crap.
Firstly, the suggestion seems to be that if you can say something, then even if you are subsequently sanctioned for saying it you are not suffering censorship because you were able to say it.
So I suppose if fascist dictatorships pass a law saying that if you criticize the government you go to jail that isn’t censorship because you can say whatever you like in the interval before the guys in trenchcoats drag you away?
Makes sense to me.
Secondly, people who exercise censorship always think that what they are censoring should not be said. Almost by definition censorship is sanctioning stuff that someone doesn’t like being said. That you think he shouldn’t have said what he said does not mean that him suffering sanction for saying it is not censorship.
Thirdly, you round off with the usual crap suggesting that because he’s not suffering huge sanction, he’s not suffering a sanction.
I’m not injuring you by chopping off your foot because I could chop off your head.
Does that make sense where you live?
Basically, you don’t like what the guy said. Probably with good reason. But don’t kid yourself that approving of him suffering a sanction for saying something unacceptable isn’t approving of censorship.
Somebody should point out to Ward Churchill that the typical American college or university could also be a symbolic target to Wahhabist terrorists, since it features:
Men and women working together.
Young men and women living in coed dormitories and shacking up in off-campus apartments.
Offensive displays of immodestly dressed students kissing, holding hands, dancing, drinking alcohol (even when against the campus rules or state laws), etc…
Democratic student campus politics, including outspoken women activists, etc.
Pork and other generally non-halal foods being consumed everywhere.
Immodest, profane, and un-Islamic dance and theater performances, concerts, film screenings, etc. Oh, the cultural degeneracy of it all!
Jewish faculty, students, Hillel campus chapters, and ecumenical campus religious programs and facilities.
Now, if Professor Churchill wants to draw up a program by which American academia can begin to address these grievances, he can be my guest… and kiss my ass!
No, the suggestion is that there are real world consequences for showing your ass in public. “Censorship” means that the government suppresses free speech. Meatheads like Churchill are free to spout whatever inane opinions they want. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
But when you say that 3,000 American citizens were justifiable targets for murderers and thugs because … well, because they were Americans, then it’s neither irrational nor censorship to (1) call the guy an ass; and (2) take steps to make sure that person does not appear to be representing your faculty and institution when he uses his mouth like a whoopee cushion.
The law prohibits prior restraint on speech such as libel or defamation (except in narrow circumstances), but allows people to sue for damages after the publication of the statement. That’s not censorship. That’s just recognizing that words have real world effects, a fact which most free speech advocates would readily acknowledge. “Free speech” means that people can say whatever they want, but it does not imply freedom from consequences for careless, reckless, or harmful speech.
This guy’s job is to comment on events like this; his job is to put events like 9/11 into context for the faculty, academia, and students. If this reflects the measure of his work, then it’s not censorship to demote him because he’s obviously terrible at his job.
Would it be censorship to fire the public relations director of Disney if he happened to slip into a speech that he hated Jewish people? Would it be censorship to fire a White House spokesperson because he said that “them dead Iraqi children got what they had coming”? Of course not. If your job is to speak, it’s not censorship to tie your success at your job to your speech.
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s merely pointing out that the “sanction” suffered by the fucktard does not bear the hallmarks of censorship. It bears the hallmarks of stripping the idiot of his authority to speak on behalf of the institution, without suffering other sanction. He didn’t lose his job; he didn’t lose the ability to speak; he didn’t lose the platform he holds in which he helps form the minds of young people; he didn’t even get a pay cut. He just lost his title so that he couldn’t speak on behalf of the institution.
Big Chief Churchill needem go back reservation, drink plenty fire water, and shut-em the fuck up before paleface mail-em anthrax blankets. Ug! :mad:
Actually according to CNN he resigned, so the whole of the above is on a false premise anyway.
He isn’t just an embarassment to leftists, but to Indians as well. And he has used the Eichmann reference before. It is one of his favorites, along with Himmler. See this interview (along with a more informative photo):
Here is the Denver Post article from this morning about his tribal membership.
And of course the reason people starved in Iraq is that Saddam diverted the Oil-for-Food money into his weapons programs and personal boodle.
If it means that they’re not in proximity to us, yes it can be. 
Hope they keep each other busy.
Doesn’t his tying in Iraq and the WTC attack seem very, well, Bushy, to anyone?
Wonderful! Thank you, TYM. 