Will the "I" Word get you arrested?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why did the right wing attack dogs decide to go after Ward Churchill in the first place?

Because he is rabidly anti-right wing and at least a little influential.

He drew the ire of Horowitz when Churchill wrote, A Little Matter of Genocide: holocaust and denial in the Americas, 1492 to the present, a book about the genocide of the American Indians by the Europeans who came here. For Horowitz, it annoyed him that Churchill would dare say the treatment of Native Americans was worse than the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Churchill doesn't deny the holocaust, he just denies it was unique. It's common sense but for some reason we put the holocaust out there as if it was the only time genocide at the hands of the state ever occurred.

For the extreme right, Churchill's fairly severe criticism of the US is reason for their hatred.

And Pixy, did I ever say I wasn't giving my opinion? Why you insist on arguing like I have posted a defense of Churchill just shows how less than objective you yourself are. I'm neutral. You know, as in no dog in the race. Could you please calm down.

 

[Dan O.]

He drew the ire of Horowitz when Churchill wrote, A Little Matter of Genocide

The essay appears to be the excuse for the attack. But if the essay was the reason for the attack, why didn't the attacks begin in 2001 when the essay was published? What's the reason for the attack? What to they hope to accomplish?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... It isn't fair to some up and coming young professor that some lazy third rate scholar is taking up one of the scarce tenured positions.

I really think you need to look at the volume of Churchill's work and the peer response to the bulk of it before making the assumption that he is a "third rate scholar".

....And all of this assumes that Churchill was just a lazy and careless scholar rather than an intentional thief and revisionist historian --

Again, I have not seen evidence that Churchill is a revisionist historian. History is one of the most difficult sciences to get at the truth. After reading some stuff by Howard Zinn and reading Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong, you get the idea how slanted most of our written history is. Most if not all history accounts are revised. Who knows where the truth is? So again, just because some people, be they legal scholars or historians don't agree with the history Churchill has written doesn't make Churchill a revisionist.

The law professor claimed Churchill mis-stated the meaning of a law, but like I said, even the Supreme Court Justices don't interpret the laws the same as each other. And the claim that some vaccine was stored instead of used, who knows how or why Churchill got that wrong if he did. It just didn't seem to me like a standard of perfection any and every other professor's work meets except Churchill.

.... ...He was also found to have blatantly revised history to bolster his theories (revised concerning clear cut matters of fact, like dates, not matters open to interpretation). Add to this that he may have lied about his credentials in the first place, and suddenly keeping this guy around makes your department look bad. Looking bad to the public is one thing, but it looks even worse to departments and faculty at other institutions.

I can't say that this assessment is true or not true. I did not see this supposed "pattern". And the attack on his credentials was dropped. Someone challenged his claim to be a Native American or from some tribe, whatever it was. I think the fact the challenge was dropped says the challenge was bogus. I have a number of Native American friends recognized by their tribes and none of them are 'pure' descendants.

.... I can assure you that no one in his department wanted to fire him for his 9/11 comments. I...

Does that mean you have personal knowledge of the case?

 

[Freddy]

skeptigirl -- I have no inside info on this specific case. I based my claim about his department not wanting to fire him merely over his controversial remarks on my experience with scholars' attitudes toward academic freedom. The professors I know regard it as sacrosanct and pretty much absolute, and with good reason. I get a strong impression that this is a widespread sentiment in academia. His colleagues might think he's a smug and arrogant [rule8]hole (and by many accounts he is), and might not be sad to see him go on that account, but they are no doubt aware of the danger of firing a professor for making controversial statements. No academic worth his salt would ever condone what he took to be retribution against a tenured professor for taking an unpopular position. No doubt his controversial statements brought scrutiny on his work, but he certainly relished the attention when he was getting speaking gigs based on his notoriety. With attention come scrutiny.

I don't have definite knowledge of how many overlooked citations it takes to get one fired. More than one, but probably not very many, as there is really no excuse. He blames one of the mistakes on his publisher, another on his ex-wife. None of his mistakes are his fault. His refusal to take responsibility for anything makes me very skeptical of his claim to be a victim in this case.

 

[RandFan]

Whether you agree with this guy or not, his right to say what he wants should be defended vehemently. Saying things against your government without being in fear of being arrested for it, is exactly why the 1st Amendment was created. If we allow this freedom to be destroyed using bs "tresspassing", and "disorderly conduct" charges, then the freedom will in its essence, be gone. Forcing people who wish to air politically unpopular views into tight corners far away from the public eye, is NOT protecting free speech.

You make some great points. I take the approach that it is better to err on the side of speach. However, is speech unlimited? Can I go to my local grocery store with a bull horn, stand on a crate and endow shoppers with my opinion?

Clearly there needs to be some limits.

I'm with Upchurch.

 

[RandFan]

This weeks episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe does a good job (IMO) of dealing with the Ward Churchill affair. I agree with them so I must confess a bias. In any event, I would accept them as far more likely skeptical than some people who call themselves skeptical but routinely demonstrate that there skepticism only extends to those issues that don't comport with their view of reality.

BTW, there is a great interview with former President Jimmy Carter. It's not political in nature but a good interview nonetheless.

 

[JJR]

Bush needs to be schedueled for an anal probe sometime between cattle mutilations and making crop circles. Still, I'm not sure if I'd rather educate him than impeach him. I mean, he's the President . . . if I make him think like me than my ideas will forge the future . . . and I want everyone to trip out and smoke!! Woo hoo!!

Programming with memory wipe it is.

 

[RandFan]

Bush needs to be schedueled for an anal probe sometime between cattle mutilations and making crop circles. Still, I'm not sure if I'd rather educate him than impeach him. I mean, he's the President . . . if I make him think like me than my ideas will forge the future . . . and I want everyone to trip out and smoke!! Woo hoo!!

Programming with memory wipe it is.

Impeachment is about ego and revenge. If it should be succesful it would solve nothing but to put Cheney in charge and it would do so at great cost and divisiveness.

So, to what end? Molify people's anger that Bush stole the election? Get your pound of flesh for there being no WMD? It's only 18 months before we can all vote for a new president. Moveon.org had a point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rand, no one is talking about impeaching Bush without impeaching Cheney as well. A few people are talking about impeaching Cheney and not Bush, but not the other way around.

And believe it or not some of us are sincerely concerned about losing our rights under the Constitution. Tossing out habeas corpus is no small thing.

Then there are some of us who believe the voter suppression crimes using the DoJ are no small thing.

And who knows who these guys are really spying on. They had no qualms using the DoJ to affect election outcomes, what makes you think they aren't using data mining of private citizens' computers and Internet use to affect elections also.

The relentless attacks on Clinton were pure politics. Paula Jones was literally paid to file her lawsuit. But it's the opposite from revenge. Top Democrats are reluctant to begin impeachment proceedings because of the mockery the Republicans made of the system pursuing Clinton. Democrats are going so far out of their way to avoid looking like they just want revenge it is clouding their examination of just how serious the Bush administration abuses of power have become.

Democrats also say they are worried how much time impeachment proceedings will use up. And that may be so. But the failure to address the move to ignore individual rights could have very serious long term consequences. Especially when some of those rights are the right to free elections.

What do you think should be done about the removal of thousands of legitimate Democratic voters from the voter registration rolls?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I guess the above news today is why Nancy has ruled out the “I” word. She obviously doesn’t want to get arrested.

I do not think you will get arrested in the U.S. for asking the impeachment for the current president.

But, I find it a strange country, where a President who lied about an affair he had, was close to get impeached, and the other one, who started a mess, which, so far, led to half a million deaths, does not risk any impeachment..

 

[RandFan]

I just noticed your sig, have you ever been wrong about anything?

Rand, no one is talking about impeaching Bush without impeaching Cheney as well. A few people are talking about impeaching Cheney and not Bush, but not the other way around.

Impeaching Bush is unlikely but possible. Impeaching Bush and Cheney is a fantasy.

And believe it or not some of us are sincerely concerned about losing our rights under the Constitution. Tossing out habeas corpus is no small thing.

Agreed, it was a crap when Lincoln did it. It was crap when FDR took away the rights of nearly all Japanese Americans.

Then there are some of us who believe the voter suppression crimes using the DoJ are no small thing.

And who knows who these guys are really spying on. They had no qualms using the DoJ to affect election outcomes, what makes you think they aren't using data mining of private citizens' computers and Internet use to affect elections also.

Speculation, AKA conspiracy theory. Don't get me wrong, I don't excuse the things that Bush has done. I'm not abandoning critical thinking though just because Bush has acted like an ass.

The relentless attacks on Clinton were pure politics.

I was decidely against the investigation. I was against impeachment. That said there was coruption. That is a fact. Funds were illegally funneled from a failed savings and loan to Clinton's campaign. Again, that is a fact. Only 4 people could have been involved. The McDougals and the Clintons. Only Bill stood to benifit directly. The problem is that it couldn't be proven.

But it's the opposite from revenge.

You might believe it but I don't think many do.

What do you think should be done about the removal of thousands of legitimate Democratic voters from the voter registration rolls?

What do you think should be done about about begging the question?

 

[RandFan]

But, I find it a strange country, where a President who lied about an affair he had, was close to get impeached, and the other one, who started a mess, which, so far, led to half a million deaths, does not risk any impeachment..

You might have an argument there but you will need to flesh it out a bit. Like Skeptigirl you are making a lot of assumptions. I say that as one who has publicly apologized for supporting the war.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You might have an argument there but you will need to flesh it out a bit. Like Skeptigirl you are making a lot of assumptions.

Which assumptions?

I say that as one who has publicly apologized for supporting the war.

Let` s hope this time will be the last time, for you, and for all the Americans.
Next time, at least, let` s hope the U.S. will get a clear consensus among the U.N., before taking part in a military action.

 

[RandFan]

Which assumptions?

?

That Bush engaged in impeachable offenses.

Let` s hope this time will be the last time, for you, and for all the Americans.
Next time, at least, let` s hope the U.S. will get a clear consensus among the U.N., before taking part in a military action.

Given history it is unlikely that it will be the last time for America or any country.

 

[Matteo Martini]

?

That Bush engaged in impeachable offenses.

Starting an illegal ( under the UN and the US ) war.
Lied about the reason about the war
Sent 3500+ marines to death
Indirectly provoked the death of 500000+ people
What do you need to do more, to get impeached in the U.S.?
Rape a chicken?

Given history it is unlikely that it will be the last time for America or any country.

If you do it again, in 3-5 year time, with Iran, it may well be the last time for you..

 

[RandFan]

Starting an illegal ( under the UN and the US ) war.

Congress, including Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry voted for the war knowing full well of the UN opposition. That wont' fly.

Lied about the reason about the war

Assumed.

Sent 3500+ marines to death.
Indirectly provoked the death of 500000+ people

Yes, war does that.

What do you need to do more, to get impeached in the U.S.?

Commit an impeachable offense. I think you need to look into this a bit more. Don't get me wrong, I've not claimed that Bush hasn't. I don't think so but I'm open to seeing the evidence.

If you do it again, in 3-5 year time, with Iran, it may well be the last time for you..

Yeah, then again given that Ahmadinejad believes in an apocalyptic war and has stated that there will be WW III and Iran WILL defeat America and that he believes in the return of the 12th Imam to bring about world peace then who knows. Oh well, perhaps we should just ignore Iran. Hey, why should we assume that it is possible that Iranians will commit an atrocity against America? It's not like Muslims are prepared to die to bring about the apocalypse, right?

 

[drkitten]

I looked the paper on Churchill over. I would be surprised if anyone's work could withstand such a fine tooth comb. Take this example:Then in a footnote:So, we have political opponents hunting for cause, and two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of a law. For crimey's sake, even the Supreme Court rarely interprets laws unanimously. And Churchill is an ethnic studies professor, not a law professor.

This, however, (Allegation A) is not simply a disagreement over the interpretation of a law -- it is, in the words of the committee, a "gross historical inaccuracy" and a "demonstrably false and misleading claim." There are some degrees of disagreement that are simply unsupportable. If I were to claim that the original thirteen colonies of the United States were Sleepy, Grumpy, Doc, Sneezy, Happy, Bashful, and Dopey, that's not "two experts disagreeing over the interpretation." Churchill's "interpretation" rested on a gross and explicit mischaracterization of the actual facts.

Even so, the committee looked in detail at the underlying conduct.

Churchill not only committed a pattern of such "gross historical inaccuracies" (repeating the claim in more than 11 separate publications), but also committed a number of other types of misconduct.

He falsified his sources.

He abandoned professional standards to hide his falsification of sources.

He misrepresented the contents of sources he did cite.

He "falsified by embellishment," failing to distinguish truth from fiction in his narrative.

That's not the sort of thing that "every professor" does.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Congress, including Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry voted for the war knowing full well of the UN opposition. That wont' fly.

He was the president

Assumed.

OK

Yes, war does that.

A war American people started/contribute to start

Commit an impeachable offense. I think you need to look into this a bit more. Don't get me wrong, I've not claimed that Bush hasn't. I don't think so but I'm open to seeing the evidence.

I do not know either.
But, if what he did is not impechable offense, then..

Yeah, then again given that Ahmadinejad believes in an apocalyptic war and has stated that there will be WW III and Iran WILL defeat America and that he believes in the return of the 12th Imam to bring about world peace then who knows. Oh well, perhaps we should just ignore Iran. Hey, why should we assume that it is possible that Iranians will commit an atrocity against America? It's not like Muslims are prepared to die to bring about the apocalypse, right?

I was meaning, if Iran will get a nuke, it will be more difficult for you guys to invade Iran..

 

[fishbob]

Impeachment is about ego and revenge.

I disagree.
It is about getting rid of those who have betrayed the public trust. I know - all politicians betray public trust to some degree, but the President should be better than that, and in this case he is far worse.

 

[RandFan]

He was the president

Matteo, it is congress that would have to impeach Bush should an Impeachment proceeding take place. To impeach Bush for this offense Congress would have to expose their own complicity. That's not going to happen. We are talking about a very real process here not an abstract. That's precisely my point. Just because people feel Bush should be impeached doesn't mean that he should or could be impeached.

A war American people started/contribute to start

Yes, conceded, but this has nothing to do with the point at hand.

But, if what he did is not impechable offense, then..

Let me see if I can't make this a bit more clear. For a prosecutor to charge an accused for a crime the prosecutor needs to do at least two things.

1. Figure out what crime was committed.
2. Be able to demonstrate that there is probable cause that the accused perpetrated the crime.

For conviction the prosecuter needs to demonstrate that the crime was commited. (Remember, impeachement isn't conviction. Clinton was impeached but not convicted.)

Ok, so what crime do you believe that Bush commited and can you demonstrate that Bush committed that crime? Everyone repeats the mantra of impeachment over and over and so eventually people think that the case doesn't even need to be made. I'm here to tell you that it does.

So, make your case?

Look, I'm not saying Bush didn't commit a crime. I'm asking what is your case? Absent that you are just assuming things.

I was meaning, if Iran will get a nuke, it will be more difficult for you guys to invade Iran..

No argument.