NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, is anybody talking about Ward Churchill's resignation?



His recent essays may have been a bit too much (judge for yourselves), but I really love his book Pacifism as Pathology.

I didn't know he resigned. I just knew that he overstepped his bounds recently. Honestly, there was a lot of truth in what he said, and people just got all pissy because of the specific words that he used.

I have no idea who Ward Churchill is, could you enlighten me?

Ward Churchill was until yesterday the chair of the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Having resigned as chair, he remains a tenured member of the faculty.

He has also been a long-time Native American rights activist, and is known for his anti-pacifist philosophy of activism. Without actively encouraging violence, he considers it foolish to write-off the possibility of violent resistence before-hand. In some situations, he suggests (rightly, I think), there is simply no other response.

Recently he has been criticized for two essays in which he suggests that the victims of the 9/11 attacks were not without blame, since they were unrepentent supporters of the profit-machine that drives the policies that the attackers oppose. He also praised the bravery of the 9/11 attackers in willingly dying for their beliefs.

The resulting political climate is the reason for his resignation.

and apparently, the gov. of colorado want's him to resign his tenure too. i doubt he'll do it. who cares what the governor of colorado wants?

and apparently, the gov. of colorado want's him to resign his tenure too. i doubt he'll do it. who cares what the governor of colorado wants?

Yes. Besides which, the whole point of tenure is that it protects academic speech from political pressure. If Churchill caves, he'll be demonstrating that with enough pressure, politics can still win. The results on the willingness of other professors to speak their minds could be disastrous.

So I certainly hope he does not resign his tenure.

Recently he has been criticized for two essays in which he suggests that the victims of the 9/11 attacks were not without blame, since they were unrepentent supporters of the profit-machine that drives the policies that the attackers oppose. He also praised the bravery of the 9/11 attackers in willingly dying for their beliefs.


I suppose he blames the jews for the holocaust too? At any rate, I am sure it is comforting to the parents of the immigrant bus-boys and prep cooks at windows on the world to know that they were "unrepentent supporters of the profit machine that drives the policies that the attackers oppose."

Actually, he souonds like he's pretty lazy. If he even bothered to check the tenant list of the WTC, he'd realize that by his own logic the planes probably hit the wrong buildings. Given that, its probably a good thing that he is no longer department chair; now they can get someone who is less intellectually lazy.

I suppose he blames the jews for the holocaust too?
Nope. Although he does argue (in his earlier work) that on the whole the Jews present a pretty poor model of resistance. If people want to know how to stop genocide, they should take their example elsewhere.

At any rate, I am sure it is comforting to the parents of the immigrant bus-boys and prep cooks at windows on the world to know that they were "unrepentent supporters of the profit machine that drives the policies that the attackers oppose."

While I make no attempt to defend the strongest elements of his standpoint, I can at least clarify: He would regard them in a manner similar to what the military calls "collateral damage." (There are bus-boys, prep cooks, and janitors in most military targets, too. Does that mean the targets should be abandoned?) More generally he tries to argue that the 9/11 attack is barely a proportional response to the civilian deaths caused by the United States (directly and indirectly) in the Muslim world. His essay takes its title from a comment of Malcolm X: "Some People Push Back." In many ways he says without an apologist's caveats what many public intellectuals said immediately after the attacks: this was retaliation, not agression.

Actually, he souonds like he's pretty lazy. If he even bothered to check the tenant list of the WTC, he'd realize that by his own logic the planes probably hit the wrong buildings.

Now you're questioning the attackers' logic, not his. (And their choice of target clearly had as much to do with means -- what buildings can be flown into with a jet -- as importance. Like most military decisions, the final target falls somewhere between what should be hit and what can be hit.)


The point is, whether he was right or wrong, a free society protects the speech of public intellectuals for good reasons. This is a sad day for liberal democracy.

Nope. Although he does argue (in his earlier work) that on the whole the Jews present a pretty poor model of resistance. If people want to know how to stop genocide, they should take their example elsewhere.

As I understood it, he believes that the victims of 9/11 were in part to blame for the attacks because of their wholehearted support of the US system (whatever that is). Apart from Cantor-Fitzgerald, I don't actually recall the WTC being the nerve center of our "evil capitalist" system. Nevertheless he still feels it was caused by the victims themselves because of their association with it.

By the same token, I am sure there were in fact a few jews that were involved in the type of international financial manipulations and internationlist bolshevik tendencies of which the Nazis accused the entire race. Applying Ward's standards, the rest were guilty be association, and were at least in part to blame. Its exactly the same thing.


While I make no attempt to defend the strongest elements of his standpoint, I can at least clarify: He would regard them in a manner similar to what the military calls "collateral damage." (There are bus-boys, prep cooks, and janitors in most military targets, too. Does that mean the targets should be abandoned?) More generally he tries to argue that the 9/11 attack is barely a proportional response to the civilian deaths caused by the United States (directly and indirectly) in the Muslim world. His essay takes its title from a comment of Malcolm X: "Some People Push Back." In many ways he says without an apologist's caveats what many public intellectuals said immediately after the attacks: this was retaliation, not agression.

This is where he, and you for that matter, are being intellectually lazy; for a variety of reasons. For a start, the support staff in millitary bases are invariably uniformed millitart personel, not civilians minding there own business. You also overlook the fact that the WTC, was not a monolithic target with a single identity, rather it was office space for hundred of disparate business with unique identites - most of which were fairly unassuming and kind of low rent. So it is hardly similar to striking a legitimate millitary target and accepting the deaths of a few bystanders, but rather more akin to the firebombing of dresden. (Bombing civilians for the sole purpose of causing terror).

In any event, the collateral damage analogy is further flawed upon a closer examination of the tenats of the WTC. If I were to further assume that this analogy has some validity (which it does not), the WTC would at least have to fulfil some analogous role in supporting the "evil capitalist system which is the instrument of oppression" to a millitary/offensive installation in a normal ground war. It did not. It held some trading space for Cantor fitzgerald, the rest of it was rather non-descript. Indeed, it was hardly a glamor address and nor was it a nerve centre of financial control. If anything the attack was like bombing an elementary school on the off chance a congressman might be visiting that day because his children attend there.

As to the US causing civilian deaths in the muslim world, that is sort of uninformed. I think you'll find that the bulk of oppression of Muslims is caused by Muslims, then Indians (Hindus), then probably the Chinese, then the Isrealis. Naturally the US has ties to these goverments, but so does everyone else in the world, including non-capitalists. I think the reasons for striking the US were unrelated to our financial system.

Now you're questioning the attackers' logic, not his. (And their choice of target clearly had as much to do with means -- what buildings can be flown into with a jet -- as importance. Like most military decisions, the final target falls somewhere between what should be hit and what can be hit.)

Nope, I am questioning his. He said that the victims were in part to blame for supporting of the "system". If he had bothered to actually find out who the victims were, he'd know that, in the case of the WTC, that was nonsense. Like I said, if they wanted to attack the system, he would realize that another address would be far more suitable. (An elite university probably would be the most effective in changing US policy).

The point is, whether he was right or wrong, a free society protects the speech of public intellectuals for good reasons. This is a sad day for liberal democracy.

He is free to speak about whatever and whenever he wants. But if he is going to write sensationlist essays based on poor reasoning and then promote them in a public forum, he has to expect some reaction.

I'm curious, do you intend to start a thread defending Lawrence H. Summers.

As I understood it, he believes that the victims of 9/11 were in part to blame for the attacks because of their wholehearted support of the US system (whatever that is).
He believes that "all of us" Americans are culpable because we knew/know what the U.S. does around the world (or should because of the ready access to the information), but we do nothing to oppose us. However, he also points out that the attackers did not decide on a policy of "wanton" civilian-killing but chose targets that were as clearly as possible "less than innocent."

By the same token, I am sure there were in fact a few jews that were involved in the type of international financial manipulations and internationlist bolshevik tendencies of which the Nazis accused the entire race. Applying Ward's standards, the rest were guilty be association, and were at least in part to blame. Its exactly the same thing.

It would be the same, if all the Jews knew about such manipulations (or should have known), but did nothing to oppose them. Although I think he would still regard the situations as different because the appropriate response to "international financial manipulations" should not be genocide... unless, of course, such manipulations were held responsible for massive German casualties? Churchill supports a "response in kind," not the use of violence as the only solution.


You will find the best response to the remainder of your post by simply reading his essay.

It would be the same, if all the Jews knew about such manipulations (or should have known), but did nothing to oppose them. Although I think he would still regard the situations as different because the appropriate response to "international financial manipulations" should not be genocide... unless, of course, such manipulations were held responsible for massive German casualties? Churchill supports a "response in kind," not the use of violence as the only solution.

Well, the people in the WTC 'knew' about the genocide in arab countries the same way that the jews 'knew' about manipulation of international finance. That is to say, both the Nazis and Al-queada were fully clued in each relevant case, so it is fair to say it is 'common' knowledge. The cases are virtually identical in that respect.

As to causing massive German casualties, the collapse of the German financial system when foreign loans were called, and short term loans were no longer written, coupled with strongarming Germany to repay its debts did exactly that.

Actually, it's also fairly clear that at the time the issue seemed to be more about US millitary in Saudi, rather than massive arab casualties. Also sanctions have been lifted now, so he should be happy.

Mr Ward Churchill should spit on the governor of colorado's shoes for suggesting that he resign his tenure.

The governor should just fire him. He's simply not qualified to be a professor at any major university - he's just an ignorant uneducated bastard. Seriously, folks, he has absolutely no education. He does not have a PhD at all, and his BA and MA are from some diploma mill. My department (in the private sector) is now hiring and people with such credentials are not even considered. It's a scandal that he got tenure in the first place.

He got his degrees from the University of Illinois-Springfield.

And tenure is based on publications and teaching. Especially in fields like Ethnic Studies, formal education may not be indicative of expertise.

(Of course, this is less true now than in the past. Due to a competitive glut in the post-secondary teaching labor market, not only must one possess a Ph.D., but one must usually be published in order to even get a job, let alone tenure.)

Well, the people in the WTC 'knew' about the genocide in arab countries the same way that the jews 'knew' about manipulation of international finance.

You are making a bad comparison, and I suspect you know it.

Germans: Genocide supposedly justified on a variety of non-military accusations. No one ever claimed that Jews, or their spokespersons, were conducting a war against Germans. German propaganda never even bothered to produce a "rationale" that anyone could try to understand... Nazism and Fascism were (are) in love with the irrational -- and said so.

9/11: An act of war justified as retaliation in the context of an on-going war conducted by the American government against various Arab and Islamic countries.

Churchill's argument: Not only did Americans not deny what the American government has been doing in the Arab world for the last few decades, but we have simply ignored it despite constant reports from the various media on what was actually going on.

If there is a comparison to be made, it is the one Churchill presents: we were/are the "good Germans."

It's quite simple. Chomsky-lite is an asshole.

Chomsky-lite?

Whatever you think of him, give credit where credit is due. If anything, Chomsky is "Churchill-lite" when you compare their radical agendas.

In my opinion also, it is quite simple:

America got what was coming to it. We're just not allowed to say so.

EDIT: I hope I can find my flame-retardent blankets.... I need to go to bed.

Germans: Genocide supposedly justified on a variety of non-military accusations. No one ever claimed that Jews, or their spokespersons, were conducting a war against Germans. German propaganda never even bothered to produce a "rationale" that anyone could try to understand... Nazism and Fascism were (are) in love with the irrational -- and said so.

Um.. no. The Nazis had quite a lengthy and detailed explaination of how the jews were destroying, and attempting to destroy, the German people. It was wrong and insane, but they had it. I grant you that the Germans did not allege that the jews were engaged in millitary action against the Germans, but in light of Wards little missal, isn't that a false dichotomy you just introduced to defend him?

At any rate, the Nazis believed - wrongly of course - that the jewish people were out to destroy them and the German civilization. As part of this thesis, they pointed to certian events, i.e., the behavior of the international banking community and the rise of international communism to support it. Certainly some jews were involved in both activities, however, that does not mean all jews were culpable. Indeed, the were probably the minority in each case.

Like Ward, they justified targeting any jew because they assumed that the non-involved jews must tacitly support these actions, and therefore were equally culpable. Now how is that different to saying that US residents (resident, not citizen as it is a far more appropriate description in this case), deserved to be victims in 9/11, because of some notion that All-Queada has that some Americans may be involved in an alleged ongoing war against arabs? In other words, Ward is saying that because the people in the WTC did not get up everyday and protest some alleged actions conducted at the behest of some unnamed segment of the american populace they got what they deserved. Anyway you slice it, his logic has a Hitleresque quality.

9/11: An act of war justified as retaliation in the context of an on-going war conducted by the American government against various Arab and Islamic countries.

Where exactly is this war? I suppose you mean the international sanctions against Iraq prior to it being invaded? Or should we have let Iraq remain in Kuwait. What? Actually, if it is the sanctions he is complaining about, I should hope he is happy that Bush decided to invade Iraq, since that brought them to an end.

Frankly, I don't ever remember it being the declared policy of the US to destroy the Arab world. If anything, the US is remarkable restrained (historically) in its dealing with Arab countries. This whole notion of the US government being out to destroy the Arab world is more the product of US college campuses than reality.

At any rate, that was never the proffered explaination for the attacks. I find it baffling that not only does Ward - I just can't bear to think of him as having the same surname as Winston Spencer - envince an unseemly degree of schadenfreude over the deaths of three thousand US residents, he seeks alternate justifications for it after the attacks.

Churchill's argument: Not only did Americans not deny what the American government has been doing in the Arab world for the last few decades, but we have simply ignored it despite constant reports from the various media on what was actually going on.

Hitler's argument: Not only did the Jews not deny what international Jewery had been doing to the Germanic people for the last fifty years, they also simply ignored it despite the mass of evidence from various sources as to what was actually going on. Sounds the same to me.

Plus, I must ask again, what is the American govenrment actually doing? Last I looked most of the oppression of happening to Arab muslims was occuring at the hands of their own governments, not the US. Are you saying that Ward thinks we should get more actively involved and use millitary force to overthrow these corrupt regimes and install democratic regimes? Is that really what Al-Queada wants? If it is, Ward had better let them know that, because they don't seem to have fully grasped that part in Iraq yet.

Oh I know, it must have been Bush's hard line against the Isrealis prior to Sept. 2001, in attempt to legitimize the Palestinian cause. Well, that ship's sailed now.

By far and away, the US is the least of the Arab world's problems. And if you talk about the entire muslim world, the US is really insignificant - although frequently cast incorrectly as the great bogeyman.

If there is a comparison to be made, it is the one Churchill presents: we were/are the "good Germans."

You mean the ones that were sent to Dachau?

Edit: I'm curious. did the Spanish deserve that attack on their train too?

In my opinion also, it is quite simple:

America got what was coming to it. We're just not aloud to say so.

EDIT: I hope I can find my flame-retardent blankets.... I need to go to bed.

Your allowed. This is america, you can say what you like. People might not agree with you though.

Lacadaemon, I believe our disagreement comes down to differing opinions about innocence.

You seem to believe that one is either innocent, or not.

I believe that there are continuous degrees of guilt.

The people that died in that attack are certainly not as guilty as the elites that plan and execute American policy. But we are also not entirely blameless when we turn our backs on what our own government accomplishes with our dollars and votes.

And I maintain that the comparison of Nazism to Churchill's arguments about the 9/11 attack is horribly misplaced. But I think there is too much theoretical groundwork to be laid to adequately discuss the issue. The problem is that you are only concerned with formal comparison: "X says A, B, and C. Y says A, B, and C. Therefore X and Y are making the same argument." The problem is that "A" means something very different in context 1 than it does in context 2. It means something very different when the weak say it, rather than the strong. And it makes a difference when it is said with desperation, because no other possibilities for resistance remain.

If I were an Arab Muslim, would I support the 9/11 attack? That is a different question, and the answer is: I don't know. Maybe.

I prefer non-violent solutions, even to violent situations. I would be looking for those non-violent solutions, and shouting them out as loudly as I could if I found them. But if no other solution remains, then what else can I do but fight back? Of course, if I am going to fight back I want to hurt the people who are most directly hurting me -- not only because this best satisfies my sense of vengeance, but because it is most likely to alleviate my suffering.

But if my opponent is unassailable? If his technology and power keeps him situated high above me, where he can easily strike me down if I come out in the open?

Moreover, what if I see a crowd standing about, supplying him with money and weapons? What if what he steals from me goes to them? And what if no matter how fiercely I and my people cry out, this crowd is unwilling to hear us and remove our oppressor from his post -- or stand up themselves against him?


Might I lash out at the crowd? Might I do something -- anything -- to hurt the ones who support my enemy, and who benefit from doing so?

I think I might. Would I be right to do so? Maybe not. The philosophers can discuss it over coffee.

But no one in the crowd should be thinking, "Hey! What did we do?!"

Ward is free to speak about anything he feels like in the US.

Freedom of speech is simply that - freedom to speak.

It is not a guarantee that you won't lose your job. The courts have long held that you can be fired for saying something that your employer disagrees with.

It is not a guarantee that someone won't cancel your speaking engagement.

It is not a guarantee that people won't dislike you or what you have to say.

It is not a guarantee of personal safety.

A lot of people have grave misconceptions about freedom of speech, and protections under the First Amendment.

Ward can go stand on a street corner and harass passers-by for all I care.

If he gets fired, that's his fault. But he doesn't have to keep his mouth shut.

I'm sure he could get a job with some left-wing organization, or with an outlet like the Pacifica Radio Network.

Saying Mr Churchill put blame on the victims of the WTC is underweighing what the man actually compared the victims to. He called them little Eichmens...in reference to Adolf Eichmen. I dont exactly know he came to this conclusion nor do I care to find out,I'd find something in it that probably would rival some of the most biased anti-US statements I've heard on this thread in the past. Fact of the matter is while he's entitled to his opinion I'm entitled to mine, and mine thinks Mr Churchill needs a smack to the back of the head.

Ward Churchill was until yesterday the chair of the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Having resigned as chair, he remains a tenured member of the faculty.

He has also been a long-time Native American rights activist, and is known for his anti-pacifist philosophy of activism. Without actively encouraging violence, he considers it foolish to write-off the possibility of violent resistence before-hand. In some situations, he suggests (rightly, I think), there is simply no other response.

Recently he has been criticized for two essays in which he suggests that the victims of the 9/11 attacks were not without blame, since they were unrepentent supporters of the profit-machine that drives the policies that the attackers oppose. He also praised the bravery of the 9/11 attackers in willingly dying for their beliefs.

The resulting political climate is the reason for his resignation.

Good. The son-of-a-bitch should have been shot! Friggin' asshole! Grrrrr!

Ward is free to speak about anything he feels like in the US.

Freedom of speech is simply that - freedom to speak.

It is not a guarantee that you won't lose your job. The courts have long held that you can be fired for saying something that your employer disagrees with.

Professors are a special case. Since liberal democratic political philosophers pretty much unanimously agrees that the public intellectuals of colleges and universities drive the creation and dissemination of knowledge, they tend to give us special protection. (If you want to argue the point, go ahead... Often enough I think we are just full of ourselves.)

Anyway, tenure exists for a reason. If professors could be fired for unpopular speech, a good many of them would stop saying unpopular things... and then a lot of unpopular thought would lose its fair hearing.

It is not a guarantee that someone won't cancel your speaking engagement.

No. But if people love freedom, they should think long and hard before doing so.

It is not a guarantee that people won't dislike you or what you have to say.
Indeed not. In fact, it is almost a guarantee that no matter what you say, someone will not like it -- and they will be willing and able to say so. That is fine and good.

It is not a guarantee of personal safety.

Actually, it pretty much is. Since the basic principle of the state is that it stops or punishes others who try to hurt you, and since the guarantee of free speech states that the government will not itself hurt you... Well, that's as close as a guarantee of personal safety as you will get.

If he gets fired, that's his fault.

No, it will be the fault of whoever lies down and allows the University of Colorado to ignore its tenure obligations.

I'm sure he could get a job with some left-wing organization, or with an outlet like the Pacifica Radio Network.

Even if he does, it doesn't matter. Most professors don't want those jobs -- they want the jobs they have. And their speech is protected for a reason. If we attack his liberty, we attack liberty. There is no other way to look at it.

If tenure exists to protect inane ideas, why aren't more mainstream colleges teaching something inane like creationism (all over the world - not just in the US)?

I've noticed that if there's a right-wing inane idea (let's take most of what Jerry Falwell believes), he's told to go form his own college (Liberty Baptist) and populate it with his own students and faculty. His ideas are unwelcome at virtually ANY public college or university.

But if it's a left-wing inane idea (Ward, in this case), he's told that his tenure will protect him and his ideas. His ideas are welcome there.

Doesn't seem quite fair to me. The line for protection of stupid ideas seems to be drawn rather far to the left.

Chomsky-lite?

Whatever you think of him, give credit where credit is due. If anything, Chomsky is "Churchill-lite" when you compare their radical agendas.
Hmm, maybe. But Chomsky has a notable history, whereas this guy was just another lefty nutjob prof who didn't even make a blip on the radar before he wrote the essay.

If tenure exists to protect inane ideas, why aren't more mainstream colleges teaching something inane like creationism (all over the world - not just in the US)?

Maybe they are, in a religion department... everyone else is some sort of scientist or humanist. These are smart people who have degrees in fields of knowledge, not half-baked religious ideas that refuse to conform to reason.

Short answer: Apparently, they don't want to. If anyone with tenure wants to, he or she will be allowed.

I've noticed that if there's a right-wing inane idea (let's take most of what Jerry Falwell believes), he's told to go form his own college (Liberty Baptist) and populate it with his own students and faculty. His ideas are unwelcome at virtually ANY public college or university.

That may be true. The problem is that before one gets tenure one must demonstrate an interest in teaching that reflects a knowledge of the broad canon of established fields. If you just refuse to play the game of respectful academic discourse, you'll have to open your own field.

Tenure is a funny thing... It protects you, but only after you're admitted to the club. So it's not perfect. But it is hard to think of a better solution.

Doesn't seem quite fair to me. The line for protection of stupid ideas seems to be drawn rather far to the left.

Well, there is also the fact that it is illogical to be "tolerant" of intolerant ideas. Since the Left (for the most part) prides itself on its tolerance of diversity, the intolerant jerks who get in trouble do tend to crop up on the right... For instance, no tenure could protect a Nazi, because the ideology of Nazism is inherently intolerant.

You cannot expect to say intolerant things and then complain when you are treated with intolerance.

Hmm, maybe. But Chomsky has a notable history, whereas this guy was just another lefty nutjob prof who didn't even make a blip on the radar before he wrote the essay.

Not true. He has been very well known ON THE LEFT for quite some time, most notably for his insightful critique of pacifism. Chomsky is more "famous" precisely because he is more acceptable, i.e. more mainstream and centrist. Moreover, despite all the hype his political criticism is on the whole rather bland and unoriginal.

and apparently, the gov. of colorado want's him to resign his tenure too. i doubt he'll do it. who cares what the governor of colorado wants?
Considering that the University of Colorado is liable to the citizens of the State of Colorado, and the Governor of the state is the ultimate Regent of a state-sponsored college, I'd say the Governor has a right...no, a responsibility, to ensure this latest example of leftist academia gone wild is brought under control.

Ward Churchill is yet another example of the idiocy of tenure.

See previous thread for most of this discussion

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394201

Not true. He has been very well known ON THE LEFTSo, he is known in a very small circle of nutjobs. Fair enough, I guess. Another leftist using and abusing the freedom of expression that the Nutty Left would deny everyone else. ...most notably for his insightful critique of pacifism. Chomsky is more "famous" precisely because he is more acceptable, i.e. more mainstream and centrist.Chomsky = "mainstream and centrist"??? Where exactly is Chomsky considered to be mainstream and centrist? Bizarro Universe would be the only such place! Chomsky makes Jabba the Moore and Dracula Soros appear moderate and rational, and we all know how moderate and rational are not terms that describe either of those two...nor most members of MoveOn.org. Moreover, despite all the hype his political criticism is on the whole rather bland and unoriginal.You mean "idiotic and more anti-American than the usual from the Left," right?

Chomsky = "mainstream and centrist"??? Where exactly is Chomsky considered to be mainstream and centrist?

Chomsky IS the "Far Left" as far as most of America is concerned... which is really a brilliant tactic for obscuring the philosophy of the REAL Left. The media picks which spokespeople they want to pay attention to.... and these choices set the bounds of public discourse.

Bizarro Universe would be the only such place! Chomsky makes Jabba the Moore and Dracula Soros appear moderate and rational, and we all know how moderate and rational are not terms that describe either of those two...

Actually, they are. They are both "worried" about global capitalism, but neither of them proposes any radical change to the economic system.

You mean "idiotic and more anti-American than the usual from the Left," right?

Actually... Yeah, I'll agree with that. Chomsky is sort of mindlessly anti-American. He refuses to apply his own critiques of America to any country he considers more socialist or more "democratic" -- whatever that means in his shifting ambiguous usage. He really seems to be convinced that the United States is simply evil, everything the United States does is wrong, and everything virtually any other country does is -- at the very least -- excusable.

Not a very enlightened critique, if you ask me.

Not a very enlightened critique, if you ask me.
I trust you refer to Mssrs Chomsky and Churchill.

A little too much? Are you kidding me? Blaming 9/11 on the people who DIED is a LITTLE too much?

I trust you refer to Mssrs Chomsky and Churchill.

Mostly just Chomsky. Churchill tends to be pretty consistent in his critique... If he blames one group/nation for something, he blames everyone else who does the same thing.

what i like is how well the right's masters are able to push their buttons. its not like this essay is new. its not like ward hasn't been having regular speaking engagements and teaching classes for the past couple of years since he wrote the thing. but somebody in the propoganda machine gets the ball rolling and suddenly everyone is offended and calling for him to be fired. its just kind of sad.

"how high shall i jump, sir?"