Goodbye Freedom of Speech

[Big Papa Goat]

That essay was pretty fucking far from the scholarly sort of material that a professor should be publishing. A professor isn't really supposed to be writing inflammatory poorly thought out and unresearched editorials at sensitive times.

[El Blanco]

Ya, it was a spur of the moment gut instinct reaction.....that took a few hours to write....,.and he was comfortable enough with to submit for publishing.


Need I even mention proof reading and editing?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I'm certainly not saying the actions of terrorists are just, nor did I see the essay state such, so if you would care to quote what statements of his were asinine, we can have some meaningful discussion.

I think you already went to the trouble of highlighting the asinine comments, no?

[El Blanco]

I think you just quoted one

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't know that the substance (I use that word lightly) of his essay is what really matters. "Hey, he makes good points, we should debate them." Uh, well, no. Whether or not he has some good points buried under his idiotic and offensive comments isn't the point. The debate is whether or not the nasty things he said are grounds for termination, particularly based upon the criteria of his job. I, personally, say yes.

The other matter is whether or not getting terminated would be a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I vote no on that count, cuz he already acted upon that right. He got his garble published, and he hasn't been arrested, shot, or beaten by the state for it.

He exercised his freedom, and now UC-Boulder may exercise theirs. Seems fair.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Honestly, zigs, it was clever how you tried to morph my criticism of the most extreme leftist viewpoint (Chomsky didn't even go that far) into some kind of "America is never wrong" mentality. Do I even need to tell you why the paper-pushers, rescue workers, and firefighters who died on 9/11 were innocent victims?

For fucks sake, I'm not saying I believe they were guilty and deserved what they got, I'm just saying that we all have blood on our hands. Our own noble ideal is that our freedom is bought with blood.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Whether or not he has some good points buried under his idiotic and offensive comments isn't the point."

I disagree. I think that anyone who tries to make the point that deviates from flag-waving and an "America is never wrong" mentality gets shouted down on a good day, and a rock through their window most days.

And the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC deserved what he got every bit as much as any innocent child that's been killed by one of our bombs. Which is to say, none of them deserved it, and our blood for blood attitude only perpetuates this cycle of murder.

[ziggytrix]

And blanco, you think I'm a self-righteous asshole cuz I admit that I am enjoying living well in a country that is where it is through fucking other countries whenever it gets the chance? You're a fucking moron. It's the opposite of self-righteousness, it's called self-appraisal. Open your fucking eyes, that's all I'm saying.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I disagree. I think that anyone who tries to make the point that deviates from flag-waving and an "America is never wrong" mentality gets shouted down on a good day, and a rock through their window most days.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here. I think you'll find several folks just on this message board who don't revert to "flag-waving" arguments, and all our windows seem to be fine.

And the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC deserved what he got every bit as much as any innocent child that's been killed by one of our bombs. Which is to say, none of them deserved it, and our blood for blood attitude only perpetuates this cycle of murder.

With the distinction being that the janitor in the WTC was the target, whereas the unfortunate and horrible death of that child is not. We certainly do kill innocent civilians, and it isn't right, but it isn't the same as 9/11.

[ziggytrix]

You're right on that first point, I'm exaggerating.


But totally wrong on the second. Those men did not get on those planes thinking "oh man, we're gonna take out some janitors, this is GREAT". They were targetting Americans and America, and ALL I'm saying is we'd do well to think about WHY they did it, and not just write them off as hating America because they're just EVIL men.

[Ant10708]

When he says the janitor was the target he means civilians in general were the targets of the WTC attack. We'd also do well to look into why these people did what they did but not to compare innocent civilians killed by these 'combat squads' to a notorious member of the SS because then it makes the opinion seem uneducated and invalid and people will just dismiss it.

[Ant10708]

I think the arguement for Churchhill's firing also stems from the fact that he is getting a nice paycheck from the government he hates so much. He is allowed to say what he said but that doesn't mean tax payers should pay his salary as a teacher.

[ziggytrix]

I think their target was chosen for being a bastion of capitolism, not for an American bodycount. They were aiming a punch at America's wallet, and to them, the death of a thousand infidels was just collateral damage.

The majority of the essay was a look into why these people did what they did. ONE line compared, by use of hyperbole, the vicitms in the WTC to a Nazi murder. I don't agree with that comparison, but the rest of the essay should not be discounted.

"The destruction of the World Trade Center was a criminal act, the loss of life an unforgivable consequence, but it would be a crime of another order, with an even greater destructive potential, to allow the evocation of the word terror to descend like a veil over the event, to rob us of the opportunity to see ourselves as others see us." - John Edgar Wideman

In our eyes the bankers and lawyers just doing their jobs in the WTC were innocent victims, but clearly in the eyes of the terrorists they were not innocents. The first step in truly stopping these terrorists would be doing something about why the hate us, if that's even possible. If they hate us cuz we're good and they're evil, well then it's time for Holy War, and I hope there's something left of humanity when it's done.

[Ant10708]

Is it possible that they hate us because of a radical relgious belief that was inbedded into their heads by their culture? I mean if you look at Middle Eastern textbooks and what they say about America and Israel, its pretty obvious why they hate us.

And Israel is one of the main reasons they hate us. Another reason they hate us is when we do something good like donate millions to mostly Muslim tsunami victims, the Arab press ignores it and would rather show Abu Grab photos. I mean could it be possible that America is misrepresented in many places in the world and seen as the scapegoat for most of the world's problems? We are the only current 'superpower' I mean who else you going to blame.

But I mean Israel is just committing genocide agaisnt Palestinians and only use the Holocaust as a way to divert attention away from it. Go Churchhill!

I'm not saying America is a saint. I mean we did commit genocide against Churchill's ancestoers which might be why he hates the US so much but I don't believe the United States and capitalism in general are the cause of all the bad things that happen.


Was Timothy McVeigh just setting off a bomb against the evils of capitalism and the little Hitlers filling the federal building? Or is his act not justified because he was a white American who didn't have 'genocide' committed agasint his people by our government?

[ziggytrix]

Yeah Ant, that's exactly the kind of one-sided "America is never wrong" attitude I'm talking about. America is just a scapegoat, we never DID anything to hurt anyone. We certainly haven't manipulated, lied to, or broken promises to other nations.

Geeze man, why do you think we're the only superpower? Cuz God blessed us and made us his favorite?

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I think their target was chosen for being a bastion of capitolism, not for an American bodycount. They were aiming a punch at America's wallet, and to them, the death of a thousand infidels was just collateral damage.
.

I have to agree with you here but what about the comabt squads who hit Madrid's trains. It was in response to our war but are these guys not 'evil' for obviously targeting civilians who are just trying to travel somewhere. Most of Spain's population was agaisnt the Iraqi war. Did the comabt squads not know this or did they not care because they were in fact just murderers claiming to be fighting for a greater cause? Or is their intelligence gathering just as bad as ours?

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Yeah Ant, that's exactly the kind of one-sided "America is never wrong" attitude I'm talking about. America is just a scapegoat, we never DID anything to hurt anyone. We certainly haven't manipulated, lied to, or broken promises to other nations.

Geeze man, why do you think we're the only superpower? Cuz God blessed us and made us his favorite?

I'm just using saying we aren't the reason for all the bad in the world. I also know we do tons of bad shit. I'm not uneducated. I know about what we did in El Salvador in the 80s. But should my sister's(who went to El Salvador last year to help poor people) train be targeted by a 'combat squad' because someone believes that two wrongs make a right and gets you a special spot next to Allah.

If you honestly are so taken away by Churchhill's essay then thats your problem. Its poorly written and he makes several bad analogies which in my opinion will cause lots of people to dismiss it. I wonder if he really hates capitalism or he is like Moore and thinks capitalism is evil but reaps in the tremendous benefits of it. I mean I bet more people have read his article in the past week than in the past three years. He is probaly happy and selling tons of his other books. I'm sorry I may come off as one sided but I am trying to defend the U.S.(without approving of everything in our history). I just believe that if Bin Laden could he would kill Western civlians by the millions systemically like Hitler did if he could. Our country has the ability to do it if we wanted to but we don't. We do tons of shitty things but I don't think we are worthy of the worldwide hatred that we have towards us. Which is why I come to the conclusion that we are scapegoats in a way. And I just think if people like Churchhil are really concerned about genocide they should start doing some stuff about Sudan. I mean that is a real genocide and America and the rest of the world is just going to let it happen again. I just think Churchill and the others with his opinions have more of a hatred towards capitalism and our government in general than about human rights.

Capitalism can be a great thing thou. Bill Gates gives shots for tons of stuff to like every fucking kid living in the third world countries. And he is a monopoly! The worst breed of capitalistic scum.

[Ant10708]

I mean for fuck's sake, we had slaves for a large portion of our history. You can't say the United States is free of no harm but I'm a grateful I'm living in this country where I don't get killed for having a cross on my neck or for saying the shit Churchhill says about the citizens of the country he lives in. I mean the option of him losing his job is the only thing being discussed. What a terrible and unfair country filled with murderous capitalistic scum we are.

[Ant10708]

When do you guys think the gypsies will get their priorities straight and fly a plane into a German building?


And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped. We also have the largest arsenal of nuclear missles which I guess is one of the things you need to be classified as a superpower nowadays. We have established fair and unfair trade deals with many countries. To go back farther we became one of two superpowers after WW2. And we increased our power abroad after WWI which has now lead us down the road of a superpower. Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam. I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A. Good old Osama is also one fo the main reasons the Soviets lost in Afghanstan(and later collapsed) which evntually led us to become the sole super power. People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

While I agree with Churchill's basic premise that we should fully expect terrorist acts to be attempted against us due to our foreign policy in the Middle East, I think he went over the top. While some people are indeed guilty of perpetuating corporate plundering and pillaging in Third World countries, it's totally unfair and unreasonable to include the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC among the "Little Eichmanns." I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I doubt even he would go that far.

Hits the nail on the head. I missed your post before. I didn't even need to post it seems.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped.

The condescention your reading into my statements is just me being a sarcastic, jaded asshole - it's not personal.

Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam.

I believe religious extremism in ALL forms is the single greatest threat to the future of all humanity. You assume I assume Christians are dumb, but you're wrong there chief, I don't think they're dumb, though I do think most of them aren't paying attention, except through extraordinarily biased filters.

I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A.

Yeah, you're right. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq! They have more oil anyway. In all seriousness, OSB is a bastard child of Saudi Arabia, they've revoked his citizenship, ya know. They're our allies (even though what, 9 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals).

People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!

Yeah, he'd probably say he was used and discarded by America. I'm pretty sure the chronology backs me up here. WE financed a good bit of his actions in Afghanistan. I don't think he sent anyone to the US to ask for that backing. We were allied with Saddam Hussien too, hell we practically set him up and gave him the keys to Iraq. It's kind of strange the people we say are our allies when we stand to benefit from it, but you make your bed with snakes, you get bit. And then you get mad and kill all the snakes. It's the American way!

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

If you honestly are so taken away by Churchhill's essay then thats your problem. Its poorly written and he makes several bad analogies which in my opinion will cause lots of people to dismiss it. I wonder if he really hates capitalism or he is like Moore and thinks capitalism is evil but reaps in the tremendous benefits of it. I mean I bet more people have read his article in the past week than in the past three years. He is probaly happy and selling tons of his other books. I'm sorry I may come off as one sided but I am trying to defend the U.S.(without approving of everything in our history).

I missed this bit before, but you're totally right. As I failed to make clear, I hadn't read the essay before Brandon posted a link, and responded before giving it a very thorough read. There are many much BETTER authors who more eloquently state the message against our corruption of capitolism and imperialistic behavior like Gore Vidal or Chomsky or heck, even Al Franken - this guy is pretty weak. BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous and push for his dismissal because of what he wrote.

Also, since you mentioned it, I think you mischaracterize Moore when you say he "hates capitalism." One can hate the sleazy things our big corporations do without hating free enterprise. It's not such a stretch.

[kellychaos]

Is the question whether we have done things in the past to warrant such hostility or that they think that we have? And, if we have in their minds, done such actions as to warrant retribution; do two wrongs make a right? Are the two evil acts equally evil? Or, in the end, is there an underlying cause of money and/or power that has nothing to do with the questions I posed above.

I'd like to thank my fans, my family and, especially, God for helping me win this Super Bowl. Peace!

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous

Agreed. Thats going way to far.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Those men did not get on those planes thinking "oh man, we're gonna take out some janitors, this is GREAT". They were targetting Americans and America, and ALL I'm saying is we'd do well to think about WHY they did it, and not just write them off as hating America because they're just EVIL men.

I have an opinion on the 9/11 attacks, as do I have an opinion and some thoughts on American foreign policy, globalization, Islamo-fascism, etc.

BUT, as I said before, I think that's a bit off topic. You seem to be jumping to this guy's defense because you feel he makes some good points about 9/11 and American policy abroad in general. Fine. You're entitled to that, and you may even be right about some stuff.

However, what we're talking about is freedom of speech and censorship. That's the discussion. So-called "McCarthyism," that's the discussion.

Whether or not he makes valid points isn't the point. You yourself have acknowledged that his comments were sensational. You said "The majority of the essay was a look into why these people did what they did. ONE line compared, by use of hyperbole, the vicitms in the WTC to a Nazi murder. I don't agree with that comparison, but the rest of the essay should not be discounted."


Now the true debate is whether or not he has had his 1st amendment rights violated, and whether or not he should get fired for the Nazi comparison.

On the latter point, I think enough has been presented to justify his termination. On the former, regarding his rights, they have not been violated, IMO. He had his speech, and like all of us, he may need to deal with the consequences of that speech. Nothing in the 1st Amendment guarantees absolute shelter from any backlash that might result from your free speech. It merely states that Congress (i.e. "the state") will not prevent citizens from exercising their freedom.

[ziggytrix]

1st amendment violated, no. Fired? Myabe, but check this out.

At first, the colleges involved stood by the professor, citing the transcendent value of unfettered scholastic debate. "Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have," said Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman. Chancellor DiStefano said, "I must support his right . . . to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant." At Hamilton, Prof. Nancy Rabinowitz, who runs the forum where Churchill was to speak, argued last week that "the students should hear his whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites."

and

Students said Churchill makes a similar argument in his undergraduate course called "American Holocaust." His books, including "Fantasies of the Master Race" (1992) and "Colonization and Genocide in Native North America" (1994) regularly compare the American establishment to the Nazis, the same comparison he made about financial industry workers killed on 9/11.

That shows that this is pretty much nothing new out of the guy's mouth. It's just some rubbish shitstorm whipped up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or whomever is currently upping their ratings by calling this guy a disgrace for somethign he wrote 3 and a half years ago.



It should also be noted that he's offered something in the way of justification for his words, though not an apology:

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.


It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

But either way this guy is still fucked. The conservative media machine will do it's thing, Rupert Murdoch will get richer, and Americans can feel OK about themselves. Yay, happy ending.