Ward Churchill reprised
... and the 9/11 Pentagon video released, plus Chomsky meets Hizbollah
The Pirate Ballerina links to the Ward Churchill report: the “investigating committee finds ‘deliberate’ misconduct in six of the seven allegations”. Three out of five voted to fire him, but two held out for a two year suspension without pay because "they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom."
Churchill calls the report a “travesty” delivered by a panel unqualified to judge him.
Despite my repeated requests for an investigation conducted by unbiased experts, the committee was composed primarily of CU insiders. Although both were available and willing to serve, the investigative panel included neither American Indian scholars nor persons competent in American Indian Studies. As things stand, the entire procedure appears to be little more than a carefully-orchestrated effort to cast an aura of legitimacy over an entirely illegitimate set of predetermined outcomes. It follows that I reject and will vigorously contest each and every finding of misconduct.
He would say that, wouldn't he.
Hot Air has the released security video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon on September 11. It's hard to interpret until you realize that the aircraft is low on the ground. For a great guide to understanding the video visit this really phenomenal roundup at Above Top Secret. Wizbang has a screencap of what may be the jet coming in practically on the deck. One of Wizbang's trolls says:
The American authorities have played a very dirty game in which several innocent people of all religions and cultures have died. The truth about September 11th is that it had been done by the American government so that it had an excuse to attack Afghanistan, they said Osama the evil pig was hiding there- but the truth is that he wasn't there. Bush kept giving him messages and they are still in contact. Osama is a slave of Bush and is not a TRUE Muslim, instead is a kaffir just like Saddam and other slaves of the dirty American government who wants to spread hate. Dear fellow brothers and sisters here all of you should learn the truth as September 11 was not an attack on America but an attack on every innocent man and woman on earth by evil politicians and terrorists supported by them who use religion as an excuse to kill.
He would say that, wouldn't he.
Little Green Footballs has Al Jazeera video showing a smiling Noam Chomsky doffing his cap to the Hezbollah.
The Al Jazeera voiceover apparently said:
Reporter: “Umm Kamel” – the Israeli [MK] spying aircraft – was the first to welcome leftist Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, in his visit to Al-Khiyam Prison. Chomsky chose to provide “Umm Kamel” with the most detestable pictures, from the Israeli perspective, by smiling and shaking hands with Hizbullah’s leader in South Lebanon, Nabil Qauq. Then they both entered the prison’s Hall of Martyrs. Chomsky, who toured the prison with his wife and university professor Fawwaz Al-Trabulsi, insisted on staying inside one of the prison cells for a short while. He commended the perseverance of the inmates during the years of cruelty and pain, stressing that this prison is no different from Guantanamo. The leftist intellectual chose to stand in front of a destroyed Israeli vehicle and declare that all the prisoners in the world must be released, whether in Israel or in American prisons.
He would say that ... wouldn't he.
Commentary
Writers sometimes make the mistake of confusing sincerity with impartiality on the grounds that no earnest person can really be one's foe. But it doesn't follow. It's very important to understand that the enemy can be sincere. He may, for example, honestly hate you; honestly want to kill you. Although sincere, the enemy is isn't neutral or impartial. He's just on the other side.
posted by wretchardthecat at 5/16/2006 04:20:00 PM
35 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"It's very important to understand that the President can be sincere.
He may, for example, honestly not care about you citizens, and honestly will surrender your jobs (and your security) so hard working Mexicans can have them.
Although sincere, the president isn't neutral or impartial.
He's just on the other side."
---
President Bush:
"People (serfs) shouldn't get so emotional about this.
Poor Mexicans and their courageous, cute little children brave the heat and danger of the desert for the chance to come here, work hard, and raise their sons to become the next George W, er Washington."
Reporter:
"But sir, these Citizens who used to be drywall contractors say they no longer can support their families and their wives have had to find work."
President Bush:
"Nonsense! Let them eat cake!"
"These here are COMPASSIONATE Cupcakes,
'cause I'm better than you are!"
Chomsky an intellectual? Yes indeed, the good professor is an intellectual in the Land of Islamic Make Believe. Chomsky's verbal spillage comes without the pretense of intellectual or moral rigor. Chomsky is to soft science what Jimmy Carter is to US national security.
I want a job like Ward's. A job where I can sit on my butt and say whatever the hell pops into my twisted mind and get paid well in doing it. I might even change my first name to something like "Gerhert" or "Thurston" or possibly "Stone" to do it. Tenure man, yeah that's the ticket.
To have real enemies is to be fated to tragedy. The road to victory or defeat is a mournful process. Perhaps the reason the comfortable Western left can so easily declare against their society is that they have forgotten how real and irreversible a process real warfare is. Perhaps unconsciously some believe they live in a bicameral world: one in which they can wage war against their brothers and at the same time appeal to their brothers for protection. Set bombs by day, have cocktails at the faculty lounge by night. I would take Chomsky more seriously if he had stayed with the Hezbollah.
...the enemy can be sincere. He may, for example, honestly hate you; honestly want to kill you. Although sincere, the enemy is isn't neutral or impartial. He's just on the other side. -Wretchard
Well put. To many people it may seem obvious but, to many it's something that should studied, looked at from all sides, and investigated to "find the root cause." Kerry surely would have a lot to say on all three (Ward Churchill, the Pentagon attack, and Noam Chomsky).
Here is my take:
1) Ward Churchill is sensational con-artists who has demonstrated his ability to scam the Colorado University system. He should have been fired long ago.
2) The video of the 757 coming towards the Pentagon is a unusual bit of chilling trivia. It's also a reminder of they type of enemy we are up against. The use of any and all methods to neutralize said enemy should be used.
3). Noam Chomsky has now joined hands with a known terrorists group. He should be put on a "no fly list" and not be allowed to travel back to American. It's just possible the old traitor may act as a carrier for a shoe bomb or like device (and could destroy an airliner while flying back to America). If Noam Chomsky can get away with these actions then more useful idiots will follow.
Dr. Zaius said...
Nurse Wretchard:
"Evo Morales (who was a coca farmer and who sees its production as legitimate)
So did Ollie North, John Hull and the Iran-Contra networks, including the Chinese opium Triads and ..."
This is a scandalous lie. I defy you to provide one piece of evidence about John Hull and drugs. Put up your evidence. You do not know one damn thing about John Hull and do not cut and paste some bullshit from some other lying post.
Wretchard:
Perhaps the reason the comfortable Western left can so easily declare against their society is that they have forgotten how real and irreversible a process real warfare is...
Truer words were never uttered.
I would generalize this to claim that too many on the left do not realize what a fragile veneer the civilization that they take for granted is.
I know this is the case; I was formerly one of them.
If I could be granted one wish, I would wish that all of us begin to appreciate how delicate our situation is, and with that realization, quit playing make believe.
Jamie Irons
re 7:45 Eggplant:
What'd we do to deserve this?
Well, "we" decided "we" could not afford the maintenance on our million dollar mansions w/o hiring illegals.
"We" decided we couldn't pay 10-20% more for produce, and 1970's wages to carpenters and other jobs that lazy Americans just won't do.
"We" had better things to do than see if our children were learning from socialists and sexual perverts, and "we" certainly couldn't take the time, or spend the money to see that they were not so indoctrinated.
"We" continued to patronize vile, Anti-American, Anti-Family, Anti-Religious "Entertainment" even as "we" claimed to be religious, pro-American, and pro-family.
And we ended up with a choice between a phony Gigolo "Veteran" and a phony "Conservative."
A couple of these comments jog memories. I took the first course Noam Chomsky offered at MIT back in the early 60's. It was an interesting course, and he was a good teacher (though, as an outsider, I never regarded him as the God some of my friends in the field of linguistics thought him). As I recall, he never commented on politics in class (nor did almost anyone else - it was bad form in those innocent days). I had no idea what his politics were.
I confess to be shocked at what he became. But, as Eggplant notes, Hitler was an engaging conversationalist iver dinner ...
It is hard to exaggerate the damage that has been done to the American and Western culture by the Left. The baseline has shifted downward and there no perceivable renewal coming from a discredited Republican Party. However, there is an opportunity for a true Conservative Populist voice to be heard and have a political impact. It is too late for the Republican establishment to distinguish itself from the Democrats.
Blogging Fatigue
by Hugh Hewitt
The Anchoress
(and to a lesser extent The Belmont Club ) are a bit weary of the politics of endless confrontation.
The energy will return as the elctions draw closer. The differences will be set aside on the center-right as the prospect of Dems in control in a time of great peril makes itself felt. In fact, a sudden announcement SCOTUS could change everything in a nanosecond.
---
---
All Fence. All the Time: Showdown on the Sessions Amendment Tomorrow
by Hugh Hewitt
May 16, 2006 04:17 PM PST
Today I interviewed Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Assistant Secretary fo defense Paul McHale, and a senior Border Patrol official, Kevin Stevens, on the utility and probabilty of a significant expansion of the 80-some miles of existing border fence.
Transcripts are available at Radioblogger.com. (Mp3's also!)
If you believe in the fence, call your senator and urge a yes vote on the Sessions Amendment which will authroize 375 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.
The Capitol switchboard is 202-225-3121.
There appears to be a discrepancy in reports of what action the investigative panel recommended. Local Denver news and NPR reported that of the five members of the panel investigating Ward Churchill, one recommended firing, two recommended a two year suspension, and two recommended a five year suspension.
This seems to contradict Wretchard's synopsis: Three out of five voted to fire him, but two held out for a two year suspension without pay because "they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom." Wretchard's analysis was the same as Caplis and Silverman this evening, btw (630 KHOW, Denver). Wonder what's up.
Trog,
If you are interested in hearing some of the latest from your old prof , you may be interested in going to:
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/
Do a search on their site for Chomsky. They have done several interviews with Chomsky. You may want to tighten your seat belt as he reminds me of William Ramsey Clark, compliments of Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureate.
Also, transcript and mp3 of Texas Patronage Barbie I.C.E. Asst. Secretary Julie Myers. at Radioblogger:
---
"How to undo the impact of a Presidential address in one easy lesson."
"I don't think we think that fencing is the best way to stop them on the border. I think the President's called for...if you build a fence, they build a tunnel."
erico,
I might be wrong. But here's the media summary from Pirate Ballerina's.
"* Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill should not be dismissed. They reach this conclusion because they do not think his conduct so serious as to satisfy the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal set forth in section 5.C.1 of the Law of the Regents, because they are troubled by the circumstances under which these allegations have been made, and because they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom. These two members agree and recommend that the most appropriate sanction, following any required additional procedures as specified by the University’s rules, is a suspension from University employment without pay for a term of two years.
* Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal specified in section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents, and hence that revocation of tenure and dismissal, after completion of all appropriate procedures, is not an improper sanction. One of these members believes and recommends that dismissal is the most appropriate sanction; the other two believe and recommend that the most appropriate sanction is suspension from University employment without pay for a term of five years."
That looks to make five, but maybe the media summary is wrong. The way the summary is written makes it easy to add it up the wrong way. But there appear to be a group of 2 and a group of 3 and subdivisions within each group.
STEYN on Noam Chomsky, Transcript, mp3
Well, found the answer to my own question, skip this if it isn't of interest:
Two members of the committee suggest a sanction of two years suspension without pay.
Three members of the committee find that Churchill's conduct satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal, though two of the three find it would be more appropriate to suspend for 5 years without pay.
Excerpts of the report:
While we are unanimous in finding that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is serious and
that we should express the degree of that seriousness through a recommendation about sanctions,
our discussions have not led to unanimity about what particular sanctions are warranted. What
follows, then, is the only portion of our report that presents multiple views.
• Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill
should not be dismissed. They reach this conclusion because they do not think his
conduct so serious as to satisfy the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal set forth
in section 5.C.1 of the Law of the Regents, because they are troubled by the
circumstances under which these allegations have been made, and because they believe
that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on the ability of other scholars to conduct
their research with due freedom. These two members agree and recommend that the
most appropriate sanction, following any required additional procedures as specified by
the University’s rules, is a suspension from University employment without pay for a
term of two years.
• Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct
is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal specified in
section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents, and hence that revocation of tenure and
dismissal, after completion of all normal procedures, is not an improper sanction. One of
these members believes and recommends that dismissal is the most appropriate sanction;
the other two believe and recommend that the most appropriate sanction is suspension
from University employment without pay for a term of five years.
The Committee is in complete agreement that it will not disclose to anyone the individual votes
of its members concerning sanctions.
and earlier, I enjoyed the committee's finding it ironical that this chicken came home to roost, and that it was entirely foreseeable.
The University has perhaps gotten more than it bargained for when it made its high-risk decisions
about Professor Churchill in the early 1990s, but there is very little about the present situation
that is not foreshadowed by developments across the last fifteen years. For us, the indignation
now exhibited by some University actors about Professor Churchill’s work appears
disingenuous, as they and their predecessors are the ones who decided to hire him.
Amen.
How GWB can make a comeback (via InstaPundit):
From Bill Hobbs
The recipe for restoring his popularity to above 50 percent is simple: Bush must screw the Left every chance he gets.
Have a bit of fun and read the whole thing!
Jamie Irons
Interestingly, the sanction votes could be tallied to support either outcome, firing or suspension of Churchill. When the University makes its decision, it will undoubtedly make use of whichever tally method supports its decision.
Coincidence?
Also of note, the large media outlets (and NPR) reported the votes in favor of suspension, the more conservative talk radio show, Caplis and Silverman, in favor of firing. The media battle is still being fought. Let's see what tomorrow's headlines report (three guesses).
And thank you for your information, Wretchard. I was reading the committee report when you posted and so posted the same information again. The link to the report may be helpful to someone, at least.
Guess what folks:
(Internet) AL GORE has made enough from his Google Options for "Advising" his Billionaire Buddies there, that he can fund his own Campaign at the last moment and RUN AGAIN!
---
Amazing California News via Mickey Kaus :
Hilariously Sad Helicopter Parents go to College with their perennial adolescents, Helen Reynolds
Comment to Ponder at Hobbs:
---
BTW - it really, really sickens me when people somehow see terrorist attacks in two allied countries (Spain and the UK) as victory in the US.
I'll try to remember how we're all winning the war on terror when I go through King's Cross tomorrow morning.
Posted by: Vol Abroad
Wretchard and Friends,
I despise and pity Chomsky and Chutch.
Seeking perspective about a week ago, I chanced on the Internet Archives, and promptly downloaded the 'Cinemocracy' series; informational films created to inform and educate, as to WHY We Are Fighting...
I was not a really good student during American History in high school... and I picked up more specifics in the intervening 45 years...
So "Prelude to War", "The Nazis Strike" and "War Comes to America" were REAL EYE-OPENERS for me!
Briefly and with a minimum of hysteria, they review the major turning points and characteristics of the processes leading to America's involvement in WWII.
ONE of the MANY PARALLELS to today's Islamo-fascist conflict is the use of propagandists, apologists, useful idiots, Chomskys and Chutchs and the Free World's own FREEDOMS to terrorize, deaden, wear down, 'soften' and otherwise prepare the target nations for their fascist overlords!
Another big similarity was the emphasis on "We are the UBER-menschen, THEY are fit only to lick the spittle from our boots!" Islamo-fascism seeking to enslave our world is nothing new, as Dymphna and Baron Bodissey (among others) state.
I urge ALL who post here, to take a quick refresher course (only an hour per film segment) and view the 3 above-named films, SOON!
Chomsky is a publicity seeking whore who long ago drop-kicked his last bit of scientific integrity through a plate glass window.
A Ph.D. usually represents a considerable investment of study and discipline. We lesser beings tend to tug at our forelocks and genuflect in respect of the authority that conveys with a doctorate. And at the fringes of even the most rigorous of fields are areas where the most outlandish surmise cannot be dismissed as unworthy. But there are certain areas of human inspection that generally defy quantification and testing, and thereby allow for a great deal of hanky-panky.
Linguistics is akin to Psychology and Sociology in trying to bridge the gulf between testable theora and toplofty conjecture. Each discipline has some hypotheses that can expressed mathematically so as to yield data that can be objectively analysed. But there are puzzles beyond the assay of any existing technology or calculus. Those imponderables are havens to charlatans.
Worse, there is a seductive trap awaiting a credentialed professor who ventures beyond the hedged-in regions of testable data into the realms of speculation. Celebrity comes when partisans magnify a new champion for otherwise unprovable claims. Heady stuff. This tends to overwhelm many scholars’ objectivity.
You should read as an example the desperate intellectual spasms of George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at USC Berkeley. He created the Rockridge Institute a few years ago (apparently consisting of himself, a fund-raising assistant, and a publicist) for the purpose of “assisting progressives in a non-partisan way to get their message out.”
www.roclridgeinstitute.org/aboutus/
Maybe the debt we ultimately owe such as Ward Churchill, Chomsky and Lakoff is the wonderful reminders they provide that a Ph.D. can still be an idiot.
Jamie Irons:
From Bill Hobbs ["Bush must screw the Left every chance he gets"] Have a bit of fun and read the whole thing!
Yes, that does sound like fun. And, Bush has nothing much to lose - He can't be elected for a "third term."
Wretchard & erico:
The Committee report is ambiguous on what exactly will happen to Ward Churchill. It's looks like a classic administrative report that's been massaged by a few lawyers (including Churchill's lawyer).
None the less, it looks like rough sledding for Ward Churchill. I would suspect Churchill's lawyer to drag the case out as far as possible and then negotiate for a short suspension with pay.
DanMyers:
...[Chomsky] he was for the terrorists keeping their arms?
Yes, that's the way I read it. I would assume he made the trip via an invitation from his Hezbollah friends and was required to support their possession of weapons. Now, from Lebanon's view he may not have done his homework.
When I seen Chomsky speaking at a podium with a yellow flag with an automatic rifle on it, I see a man who embraces Hezbollah and their violent ways. He has embraced the enemy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I stumbled onto one website which asserted that, since runways have "aiming marks" to enable airplanes to land - and since the Pentagon and WTC had no such aiming marks - then it was clearly a put up job, since a pilot could not have hit those buildings on the first try.
Now, those runway "aiming marks" are INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES aiming marks. They are to enable pilots breaking out of an overcast or through the fog to estimate if they are too far down the runway to land. They serve no purpose for purely visual landings. I have been flying since 1974 and only found out what they were last year; I had assumed they were just decorations or something.
You have to hand it to the 9/11 Conspiracy Buffs - it is a real achievement to exceed the parameters of stupidity and ignorance previously set by the "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax" nutcases.
But what does this say about their mental abilities? Would you accept directions to a used car dealership from this man?
Despite my repeated requests for an investigation conducted by unbiased experts, the committee was composed primarily of CU insiders.
I am a faculty member at a unionized university (where the union functions primarily to protect weaker faculty members from the consequences of competition). Thus, I hear all day and night how critical faculty self-governance is if a university is to perform its critical social tasks effectively. (Every voting member of this committee was a professor.)
Critical, apparently, except when it's not.
I think that it is the 'new right' that has "forgotten how irreversible the process of real warfare is". As evidence I present the Great War on Terror as an example which really is like the Great War on Drugs. Here we are cavalierly waging 'war light' while hoping that the comfortable citizens need not experience what sacrifices real war entails. After waging a war of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan we are stumbling into a possible third war (or front as some would argue) with Iran all the while ignoring the fact that we are simply fighting a tactic made even more foreboding by our leaders stoking our fear of it spouting knowingly false reasons for such 'wars' while ignoring the real thing we are fighting - Islamic radicalism.
Whenever I think of Ward Churchill I am reminded of the movie "The School of Rock".
One line sums up ward churchill. "rock and roll is sticking it to the man."
that's why the guy is where he is, that's why people actually listen to him. Every paycheck that charlatan recieves sticks it to the man.
so it amounts to mindless pointless spite, at public expense.
Hey skipsailing! At least Jack Black was funny, and the music was great. AND we KNEW the story was intended as entertainment — parody, not truth. If Ward Churchill could rock like that, I could find some compassion in my flinty heart for him. (I may write like a professor with a stick up his butt, but I’m really a subversive musician who used to play fiddle with rock bands in sleazy beer joints.)
Churchill and Chomsky and other left-leaning pathetickers have the right to express their views from dawn to sunset and beyond, as do those who detest and oppose them. The main point is that it is an abuse of their academic credentials to use their legitimate authority to assert an illegitimate authority in areas outside their acknowledged expertise. We lay people participate in the fraud by failing to differentiate between the legitimate and the misappropriated authority. The specific criminality of Ward Churchill is that he appears to have committed academic fraud at several stages of his quest for tenure, then used the ill-gained tenure to perpetuate perversions of logic masquerading as political dialectic.
One of the fundamental problems in all this is the astounding inertia of basic institutions of our society. The organizational structure, expectations, traditions, and rituals that govern universities in Western Countries date to the same medieval period as the Jihadist fanaticism that continues to harry us. Some of those institutions arose as proper bulwarks against the bullying of municipal tyrants within whose precincts the medieval universities and colleges had emerged. There is a glacial mass there that needs to be greased to advance into the present.
The great irony is that freedom of speech, academic objectivity and excellence, are presently prostituted by the academic inheritors of many generations who risked much to achieve it. Drunken grandchildren pawning the chandelier from their grandparents’ mansion to score a line of cocaine.
It has been said leftists are those who can't take their own side in a debate. Actually, the original saying says liberals not leftists.
This reminds me of a buddy in the UAE who told some Palestinian students the Palestinians & Israelies were brothers. The student's were skeptical but my buddy pointed out that brothers always fight the worst. He then points to me and tells them that I and himself never fight but if we were brothers it would be different.
Hmmmmm.
My Bush-hating moonbat friend reports unself-consciously that she has an appointment with a Dean at the college where she works to discuss an altercation she had with a co-worker. My friend disliked the co-worker and "asked" the co-worker to leave a project they were both working on, whereupon there was disagreement and dissension, and my friend was asked by whatever management was around to leave herself.
Being a good and loud loony liberal, used to speaking up for herself, she protested about the fairness of this majority judgment and the issue has now been bumped up to the Dean's level for ajudication.
As I said, she is unself-conscious about this and totally overlooks and doesn't connect the dots about a couple of similar incidents that have happened with different groups in the last year or so at other schools or departments.
I have absolutely no idea how to break it to her that SHE might be the deranged and barking moonbat, but the thought occurs to wonder if any of the rest of Koz's Kids are also being rejected by Real Life. My guess would be that they are bringing their rabid derangement syndrome into the conduct of their every-day business without noticing that they're not surrounded by internet anonymity and tapping on a keyboard any longer.
And normal people are taking affront, just as normal people on the internet also take affront when attacked by a snarling pack of the Loony Liberal Left, except in Real Life there are Deans to get involved, jobs to be lost, and noses which can be punched.
Post a Comment
<< Home