home

Ward Churchill on Bill Maher

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 11:06:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Crooks and Liars has the video of embattled C.U. Professor Ward Churchill on the Bill Maher show.

< Coptic Christian Family Not Killed by Muslims | Law Enforcer or Serial Killer? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Ward Churchill on Bill Maher | 59 comments (59 topical)
    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    Watch it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 12:16:08 PM EST
    I suppose it helps to know that this guy is completely anti-globalization.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    The man is a vile human being. People in the world trade center deserved to die because they worked finance? He is the left-wing equivalent to Matt Hale, and the only reason you hypocrites don't treat him as such is because the target of his bile is white collar whtie Americans. Hate is hate people.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimcee on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    Took F. Dawes' advice and watched it. Boy is that guy brain-dead? Why did Maher have to speak for him, is the professor incapable of doing it for himself? Fourteen minutes and fifty-eight seconds and counting... Bye, bye Ward, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    MB: Churchill's Little Eichmanns crack was stupid. Happy now? Now, remind me again: Why isn't Novak facing charges of treason for publicly revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent? Talk about vile human beings, man. Talk about hating America. Why isn't Novak in jail? Got some outrage to spare to condemn rightwing traitors, MB? Or do you just like to focus on screwy strawmen that no one ever heard of?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#6)
    by michael on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    Just to complete Tristero's thought ... Screwy strawmen that no one ever heard of until MB's rightist compatriots started publicizing him?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    As I've said before, it doesn't matter so much what he said, as simply the fact that the right has targeted him. Because of that, if we let him be hounded out, we're just encouraging the right to look for more controversial professors to whip up a media storm over. This will be followed by the Left looking for controversial right-wing professors to hound out. And finally, all professors will limit their classes to safe, politically correct lessons bound to not offend a single person.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    Skaje: I'm a liberal. What does Churchill's politics have to do with me? He's not on my side and he'd be the first to tell you. I feel as much obligation to defend his rights as I do Oliver North's. That's why I'm a card-carrying member of ACLU. I didn't quit when they defended North. If Churchill needs them, I also won't quit. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is the extent of my interest in Ward Churchill. If the future of liberalism depends upon rallying around people of Churchill's caliber, when truly great folks like Stephen Bronner, Anatol Lieven, Mark Danner and Elizabeth Drew hardly ever appear in the national mass media, God help us.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    The tape of WC and Maher was 15 minutes? I watched 'Real Time' last night; it didn't seem that long. 'Someone' has to be protecting Novak; why else isn't he being raked over the coals. He "apologized" on air the other day for misrepresenting what Howard Dean had said. I think he has a despicable nature.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    Posted by MB: "The man is a vile human being. People in the world trade center deserved to die because they worked finance?" I agree that George W Bush is a truly vile human being, a mass-murderer; but do you really believe that financiers deserved to die in the WTC? I don't know anyone, including Ward Churchill, who thinks they deserved to die. But Bush has killed 30 TIMES the number of people who died in the towers. Did they deserve to die? We heard nothing else from the wingers on TL for over a year in the run-up to the illegal invasion of a DISARMED country, and now we are hearing it from $R Congressmen who want to nuke Syria, and from people like Jim, who think Raping Fallujah is WWII and he wears a white hat. So what's up with that, wingers? Got racism?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    Churchill sounded like a total idiot! Bad move, Ward. Now most of the world that liked you before, sure ain't gonna like you now!! He'll be terminated for fraud and will get a notification of intent this week. Wait and see. Wanna bet?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    agree or disagree with the guy, let's see any of you go on national t.v. and attempt to defend your most unpopular, controversial opinions. the victim's brother was dead on about the way churchill is making or attempting to make his case. we all use (and waste) stuff, resources, materials every day that directly affect the lives of countless workers overseas. that's the uncomfortable truth. and, of course, we're not evil people. we just don't care enough. we don't have the time. we have our jobs and families and bills to worry about. all legitimate, but don't in any way alter the reality of an entire society based on using and tossing away as much crap as you can. buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. that's america. and we need to make some major changes. we and the planet we'll be healthier for it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    See what one guy can do with a few words.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 06:42:15 PM EST
    Bill Maher? Not a lot of courage there, WC. That's like Rush Limbaugh interviewing Ollie North. I'd like to see WC have the guts to go on O'Reilly just to watch the sparks fly.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 11:10:10 PM EST
    True Blue, you have posted over 20 comments today on TalkLeft. Please limit yourself to four a day. Thank you.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 11:34:21 PM EST
    I haven't watched the video. I will. Those opportunistic amongst the right and the pliant Corporatist media have seized upon (or created from scratch) an opening to demonize and incite public ire against "bastions of Liberalism poisoning young minds", aka "Government-run" universities. The problem with accepting any of this is the media's track record of reporting lies/opinion as fact. For all we know, Ward Churchill could be a Republican and/or Conservative. Assuming WC is a raving Liberal and was stupid enough to say what he said, the only argument that remains on his behalf is that Professors have the right to make whatever argument they wish. The statements themselves are ignorant; if the professor wanted to criticize the Corporatism and materialism of our America, he could have easily avoided (1) the flashpoint of any allusion to 9/11 and (2) imparted to his students the difference between ideological intent and apathetic complicity. All in all, a stupid thing for an educated person to say if speaking from an American perspective. Then again, I've been called a Communist in open forum by right wing tenured PhDs before, so I full well believe that PhD's are plenty capable of bad judgement and "non sensical" argument.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    TL: And BAM! The open door to free speech is slammed shut by the cold hand of hypocrisy. Didn't even take a week. After review of the comment policy, I see where I went wrong -- I voiced an opposing view too many times. Apparently you can post an agreeable view all you want, but opposition isn't tolerated. There's an easy way to get around this -- I could log in under different names. But frankly, I've got more integrity and self respect than that. I came here to find out more about the Left in an attempt to broaden my perspective. Guess what I learned? THIS EXPLAINS THE RED STATES. C-YA. Good luck in '08; you'll need it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    TL: What happened to the post you just sent limiting me to four posts a day? Did you change your mind?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    Disregard. I'm gone.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:39:54 AM EST
    Agreed, Trueblue, O'Reilly would be just the one to interview the gasbag. I like your comments and would like to see you stick around. Congrats on your status as a 4-poster. We must remember, this is talkLEFT. As Lenin said, the state regulates guns, and ideas are far more dangerous than guns, so why not regulate ideas as well?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#21)
    by dead dancer on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:17:28 AM EST
    Okay, we get it Ace. Just kiss him/her (trueBlue) already. Speaking of hipocracy. You both rant of free speech and slammed doors; I guess this does't apply to WC.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:18:43 AM EST
    (trueblue: "What happened to the post you just sent limiting me to four posts a day? Did you change your mind?") {TL: "True Blue, you have posted over 20 comments today on TalkLeft. Please limit yourself to four a day. Thank you."} Talk Left didn't set you or limit you; Talk Left asked you to set the limit. As for this, "I came here to find out more about the Left in an attempt to broaden my perspective. Guess what I learned?" I don't believe that for a second. First - it's always about 'the Left' - 'liberals' - we, whose political ideology isn't similar to yours are considered 'liberal' or 'the Left' and I'm pretty sick of it. Second - broaden your perspective, eh? I think it was more about providing fodder to any fire you could conjure up.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:28:50 AM EST
    TS writes - "For all we know, Ward Churchill could be a Republican and/or Conservative." Uh Huh. Sure.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kitt on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:50:42 AM EST
    I watched an interview with WC and Dennis Means on Free Speech TV. (I still think it's about free speech BTW) I wasn't impressed; he's just too dismissive. One thing I think he illustrates very well is the lack of general knowledge education Americans have. He said he thought 'everyone would recognize' that Eichmann although a Nazi was not directly responsible for killings. He was a cog in the machine. It's like talking to someone who doesn't know that Iran is Persia who thinks they have a solution to solving 'the region's problems.'

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:18:16 AM EST
    TS The propoganda that comes out of your mouth is hilarious. Liberals don't support Conservatives. Liberals support Ward Churchill. TrueBlue Stick around. Don't waste posts on fools like Mr. LA. He shoots the Left in the foot everytime he opens his mouth, anyways.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:53:57 AM EST

    Churchhill BOMBED - which is unfortunate. He had a national stage from which to back up or explain his views, and fell flat on his face. A couple of things I wish he would have reiterated - first and foremost he was not referring to individuals as being the "little Eichmans" - he was referring to our culture and killing machine in general. I highly recommend Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States of America" if you want a better account. If you are not doing something to get the U.S. on a better track, you are one and the same as the machine. Every one of us is responsible for the deaths of the 100,000 (est) innocent Iraqi civilians. This war was a lie from the beginning, and instead of getting off our duffs to do something about it, we chose to catch the latest Oprah and continue our lazy fat Amerikan ways.

    The other thing I wish he would have attacked was the mainstream press. We have been inundated with BS propaganda from the right - including crap from Gov. Bill Owens - that should serve as a MAJOR warning to all of us. Our freedom of Speech is being attacked on all sides. This is not just a matter of Ward Churchill. It is a matter of the big picture. This administration is trying to control the message in a Kremlin style way. Anyone who does not toe the line is either killed (see: UK Guardian: Outrage as US soldiers kill hostage rescue hero) or has their reputation destroyed by the mainstream press.

    Check out this story in today's NY Times. Karl Rove is petrified that he is losing control of the message. The ship has developed a leak, the agenda is slipping, and the "mandate" now resembles a "boydate" (don't tell Jeff Gannon).
    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    Kitt writes - "He (Churchill) said he thought 'everyone would recognize' that Eichmann although a Nazi was not directly responsible for killings." That is disingenuous. I would think someone with the high standing in the educational circles of this country, particualrly one who can be described as a member of the Far Left and sensitive to "hate speech," would know that calling people "little Eichmans" would be taken by people as a bad insult. And I believe he knew. He has a whole body of work replete with attack statements and inaccurate charges. Kitt, he has free speech, and I wouldn't change that. But you don't have the right to insult a whole group of people, and then hide behind, "I'm a professor."

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    PPJ writes: "Kitt, he has free speech, and I wouldn't change that. But you don't have the right to insult a whole group of people, and then hide behind, "I'm a professor." " No, that distinction appranently only goes for "I'm President, or associated with the President." Okay for Reagan to call the homeless lazy or to say that homosexuals who contracted AIDS got what they deserved. Okay for Dubya and the conservative media behind him to mock people from Massachusetts. Okay for Rumsfeld to take swipes at a whole continent (old Europe). Etc. Those things are all okay and there should be no repercussions, people wanna put Reagan on Rushmore and they call Dubya a visionary.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    jim, insulting and offending IS free speech. as long as no threats are made, one is free to say whatever they choose. you choose to try to silence them with physical violence, then the line is crossed. sticks and stones, my friend, sticks and stones. and i'll say it again: you could not, in any way, get on a national stage like churchill did, agree with or loathe him, and try to defend some of the more extremists, unpopular, controversial opinions you hold. you'd be as uncomfortable as he was. AS ALMOST ALL OF US ARE when the spotlight is really turned on us and its time to put up or shut up. as for o'reilly, give me a break. o'reilly is a sociopath, who has oddly exaggerated his past, his accomplishments (from football to war), and who is nothing more than morton downey jr. with slightly smaller teeth. o'reilly is is no way a journalist. he is a partisan hack of the highest order, who doesn't have the balls to stand up and admit his biases and prejudices. he's a joke. at least michael moore will cite sourves. o'reilly cites nothing more than his own terribly damage psyche.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    this keyboard sucks. off to buy a new one. forgive the epidemic typos.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#31)
    by Andreas on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    The WSWS defends Ward Churchill against McCarthyism but it opposes his political views:
    This idle talk about the alleged rottenness of the population misses every critical point. Let us recall, first of all, that the September 11 terrorist bombings were atrocities in which some 3,000 innocent people were incinerated. Anyone who chokes on the word “innocent” has no right to call him- or herself a democratically minded human being, much less a socialist. [remainder deleted, please do not reprint lenghty text in comments] A reply to readers’ letters on “The New McCarthyism: the witch-hunting of Ward Churchill” By David Walsh, 28 February 2005

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    ppj says He has a whole body of work replete with attack statements and inaccurate charges. A whole body af work that nobody paid any attention to until the right decided to go after free speech in higher education. He wrote his essay shorttly after 9/11 and no one cared. WE have said over and over again it has nothing to do with whether or not we agree with what Churchill says. As Skaje says this is what it is all about, As I've said before, it doesn't matter so much what he said, as simply the fact that the right has targeted him. Because of that, if we let him be hounded out, we're just encouraging the right to look for more controversial professors to whip up a media storm over. TB: I'd like to see WC have the guts to go on O'Reilly just to watch the sparks fly. You know what, I think I'd like to see this too. It would be more entertaining than Maher. It would be best if they were in the same studio. I'd love to see Bill go psycho on Churchill. THen watch Churchill slowly rise and unfold his 6'7" frame. Just like "Chief" in "One Flew over the Cukoo's nest." Watch him calmly walk accross to Bill with a pillow. Shut him up once and for all. You know four post a day is hardly an elimination of free speech. Anyone who has time to post more than four a day needs to find something better to do with their lives. Doc?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    "Posted by bandelier: "Churchhill BOMBED - which is unfortunate." No, that's inaccurate. Maher tried to package Churchil, and he didn't want to go along. He didn't want to give a history lesson on American atrocities, in chronological order as Maher repeatedly tried to get him to do. And then Maher summarized with his idiotic "We all have blood on our hands" mantra, which is patently absurd. Some of us do have blood on our hands. Most of us have no power to decide what is being done by the gov't, and fight tooth and nail to stop it. TL apparently deleted my other post making the point, but this is a collision between Jewish comedic schtick and a subject that is just NOT a political goosing story that can be made fun of. TL, if that's because I mentioned Judaism and that seemed bigoted, note that I just about got Bar Mitzva'd myself, I have so many Jewish friends. If it was because I over-posted, sorry to have, but the disjunction between Maher's approach and WC's is an important point to make. Putting the victim's brother on was a bit of theater that immediately backfired on Maher. WC's point is not amenable to a comedy-talk show, nor to the low education level of HBO. So he didn't bomb; he was just a fish out of water on that show.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    So the 9/11 victims or as Churchill refers to as "the technicians of empire" had it coming because they were in some way responsible for the sanctions on Iraq according to the notion of collective guilt. Therefore the terrorists were actually not terrorists but combat teams attacking legit targets. ..at least that´s what it says in OBL´s guide to terrorism.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    SOMEONE is responsible for all those deaths of civilian populations, and the economic regime that impoverishes the nations, while making a small class rich. The technicians, the nameless bureaucrats who grease the wheels, are not innocent. That's basically what WC said. Not innocent. As in, it is not impossible to think of why someone would want to blow up the trade towers instead of hitting Indian Point. (and killing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians who do NOT work for the bureaucracy of economic colonialism practiced by US gov'ts who still think it is 1825). If the purpose was a devastating attack on the US, Indian Point was and is a far better target. And, given the supposed Pentagon hit, they had pinpoint targeting skills, acquired by using a computer simulator. Didn't even singe the lawn, so they could easily have hit Indian Point. WHY DIDN'T THEY?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    The technicians, the nameless bureaucrats who grease the wheels Can you tell the difference between a bureaucrat and a businessman? SOMEONE is responsible Well, that was reasonably substantial..care to be more specific? There were over 700 companies located in the twin towers, over 3000 people lost, which ones do you or Churchill feel to put the blame on? Ah yes let´s make it simple instead, they must have been evil money makers in control of the world, they had it coming. Yes, that must be it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 05:40:50 PM EST
    glanton - Glad to see you are defending Chrchill's comments, not his right to say them. Paul In LA - You probably don't know this, but from the air the WTC towers, and the Pentagon are about as easy to see as a teenager finding a zit on his nose on prom night. Requires no special talents. Peaches! - Welcome back. How's the gang down at the Muddy Pig? You know, I'm gonna agree with you that Churchill was getting away with saying/wriitng outrageous things. That is until he was invited to speak at Hamilton College, which had two months earlietr tried to hire a former Weather Underground activist who was indicted in the 1981 Brinks murders. Somebody pushed back at the latest piece of questionable actions, and the rest, as they say, is history. Whether the person who had the good taste to say, we don't want to hear what he has to say, or pay him for saying it, is Demo or Repub, I don't know. dadler - As for threats, I invite you to read: "Indeed, on at least two occasions, Churchill has been accused of throttling speech he does not endorse by violent means. In 1993, following his ouster from the radical group the American Indian Movement (AIM), Churchill reportedly retaliated by spitting in the face of AIM’s elderly leader, Carol Standing Elk, while a younger accomplice broke her wrist. In a less violent but equally offensive example of “direct action” ten years later, Churchill—who has repeatedly invoked his right to free speech as all-purpose defense against his critics—was acquitted on charges of obstructing the Columbus Day parade in Denver. Likeminded judges, it seems, accepted Churchill's protestations that a parade celebrating Columbus was tantamount to “hate speech.” You may apologize for your inaccurate remarks at your leisure. Don't you just love the "hate speech" comment?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    Since I'm a conservative, I've been told by the champions of free speech to restrict my comments to four per day. This is #1. TL: When the person who can lock you out "asks" you to limit to four times a day, do you take that as direction? As far as fueling any fire I can find, you'll find that I expressed dismay at racism in Alabama politics, opposed the invasion of privacy in BTK's daughter, and admitted error when proven wrong. I agreed with a lot of people on here -- and not just conservatives. Other than giving in to exasperation with Paul, I was polite and didn't make personal attacks, even when I was branded just about everything in the book by those you haven't censured despite rules against abusive comments, etc. I also made it clear that I generally qualified my generalizations, i.e. "some on the left", etc. I've made it a point to express ideas, analyze points made based on logic, and let ideas speak for themselves. What is the threat in letting me speak? The fact that you dropped the hammer on me in a Ward Churchill thread is ironic to the point of lunacy. If people can't suffer one voice of opposition on a blog, how can they hope to succeed in national political discourse?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:04:09 PM EST
    Actually PPJ, My comment had nothing whatever to do with WC and everything to do with the rhetoric with which you attacked him. Which rhetoric works against far more personae than WC, including Reagan and Dubya. That's what I said. Read the post again, more slowly this time. If you don't agree, say why. Don't cheapen yourelf and the discourse in general by trying to forcibly pervert the comment into something it isn't. What a shame. Shades of Willie Horton for VP. Except on this thread people can go back and read instead of taking your word for it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:07:47 PM EST
    But of course, PPJ, there's no chance you'll retract what you said, or engage the post on its own terms, any more than Bush 41 was gonna acknowledge the sheer lowness of the Horton campaign. What is it your hypocritical pal O'Reilly laments when he talks about "drive-by's" Ta

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:46:15 PM EST
    glanton - Hey, get it right. It is "ta ta," not a measly "ta." But let us review your complaint. Presidents do not have tenure, and can be fired for almost any remark. Ask GHW Bush what, "Watch my lips," did for him. Perhaps we should let Churchill run for his job... As for any actual comments Rumsfeld may have made... well, you know, there you go again. All attack and no proof... (You still have a link weakness.) You know, I think you have let your natural desire for job security overcome your critical thinking ability.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    You'll get uesd to irony in all its forms of weedy flower around here, Trueblue.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    PPJ: If you get HBO you ought to check out _Angels in America_, they've been running it a lot lately and one of the main guys says simply "Ta," when he leaves the room. I'm always drawn to new rhetorics, trying this one out. BTW: Now that's what a disagreement with an actual post looks like, and while quite naturally I disagree with you in turn, your willingness to rise to the challenge and make a plain case is why I respect and like debating you. But please, remember that at no point have I expressed sympathy with WC's comments, for I find them way, way off mark. And I have said so. And am saying it again. Ta Ta

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#44)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    trueblue, There are several regular commenters here who reliably give a libertarian or hard right point of view. The host here welcomes their comments and allows them unlimited posting. Read comments from PPJ, jimcee, Dr. Ace, and pigwiggle. They all post views contrary to the prevailing "lefty" ideas. However, they present their views in a way that's respectful of the forum.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    PPJ A fall guy to discredit the left; its been done before.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    Since I'm conservative, I've been told by the champions of free speech and tolerance to limit expressions of opposing opinion to four per day. This is #2. Quaker, I'll admit there are conservatives and libertarians that post on this site. However, IMO, they have been more aggressive in ad hominem attacks, etc. I have focused on logic. I have stated my opinions, and have found flaws in the logic used by others on this forum. And that's not just personal opinion. For the most part I looked for hasty conclusions, improperly constructed syllogisms, and cases where people are picking fruit from a tree they've poisoned. In the face of abuse thrown my way, I have been the one arguing on behalf of civility (with the exception, I'll admit of Paul). In the face of rhetoric, I have asked for references and have asked that people back their claims. I have done what has been done in political debate for thousands of years -- I've stated my opinion and asked people to defend theirs. When challenged, I defended mine and answered questions sent my way. I'm left with the perception that what's making people uneasy is the fact that I'm not the rabid, hate-filled conservative some people would like to see. I haven't spouted a consistent hard-right agenda, nor have I contended with everyone with consistency (except, of course, Paul). And I haven't hurled invective at anyone other than Paul. I'm conservative and talk in terms of reason and logic. If the left is going to rise again, it needs to convince people through the methods I've advocated -- not by silencing voices. Now is the time for people to put their money where their mouth is. This thread is about a person who's under fire for speaking an opinion. If that same thread is used to restrict my rights to do the same, what does that mean?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#48)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    This is a forum provided by a private party, using her own money and the donations offered by participants. It is, in effect, her house. She's free to make the rules here just as you are in your own home. You may continue to harbor the notion that it's the content of your posts that's at issue. However, there are others who post similar content without restriction. I propose that it's something else. By studying the posts of others I've named, you might discern why their posts are allowed more leeway.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:44:35 PM EST
    True Blue, anyone who posts 20 plus comments a day should have their own blog and earn their own readers, not co-opt TalkLeft's. Bandwidth is expensive. In my view, only a chatterer who repeats himself and wants to dominate the conversation and overtake the forum comments 20 times a day. There are several conservative commenters here who express their views and engage in debate rather than ponitification. I would probably miss them if they left. They are not limited in the number of comments they can make. It also helps that they financially contribute to the site--often being the first to donate when I put out a call. And, just to be clear, Dr. Ace is limited to four comments a day. I let him slide once in a while if there's a discussion going, but not often, as he'll be the first to tell you. As Quaker says, this is my personal weblog. I foot the bill. Everyone is free to get their own blog if they have more to say than is allowed here. Length of comments is also an issue. No one should have to scroll down a whole computer screen just to get to the next comment. I edit all commnents, not just those of conservatives, when I catch that happening. TalkLeft gets over 500 comments a day. I read as many as I can. When someone causes me to take extra time to go in and edit or delete, I lose patience. I started this blog to report, write and disseminate --not to play comments editor. The more time I spend reading your comments, the less time I have to write. TalkLeft is not a neutral site. It is designed to present one point of view- one that defends the rights of persons accused and one that is critical of the current Administration and its policies. If you can abide by the rules, you are welcome to stay. The more succinct you are in making your point, the more likely you will be read and less likely you will be edited. And if you throw in some bucks to the tip jar, I'll be a little more tolerant.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:48:17 PM EST
    IM: You missed the point, and went back to the talking point. I wrote: "Not innocent. As in, it is not impossible to think of why someone would want to blow up the trade towers instead of hitting Indian Point." Perhaps 'innocent' is the wrong word, suggesting as it does the absent of direct guilt, and WC's point is that indirect guilt exists; Hanna Arendt spoke of it when she spoke of the little Eichmanns. That indirect guilt, and here's my point (I don't speak for him), that indirect guilt is the only clear basis for an attack on the twin towers-- twice. My point is not WC's point; my point is that Indian Point is a FAR better 'mass terrorism target' than the twin towers. When analysing the reason for the twin towers strike instead, WC and I draw the conclusion that the towers were a symbol of the oppressor to the terrorists who planned the attacks. And, indeed, to those people, at least some of the persons in the towers were collaborators. WC's point goes to the left from there, but I'm not a leftist. I don't blame America for the acts of US gov't felons who use our military for corporate enrichment and economic imperialism. Jim: You mean that it isn't at all puzzling that terrorists who had never flown jumbo jets could pilot one at say 180 MPH through a 90 degree turn, get over the ridge of the hill, and then drop down and hit the first floor of the building, without even singing the grass. That's great flying--these prodigies had high-paying jobs if they wanted them. One would presume that someone with a minimum of flying experience would augur in at a steep angled banking maneuver, hitting the Pentagon as close the (from above) middle as possible. You might also try to determine why they hit the towers early in the day, before the mass of civilians arrived to work. [Edited. Please don't restate other's comments, just refer to their name. Readers can scroll up to see their comment.]

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    As I am conservative, the champions of free speech and tolerance at TL have limited my thoughts to four per day. This is #3. TL: If you look at the pattern of my posts, you may find that my "20 posts a day" may be more than one day from my perspective (Time zone hint). Have you placed restrictions against Paul in LA? He rants on a regular basis, posts long comments, doesn't answer quesions, spews abusive remarks, and issues the most inflammatory comments on this site. He eats a lot of bandwidth and, IMO, damages the image of those on the Left by feeding a negative stereotype. But apparently you're allowing him slack due to his political orientation. I did get a kick out of the tip jar comment -- if I send you money, I can get what Paul gets for free. Under Shari'a, this is known as an "infidel tax." I realize I got carried away with Paul, and I spit that hook out because it was robbing everyone else -- and taking money out of your pocket. Nevertheless, my opinions are still definitely in the minority here. Your point is well taken and I can cut it back. But I object to an arbitrary number because it reeks of the facism we all (myself included) claim to oppose. Contrary to what some may be predisposed to believe, I'm a conservative who actually WANTS a healthy opposition because I feel it's best for the overall good in the country to have yin and yang balanced. I see my presence here as being a sparring partner to help people sharpen their debate skills so they don't come off as rabid extremists. I'm not some college professor on the news. I'm in your front yard. Will you suffer me and my opinions, or must I get in the back of the bus?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:01:23 PM EST
    jim, "reportedly" spit in the face and broke the wrist of an elderly leader? the quotes speak for themselves. btw, spitting in someone's face and wrist breaking HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH OR SPEECH AS THREAT-MAKING!! nor does being arrested for obstructing a columbus day parade. and actually i do find columbus way offensive in a clear way, even hateful in its subtext. were i native american, it's easy to imagine that offense being carried into protest or some kind of non-violent action. and obstructing a parade does NOT imply violence. it implies a sit-in to block the parade's route. my point was free speech includes insulting and offending people. it doesn't, OBVIOUSLY, include spitting in faces or aiding/abetting physical violence.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:05:13 AM EST
    So is Maher actually, literally blaming 9.11 on bad karma? Because otherwise there is absolutely zero nexus between the motivation of bin Laden and co. and the slave trade or the firebombing of Dresden. As an side, do they still teach logic in the universities?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:31:08 AM EST
    Paul In LA - They had considerable training. If you remember, one flight school reported them as supscious. Other`than that, who knows? And who cares? The issue is simply this. These guys killed civilians. No matter what their view, killing civilians makes them terrorists. Any comment that brings the victims in to the discussion as other than victims is simply dumb. And when anyone use them to attack America by justifying the murders, you are going to make a lot of people very angry. Free speech is often defended as anyone can say anything. This is not true. The government cannot use prior restrant. Private companies can. We can debate forever the status of a state university, but remember this. At the end of the day it is owned by the taxpayers. Make them mad enough and you will see changes. Most of which you won't like. As a social liberal there are many changes that I would like to see in America. Healthcare, tax reform, education, public transportation, and more. But these issues aren't being debated because we can't get past people being angry at people like Churchill and Paul In LA for making moonbat statements. Glanton - Thanks - I am LOL. No, I haven't watched the show. And, I guess you know "ta ta" is a flighty good bye issued by someone who is well, flighty. TrueBlue - As someone who agrees with some of what you say, especially on the defense side, let me point out something. First, TL isn't kidding you. Bandwidth is cheap for a small site, but when you get to doing a site with over 5,500,000 visitors in about three years, it gets to be very, very expensive, plus the various software packages, etc. aren't free. So get a Pay Pal account and kick in some bucks. Obviously you enjoy the site, so look at it like buying a book, or whatever you do for enjoyment and edification. And if you don't enjoy it, don't comment. No need to hit your finger with a hammer. dadler - My point was that Churchill has made threats. And if you don't think spitting in someone's face a threat, there is no hope. Now you know that. And isn't calling people little Eichmans a way to justify hurting them? Isn't that the classic definition of assualt and battery? First you curse and demean them, and then you hit them?

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:24:11 AM EST
    Trueblue, My frustration with your postings stems from your repeating the same mantra over and over, generalized name calling (all you this or that)which I find offensive, and a badgering style. For example, after TL limited you, you made your point/defense about why you thought this was unfair. Then you made the same points again in your next post. Then again. Then, in addition to offending TL, you made her take the time out to explain to you where she stood. Then, you made the same points yet again. While I appreciate the challenges to my views presented by some rightwing and libertarian commenters some of us on the left are trying to establish dialogue to shape a future. Not repeal the New Deal, the Constitution and the Hammurabic Code. We therefore get tired of having to start from defending why prisoners shouldn't be tortured or why all Muslims aren't killers to generate meaningful discussion.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    jim, you offered no proof he spit in anyone's face other than a few words in some obscure piece -- a few words, i'll repeat, that began with the word "reportedly". and yes, his choice of words was poor, as might his entire act be, but that's not my concern here. only what is covered as free speech and what isn't. but as a liberal, and proud of it, i'm someone who's been called a commie, a saddaam lover, a baby killer, etc., numerous times by those on the right, and i don't have ANY intellectual sympathy for reactionaries now engaged in selective outrage. outrage that is way out of proportion to the actual THING causing the outrage. i think churchill has a great problem with global capitalism. that's obvious. but global capitalism isn't a monolith, it's like any system. it has parts. human parts. like ba'ath party members in iraq. who we initially blanketed with blame, only to learn the folly of that choice. the 9/11 criminals used the same kind of blanket to justify bringing down the towers. churchill is using the same thought process, not successfully, but neither is he being flip. his argument, if you can get past the sloppy emotionalism of the eichmann analogy, is merely an unpleasant telling of an uglier, larger truth. that our choices have an often negative effect on people thousands of miles away. our choices have had the effect of keeping peoples from freedom. we can be the nicest person in the world, but the reality of modern consumerism is that your conveniences and luxeries are often the products of the unseen masses a continent or three away. that's part of the insidiousness the our new materialism. it keeps us so distracted and entertained and "contented" that we never think about WHERE ARE THESE GOODIES ACTUALLY COME FROM. Oil, minerals, clothes, toys, you name it. Someone suffers for it somewhere. Not everyone. But more than enough people for all of us to know something is wrong. sh*t happens. for a reason. if you don't want to understand the reason, then don't, hide you head because it's too unpleasant to ponder, play devil's advocate, look inward, etc. but if you do want to understand, then discomfort and anger will be part of the process.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    As I am conservative, the champions of free speech and tolerance at TL have limited my expression to four times per day. This is long, so we'll call it #1-4. Well, I am depressed. I've seen a lot of explanation, but not one person saying the quota is wrong. I realize this is a business enterprise. So is CU. I've repeated some items because they weren't being answered (I always made it a point to answer someone who asked me something). I've been on numerous blogs over the years, and even been asked to slow it down before -- which I did (and I'm still on that site 2-1/2 years later). But I object to the idea of a quota being assigned, because it insinuates I'm unable to impose limits on myself if asked. I can buy more speech rights, but no one's saying what the going rate is per column inch -- just a nebulous promise. If I buy a book, I know exactly what I'm getting. I think I'll be leaving now, because whether or not you believe it, I honestly did have a high opinion of the Left and its defense of principle. I used to be a Hubert Humphrey/Walter Mondale kind of guy. But I've challenged some people here to stand up for the values they claim -- whether it be to hold fire in the journalist case, or to defend a conservative contributor. The response was silence or deflection. I once knew a Left that would take on challenges to logic and refute them with facts and logic in return. Now that has been replaced, in large part, with emotion and rhetoric. The Left I knew was America's superego. Now it seems to act like more of an id. The Left I knew would stand for the rights of the minority, not just the minority who agreed with them or would pay to be heard. I once used to sit in the back of a bar with friends (conservative and liberal) and discuss politics and philosophy for hours. Things stayed logical and statements were analyzed critically. No limits, and no one got offended or made someone buy extra pitchers because of a viewpoint. I came here as a former liberal trying to reconnect with something from my past. I'm old enough to find myself doing that from time to time, but young enough not to realize the futility. When the Left rediscovers its soul, please let me know. I'd like to hear from it again someday. Bye.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    When I watched Ward Churchill responding to Bill Mahr and then to the brother of the 9/11 WTC tower victim joining them, on HBO this past weekend, I wondered about Churchill's relative passivity and sullen disengagement (in contrast to his fiery stance in his lecture a couple of weeks ago at CU Boulder). At the time, I considered that perhaps he was just exhausted from defending himself (and his job) in this controversy and jet-setting appearances--Maybe he just needs a vacation ;)--and also that he may have been "coached" to "tone it down" and not to be belligerent to the victim's brother. The discrepancy in his attitudes has, however, led me to have some doubts about his overall sincerity. I'm not talking here about the matter of his First Amendment rights/Free Speech, academic due process, etc., which I have myself vociferously defended in previous comments about "the Ward Churchill controversy." But his shift in attitude does perhaps relate to criticisms we've seen of his truthfulness [re: his (not entirely consistent) claims of degrees of native American/Indian ancestry, an ancestry since substantiated, it appears] and the ethics of his intentions: Is he trying to make deeply-believed/felt arguments or trying to draw attention to himself and create celebrity? Or some of both? If trying to create celebrity, he didn't do such a great job on Bill Mahr's show, from most accounts. Then tonight I read this report on Denver's News4Colorado (CBS) online. According to this report, quoting an on-camera on-the-spot interview with him, Ward Churchill seems rather disingenuous and perhaps even dishonest (claiming that he was fending off an assault when he may have been engaging in physical aggression himself). He seemed to become rather violent when confronted with what appears to be an instance of alleged intellectual property copyright infringement and apparently fraudulently marketing as an original art work of his own, instead of identifying it as an appropriation of an(other?) artist's work. Apparently, he did not properly credit or acquire necessary permission/authorization from the artist. (The owner who bought it from Churchill says that he had no idea that it was made from another artist's work.) I haven't had time to investigate this subject further: Is anyone familiar with other "art" by Ward Churchill? The example in the report would seem to go beyond what is allowed by "fair use doctrine" of U.S. copyright law code/Berne copyright conventions. If Churchill was creating a "digital remix" kind of appropriation, in selling it privately or commercially later, he still needed to credit the original artist and, according to current intellectual property law (not yet revised despite the copyleft movement and efforts of Lawrence Lessig/Creative Commons), also to get permission/authorization to market it.

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    After a brief visit to e-bay (mentioned in the report; I don't find the "actual" Churchill piece "Winter Attack" there): But I did find another so-called "artist's" ironic caricature of Ward Churchhill inspired by the "art" controversy just mentioned, wittily also entitled "Winter Attack". Two pages of e-bay items relating to Ward Churchill serve as a kind of commentary on these (multiple now) "controversies" (e.g., "original art"/"not a copy" etc.).

    Re: Ward Churchill on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    "CU Weighs Buyout for Firebrand Professor" [re: the subject of more recent discussions, relating to Betsy Hoffman's resignation as CU president] first published in the Feb. 26 Denver Post also cites the controversy about Ward Churchill's "artwork" entitled "Winter Attack"; it also posts the digital version of the piece posted on e-bay, a sale since removed due to legal concerns of the seller) since these reports.

    Ward Churchill on Bill Maher | 59 comments (59 topical)