Writing in today’s Seattle P-I (“We’re complacent about our own Osamas,”) New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff warns:
We don’t have to go to Saudi Arabia to find violent religious extremists steeped in hatred for all America stands for. Wake up — they’re here.
Discussing the proliferation of home-grown hate groups and violent attacks on judges and their families, Kristoff takes as a springboard the recent murder of the husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow. Suspicion immediately fell on the followers of white racist leader Matt Hale, who is currently jailed for seeking to murder Judge Lefkow. It was widely reported that postings to racist websites joyfully celebrated the murders.
And now this morning we hear about the fatal shooting of a judge in a Fulton County, GA court room.
Whether these recent acts of violence against our judiciary were carried out by angry individuals or organized hate groups, Kristoff warns of a disturbing trend that threatens to undermine our judiciary:
Threats to federal judges and prosecutors have increased sharply since they began to be tabulated 25 years ago, but the attack on Lefkow’s family, if it was related to her work, would take such threats to a new level. Who would want to be a judge if that risked the lives of loved ones?
None of this happens in a vacuum, and as anti-government rhetoric continues to grow not only in tone and volume, but in respectability, we need to be aware that there are those among us who might actually act on their anger.
Gee…ya think??? Angry individuals on the left? Oh, say it ain’t so….aren’t you the ones with all the tolerance and peace and love?
Oh that’s right….no you aren’t……
BTW….the guy that killed the judge was mentally disturbed and commited suicide soon after. NOT a hate group…just a mentally disturbed man and every judge knows the dangers of being a judge.
It’s sad and terrible…but it happens…and it’s nothing new.
lots of things just happen…. especially in a country that now has learned that if say i were to convince a bunch of friends, through deceipt and obfuscation, that this or that group of people or individuals would be a major threat to me and us down the road in the future, and that we should preemptively destory them first, is the most intelligent and effective way to deal with problems of potential violence. Shoot first, then shoot the people that ask the questions next.
SPYDER…..name one country where these things don’t happen…..
Would LA Street Gangs be considered “terrorists”? How about in Chicago, or in New York City? If the gangs are black or Hispanics, are we allowed to talk about them? And if the gang members are under 18, but murder and deal drugs, is it racist to “be against the chilin”? Wait………If the district where the gangs “hang” votes 115% Democrat, will Goldy post these questions?
cg@3
this is the justification?
No…not a justification…there can never be one for acts of anti-social violence like this. Just the statement that they happen and it has nothing to do with the “Evil Empire” of America which is where I suspect Spyder was going……..
This is why I’m not a judge anymore, and in addition, I knew a lawyer who was gunned down in his office. But there really is no evidence this violence is instigated by rantings of anti-government or hate groups. I’ve encountered my share of those, but all the cases of violence against judges and lawyers that I’m aware of have involved disturbed or disgruntled individuals.
Don @7……Yes it’s a risky business, always has been, because judges make judgements…and usually someone loses.
Don@7
That is a rediculous statement, most people that go to see a judge or lawyer are disgruntled, so it doesnt take rocket science to figure out that the violence is going to be done by the disgruntled customers…..
You want to see disgruntled, go look at king5 forum.
wow.
Cg @ 3,6
Yes, violent acts against individuals happen in all countries, but the rates of individually inflicted violent death and injury in this country is considerably out of line with that in most developed countries. We are a people prone to using violence. I don’t know why. I’ve read many theories on this dark side of our national character, but have found none really convincing.
christmasghost@3:
name one country where these things don’t happen
True, but that’s the wrong question.
How frequently do these things happen and why?
Italy has a very organized campaign against judges and other people in authority. Why this is isn’t a big mystery. The Mafia was allowed to get huge due to the corruption of the Christian Democrats. The stench finally got to the point where some cleanup was attempted. No organization public, private, legal, or criminal likes to lose their funding or power base. Unlike other organizations, the Mafia responds by shooting people.
The Mafia doesn’t put government officials in power here, so our problem is not as acute.
There is very little street crime in China. Guns are hard to come by, and the law and culture discourages confrontation. Burglary is a real problem though. Houses are frequently well-furnished, and a disproportionate number of people mistrust banks and stuff their matresses with money. Houses are burgled because there’s a financial incentive to rob, and very few disincentives. (Chinese law does not allow for self-defense of property like Anglo/American law does. My friends in China were very shocked when I told them what “rewards” meet burglars who break into American houses).
Saying “this happens everywhere” is facile and misses the point. Human nature is pretty much the same everywhere. How human nature manifests itself can be influenced by both the culture and law.
Chuck @ 9
The legal profession doesn’t use the term “disgruntled” to describe average litigants bringing grievances or disagreements before the court for resolution by a judge or jury.
“Disgruntled” refers to an individual who fails or refuses to conform with established rules, protocols, and expectations of the legal system; and whose participation in the dispute resolution process is characterized by inappropriate emotion and/or acting-out behavior. These individuals are rare but worrisome when they show up in the system. In most cases, the behavior is limited to verbal venting or anger displays, but you never know for sure if will stop there.
By the way, I find your remark @ #9 above to be inappropriately flippant, given the serious subject matter. My own family has been threatened and stalked by such an individual, and I have to work at it to not take grave offense at your comment.
None of this happens in a vacuum, and as anti-government rhetoric continues to grow not only in tone and volume, but in respectability, we need to be aware that there are those among us who might actually act on their anger.
Thanks for bringing this up. This is something I’ve given some thought to over the years, but I’ve yet to come to any conclusions I would describe as satisfactory. I’m not even sure I can express my views in a way that will foster a meaningful dialogue, but here goes…
As I see it, it is an issue of balancing two values I hold in high regard.
On one hand, regardless of the extent to which we can or cannot influence people with our words to act when they otherwise would not (or in ways they otherwise would not), I believe we have a responsibility to consider the potential effects of our words and actions. Maybe there really is no direct connection between reckless, hateful statements in the media and an increase in people acting on their violent impulses, but that does not absolve us from our duty to a) refrain from uttering statements that we can reasonably conclude would at least encourage violent or anti-social behavior and b) repudiating the statements of those who speak or write inappropriately.
Thus, for me, the key word in the paragraph I quoted is not “tone” or “volume” but “respectability.” The fact that someone like Ann Coulter could express regret that the NY Times was not blown up by terrorists and not be publicly rejected by every “respectable” media outlet and commentator (in fact, her “career”, such as it is, seems to have flourished) lends her specific remarks and her general attitude a respectability I believe they simply should not enjoy. I doubt anyone has seriously considered acting on them directly, but they do send a strong impression that violently attacking those who disagree with you is acceptable.
On the other hand, I also value inappropriate, irreverent, even profane statements and actions for their own sake. As Frank Rich pointed out in his most recent column, truly outrageous and shocking behavior can have important positive effects, but we don’t always see them at the time. Because of our limited ability to distinguish between the positive and negative effects of “shock therapy”, I’m hesitant to condemn behavior and statements I find offensive.
So that leaves me in a quandry. How do I help enforce a code of conduct that values respect and responsibility if doing so would discourage people from fully exploring the range of positions available?
As I noted above, I haven’t figured it out, and I doubt I ever will. On second (thousandth) thought, what I doubt is my ability to formulate some consistent test that would help me to make these judgments in the future. I suppose the best I or anyone can do is to muddle along and decide on a case-by-case basis where to draw the line between “responsible” and “irresponsible” rhetorical grenade throwing.
Regardless, thanks for the post, Goldy.
jsa @ 12
Your description of American (and Washington State) self-defense law is inaccurate, and if you own a gun, do yourself a favor and educate yourself and when you can or cannot legally shoot someone because if you guess wrong it will ruin your life.
You can NOT use deadly force to defend property. The law authorizes the use of deadly force only to fend off an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or another person. It is not a defense to a criminal charge of homicide or assault if any one of the above elements is lacking. That is, the threat must be imminent; the nature of the threat must be of mortal or grave bodily harm; and the use of force must be necessary to defend yourself or a person in your immediate vicinity. In addition, you lose the defense if you instigated the confrontation or were engaged in unlawful conduct. In other words, you can use deadly force only to save yourself or another person in your immediate presence from death or grave bodily harm as a result of the unprovoked unlawful assault by the attacker.
Do not forget that what you assume or believe to be justification may not be perceived as such by the investigating police officers, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and the jury. After the event, your actions will be second-guessed at every step of the process by people who were not there, did not see what happened, will be biased against you (by reason of your being the shooter and the survivor), and are highly likely to reach some wrong conclusions about what actually occurred.
Washington does not have a “Delaware law” per se. (Some years ago, Delaware enacted a law authorizing homeowners to use deadly force against home intruders.) Washington does have a de facto Delaware law in the sense that in recent years most of our state’s prosecutors have chosen not to prosecute homeowners who kill intruders. They refrain from these prosecutions not out of kindness to trigger-happy homeowners or animosity to burglars, but because they’ve had difficulty getting juries to convict in these cases, even when the evidence is clear that the homeowner and/or his family was not in any real danger and legal justification was absent. But I feel sure that our prosecutors will not hesitate to go after a homeowner they deem too quick-on-the-draw if the shot goes astray and hits an innocent bystander.
If you get involved in a driving or tavern altercation in which you flip someone off or use provocative language, and the situation escalates and you find it necessary to resort to armed force to protect yourself, forget it. If you lose the gunfight you’re going to the morgue; if you win the gunfight you’re going to Walla Walla for a very long time.
My suggestion is that instead of posting misleading information or going about your business under wrong assumptions, that you should enroll in a good self-defense course and learn when you can REALLY use self-defense. Like you, most people are dangerously misinformed on this subject. The law is not nearly as lenient or forgiving as your post indicates you think it is.
Another TJ @ 14
For a guy who’s not too sure of himself, you’re doing just fine so far. The only piece you’re missing is this one: If it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t right;and if you don’t feel right about doing it, don’t do it.
Another TJ @ 14
Where do you place non-hyperbolic utterances that in calm, rational-sounding tones excuse, explain and/or advocate violent acts against others? I’m thinking of (pseudo-)intellectuals like Ward Churchill and his ilk.
Me @ 17
On second thought, perhaps “non-hyperbolic” isn’t the best word choice. I stand by the rest of my question, minus said term.
Goldy, you really need a preview/review function prior to posting.
don @ 15:
1) I don’t own a gun. I have a bad temper and am concerned that a gun in my house would result in holes being put in something that I might regret having holes put into later. I rather like guns. They’re fun to shoot, and make nice big flashes of light and put holes in things. As a tool to defend your house or your person, I think they’re kind of overrated.
2) I did not at any time state that you are authorized to use deadly force to defend property. If you implied that I said that, it is your error. The RCW DOES allow you to use force to defend your house, although deadly force is, as you say, not expressly permitted.
3) Chinese law (which is what I was really talking about), has NO self-defense provision whatsoever, deadly, or otherwise. Your sole recourse if you are in a house which is broken into is to call the police, and hope that your burglars just want your money and nothing else.
On a broad philosophical basis, I’m on your side. Life is complicated, and knee-jerk ideological answers or assumptions generally don’t work. Do not assume because I talked about self-defense law that I am a property-rights freak. My neighborhood is right up on my tagline. I spent most of October banging on doors up here. Trust me, right-wing whack jobs are as rare here as civility and common sense is on horsesass.org.
Another TJ@ 14……..”Thus, for me, the key word in the paragraph I quoted is not “tone” or “volume” but “respectability.” The fact that someone like Ann Coulter could express regret that the NY Times was not blown up by terrorists and not be publicly rejected by every “respectable” media outlet and commentator (in fact, her “career”, such as it is, seems to have flourished)”
Gee…you aren’t BIASED or anything are you? When Ann Coulter said that everyone, and I mean everyone including my relative who is an editor at the NYT knew it was tongue in cheek free speech.Satire.
If you want realy vile and dangerous….as someone else already suggested…let’s try Ward Churchill….and his lessons in bomb making. Or how about Louis Farakhan???
THEN YOU SAID…………..
” On the other hand, I also value inappropriate, irreverent, even profane statements and actions for their own sake. As Frank Rich pointed out in his most recent column, truly outrageous and shocking behavior can have important positive effects, but we don’t always see them at the time. Because of our limited ability to distinguish between the positive and negative effects of “shock therapy”, I’m hesitant to condemn behavior and statements I find offensive.”
For their own sake? Oh, of course you do. Wow…is this 60’s rhetoric or what? I mean no offense….but that whole I am in a position to decide when this culture needs a little shock therapy….baloney.
Here’s a pretty well accepted rule of thumb to follow.
“your rights end where mine begin”.
Where do you place non-hyperbolic utterances that in calm, rational-sounding tones excuse, explain and/or advocate violent acts against others? I’m thinking of (pseudo-)intellectuals like Ward Churchill and his ilk.
I didn’t come right out and say it, but it’s implied from my comments above that tone and volume (both types of volume) are less important to me than the content of the statements. I don’t know enough about Churchill’s writings or speeches to address that specific example.
Gee…you aren’t BIASED or anything are you?
Of course I’m biased. We’re all biased.
For their own sake? Oh, of course you do. Wow…is this 60’s rhetoric or what? I mean no offense….but that whole I am in a position to decide when this culture needs a little shock therapy….baloney.
I honestly don’t understand what you mean here. Could you please elaborate?
Here’s a pretty well accepted rule of thumb to follow.
“your rights end where mine begin”.
Where is that?
ATJ @ 21
I was talking about (usually left-wing) “thinkers” who state that violence perpetrated by the [pick one: poor, disenfranchised, misunderstood, put-upon, ignored, disempowered, whatever] is justified because “the system” (implying Republicans?) ignores them otherwise or “the system” has “made them that way” or any of a number of similar “explanations.”
As for Churchill, this is from CNN: “Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of ‘little Eichmanns,’ a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the ‘gallant sacrifices’ of the ‘combat teams’ that struck America.”
I would think that a college professor who presents such a justification is a lot more likely to incite violence that a vitriolic Ann Coulter making grandiose statements because Churchill essentially presents the WTC as being morally right.
Churchill does no such thing, Mark. He posits the rationale for it having been done. For that matter, Coulter has a far wider audience than Churchill ever did–until the right ‘outed’ him.
The reference to “Eichmanns” was to reflect the nature of the workers not getting their hands directly dirty, but participating in an indirect way in the process of controlling the actions of the Third World, from the towers. It _was_ one of the global banking and commerce centers, after all.
TJ @ 24
“Gallant sacrifices” of the “combat teams” doesn’t imply that what they did was somehow right or justified??!!
Churchill isn’t looking at this with an unbiased and/or critical eye. It isn’t merely a “rationale” in the sense that he’s trying to explain what thought process might be involved with doing such a thing. Equating with Eichmann was very specific because few would have trouble with the murder of a war criminal. Are YOU saying that because those workers participated in global banking and commerce that they were legitimate “war” targets?
I would think that a college professor who presents such a justification is a lot more likely to incite violence that a vitriolic Ann Coulter making grandiose statements because Churchill essentially presents the WTC as being morally right.
Well, if so, he’d be the first college professor to inspire someone to actually do something. ;-)
Seriously, this just illustrates the point of my post. I don’t have the answers. Personally, I have a hard time reconciling my desire to rebuke that with which I disapprove with my belief that the “marketplace of idea” should be as unfettered as possible. I find most bright-line tests (or even dim, fuzzy line tests) unsatisfying.
But beyond my own views, it is clear that Churchill has suffered the consequences of pushing the boundaries of what U.S. public opinion will take. What concerns me more are people whose outrageous statements go unchallenged, thus suggesting tacit approval.
TJ @ 24
Ann Coulter is essentially an entertainer. Churchill is a professor — an “educator” (to use the term loosely) of our children. What he says, especially in a classroom setting, is far more dangerous than what some blowhard pundit says on Fox News.
jsa @ 19 (1)
You are indeed a wise person.
Mark @ 25
No. Regardless of what they’re doing it for, leaving one’s family for a cause you deeply believe in, in order to make life better for your family, is a gallant sacrifice. Gallant simply means you are acting on the behalf of others. Calling them combat teams seems entirely neutral as well. They were engaging in combat against a target in the US.
I agree that equating with Eichmann was very specific–but not in the way that you perceive. As I said, he has been clear that it is the disconnectedness of Eichmann’s crimes that made him a relevant comparison for Churchill.
I’m saying they were considered legitimate targets by those who targeted them, and there is a connection to be made. I don’t consider it a justification, but it IS a rationale.
Mark @ 27
Coulter is a political commentator. If she views herself as entertainment, that explains a lot–but I wonder, what’s entertaining about advocating the hateful things she advocates?
And certainly someone who’s on TV every other night has FAR more influence on Americans at large–including children–than a single professor with no TV time. And certainly advocating violence, as Coulter has done, is much MORE dangerous than trying to EXPLAIN violence.
ghost @ 20
Ward Churchill is a nutjob, and so is Ann Coulter. Anyone who has heard her call Democrats “traitors” or defend the late Sen. McCarthy would be justified in concluding her remark about blowing up the NY Times wasn’t meant as a joke.
Mark @ 27
Coulter is not the least bit entertaining. The word “vicious” fits her to a T.
Mark, I submit that a university classroom setting is the most appropriate place for outrageous, reckless statements precisely because the consequences are limited.
ATJ @ 26
You are right that we walk in a minefield when it comes to free speech. How do you fire someone like Churchill without chilling intellectual freedom on college campuses? Do you equate this with Skokie and let him keep spewing (what I consider) garbage?
“What concerns me more are people whose outrageous statements go unchallenged, thus suggesting tacit approval.”
Absolutely. And I’d go further in saying that it is unfortunate that what challenges are made are usually more volume than content. Goebbels would be pleased to see that political discourse in this country (if not the world) has proven his ideas right. “Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and it will become truth.” And that applies to BOTH sides, so don’t start taking swipes at GWB, folks.
ATJ @ 33
So you’re saying that colleges AREN’T producing the [cue lights, chorus and booming voice] “Leaders of Tomorrow?”
TJ @ 29
“Gallant” means something noble, chivalrous and/or heroic. What they did was none of those.
Are you saying that working in global banking and commerce is a crime?
There’s an awful lot of moral relativism creeping up here.
TJ @ 30
Anyone who lets their children watch Coulter or Franken or any of their ilk on either side should be in remedial parenting classes. And, from what I’ve seen of Coulter, I’m guessing her comment, while offensive and wrong, was intended to be sarcastic. Churchill spews his garbage with a straight face.
You are right that we walk in a minefield when it comes to free speech. How do you fire someone like Churchill without chilling intellectual freedom on college campuses? Do you equate this with Skokie and let him keep spewing (what I consider) garbage?
I think it’s fair to say we think about this in the same general way, but from different political perspectives.
To be clear, I disagree with Churchill. To agree with him, you’ve basically got to reject capitalism, and I’m not willing to do that. That said, I’m hesitant to suggest that he should be “punished” because I don’t know to what extent his position might have long-term value that I can’t see right now.
And I’d go further in saying that it is unfortunate that what challenges are made are usually more volume than content.
I too am very discouraged by the power politics approach that seems to prevail in the country right now. Both sides seem to think that shouting loudest means winning an argument.
I don’t know how to change it, other than to support those I think have the correct view of politics, as opposed to policy. And if both policy and politics synch up, as they so often do with me and Goldy, so much the better.
Mark @ 36
You don’t think what they did was noble and chivalrous? I do. They sacrificed their lives for their families and to be closer to their God. That I completely disagree with their thought process and the rationalization that brought them to this place, is irrelevant to the definition. It’s exactly the same principle that led Bill Maher to refer to the hijackers as courageous–regardless of whether they were JUSTIFIED, it takes courage to drive a plane into a building and kill yourself IMO.
No, I’m not saying working in global banking and commerce is a crime. What I’m saying is that some of the activities being undertaken in the WTC in service of those ends, have been criminal.
Re: me @ 30–
so you agree then that Coulter is more dangerous to children than Churchill?
TJ @ 38
I do not think what they did was noble or chivalrous. I think it was psychotic. You are saying that someone who walks into a McDonald’s with an AK47 and no regard for his own life (knowing he’ll be taken out by a SWAT sniper) is somehow noble and chivalrous because he is upset with them for firing his teenage kid?
As for Maher and “courageous”… It is true that it takes a lot more intestinal fortitude (or lack of gray matter) to fly a plane into a building vs. launching a missile. But the terror groups are far more cowardly when they disguise themselves as civilians or plant roadside bombs.
“What I’m saying is that some of the activities being undertaken in the WTC in service of those ends, have been criminal.”
Please be specific. Also, please explain which of the WTC victims deserved to die as war criminals (which Eichmann was).
“so you agree then that Coulter is more dangerous to children than Churchill”
Both need a parental warning sticker on their forehead.
So you’re saying that colleges AREN’T producing the [cue lights, chorus and booming voice] “Leaders of Tomorrow?”
Quite the opposite. This is a place where smart people should be exposed to as many ideas a possible. They can be trusted to reject the bad ones. They usually do.
I should add that I agree with George Kennan, who, writing during the heyday of student activism, suggested that the students can’t be activists and be true college students because university life is *supposed* to be isolated. He argued that those who wanted to be activists should get out of the university and those who wanted to be students should read more and march less.
Anywho, the problem comes when profs forget that their job is not to tell students what to think but to teach them how to think.
Oops. Regarding my second paragraph in #39, I should have said “students can’t be activists and be true college students at the same time.” Kennan saw no reason to think college life was an improper training ground for future political leaders. Sorry about that.
ATJ @ 37
“I’m hesitant to suggest that he should be ‘punished’ because I don’t know to what extent his position might have long-term value that I can’t see right now.”
Do you think that Colorado is justified in firing him if they don’t want him teaching that stuff in their classrooms? It isn’t like he’s being muzzled. They simply don’t want to associate with him and there are surely other places that would.
ATJ @ 39
“I agree… that students can’t be activists and be true college students at the same time. [T]he problem comes when profs forget that their job is not to tell students what to think but to teach them how to think.”
YES! I agree with you completely.
I think every college student should be required to have a couple of philosophy courses under their belt to teach them critical thinking.
Me @ 42
In all fairness, I didn’t mean to imply that ATJ said he agreed with me, but George Kennan. My bad editing. Sorry.
Don @ 31&32
Coulter is a hottie. So is Michele Malkin. That’s entertainment in my book…I don’t listen to or read either of them, but damn they look good! (Lesson to Democrats, get some hottie’s) :)
Do you think that Colorado is justified in firing him if they don’t want him teaching that stuff in their classrooms? It isn’t like he’s being muzzled. They simply don’t want to associate with him and there are surely other places that would.
Like I said, I haven’t paid a ton of attention to this case. But, if they’re firing him because they don’t like what he said, my first reaction would be to say that’s wrong because it would have a chilling effect on future scholarship. However, I’ve heard some vague questions about the legitimacy of his research (the details of the accusations, I haven’t bothered to look up). If that forms the basis of a legitimate (for cause) firing, my first reaction would be to say, tough on him. Academia needs good scholarship, first; it doesn’t need hacks.
It seems sad to me that people above are spending a great deal of reasonable discourse debating something they don’t seem to know much about. If you want to discuss Churchill’s writings, including the essay written more than three years ago, you need to go back over the course of a few more decades and read his academic efforts. I am well versed in his work, have known him for many years, and understand the intent of his remarks. I would agree w/ ‘anotherTJ’ who said that Churchill is anti-capitalist; this does not however render him someone unworthy of a place in academia. There has been a host of figurative academic cross burnings dating back literally into the middle ages, and the cultural wars today are really no different.
And herein lies the substantive difference between the impact of Coulter and Churchill. Rather than using Ward i compare Coulter to John Trudell. He is far more radical and angry than Churchill, far more in your face about the abusive and horrible treatment of american indians than Churchill. And still he is less insane than Coulter. Trudell doesn’t hate. Churchill doesn’t hate. Coulter hates. And it it because she hates, because she spews such toxic venom that has made her wealthy, that we find it terribly difficult to ignore her and her rhetoric. And ignore it we must. Giving it any energy whatsoever magnifies it. Giving support to any cadre of folks who encourage and demand the immediate suffering of others by not ignoring it, magnifies it.
Marks @ 44
Al Franken doesn’t float your boat? ;)
I’m sorry, of all the things said here, there’s one I can’t let pass by.
marks writes – Coulter is a hottie
You’re kidding right? To quote Austin Powers, “She’s a MAN baby!”
spyder @ 46
“Churchill doesn’t hate.”
Churchill can be anti-capitalist all he wants, but it takes hate to justify the deliberate murder of civilians.
From the MSM accounts I’ve seen/read, he still stands by his three-year-old writings.
jcricket @48
LOL!
spyder @ 46
So, do you think that the WTC was morally right?
Mark @47
LMAO!
mark @ 49
on what basis do you say he justifies it?
Spyder @ 46
It seems sad to me that people above are spending a great deal of reasonable discourse debating something they don’t seem to know much about.
A charge to which I plead guilty, though in my defense, I’ve been clear about it from the beginning.
I am well versed in his work, have known him for many years, and understand the intent of his remarks.
In that case, I will defer to your judgment about the accusations leveled against him. I hope I was clear that my comments about “hacks” were conditional and general, not specifically aimed at him.
jcricket@ 48–
If you think Ann Coulter is a “MAN” dude, you have confirmed my belief that you have some serious sexual identity crisis!
jcricket is fortunate this blog is available for his bloviating.
It also provides a “soft cushion” for his “free-floating anxiety” to CRASH LAND!!!!!!
TJ @ 53
Because he all but explicitly says that the actions were right and reasonable.
ATJ @ 54
Are you that willing to just defer to the judgment of an anonymous blog poster (spyder)?
What if someone said they were a personal friend of Osama bin Laden and that he was just misunderstood? Would you take their word for it?
Another TJ @14,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I have actually struggled with the same issues myself, and while I will never swear off swearing or invective, I would hope that I have never promoted or endorsed violence. Shock and outrage are effective literary tools, but I don’t want to end up like the Jeff Bridges character in The Fisher King.
TJ@38……”You don’t think what they did was noble and chivalrous? I do. They sacrificed their lives for their families and to be closer to their God. That I completely disagree with their thought process and the rationalization that brought them to this place, is irrelevant to the definition. It’s exactly the same principle that led Bill Maher to refer to the hijackers as courageous–regardless of whether they were JUSTIFIED, it takes courage to drive a plane into a building and kill yourself IMO.”
Wow….this has to be one of the best/worst examples of what is really wrong in this country. Not only are you saying that anything goes as long as the nutjobs doing it ‘believe’ in it, but you are doing it on taxpayer’s time/dime….yet again.
Have you heard the expression that feelings aren’t FACTS?
Yeah…that’s right…those guys were brave and religious right? They violated all the laws of their religion but ,what the heck, they ‘believed’ so it’s good enough for you.
You are beyond the pale truly………..
And Ann Coulter is dangerous???? That’s rich.Go look in the mirror…..these stupid “more tolerant than thou” thoughts you keep expressing make you even more dangerous.
You have absolutely no common sense.
Don….how do you feel about Michael Moore??? If Ann Coulter is vicious…where does he stand?
Are you that willing to just defer to the judgment of an anonymous blog poster (spyder)?
I’ve got no reason to question his judgment. In fact, I haven’t challenged yours either (I don’t think).
I know how what I’m about to write sounds… but I’ve got too much going on in my life right now to worry about Ward Churchill, and I’m not going to learn more about him beyond the low hanging fruit. What little I’ve heard about, I tend to reject, but given my relative lack of information, if spyder says there’s more to it than I know, I’m willing to say “okay” and move on.
Don@13
Perhaps you need to put on a sweater if your skin is too thin. I dont go out of my way to offend but if one is offended in the discourse of normal debate then perhaps they should “stay out of the kitchen”
dis·grun·tle (ds-grntl) KEY
TRANSITIVE VERB:
dis·grun·tled , dis·grun·tling , dis·grun·tles
To make discontented.
Another Tj@14;
The elders of the Indian tribe have a way of explaining human nature to their children by telling the story called “The Two Wolves.” A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt..He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry and violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.” The grandson asked him. “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” The grandfather answered, “The one I feed.”
Let me add something to this little discussion, in the Tacoma County City building in Tacoma, they run you through a metal detector to assure that you arent even so much as carrying a penknife or nail trimmer, although policemen and security guaurd (read-low pay and often mental problems) are freely carrying a gun. This means that these men, and smaller women are the targets of someone trying to arm themselves while a helpless public watches and can do nothing. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. Two escapes have happened since these policies. I saw a nut try to gun down a lawyer in California last year live on TV. If you cannot allow a man with a conceal-carry permit in with a gun, then take them all including the policemans gun, Ill take my chance with hand to hand if it comes to it.
Mark, spyder, tj, atj:
Ward Churchill via the media:
”He is being misquoted, he said, and does not advocate the violence of 9/11. His essay points out that because the U.S. has a policy, he said, of dominating other countries, the attacks were inevitable.”
I am making the supposition that neo-cons (good definition here) are his primary target. I do not fall completely into the category, since projection of power for the sake of idealistic goals is crusadership or worse, IMO.
Mr. Churchill goes on to this quote, which is much the same as my own while I was a Navy Instructor for advanced electronics:
“Seeing light bulbs go on and seeing people as a result of what I do connect the dots, I suppose it’s akin to the birthing process,”
I’ve no real-life idea how painful the birthing process is, but anybody who has ever taught a class with the goal of imparting knowledge has a painful feeling at times. People learn at different levels, and a ‘good’ instructor is subjectively labeled. Once a student “connects the dots” the satisfaction from the teachers’ perspective is real.
Churchill may have used his essay for his thinking students, but he himself was likely not thinking, “What are the consequences?” I don’t have much sympathy for him…but if the college wants to retain him as a professor, so be it. I will counsel my son to avoid his course.
Sorry, I missed something here Ward Churchill via the media:
Goldy, how ’bout that preview?
Don@13. I agree, Humans are products of their upbringing and envirement. Some go with their programming, others go against it. As for unacceptable behavior, social order determines that by laws. Noone can say they do not have the full range of human emotions operating. Noone can determine how they may act under x amount of unexperianced varibles and circumstances. We may think we know what drives people to act out their inner demons, but having never walked a mile in their shoes we have nothing to compare to. The horrors of an abusive violant childhood can mark a person for life. I am saddened when innocent people die at the hands of another who is misdirecting what needs to be acting out. Physical violance has been around a long time and will continue to be.
marks @ 65
Here is a somewhat expanded version of Churchill’s Eichmann quote:“Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break… If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” [emphasis mine]
Note the words “penalty befitting.” He didn’t say, “I’m sure the ‘combat teams’ felt the penalty befitting…” He, HIMSELF, said it was a “penalty befitting.” Churchill also said in a subsequent interview, “You can adduce that if Eichmann is worthy of death, because of what he had done in arranging train schedules and such, then these other Eichmanns are worthy of death.” His protestations, lamentations and explanations to the contrary, that is JUSTIFICATION, pure and simple.
Churchill may have used his essay for his thinking students, but he himself was likely not thinking, “What are the consequences?” I don’t have much sympathy for him…but if the college wants to retain him as a professor, so be it. I will counsel my son to avoid his course.
Nice to see someone thinking for a change :) I feel the same way. I completely disagree with what Ward Churchill said, both in substance and style. I have relatives who worked at the WTC (who made it out alive), and I think it’s a pretty “cheap shot” on his part.
However, just because someone voices something odious doesn’t mean they require instant banishment. If people want to take his class, fine. If they don’t, fine.
Sure the college tenure system will occasionally to produce situations like this, but it also has protected many a professor who voiced what were, at the time, objectionable opinions (blacks and whites should be allowed to marry, etc.).
It’s the whole deal with free speech in general. Free speech doesn’t just protect speech you agree with.
Or, better yet, let’s just ignore the guy. He’s one professor, not even the head of a department. Let CU deal with it on their own.
Mark @68
“they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break…”
Damning rhetoric. Agreed. I have some friends (and history) that went down in flames that day. I know they were innocent…
Mark@68. while I am not well-informed on Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister of England he led England through the 2nd world War saying “never give up.” I view him as a man of eloquent speech, strong conviction and honor. All traits I admire.
mark @ 57
he does?? You’ll have to find the cite that points that out, I’m afraid. Otherwise it sounds like you’re just projecting that onto him.
Mark @ 39
Yes, I do think it’s noble, although I wouldn’t really say chivalrous. That doesn’t keep it from being psychotic as well, though.
ghost @ 59
You’re just looking for a fight. You know your comments don’t apply to anything I’ve said; you just want a chance to demonize.
I’m not taking the bait.
jcricket @69
You put it better than I could…
Jcricket,
I agree that he should be allowed to say whatever he wants. He does have free speech — even if it brings Skokie to mind.
I also think that tenure protecting speech is important, but there is a difference between what a professor says outside of class vs. what they teach in it. If Churchill is spouting this stuff IN the classroom, Colorado should be within their rights to control the curriculum of their school. The question is where you draw the line. What if a tenured medical professor publicly endorsed eugenics and said that certain kinds of “undesirable” people didn’t deserve doctors’ best efforts because of their race or orientation or whatever?
mark @ 74
I understand the point you’re trying to make with eugenics, but I think you need a better example. A doctor who advocates eugenics to his students is a) advocating a practice which is illegal, and b) advocating a practice which is counterproductive to teaching medical students to pass their boards–since eugenics certainly isn’t on it.
TJ @ 72
Read my follow-up posts — specifically the one where I quote him (68).
As for them being noble, I give you Webster: “NOBLE: Possessing outstanding qualities. Possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals” What, exactly, are you saying when you say they were noble? Do you feel they had superior mind? Character? Ideals? Morals??
Winston Churchhill needed some recognition instead of the other Churchill being blogged about. Good posts by all.
TJ @ 75
OK, maybe not the best example, but wouldn’t he have the right of free speech — let’s say outside the classroom?
BTW, eugenics (selective breeding to improve a race) is not illegal. Killing others is illegal, but nothing can stop people from getting together and selectively breeding.
Mark @ 76
I had “honor” in mind. He felt he was honoring his family and his God.
Regarding the fuller quote–sounds like he’s talking about the appropriateness of the fashion in which they were killed, not the correctness. In other words, you can agree it’s illegal to murder someone, but allow that there’s a certain Hammurabi quality if you murder a usurer in his own bank as opposed to in a diner. I cite the phrase “penalty befitting their participation.”
Mark @74
I was about to wander into the open thread, but this is more interesting (or more disgusting).
The eugenics angle as a historical fact should make even the most inhuman of us cringe. Rereading @68 I did not realize what your emphasis was meant to convey, but I see it clearly now. I could not imagine how such a discredited “science” still manages to bubble up from time to time.
If the “good” professor were teaching such ridiculous thoughts in class, I would not be held back by the Board or anyone else before demanding his head. Unfortunately, are those classroom quotes?
TJ @ 79
So you’re saying that it was appropriate for the guy who traded Toys ‘r’ Us stock to have his flesh burned off with flaming jet fuel? Not sure I follow.
Honor? HONOR??!! In what twisted dictionary do you get “honor?” To be honorable is to be worthy of respect or public esteem. I think you’re diving headfirst into the black pool of moral relativism. About the only thing you can say is that if these guys weren’t insane, that it took some serious intestinal fortitude to do what they did. But I’m more likely to believe that it was a cult-like phenomenon — the same thing that gets people to put on Nikes and commit suicide or to drink vats of poisoned Kool-Aid because Jim Jones told you to. Do you think those people were noble, honorable or anything in that neighborhood?
Mark @ 27:
Ann Coulter is essentially an entertainer. Churchill is a professor – an “educator” (to use the term loosely) of our children. What he says, especially in a classroom setting, is far more dangerous than what some blowhard pundit says on Fox News.
Nope. Coulter is consistently on the NYT bestseller list and logs hour upon hour on radio and television. She has many, many more followers/listeners/readers than Churchill. Her influence goes much wider.
Mark @ 36:
To even attempt to put Al Franken in the same pot with Coulter is dishonest. Franken is stridently partisan…but he’s not advocating for the killing of Americans. Coulter is. Consistently. They’re not even close to the same ballpark.
Mark @ 50: You need to read Churchill’s actual works and words rather than relying on hearsay. He most certainly didn’t justify 9/11. Nor did he say he considered them “right and reasonable”…as you say later down in comments. You’ve taken pieces of what he said out of context. It’s unfair and dishonest to do so..especially within the body of a long piece that has a fairly complex set of meanings.
tj @79
Ouch. A bit too macabre for me. Some of us are too much into the “civilized” question, no matter how uncivilized our thought processes.
I will attempt to parse the Hammurabi question as I do the Sharia Law issue…”Grotesque”…good enough?
carla –
I really want to. I really want to. Oh, heck, you are a nice person sometimes…
Have a good night.
Carla @ 82
Coulter is an entertainer. That she has more viewers/readers than Churchill goes without saying. She does not cloak her partisan views in academia, but revels in them. To an extent, she promotes and builds on the caricature of herself because it sells books and gets media exposure.
Please provide citations where Coulter explicitly and seriously called for the killing of Americans.
Also… I did read the original source article and stand by my statements that he — despite his lamentations to the contrary — IS trying to justify the actions of the 9/11 attackers. And please read my comments more carefully. I said he all but said they were right and reasonable.
mark @ 78
By “eugenics” I assumed you meant medical eugenics, which generally was sterilization of people who society didn’t want to have children. That’s illegal. Outside of class, yes I would support his mistaken viewpoint as his right. But I’m not sure how Churchill’s comments are directly contrary to the process of passing the class. The point being made is well exaggerated for effect, no doubt. But the point is that simply being indirect to crimes against humanity (the proximity to the crime being the part he exaggerated) is not exonerative of culpability.
Where I think people go astray on this is that they take his comments as endorsement. It’s not some coincidence that they picked the WTC; there is a grievance in their minds regarding the economic opppresion of Muslims by the West in general, and the US in particular. And to explain the process that leads them to choose the WTC, he cites the rationale: the evil is being done from that building, so what better way to inflict revenge on the evildoers, than while they are at work doing the evil when they die?
I don’t think you can disagree that many if not most people asked themselves, “Why would they do this?” To suggest that trying to answer the question–however ugly the answer–is not the function of an ethnics professor, seems very odd. This is an ethnic struggle, regardless of whether it’s one subsection of the ethnicity fighting a subsection of the other ethnicity. Islam is not Arab, but radical Islamic sects are predominantly Arab at this time (some are African, some Indonesian, yes). Who else is supposed to try and answer the question?
Mark:
The excuse that Coulter is an “entertainer” is laughable. Her reach extends way beyond that.
The evil venom she spews forth isn’t about entertaining an audience. It’s about influencing it. Period.
Citations–Coulter on killing Americans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.” – at the Conservative Political Action Conference (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031104A.shtml) February 26, 2002.
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.” – in a New York Observer interview (http://www.findarticles.com/cf.....icle.jhtml) August 26, 2002.
“Of course I regret [the previous quote]. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'” – in a rightwingnews.com interview (http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php) June 26, 2003.
“Would that it were so! … That the American military were targeting journalists.” Kudlow & Cramer, CNBC, February 7, 2005
Mark…I don’t think you’ve read Churchill carefully if you’ve reached those conclusions. Those pieces you cited were definitely out of context..and Churchill has come out and further clarified his comments. Further, he certainly has much less reach and influence than Coulter.
Here’s Churchill the disgusting anti-Semite in 1996:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/artic.....rchill.htm
“Of all the intellectual monstrosities arising during the course of the late 20th century, one of the most vicious and factually indefensible has been that “school of historical revisionism” known as “Holocaust denial.” “
statement released yesterday, for what it’s worth:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers.....rchill.cfm
Ok carla,
I lied…about good night:
“The excuse that Coulter is an “entertainer” is laughable. “
That is the reason I am not a fan of yours. You continue to denigrate those who disagree,(similar to Ann Coulter, aka ‘Hottie’)…
marks:
I’ve hardly denigrated you. You’re overly sensitive and frankly if you can’t handle such a mild exchange…you’re in the wrong place.
The idea that Coulter is simply an entertainer IS laughable. That’s like saying that Winston Churchill was a guy who had a part in a little war we once fought.
Carla @ 87
OK. You’re right that Coulter has got a screw loose. One comment, said tongue-in-cheek, could be excused, but it seems she’s just got a streak in her. Thanks for the cites.
With the above in mind, I guess I can’t put Franken in her league. But he’s still a Kool-Aid-drinking, talking-points-spewing partisan. I liked him much better 25 years ago. At least his political commentary was funny then. Now he just sounds like a third grader.
On Churchill, please explain how WTC was a “penalty befitting” and put my quotes @ 68 back in context if you believe they are otherwise.
If you read between Goldy’s lines, what he’s essentially saying is the same thing as what Gregoire said after the “death threat” incident. It’s those crazy “talk radios” and right wing bloggers that incite hatred, and the government would do best to just shut them all up, confiscate all the computers, guns and any sharp objects, and confine us all to house arrest lest someone else act out in a crazy manner.
And then you get TorridJoe saying that Ward Churchill is not inciting any violence, he’s just expressing opinions.
So which is it? Are you libs for or against freedom and the right to be left alone until one actually commits a crime, or do you want to get Big Brother watching us all?
To me, there’s nothing more scary than the smug, know-what’s-good-for-you, government-is-always-right musings of a very smart, elitist liberal masquerading as just another concerned journalist.
And that’s why Goldy wrote this post.
Carla & spyder,
Interesting revelations in the news today:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c.....33,00.html
How will you spin Churchill threatening Cohen in the middle of the night with “I’ll get you for this?”
How are you going to make Churchill the victim instead of Cohen?
Or are you going to use the catch-all “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?” (Ooops. Never mind. It came from not only lib-infested academia, but those cuddly, pacifist, Dem-loving Canadians!)
mark @ 94
I was in the midst of posting “on the other hand..” and then citing that article, and my PC locked up.
It may certainly be true, but the spokesperson was strangely coy. It sounds like he wanted her essay, she refused, and he reported on it himself–and the issue is how close he came to copying her. The proof will be in the two essays, I suppose.
JeffB@93. The left or right can put their values into action, make a differance in the world.
To me, there’s nothing more scary than the smug, know-what’s-good-for-you, government-is-always-right musings of a very smart, elitist liberal or conservative masquerading as just another concerned journalist.
And that’s why I wrote this post. My thoughts are not of non-partisan nature, but of common ground.
Mark, I think what torrid is trying to say is that there is a vast difference between justifying behavior and examining likely reasons for same.
If we are to successfully counter Islamic extremist terrorism, we absolutely have to begin by understanding why they feel as they do, why they behave as they do and why they justify what they do to themselves.
They are having their version of the Crusades. Their religion dictates virtually all of their life actions and their particular interpretation of their religion leads them to feel justified in killing the infidels.
This is not a war…it’s a giant cultural divide.
Many feel democracy is on the march in the ME…in my ever so humble opinion self rule may be on the march, but democracy as we know it is an ideal that simply will not work within the framework of Islamic ME culture.
We have to stop with the we-v-them thinking. We have to start looking at Islamic, in particular the extremist sect, culture and try to understand them.
Did Churchill choose his words well? No…
Is his overall point a valid one? I think it has some merit…
The WTC represents everything extreme Islam is against. It was their perfect target. And we blindly continue with the thinking that they’re all crazy and we’re all right. We go in and bomb the bejeezus out of their homeland and justify it in the name of our kind of democracy or whatever the justification of the day is. They rebel further, as we have once again fed the fire that fuels them.
It’s cultural. The chasm is wide. Try to think from their shoes rather than yours.
MarkS…Coulter needs a few sandwiches. Then she might be ok to look at. ;0
Malkin looks like my Siamese cat. Nothing can help her or it… ;0
G Davis @98
Pardon me as I claim the moral high road (HA – HA! I am Swine of the Hill!), but are you likening Asians in general, or Malkin specifically?
TJ @ 95
Please explain how you think the spokesperson was being “strangely coy.” I read the following:
“The article… is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism,” Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report’s findings. Sounds pretty direct.
and
Although the investigation substantiated her allegations, Cohen didn’t pursue the matter because she felt threatened by Churchill, Crosby said. Again, direct. Where’s the “coy?”
As to sandwiches, I am more into shakes… ;)
marks @ 99 …
Malkin in particular…she shares with my cat that evil smirk…
On the whole, I find the Asian populace extremely attractive.
As to your shakes…that would do it as well. Take a gander at her arms sometime and tell me you couldn’t snap one of them in two with the slightest passionate move… ;0
Shame on you! :) (I must be tired…Good night!)
Cumbyya my lord cumbyya, Oh lord cumbyya….
marks @ 90 et al.
Coulter is a hater of the first magnitude, almost in a class by herself, and you must expect that by defending her you will inevitably invite criticism. She is no more defensible than Goebbels.
Jeff @ 93
“To me, there’s nothing more scary than the smug, know-what’s-good-for-you, government-is-always-right musings of a very smart, elitist liberal masquerading as just another concerned journalist.”
I can think of something even scarier: Madmen, and the frenzied crowds who blindly follow them, who seize governmental power and use it to inflict their madness upon the world.
Chuck @ 104
There are countless spelling variations of “Kumbayah,” but that’s not one of them.
Don @ 107 Now be nice to chuckie….he is trying to find alternate religion.
Mark @ 92:
From your request…the quote at 68 within context is Churchill putting perspective on why he believes the planes were flown into buildings. He’s putting the reader into the mindset of those who planned the attack and flew the planes. He goes out of his way to say that the attack was wrong…several times. The idea that this is somehow justification is what happens when folks read paragraphs or even articles out of context.
mark @ 94
I clicked on the link you provided and instead of an article..was sent to an advertisement for HotJobs. I already have a hot job…so maybe you could provide the correct link. :)
Carla @ 109
Unfortunately, Goldy’s software cuts off links at a certain point. Please highlight and copy the link and paste it into a new browser window. The complete link ends with “html.”
mark @ 110:
Okay..I read the piece in the RMN that you linked to. What..exactly…does it have to do with your allegations regarding Churchill justifying 9/11?
jp @ 108
What religion? Christian Talibanism?
Carla @ 111
I’m saying that you and spyder pull a whirling dervish trying to spin Churchill’s sickening justifications. I was asking, as an aside:will you (Carla &/or spyder) spin Churchill threatening Cohen in the middle of the night with “I’ll get you for this?”
How are you going to make Churchill the victim instead of Cohen?
Or are you going to use the catch-all “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?” (Ooops. Never mind. It came from not only lib-infested academia, but those cuddly, pacifist, Dem-loving Canadians!)
Me @ 113
Something went wrong with the coding. My first question to you was: “HOW will you spin…”
Don@112
Here I was trying to get into the liberal spitit and you had to screw it up for me!
Chuck, above
What’s a liberal spitit?
Meant spirit…I am finger challenged on the keyboard, you know, big hands…big….you know
Mark @ 113…I’m saying that you and spyder pull a whirling dervish trying to spin Churchill’s sickening justifications.
What makes you think that Churchill is trying to justify rather than simly trying to understand from the other persective?
Isn’t understanding your enemy the first and longest step toward defeating them?
The average child sees 12,000 simulated murders on regular TV and in the movies. Is it any wonder by adulthood they shoot and kill others or turn a gun on themself. That is the kind of energy they see. That is why Public Tv will not allow that kind of energy. What is the purpose and the message in California Governor, Arnold, still making these shoot-’em up films. MONEY. Sorry to say, violance sells. That is what is alarm. The you don’t have to watch if you don’t like it approach does nothing. A Boycott would; kill the fim and Tv footage at the source, box office and viewers polls.