On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:53:48 -0700, "Michael 182"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .


Can you quote any of his irrational statements?

The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent to
"little Eichmans" seems a little irrational.

The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

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

I live in Boulder, the
epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result is
that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
status.

I'm not familiar with Churchill's work, but if the statement you
quoted is the worst of his "offences," I agree; it is a little
frightening, nearly as much the loss of constitutional rights under
the Patriot Act.

Perhaps what provokes Colorado Gov. Bill Owens to suggest Churchill's
resignation, is his frustration in adequately refuting Churchill's
logic (if he is even capable of understanding it).

Fortunately, Colorado University Chancellor Phil DiStefano is
conducting a 30-day examination of Professor Churchill's writings
ostensibly to afford Churchill his Constitutional rights before he
dismiss him. :-)

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in the
spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment.

That was my understanding also. However, does the use of
seditiousness exceed Churchill's bounds as a faculty member, or does
he have a First Amendment right to say whatever he believes?

I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution, is
calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
because he exercised those rights.

Michael

That is ironic indeed, but Owens is a politician, and thus sensitive
to his public image (if he intends to seek reelection). If he fails
to pander to public hysteria, he'll be seen as complicit in
Churchill's ideology. So hypocrisy reigns. Welcome to the 21st
century. :-(

Who was it, that said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."



All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?