Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4101)	6/30/2005 10:36:51 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 9838

Liberals and Terrorists Fume Over Gitmo by Isaiah Z. Sterrett 30 June 2005 "The principle reason Americans should be angry about Gitmo is that it's not bad enough." One simple, do-it-yourself method of examining American politics is determining what, at any given moment, liberals are screeching about. This works mainly because, as opposed to solution-minded conservatives, liberals are always screeching about something. As of this writing -- and this may change very rapidly, I realize -- they're worried about the treatment of terrorists in Cuba. They're not worried about the Communists in Cuba, mind you; terrorists who favor collectivism have never really concerned liberals. Amnesty International may call Gitmo a "gulag," but, historically, liberals haven't been able to find much to say when it comes to actual gulags like those employed by the Soviet Union. Though I am by no means an expert on Soviet prison life, I'm pretty sure Russians forced to peel potatoes in Siberia didn't often feast on lemon chicken. In fact, I'm not even sure law-abiding citizens of Moscow got to feast on lemon chicken. Maybe they did, but only if, by virtue of luck and perseverance, they stood in the correct line for a sufficient period of time. I don't think there were very many babushkas living as well as most of the terrorists currently being "tortured" at Guantanamo Bay. What sounds better: living at Gitmo under the supervision of U.S. troops, or living in Ukraine under the supervision of large automatic rifles? Dissidents in the U.S.S.R. ate shoes and talked about bad soil. Terrorists who seek to murder Americans are forced to listen to loud music. (If loud music is so unsettling, why are concert tickets for the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and U2 selling like lemon chicken in Moscow?) We've even got liberals mad at us for referring to Gitmo as -- wait for it -- "Gitmo." Letter-writer Lincoln Cushing of Berkeley, California is "disappointed to see [the San Francisco Chronicle] lower itself to the level of the Bush administration by using the word 'Gitmo' in an editorial...." "'Gitmo,'" Cushing indignantly writes, "is military slang for the U.S. naval base in Cuba's Guantanamo Bay, which in turn is an Americanized, accent-less version of the correct Spanish location name….It is an ugly and offensive word, and its use only reinforces our national arrogance." This Letter to the Editor appeared the same day that another brilliant thinker, Rick Healey, spent several dozen words criticizing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom I believe was once a movie star, for having too many jackets. "His clothing must be killing him, not to mention the closet-remodeling cost." This is what happens when you let liberals talk about foreign policy. The principle reason Americans should be angry about Gitmo is that it's not bad enough. I'm not sure I want terrorists in Cuba eating better than kids in Cuba. On the contrary, I think most Americans would agree that imprisoned terrorists should lead lives of a somewhat higher stress level than Martha Stewart living under house-arrest. There's a lot to be said for bread and water. And what's all this about "closing" Gitmo? Merely closing one naval base would not mean an end to the War on Terror, nor would it mean an end to the jailing of terrorists. Shutting down Guantanamo Bay would only create another facility, which would be built and run very similarly to Gitmo. We know this because, unlike Social Security, Gitmo works. It needs no reform. My one concession to liberals currently rooting for terrorists is that President Bush should address what it is, exactly, we're doing at Guantanamo. He doesn't need to be defensive, but it would be nice if he would speak up once in a while. Congressional Democrats are right when they say that this week's speech was "more of the same." Most of us may like "the same," but more chitchat about the wonders of democracy is exactly what we don't need. We need concrete facts. I want to hear a list of all the amenities terrorists are afforded at Gitmo, perhaps in addition to a list of all the amenities afforded to, say, American POWs. Liberals could discuss that for awhile -- maybe over a nice lemon chicken. Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4101)	6/30/2005 3:13:23 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

CU prof defends military remarks Ward Churchill under fire again He says his comments about "fragging" and conscientious objectors were taken out of context. By Jim Kirksey and Amy Herdy Denver Post Staff Writers Churchill Speech Controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill says he does not advocate "fragging" U.S. military officers in spite of how recent comments he made have been portrayed. Churchill, speaking at an anti- military forum in Portland, Ore., military remarks "Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." His remarks were posted Sunday on the Pirate Ballerina blog site, which carries mostly anti- Churchill content. On Wednesday, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly played a tape of the remarks. Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate. He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor. "I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything," Churchill said. "I asked them to think about where they stood on things." According to the tape, Churchill, while speaking about being a conscientious objector, asked his audience: "Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?" Churchill said Wednesday night that he found it "interesting" that he spoke for more than two hours that night and that a few remarks were "spun out of context." What he meant by the remarks, he said, was: "Think about what you're talking about and what you're doing. Think, in other words. ... If we can all take a deep breath, I'm not talking to a roomful of troops. Nobody in that room is going to frag an officer. ... I didn't tell anyone in that room to do a damn thing except think." Statements about Eichmann, a World War II-era Nazi official who helped manage the slaughter of 6 million Jews, were what brought Churchill to national notoriety in the first place. In remarks that came to light earlier this year, the ethnic-studies professor suggested that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City was justified, calling some of the people working in the twin towers "little Eichmanns." There have been calls for Churchill's removal as a tenured professor at the state school, and the university has launched an investigation into his academic activities. Churchill has been accused of plagiarism, academic fraud and misrepresenting his Native American heritage. He is under investigation by the school's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. CU interim chancellor Phil DiStefano could not be reached for comment Wednesday night. Staff writer Felisa Cardona contributed to this report. denverpost.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4101)	7/1/2005 8:49:49 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

Escort Churchill to the door denverpost.com University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's latest toxic remarks, this time condoning - if not encouraging - attacks on military officers, are beyond outrageous. "Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray," Churchill said at an anti-military forum last week in Portland, Ore. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." Fragging is the killing or injuring of a military officer by a subordinate. How is it that CU can produce Nobel prize-winning research but still can't find a way to get Churchill off its payroll? Until he's removed as a tenured professor, double-digit tuition hikes will be just one of the reasons Colorado families and out-of-state students take a pass on a CU education. Churchill, wisely, wasn't willing to stand up for his unconscionable remarks. When confronted, Churchill would only equivocate. "I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything," he said. "I asked them to think about where they stood on things." Oh? Where do you think they stood on this Churchill "question?": "Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" When a questioner expressed human concern about such an officer's family, Churchill asked, "How do you feel about Adolph Eichmann's family?" Incoming CU president Hank Brown has said he doesn't want to buy out Churchill to make him go away, but if university investigators don't find cause for dismissal, he needs to be open-minded about it. CU is best off if Churchill goes away. Even a hypocrite like Churchill, who hides behind First Amendment protections yet denies those same rights to Columbus Day parade marchers, is entitled to due process. CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct is investigating accusations that Churchill committed plagiarism, academic fraud and misrepresentation of his ethnic background. In the case of tenured professors, due process can take years. But it's high time for Churchill to go. A buyout might even save the taxpayers a bundle since officials figure it could cost $750,000 or more if the university has to defend a firing in court. Meanwhile, the cost to CU's reputation for keeping Churchill on its teaching staff is incalculable. Churchill has the right to free expression, but he doesn't have the right to a tenured University of Colorado teaching position. CU needs to take away his disguise as a scholar and let Churchill make his way as a political activist.