REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, July 25, 2005 17:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11568
PAGE 3 of 4

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey SoupCatcher -

You know, once you get going you are eloquent.

I didn't think to use the analogy of throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks, but it seems applicable. For myself, I was thinking more along the line of White Water - just keep digging and digging and digging, so's you can hang 'em.

What tipped me off about this is how far back the paper goes - all the way to 2001. There was no outcry at the time, no call for an accounting. But there is now. It's obviously a manufactured issue, dredged up from the past for political purposes.

Perhaps the right is out to 'get' Churchill because of his views, but I see something colder, and less personally directed. I draw a connection between Churchill and Guckert in that the outcry over Churchill seems to have started after Guckert was 'outed' - in every sense. I read a lot of right-wing rags, and they pointed to Churchill shortly after Guckert was indisputably made as a sleazy right-wing flack, and painted with suspicion of being Bush's plant in the press corps.

And true to form, the baying right-wing vigilantes like those on this board only have to be given the scent, and they are off, running down the master's victim.

IMHO

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue, Soup-

I enjoy your writings tremendously. They can't be beaten for insight and factual information, and I've learned a lot just reading them. Please, don't stop because of what I'm about to say, but let me know if you think I'm being reasonable.

Quite frankly, when it comes to people like barstomer, auraptor, hero (so-called) and the like, you're wasting your time. Not only are they ignorant, they're uneducable. Just look at barstomer's latest response... insight, even-handedness, self-reflection... definitely NOT in their repertoire. Consequently, they can be "played" over and over again, and they never "get it".

You may have noticed that my responses have taken a hostile turn. To be quite blunt, I'm not interested in exchanging views with morons. I've decided that I'm either going to respond in kind or not respond at all. I'm "consequating" stupidity. When- or if- the baying vigilantes decide that exchanging nasty names, scurrilous allegations, and unsupported opinion is too boring for words, then perhaps we can have a rational discussion.

BTW- Rue, looking at the timing, I think you're prolly correct about the genesis of the outcry. This Admin uses dictraction like parents of toddlers.... but what does that say about the right-wingers who fall for it each time? I honestly think that Guckert had something going with one of the top ppl in the Administration, because they are working so DAMN hard to erase the story. And of course, I picked Karl Rove because every thime I think of him, I think of the quote from Toy Story- "You are a sad, strange little man". heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:46 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks for the compliment, Rue. I've been trying to get back in writing shape recently (dissertation on the horizon and all that) after many years of neglect and it's good to feel the rust sluff off. I thoroughly enjoyed writing classes in high school and undergrad but then moved on to technical subjects where writing papers was not required. Aside from the odd conference paper here and there I haven't written much and so I use these posts as mini-training exercises to improve my written communication skills.

You raise an excellent point about the timing of this furor. That's one detail that has been bothering me on a semi-conscious level. Why now? To distract from the Guckert story seems like a logical reason. (Although, since the mainstream press pretty much passed on anything Guckert related - don't want to lose access - there probably wasn't much of a need for a distraction).

In doing surfing on Churchill a few weeks ago, the names that kept popping up were people from the Academic Bill of Rights and anti-liberal academics communities. So one thing that might have happened is that, in an attempt to deflect attention from Guckert, the right wing blogging community glommed onto a pet project of various conservative organizations and Churchill was a likely target. A perfect storm type thing. Once the idea was implanted, it spread like wildfire (hence, the scattershot nature of the attacks).

So, short answer, your explanation works for me.

SignyM: I hear what you're saying. Sometimes I'm sorely tempted to just give in and start posting ad hominem unsupported appeal to authority made up statements. There have been times where I was just too lazy to put my thoughts into a coherent form and opted for the easy approach. But, as a rule, I try to extend at least some level of courtesy to everyone in the discussions and arguments (even if it's just taking the time to clearly spell out my position). One reason is that we're all fireflyfans engaged in the goal of making the BDM a success. But I am frustrated, on occasion, by some of the bullshit. I remember reading one paragraph in another thread and identifying six statements that were just completely unsupported by reality but there was no way I was going to respond because I could've easily spent half an hour on each point and to only respond to one point would tacitly signal that I approved of everything else in that paragraph.

As I mentioned above, I have an ulterior motive in posting - to thicken myelin sheathes that have shrunk over the past many years (at least, it sure feels like they've atrophied). So I'll keep posting and I'll continue to learn from the posts of others. I've also found that writing about a topic helps me formulate my own position, so there is that as well. But it sure would be liberating to respond to every post I disagreed with by saying, "That's wrong you idiot" and leaving it at that. Of course, it's a good thing only my girlfriend can hear the things I say in the privacy of our home when I read some entries. .

*editted to add: (Okay. Since there's no Guckert thread I might as well post this here) SignyM, I think you might be right that somone in the administration was a client of Guckert's. That's one part of the whole business that bothered me. The Jeff Gannon identity was created by Guckert as part of his business as a prostitute (all of the paperwork for the web hosting and registration of his sites that advetised his services as an escort were in this name). Why in the hell would he continue to use this name to pretend he was a reporter? Wouldn't it be smarter to either use his real name or create a new identity. Either option would be viable given how easy it was for him to get clearance to the White House using the Gannon pseudonym. But he stuck with his professional name that he used to solicit clients. Why? One explanation that makes sense is that he was introduced to other people in the administration by his client (whether this was a $200/hr contract or a $2000/wknd contract is unclear) using his working name of Jeff Gannon. So when he came back (or was brought back) around as a fake reporter for a fake news organization he was stuck with using the Gannon pseudonym. All speculation, but I think it hangs together. I won't speculate on who his client was. But it makes sense. Another possibility is that his role as a reporter was a cover so he could have ready access to his administration client - the softball questions were just gravy. Why go out when you can order in?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM,
Quote:

"You are a sad, strange little man".
I snickered, tittered, and finally, guffawed. That quote is the perfect caption for Rove.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:30 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SoupCatcher,
Quote:

The Jeff Gannon identity was created by Guckert as part of his business as a prostitute (all of the paperwork for the web hosting and registration of his sites that advertised his services as an escort were in this name).
DUH to me. I never thought of that. No one that I've talked with has thought of that (and I talk with very smart people). But I think it's a vital observation. Why go in as a fake reporter under a fake ID linked to porn? It does seem to unravel innocuous explanations.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BarnStormer,
Here is a quote from the article:
Quote:

When contacted at his home in North Carolina, Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails said the family still retained the copyrights to the drawings of the Mystic Warriors book, and that his father fiercely defended the copyrights.
This is an old issue. As has been mentioned in other stories, permission to copy or use a painting can be granted in a phone call or face to face conversation. We may never know if permission was granted BY THE ARTIST. All we have are claims by the son that he doesn't think his father would have done so.

So are you officially switching your issues on Churchill to his treatment of the media? Is that because it's the only thing you actually have a record of?

Let me tally how many you all have gone through so far ... how he got his job, how he got his tenure, was it heritage or other favoritism, what IS his heritage, professional competence, CU hiring practices, general educational quality, the evils of lying (if you are Ward Chruchill, but not Bush), why being a prof is such an influential position (all those virgin young minds just waiting to be abused) ... but wait! There's more! ... unproven speculation and general BS.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:04 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Rue,

I can think of at least three possibilities for why James Guckert stuck with the invented name: arrogance (he thought no one would ever trace Jeff Gannon the reporter back to Jeff Gannon the web advertising prostitute), stupidity (it never crossed his mind that this might become a problem), or he had no choice (he'd already been introduced using that name and couldn't change it without raising questions). Or maybe a combination. The surprising thing is that he was able to get access to the White House, which should have some of the most aware security personnel on the planet, for a period of two years using a false name. No way, IMHO, that he didn't have inside help getting that day pass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think the whole reporter angle was just way to get Guckert in for a post-session session. The reason why I think Guckert came in as a party favor first was because he got a reporter's pass BEFORE Talon even existed. Did you notice that dubya called on Guckert as "Jeff"? Since when did dubya get to know him on a first-name basis? In any case, Guckert's role as a propagandist was pretty minor. Aside from tossing softballs to Bush he didn't break any stories although he DID claim to have seen a confidential memo about Valerie Plame. (If he did, one wonders on what circumstances).

MY hat's off to you and Rue. You both see more angles than a geometer!

edited to add: Just passing along the funniest comment on the topic. "It's not just that Jeff Gannon is a prostitute... although that's an insult to people who would do anything for money..." (Air America)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Ward Churchill:

"Indian-ness"
Quote:

Genetic material belonging to Professor Ward Churchill underwent the following three testing protocols:
1)The mtDNA Test: A test of female lineage. mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is passed down from mother to child. Men have their mother’s mtDNA, but do not pass it on to their children. The mtDNA test can tell a man or a woman about their maternal lineage and the geographic origin of that lineage.
2) Y Tests: Only men carry the y-chromosome, which is inherited through the paternal line. Analysis of the DNA on the y-chromosome tells a man his paternal lineage and the likely geographic origin of that lineage.
3) Genome-wide Test: Is essentially an analysis of autosomal DNA that gives you a general idea of your ancestry among broad groups (ie. African, Asian, European, Native American).
The laboratory that performed the tests on Professor Churchill's genetic material specializes on American Indian "Gene Genealogy" and has one of the most extensive Native American mtDNA and y-chromosome databases. The human race consists of approximately 30 major maternal lineages (haplogroups) and Native Americans belong to one of five major maternal lineages (haplogroups). Also, the human population consists of approximately 18 major paternal lineages (haplogroups) and Native Americans belong to one of two major paternal lineages (haplogroups).
The genetic test results of Professor Ward Churchill show that he is a descendant of Creeks through his father and of Cherokees through his mother. http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm

So Ward Churchill does have mixed Indian ancestry. In the public record, his family tree consists of those labelled 'Caucasian' and 'Unknown'. Now I know some may find this hard to believe, but there was a time when Indians who left the res to live in the White world didn't advertise their background. So, though he can't prove himself an Indian according to birth records, it's also true no one can prove he isn't. (But, to put the birth records in context, the old saying 'blood will tell' now has a new, scientific meaning.) He has been active in AIM (the American Indian Movement) since 1982. And at one point he was one of two people enrolled in the Cherokee Nation as a non-blood Indian. (Bill Clinton was the other.) From what I read, the tribal leader who got this program going was voted-out some time later, the program closed and membership in the nation rescinded. I haven't looked up the timeline of Churchill's hiring and/or tenure, but it is conceivable that he was a bona-fide Cherokee Indian during his hiring and/or tenure review, or reasonably thought he was. Perhaps one of the baying right-wing vigilantes could look this up since it is a topic of great interest to them.

Credentials
Churchill has multiple publications to his credit. As a counter to those publications, no one has come up with any information substantiating that he is unqualified for the position.

CU hiring practices
No one has come up with any information substantiating favoritism claims.

Plagiarism
No one has come up with proof of plagiarism. It looks questionable, but until there is a trial and verdict, 'innocent until proven guilty' should be the by-word of all freedom-loving Americans.

Have I missed any angles you all care to discuss? Other than the fact that you disagree with what he said?

Lastly, as AURaptor so eloquently said
Quote:

Never mind issues of 'free speech'



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 25, 2005 1:10 AM

SOUPCATCHER


University of Colorado held a news conference today on this topic. TalkLeft has the summary (along with some live blogging of the conference itself in the comments):
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010141.html#010141
There's also a link from the comments to the actual report by CU:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html

I'm guessing the story has served its purpose in distraction and the current outrage of the day is Schiavo. But I'm still expecting Churchill to be offered up anyway and lose his position.

* As a side note, TalkLeft is one of my daily stopping off places. She is on top of so many issues and does great work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 25, 2005 3:08 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Ward Churchill:

Quote:


http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm



So Ward Churchill does have mixed Indian ancestry. In the public record, his family tree consists of those labelled 'Caucasian' and 'Unknown'. Now I know some may find this hard to believe, but there was a time when Indians who left the res to live in the White world didn't advertise their background. So, though he can't prove himself an Indian according to birth records, it's also true no one can prove he isn't. (But, to put the birth records in context, the old saying 'blood will tell' now has a new, scientific meaning.)




Hmm... I am *not* calling these guys at aztlan.net outright liars, but I can't find one single other shred of article that collaborate their story. Something this important from about 2 months back would definitely have surfaced in media by now and at least been brought to the attention of the CU board of Regents special review...

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


He has been active in AIM (the American Indian Movement) since 1982.




http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42700

Quote:


the American Indian Movement kicked out the activist the group called "deceitful" and "treacherous" and who it condemned as a white man masquerading as an Indian.



Actually "kicked out" of AIM for being too radical extremist.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341185/posts

Quote:


The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

...

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.



So AIM actually denounces Churchill

pic of his wannabe-ness.


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

And at one point he was one of two people enrolled in the Cherokee Nation as a non-blood Indian. (Bill Clinton was the other.) From what I read, the tribal leader who got this program going was voted-out some time later, the program closed and membership in the nation rescinded. I haven't looked up the timeline of Churchill's hiring and/or tenure, but it is conceivable that he was a bona-fide Cherokee Indian during his hiring and/or tenure review, or reasonably thought he was. Perhaps one of the baying right-wing vigilantes could look this up since it is a topic of great interest to them.





http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_351
9179,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16911

Hmmmm...

Quote:



The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is not a member of their tribe.

"He's not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah," said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.



So, there's no record and he's not a member of the Tribe from the horse's mouth. but yet, in biographical blurbs, he identifies himself as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. He was an "associate" member - no more than a honorary title that doesn't require proof of an indian blood at all, under a program that he self-applied, but was soon disbanded and the program nullified. An associate member is a far cry from his 1979 application to employment at CU declaring Tribal Enrollment: United Keetoowah Band Cherokee (Roll No. R7627)

So... let's see 1979 - he stated and lied about being an enrolled trial member - which the tribe states again and again that it has never been true.

Then in late Dec 1994...
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:2302597&refid=hbr_f
links1


shows Churchill's acceptance of his "associated membership" (that he made application to on his own) which doesn't require any degree or proof of tribal blood.


That's not even close to within the same decade to be prematurely hopefully expectant... Wow!


Now...
http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/articles/2005/02/04/news/top_storie
s/aaaaaaaprof.txt


Quote:


UKB historian and former tribal secretary Ernestine Berry, Churchill was granted associate membership status in the tribe in the early 1990s, but is no longer listed as such.

"After he got his associate membership, we never saw him again," said Berry. "He got that card and he was gone, gone, gone."

...

"[Churchill] claimed to be part Cherokee, but he couldn't prove it; when I first met him, I didn't like him, and I didn't trust him," said Berry. "I told the chief, 'Don't do this, John; it will damage the integrity of the [tribal] roll,' but they went ahead and made him an associate member. He has since used that to promote his own purposes, and he has not helped the United Keetoowah Band at all."

Berry said associate membership is no longer granted, and "the reason it's not is Ward Churchill."



Ah! Thanks for mucking up the works everywhere...


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


Credentials
Churchill has multiple publications to his credit. As a counter to those publications, no one has come up with any information substantiating that he is unqualified for the position.

CU hiring practices
No one has come up with any information substantiating favoritism claims.

Plagiarism
No one has come up with proof of plagiarism. It looks questionable, but until there is a trial and verdict, 'innocent until proven guilty' should be the by-word of all freedom-loving Americans.

Have I missed any angles you all care to discuss? Other than the fact that you disagree with what he said?

Lastly, as AURaptor so eloquently said
Quote:

Never mind issues of 'free speech'





http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html

Quote:


The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.

A remaining question is whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian. There is evidence that Professor Churchill's assertion of his Indian status is material to his scholarship, yet there is serious doubt about his Indian identity. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral of this question to the Committee on Research Misconduct for inquiry and, if appropriate, investigation to determine whether Professor Churchill relies on his Indian identity in his scholarship and, if so, whether he has fabricated that identity. The Committee should inquire as to whether Professor Churchill can assert a reasonable basis for clarifying such identity.



Holy Crap - BatMan! I guess we will all just have to take his word for it!


Anyone get your hands on his DD-214 to check whether he was actually in the Army? Let alone a Vietnam vet? or maybe that's a state of mind and personal affinity too?





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 25, 2005 5:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I bet you are just dying inside now that he gets to keep his job.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:09 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I bet you are just dying inside now that he gets to keep his job.



I don't know if I really care much about him as a person or what he spouts. He might even be a good writer. He has his ideas and opinions and that's fine. He can even teach it if the rest of his peers think that it's worthwhile stuff. But I don't think a liar and a cheat, who got to a position from fraud, and someone who not only mischaracterizes himself to sell his viewpoint should be allowed to be the head of any teaching department, nor in any position to teach. Hmmmm... like I said, anyone is free to spout stuff as long as its lawful. But what he supposedly has done is way beyond academic fraud.


Dated Feb 7, 2005 from the Frontpagemag.com article.
Quote:


Churchill resigned his position as head of the CU Ethnic Studies program but kept his $96,000 per year teaching post.



From the summary of the CU Chancellor's recommendations:
Quote:


Allegations have been made that Professor Churchill has engaged in research misconduct; specifically, that he has engaged in plagiarism, misuse of others' work, falsification and fabrication of authority.

These allegations have sufficient merit to warrant referral to the University of Colorado at Boulder Standing Committee on Research Misconduct for further inquiry in accordance with prescribed procedures. The research misconduct procedures afford Professor Churchill an opportunity to review and to respond to the allegations before any determination is made. If the Committee determines that Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct, the Committee is to make recommendations regarding dismissal or other disciplinary action.

Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian to gain credibility, authority, and an audience by using an Indian voice for his scholarly writings and speeches.




Chancellor Philip DiStefano said that the misconduct review on these two issues will likely take up to seven months. Yeah, so the way most of these things are done. They are just waiting for the wind to blow over and the short memories to expire.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You keep mistaking allegations for facts.
Some of the nice things about dealing with those allegations is that they have to be specific, and the people making the allegations have to prove their case, not the other way around. That makes a defense easier.
Churchill has been followed by the FBI for years. I suspect he's well-versed in staying out of legal reach.
Quote:

Hmm... I am *not* calling these guys at aztlan.net outright liars, but I can't find one single other shred of article that collaborate their story.
I found multiple links to the story, but it was a while back and they seem to have thinned. I evidently forgot to link to the first site I got the article from, which was nativenews.net It may still be there.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:01 PM

JASONZZZ



Not sure where you are finding allegations or facts here. All I see is a slew of lies being revealed by the people he is lying about and lying to. The nice thing about liars who start believing the crap they spew is that they stop conning the small time and start getting taped, and getting themselves quoted in all sorts of public places, then end up being on record, and finally getting called onto the carpet on it. The only thing about liars that are worse than the lying are the ones who get stupid about it and getting caught.

In any case, the fact of the matter is that he is no longer the head of the ethnic studies department and he's got 7 months to get his ducks all lined up in a roll while the CU Regents do their investigations on the remaining two issues recommended for further probing. Meanwhile, he is hated by the very people that he claims to be apart of and his credibility, whatever that remains, just keeps waning.


Ah, having a very difficult time doing any searches on nativenews.net...


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You keep mistaking allegations for facts.
Some of the nice things about dealing with those allegations is that they have to be specific, and the people making the allegations have to prove their case, not the other way around. That makes a defense easier.
Churchill has been followed by the FBI for years. I suspect he's well-versed in staying out of legal reach.
Quote:

Hmm... I am *not* calling these guys at aztlan.net outright liars, but I can't find one single other shred of article that collaborate their story.
I found multiple links to the story, but it was a while back and they seem to have thinned. I evidently forgot to link to the first site I got the article from, which was nativenews.net It may still be there.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:27 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

But I don't think a liar and a cheat, who got to a position from fraud
Proven? Or merely your allegation?
Quote:

Allegations have been made that Professor Churchill has engaged in research misconduct ... (which) warrant ... further inquiry. Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian
Why did you include this quote regarding allegations and questions? Do you mistake it for proof of fact?
Quote:

his credibility, whatever that remains, just keeps waning
OTOH, he has sterling academic achievements and letters of commendation from well-recognized peers around the country. Not something you'd take note of, but this will also come out during proceedings.

Google "ward churchill" +UNenrolled. I think you'll find it educational.

other sources for the story:

www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1720485.php
colorado.indymedia.org/ newswire/display_any/10218/index.php
colorado.indymedia.org/feature/display/10218/index.php
www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/020805letters.htm

Also, as general background
Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The United States has treated its indigenous people poorly for much of its history, yet today thousands of people are anxious to show their Native American heritage and are turning to DNA testing for help.


And I have a question for you. I see this pretty much as an attempted lynching. Not content to let due process run its course, you and your ilk attempt circumvent it and agitate others in order to ruin someone's life. What do you tell yourself when you actively participate in hate-mongering?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:36 AM

JASONZZZ


I don't think these are just mere allegations. But neither have they been proven fact yet. These various claims have enough weight and evidence behind them that the CU Chancellor have decided to recommend them for further investigations; at the same time, there are other allegations that they have decided to reject based on skimpy if any evidence at this time.

As far as a liar and a cheat. That's a pretty much forgone conclusion. There isn't going to be a court case, no one is suing him. At the same time, he has not come forward to refute what the United Keetoowah Band Cherokee record shows that he does not, in fact belong to, nor has ever belong to, the Cherokee band. The very fact that he repeatedly states so (not just that he has indian blood, which he also claims) that he is enrolled and belongs to the tribe is a lie that he himself perpetuates in order to support his various academic positions, publications, & literature *and* his academic career at CU.


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

But I don't think a liar and a cheat, who got to a position from fraud
Proven? Or merely your allegation?
Quote:

Allegations have been made that Professor Churchill has engaged in research misconduct ... (which) warrant ... further inquiry. Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian
Why did you include this quote regarding allegations and questions? Do you mistake it for proof of fact?
Quote:

his credibility, whatever that remains, just keeps waning
OTOH, he has sterling academic achievements and letters of commendation from well-recognized peers around the country. Not something you'd take note of, but thi
s will also come out during proceedings.




Most if not all of those sterling academic achievements are based on his lies. He posits his statements from a position of being an Native American Indian.

And I think that your many assumptions are getting ahead of you... The other allegations on research misconduct and questions on his employment and his writings based on his misrepresentation of Indian heritage that the CU Chancellor has forwarded for further investigations will work themselves out. The fact remains that he lied about being enrolled as a Cherokee.


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


Google "ward churchill" +UNenrolled. I think you'll find it educational.

other sources for the story:

www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1720485.php
colorado.indymedia.org/ newswire/display_any/10218/index.php
colorado.indymedia.org/feature/display/10218/index.php
www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/020805letters.htm




That's no good. All of these links are single-sourced back to one:
Ernesto Cienfuegos of La Voz de Aztlan.

As this article points out:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/02/45/news-arellano.php

This Ernesto personage has some anti-semite dealings and has a past history of making baseless claims to worsen a flame-war. In this article, he attempts to use email and postings to the aztlan website to defame a president of a Latin-American League locally in Orange County.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=186
Quotes that article about the aztlan website.
"Our duty is to take back what is ours, even if it means carrying out total genocide."

Right now, I don't have anything else to go on to support this aztlan article as anything reliable, let alone a fact. Worse, that very aztlan article is authored and being pasted around by someone with a known history of making factless baseless claims all just to further his own racist opinions. Even worst, the entire website is filled to the rim with anti-semite, homophobic, and genocidal bullcrap. At this point, I'm very much inclined to not believe anything they "publish".



The aztlan website has lots of articles on anti-semite racism and homophobia. It's really out there with regards to hate-mongering. You aren't a card-carrying member of this group, are you?

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


Also, as general background
Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The United States has treated its indigenous people poorly for much of its history, yet today thousands of people are anxious to show their Native American heritage and are turning to DNA testing for help.


And I have a question for you. I see this pretty much as an attempted lynching. Not content to let due process run its course, you and your ilk attempt circumvent it and agitate others in order to ruin someone's life. What do you tell yourself when you actively participate in hate-mongering?



I think you are really getting out of hand with the 'your ilk' and 'circumvent and agitate'. I presented facts, claims, allegations, and some evidence to support them. I am showing where the process is going with some of these allegations. The fact can't be denied that many of WC's writings are build based on his claim of Indian Heritage and his tenured position at CU is based on that; also, he lied about his enrollment with the Cherokees. Is there something to counter these as not?

I don't know where this 'hate-mongering' stuff is going either. If this is an attempt at using the very same tactic that, BTW in the same paragraph as your claim to 'your-ilk' and 'hate-mongering', you claim your 'opponents' are using to discredit WC, you are not only one very confused man, but not very honest either.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

The fact can't be denied that many of WC's writings are build (sic) based on his claim of Indian Heritage and his tenured position at CU is based on that; also, he lied about his enrollment with the Cherokees. Is there something to counter these as not?
What you present as 'facts' you have failed to support. ARE most of his writings based on his claim of Indian heritage? Where is your evidence? IS his tenure based on heritage and without academic merit? You've failed to support that. DID he lie about enrollment? That's why I suggested you google on his name and UNenrolled. Available evidence is that he said he was UNenrolled. IS he without Indian heritage? Evidence suggests he has Indian markers.
You've failed to support your claims, and so they remain CLAIMS. That they are being 'looked at' is not proof.

'Your ilk': on this thread, specifically Auraptor, Finn, Geezer, Barnstormer, and you (the usual gang) whose message has been - No place for data ! No time for proof !! To hell with due process !!! Whip up a mob - get Ward Churchill NOW by innuendo, by agitation, by pressure !

Is that not a virtual lynching?

Personally, I'm willing to WAIT and see what the academics find as fact. They have access to so much more real data than you, your buds, I, or anyone else on this board. And at that time Professor Churchill will have the opportunity to address any claims against him.

I've read enough about him that I can't imagine selecting him as a friend. And yet I will still defend him against your extra-legal trial.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:50 AM

JASONZZZ



Good gravy, thanks for the lesson on complete crazy talk.

you really need to get over yourself, the only "data" that you are willing to see is this crap that you always dig up. I have already looked at this 2nd rate "research" that you did. You call single-sourcing "research" and you used this one much disputable article as basis that markers on WC has been id'd? Come-on and get with it.
As far as I'm concerned, that Ernesto guy and that article (and the rest of his website) is complete poo and not worth a second look. If you are truly the scholar and fact-finder that you claim you are, you would at least conceit to that much. For me, I am not willing to relook at this issue until at least a valid 2nd source brings it up - without just wholesale quoting the Ernesto article (Note, at this point, I would even look at it without supporting evidence of whether WC actually submitted a sample or who did the actual testing, let alone the validity of this type of testing in identifying heritage. BTW, I'm very well aware of MtDNA and how it's used. Whether it's of value in actually profiling and identifying heritage would be of interest) . At the very least, how about WC himself stating something like "Hey, I've got my blood in for testing right now, and the results will tell the complete truth". I haven't seen one single source that talk about this.

As far as evidence and claims goes, I've presented multiple sources and statements quoting the same exact people that said that there is never any record of WC belonging or enrolled as a member. He was an associate once - but that has been heavily discussed and rebutted already as not being anything of value as far as being identified with Indian Heritage or Blood goes. And to top it all off, all of this crap is at least a decade *after* he had put on his CU application that he belongs to the tribe - BEFORE any hint or possible confusion with enrollment/unrollment or being an associate. What a crock!

'my ilk', 'your ilk' - how convenient to just wrap it all up in some paranoiac conspiratorial dillusion and just attack it that way instead of discussing the actual issue(s) - crappy research, false pretence and misrepresentations to pass for academic studies and the people who stand behind them.

Once again, I'm not trying him or putting him thru any lynching or trial. I've looked at the relevant articles and news items; from what I can tell, he lied his ass off to get to where he is today. I could really careless if you are standing next to him, beside him, or in any other orientation. But if you feel the need to build up this conversation to some extraordinary, extra dimensional hype - all just to make you feel your self worth and self importance. Do carry on.

As for waiting and see, what else can you do but wait and see? There is no fact that shows that he didn't lie about his heritage to get to where he is. We'll all just wait and see what the CU research ethics committee come up with.

Yeah, Why the heck do you think I quoted the finders from the CU Chancellor's special meeting?

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

The fact can't be denied that many of WC's writings are build (sic) based on his claim of Indian Heritage and his tenured position at CU is based on that; also, he lied about his enrollment with the Cherokees. Is there something to counter these as not?
What you present as 'facts' you have failed to support. ARE most of his writings based on his claim of Indian heritage? Where is your evidence? IS his tenure based on heritage and without academic merit? You've failed to support that. DID he lie about enrollment? That's why I suggested you google on his name and UNenrolled. Available evidence is that he said he was UNenrolled. IS he without Indian heritage? Evidence suggests he has Indian markers.
You've failed to support your claims, and so they remain CLAIMS. That they are being 'looked at' is not proof.

'Your ilk': on this thread, specifically Auraptor, Finn, Geezer, Barnstormer, and you (the usual gang) whose message has been - No place for data ! No time for proof !! To hell with due process !!! Whip up a mob - get Ward Churchill NOW by innuendo, by agitation, by pressure !

Is that not a virtual lynching?

Personally, I'm willing to WAIT and see what the academics find as fact. They have access to so much more real data than you, your buds, I, or anyone else on this board. And at that time Professor Churchill will have the opportunity to address any claims against him.

I've read enough about him that I can't imagine selecting him as a friend. And yet I will still defend him against your extra-legal trial.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:01 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"Presidents get impeached for lying"

Only if you lie about sex. ...



heh... He should have been impeached just for the sex part in the office. No, I am not a prude, but much better people have lost their jobs - for having sex on the job, at the job site, on the employer's dime, without the benefit of any fact finding trip even close to an impeachment. Yeah, sex is and should be a private matter, even adultery (although that does speak to faith and character), but sex in the work place is power, cohersion, and much more than a desperate cry for help, it breaks a couple of laws and is ground for suit - not just from the parties involved.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


From your response, I'm guessing the first rationale you have for participation in a virtual lynching is 'Because he deserves it'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:33 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Just a quick point: the White House is the residence of the President as well as the office. You could make the argument that the President is working from home. Of course, you could make an argument that the President is always on call and therefore has no private time. Just putting that out there. (To provide context. I disliked Clinton. I was one of those howling that, "It's not the sex. It's the lying". I'm pretty embarassed of that behavior now. I blame it mostly on youth and listening to too much Rush Limbaugh before I started educating myself and realized that anger and fear were a poor basis for decision making and a hindrance to rational discourse. When I think back on it, what I really didn't like about Clinton was that he started out poorer than me and was way more successful than I'll ever be. I've gotten over that. Now he looks positively glowing in comparison. ).

But back to the topic. I've already outlined why I feel this is an important topic. I'm curious about the motivations of those who think Churchill should be fired. Why is this important to you? I hope that it's because you are concerned about the integrity of researchers working in the field of Native American Ethnic Studies. I hope that it's because you think Ethnic Studies are an important topic of research. I hope that it's not because this was the outrage of the month of the Freepi or the LGFers.

So enlighten me. Please.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2005 5:24 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Interesting. I initially supported Clinton in the impeachment scandal. Not that I necessarily supported him ideologically, but that was kind of during my transitional phase when I was moving away from the Left-wing hippy academic camp. After I learned more about the Clinton Whitehouse and began realize how poorly he ran things with his frat-boy mentality, it occurred to me that he brought it on himself. He was a poor leader and finally, whatever argument one can make about the Clinton political opponents, the fact remain that he did lie under oath in a federal court, and that pretty much symbolizes Clinton's value-system. Nothing one can say about Republicans excuses that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 11:53 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Sounds like we kind of crossed over in different directions. I've always been a fiscal liberal in my outlook - probably due to generations of union workers on both sides in my family. However, I was raised as a social conservative and transitioned gradually over to a social liberal throughout my late twenties. By the time I hit 30, the transition was complete. Part of my transformation involved weaning myself off AM talk radio (which I listened to avidly starting in the early nineties). (I knew the transformation was complete when I found myself giving a friend the following advide - paraphrased - "Well it's no wonder you have relationship problems. He's listening to Tom Likus while he drives around during the day. Try tuning in some time at work so you at least know the crap that he's putting into his head"). Well, I leave the dial on the local AM sports talk station - especially now that baseball season has started up.

Side note (that popped into my head thinking about my previous radio listening habits) I sure do wish Art Bell was still on the air. I have fond memories of driving late at night through desolate stretches of northern Nevada, or eastern Oregon, or eastern California (as I drove back and forth between LA and southeastern Washington), and being scared shitless by some of those Coast to Coast programs. George Noory just doesn't do the same thing for me. (And if you've never listened to Coast to Coast, try it sometime. It'll make you feel like molding a tinfoil hat - but in a good way ).

As far as Clinton goes, I'm wondering how much of the resistance to him was due to the fact that he was the first of the new generation of Presidents (not from the WWII generation). I know I shudder to think of Presidents who grew up in the eighties getting elected (Or, even worse, a disco duck from the seventies - imagine the convention for that one).

* editted to add: Hmmm. This post, as indicated by the prevalence of parenthesis, probably comes closest to replicating my typical conversational style. Digression. Always digression.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 5:50 AM

JASONZZZ


More updates...

Columnist Suzan Shown Harjo details how WC's fradulent ancestry hurts Native Americans.




http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410335

Harjo: Why Native identity matters: A cautionary tale
Posted: February 10, 2005
by: Suzan Shown Harjo / Indian Country Today

I met Ward Churchill 15 years ago, before he gained his present infamous reputation. My friend, a college professor, said this Cherokee-Creek guy wanted to meet me. I expected to meet an earnest young student who would relate to me as Creek (I'm Hodulgee Muscogee on Dad's side and enrolled Cheyenne on Mom's).

Instead, there was Churchill. Caucasian in appearance and in his mid-40s, he was wearing dark glasses and going for the look of an Indian activist circa 1970.

I asked him who his Creek people were and other questions we ask in order to find the proper way of relating. Churchill behaved oddly and did not respond (it's unusual to find Indians so deficient in social skills).

Churchill now refers to that as an ''interrogation,'' which tells me he still does not know how to be with us.

Most Native people want to know each other's nation, clan, society, family, Native name - who are you to me and how should I address you? It's an enormously respectful way that we introduce ourselves and establish kinship.

It wasn't much of an encounter, but it was enough to tell me that he was not culturally Muscogee or Cherokee and had not been around many of our people.

The next time I heard his name was from Native artists at the Santa Fe Indian Market. Churchill was peddling a scandal sheet, railing against White Earth Chippewa artist David Bradley and the New Mexico and federal Indian arts and crafts laws, which Bradley and other Indian artists helped to enact.

It turned out that Churchill was a painter - not a good one, but bad art is not illegal - who would face stiff penalties if he promoted his work as made by an Indian if he were not, in fact, an Indian.

The Indian arts laws bow to tribal determinations of tribal citizenry or membership. There's also an ''artisan'' category as a way for a Native nation to claim an artist who does not meet its citizenship criteria, but who is part of one of its families.

People began to check out Churchill's claims. Cherokee journalist David Cornsilk verified that Churchill and his ancestors were not on the Cherokee Nation rolls. Creek-Cherokee historian Robert W. Trepp did not find them on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation rolls.

Churchill lashed out against tribal leaders, sovereignty, citizenship and rolls, attacking Native people who did not support his claims as ''card-carrying Indians'' and ''blood police.''

Then, he went tribe-shopping. He added Metis, then Keetoowah, variously claiming to be an associate member, an enrolled member or 1/16 or 3/16 Cherokee.

Oneida comedian Charlie Hill recalls Churchill interviewing him in 1978. ''I asked him, 'Are you Indian?' And he said, 'No.' Later, I heard that he was saying he was Indian and wondered just how that happened.''

Churchill started listing his various ''Indian'' credentials on resumes as he moved into academe. He also moved into American Indian Movement circles, but most of the activists did not accept him as an Indian or as an activist.

AIM founders and leaders Dennis J. Banks and Clyde H. Bellecourt, both Ojibwa, state that ''Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of [AIM], a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used [Denver AIM] to attack the leadership of the official [AIM] with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.''

Churchill took up ghostwriting for Oglala actor/activist Russell Means. Together with a small following, they protest the annual Columbus parade in Denver.

As Churchill has lurched through Indian identities, he has not found a single Native relative or ancestor. He is descended from a long line of Churchills that Hank Adams has traced back to the Revolutionary War and Europe. Adams, who is Assiniboine-Sioux and a member of the Frank's Landing Indian Community, has successfully researched and exposed other pseudo-Indians.

Adams traced Churchill's ancestors on both sides of his family, finding all white people, including documented slave owners and at least one spy, but zero Indians.

The United Keetoowah Band has disassociated itself from Churchill, so he will have to stop flashing that ''associate member'' card that has enabled him to bully his way around campuses and newsrooms.

The reason it's important for Native nations to speak out about Native identity issues is that they are the only ones who can say who their citizens are and are not. If they don't speak out, other people and entities will fill the silence.

It's important for Native mothers and fathers to speak out because pseudo-Indians do things that affect our children.

Churchill will not be discriminated against on the basis of being Indian, but he is placing our children and grandchildren in harm's way by creating ill will and hostility against Indians. Native kids and elders who actually look Native are the ones who suffer from the blowback.

It's important for Native people to speak out in order to counter the sort of thing that Churchill, even after being so very publicly unmasked, is now telling reporters: that he is Indian by virtue of community acceptance over a prolonged period. While some people in Colorado believe one or another of his stories, no Native nation and no Indian community of interest accepts him as one of their own.

Native artists never knew nor embraced him, either as an artist or as a Native person.

Churchill once worked for news outlets, but has not been accepted as a Native journalist, particularly by those he's viciously attacked after they reported what they found: that he could not substantiate his Indian claims.

(This note is for any reporters and editors who are confused: Churchill is the Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley of American Indian studies, but without their talent. Churchill simply makes it up, too, plus he invents Indian credentials. Keep in mind that no one accused their papers of violating free speech when they fired frauds for cause.)

Colorado and all universities should respect Native nations at least as much as they respect schools and other employers, but they don't. They frown on people who falsify their written material and wrongly claim degrees they did not earn and jobs they did not hold. But when people falsely claim to be Native, it is seen by some as less serious, less offensive and something anyone besides the Indians ought to decide.

Churchill got jobs, promotions, tenure and the Ethnic Studies chair at the University of Colorado because he portrayed himself as American Indian.

Now he's wrapped himself in the First Amendment, carefully draped over his Indian blanket. He's threatening to sue if he's fired for breach of contract or for the shameful things he said about the 9/11 victims.

The university should fire him because he has perpetrated a fraud, and moral turpitude is a deal breaker. The university shielded him from those who tried to reveal the truth and looked the other way as he attacked a lot of decent Native people.

If he sues, he will have to come into court as the American Indian man he has claimed to be, and how is he going to do that? It is time for the university to end this charade.

Suzan Shown Harjo, Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee, is president of the Morning Star Institute in Washington, D.C. and a columnist for Indian Country Today.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 5:53 AM

JASONZZZ


another article with various bits on WC's real ancestry:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_364
9896,00.html



Rocky Mountain News

Churchill's 'Indian' claim to be probed

Assertion is at heart of academic career

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News
March 25, 2005

The University of Colorado will delve into the most personal aspect of the Ward Churchill controversy after the chancellor's review committee Thursday asked the question on many people's tongues.

Is he really an American Indian?

The answer could help determine whether Churchill "engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation" to help gain public acceptance of his work as an Indian scholar.

Since at least 1979, on an initial employment application at CU, Churchill has claimed Indian ancestry. His scholarly career has been shaped around his identity as an American Indian.

CU now will try to find out whether there's any "reasonable basis" for that claim, and "whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian," says the report of the review committee.

Critics, largely originating from within segments of the American Indian community that have been fiercely at odds with Churchill, have long shunned him as a white "wannabe Indian."

In the face of such criticism, Churchill takes offense at being asked to verify "my pedigree" like a dog, but he hasn't come up with any ancestor who can be shown to be an American Indian.

The review committee said it looked into Churchill's often-stated claim that he is "an enrolled Keetowah Band Cherokee" in Oklahoma. Churchill actually has an auxiliary membership, awarded by the band's council in May 1994 several months before it ended the practice.

The committee said the Keetowah's principal chief, George Wickliffe, reported back to CU that "an 'associate' of the band is not enrolled in the tribe; associate membership is merely an honorary designation, like an honorary degree from a university."

CU had been informed of the questions surrounding Churchill's claims at least by 1994, when some of his enemies within the Indian activist community brought the issue to the attention of the chancellor's office.

But CU concluded at the time that an employee's "self-identification" of his ethnic status was good enough.

The report detailing the findings of Chancellor Phil DiStefano's review of numerous allegations about Churchill was released Thursday.

While the report said CU intends to determine whether Churchill misrepresented his ethnic status to enhance his acceptance as a scholar, it also said no action can likely be taken against him at this point for making that claim on his employment application.

That's because more than 10 years have passed since the previous chancellor declined to take any action on those complaints.

"The question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then-Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification," the report said.

Because the university at the time took no action, "the question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this 10-year-old review," DiStefano's report continued.

In earlier interviews, Churchill has claimed Indian ancestry from a forebear named Joshua Tyner, who some family lore held was half-Cherokee.

Genealogical investigations by Churchill critics and later by the Rocky Mountain News found that Tyner was a Georgia man who, in 1816 or so, pioneered in southern Illinois. He is Churchill's fourth-great-grandfather, seven generations removed.

Even if Tyner were half-Cherokee, that would make Churchill 1/128th Indian, far below any threshold to be considered as an enrolled member of an Indian tribe.

But there is no evidence Tyner was Cherokee.

Family tree records show him having two white parents who had come to southwest Georgia from Virginia, and whose own forebears came from England. Tyner's mother, according to old family histories, was killed and scalped in a Creek Indian raid on the family home in 1788 or so.

In addition, a 19th-century history of Williamson County, Ill., where Tyner settled, refers to him and all of the early pioneers as being "pure white."

Tyner's father remarried to a Cherokee woman after Joshua's mother was killed, genealogical records show, and had eight more children. Some of those descendants do appear on official Indian records such as the Dawes Commission rolls of blood members of specific tribes, including Cherokees.

But Churchill is not a descendant from that line of the family.

Members of Churchill's extended family, which stems from Illinois, don't appreciate Churchill's claim of Indian heritage, said one who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The statement that set off this politically-motivated witch-hunt (and it IS a politically-motivated witch-hunt. Tom Delay would never survive one-tenth of the probing) was Churchill's statement that international financiers and traders in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans" who were busy enriching themslves while impoverishing the rest of the world.

I took this as an indictment of "the system" in which each cog does nothing evil individually but the overall effect is brutal. However, I'm reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by Perkins which shows how loan, trade, and security policies are DELIBERATELY set up to impoverish nations and- failing that- how the "jackals" and USA troops may not be far behind. Perkins was part of that system. I suggest that you all read the book.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 8:22 AM

JASONZZZ


Well, whatever the original motivation or whatever the politicians and media is thinking. I think we should all take a hard stand on unethical misrepresentation and research misconduct - especially in the academic world where good scholarly research depends on at least that much.

And it's not just the guv'ment that's trashing him. This is his "own people" turning their backs on him, not just b/c he claims to be Indian and has arguably questionable heritage, but on top of that, he is combative, hostile, has questionable motivations, has a past pattern of behavior in trying to misrepresenting himself and his work and passing himself off as something he is not - he just give people (not just Indians) a bad name. From everything that's been said by his "fellow Indians" - he is the very meaning of the Fraud.

And now because of all of this and what he has done to the good name of academic and scholarly research, he sits in judgement by his own peers.


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The statement that set off this politically-motivated witch-hunt (and it IS a politically-motivated witch-hunt. Tom Delay would never survive one-tenth of the probing) was Churchill's statement that international financiers and traders in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans" who were busy enriching themslves while impoverishing the rest of the world.

I took this as an indictment of "the system" in which each cog does nothing evil individually but the overall effect is brutal. However, I'm reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by Perkins which shows how loan, trade, and security policies are DELIBERATELY set up to impoverish nations and- failing that- how the "jackals" and USA troops may not be far behind. Perkins was part of that system. I suggest that you all read the book.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 9:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Read this carefully:

"Well, whatever the original motivation or whatever the politicians and media is thinking. I think we should all take a hard stand on unethical misrepresentation and Congressional misconduct - especially in the political world where good governance depends on at least that much.

And it's not just the Democrats that's trashing him. This is his "own people" turning their backs on him, not just b/c he claims to be Christian and has arguably questionable morals, but on top of that, he is combative, hostile, has questionable motivations, has a past pattern of behavior in trying to misrepresenting himself and his work and embezzling money and being a hypocrite - he just gives people (not just politicians) a bad name. From everything that's been said by his "fellow Congressmen" - he is the very meaning of the Fraud.

And now because of all of this and what he has done to the good name of Congress and politics, he sits in judgement by his own peers."

Get it??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 9:20 AM

JASONZZZ


and the point? Sure it's important to have good honest politicians and strong leadership with some backbone in them, but (it's a shame) that's in itself self-contradictory in this days. You won't get an argument from me if you wanted to take them all out back and slap some sense into them. Same with the lot of these sports "heroes".

But I think you are shifting the focus away from academic dishonesty. These people are *not* just romantic figures to look up to and merely learn from, these people are in the position to teach, to generate, and to verify new ideas - supposedly. Fraud should be dealt with expediently and severely in this world.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 10:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So... you're saying that its' more important to investiate the ancestory of a professor in a small program than it is to look at the House Majority leader, who is now threatening to depose the Judiciary from its role as the third branch of government-

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=
H5OXEDSABXVA4CRBAELCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=8130182

who also took money from foreign interests, "paid" his wife and daughter a half-million dollars, used national coporate donations for local Texas elections, traveled internationally on paid junkets with lobbyists, and paints himself as a pro-life moralist?

Well, I'm glad that you're on the Committee to Protect the Integrity and Independence of Small University Programs! The point is that I'm not getting distracted from Ward Churchill. Churchill himself IS the distraction... as has been demonstrated in other posts when one looks at the time lag between when Churchill spoke and the reaction.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 12:32 PM

JASONZZZ


Hey look.

If you absolutely insist that we can only do one thing at a time. I'm going to insist that we sit down and chill out because we just got ahead on our collective selves a little - just a little. But if we can do at least 2 things. I say we do both.

I say we make the time to do the right things to make things right. Here are two liars and two cheats, two frauds who should be exposed and made to pay for their continuing snubbing of basic decency. These people aren't just the street corner card sharks, low lifes who might not have as many choices. These two and the rest of these sports "heroes" have continually demonstrated the same bad behaviour. Their inability to be at least upright citizens in their perspective place as some sort of leaders leaves me with more than contempt and outrage.

Then again, Churchill is to you a distraction b/c you let the media dictate to you what's important. Take a chill pill, have a tall one, and relax. Spring is here, not too late to plant some bulbs yet. Enjoy the early evenings.

;-)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So... you're saying that its' more important to investiate the ancestory of a professor in a small program than it is to look at the House Majority leader, who is now threatening to depose the Judiciary from its role as the third branch of government-

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=
H5OXEDSABXVA4CRBAELCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=8130182

who also took money from foreign interests, "paid" his wife and daughter a half-million dollars, used national coporate donations for local Texas elections, traveled internationally on paid junkets with lobbyists, and paints himself as a pro-life moralist?

Well, I'm glad that you're on the Committee to Protect the Integrity and Independence of Small University Programs! The point is that I'm not getting distracted from Ward Churchill. Churchill himself IS the distraction... as has been demonstrated in other posts when one looks at the time lag between when Churchill spoke and the reaction.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 1:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of us must be on meds because I'm almost agreeing with you!

Altho seriously, I can do several things at once but not everything at once, so I'm going to have to... have a nice tall cold one and relax.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 8, 2005 1:36 PM

JASONZZZ






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've mentioned at least once that I wouldn't pick Ward Churchill as a friend or even casual acquaintance. (Reading about him, of course I reference what seems to be my closest real-life example. That was a person who I had as a lab-partner who gave me the creeps, and the same words apply - superficially verbal, facile, glib, interesting and entertaining - remember, Churchill's classes were SRO. But also quickly becoming hostile and threatening.)

I'm glad that the University concluded he had his first amendment rights to express his opinions.

As for futher investigations, I'll repeat myself that I will wait for the University to conduct its investigation. They have ALL the information available to them, including his actual applications, letters of commendation from noted academics, personnel file etc. And too, at that time Churchill will have a chance to explain and defend himself, which he has not had to date.

I will not be premature, and you should not be, either. ANYTHING ELSE IS UN-AMERICAN.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:42 PM

JASONZZZ



I think it's very AMERICAN or whatever else to freely express your/my opinion - whatever it maybe (aside from "fire in the crowded theatre"), then wait until the outcome/decision and *then* 'tar and feather' and run'em out of town.

That said, WC is free to say whatever the heck he please. He just shouldn't be allowed to express those same ideas as scholarly research under these type of pretense. Glad that at least he isn't the department head spouting that kind of crap anymore.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 11, 2005 2:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

(Churchill) also defended his scholarship, citing his induction into the Martin Luther King Jr. Collegium of Scholars at Morehouse College in Atlanta and offering nine pages of endorsements from other scholars.

The collection includes praise from Richard Falk, formerly at Princeton and now a visiting professor of global studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who called Churchill an outstanding scholar of indigenous rights.

"That does express my view of his work," Falk said Thursday.



Richard A Falk
Quote:

http://www.eli.org/ecw/falk.htm Biography

Richard A. Falk
Richard A. Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University since 1965. B.S. (economics), Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (1952); LL.B., Yale Law School (1955); J.S.D., Harvard University (1962). He has been on the editorial boards of about ten journals and magazines, including the American Journal of International Law (1961-) and The Nation (1978-). Prof. Falk has served on the boards or been otherwise associated with scores of professional organizations, including serving as Chairman of the Consultative Council, Lawyers' Committee on American Policy Toward Vietnam (1967-75). Prof. Falk has provided expert testimony in many high profile cases and legislative and administrative hearings. He has been a member of international panels of jurors addressing "Marcos' Policies in the Philippines," "The Armenian Genocide," "Reagan's War Against Nicaragua," Nuclear Warfare, "Puerto Rico: A History of Repression and Struggle," and "Amazonia: Development and Human Rights." Prof. Falk has written extensively on international law and the law of war.

Relevant Publications: Crimes of War (Richard A. Falk et al., eds.; New York: Random House, 1971); Burns H. Weston et al., International Law and World Order: A Problem-Oriented Coursebook (3rd ed.) (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1997) (co-authors Richard A. Falk and Hilary Charlesworth); Richard A. Falk, Ecocide, Genocide, and the Nuremberg Tradition of Individual Responsibility, in Philosophy, Morality, and International Affairs 123-37 (V. Held et al., eds.; New York: Oxford, 1974); Richard A. Falk, Methods and Means of Warfare, in Law and Responsibility 37-53, 102-113 (Peter Troboff, ed.; Durham, NC: North Carolina University Press, 1975); Richard A. Falk, Environmental Disruption by Military Means and International Law, in Environmental Warfare: A Technical, Legal and Policy Appraisal 33-51 (Arthur H. Westing, ed.; London; Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 1984); Richard A. Falk, The Environmental Law of War: An Introduction, in Environmental Protection and the Law of War: A "Fifth Geneva" Convention on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict 78-95 (Glen Plant, ed.; London; New York: Belhaven Press, 1992); Richard A. Falk, Reflections on the Gulf War Experience: Force and War in the UN System, in The Gulf War and the New World Order: International Relations of the Middle East 25-39 (Tareq Y. Ismael & Jacqueline S. Ismael, eds.; Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1994); Richard A. Falk, War Crimes: The Circle of Responsibility, The Nation, Jan. 1970, at 77-82; Richard A. Falk, Forty Years After the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals: The Impact of the War Crimes Trials on International and National Law, in Proceedings, Eightieth Annual Meeting, The American Society of International Law 65-67 (April 9-12, 1986); The Wasted Nations: Report of the International Commission of Enquiry into United States Crimes in Indochina, June 20-25, 1971 (Frank Browning & Dorothy Forman, eds.; New York: Harper & Row, 1972) (hearings held in Oslo, Norway) (introduction by Richard Falk); Falk, Richard, Environmental Warfare and Ecocide, in 4 The Vietnam War and International Law (1966-75, 4 vols.); Crimes of War (Richard Falk et al., eds.; New York: Random House, 1971).



Quote:

Here are two liars and two cheats, two frauds who should be exposed and made to pay for their continuing snubbing of basic decency. These people aren't just the street corner card sharks, low lifes who might not have as many choices. These two and the rest of these sports "heroes" have continually demonstrated the same bad behaviour. Their inability to be at least upright citizens in their perspective place as some sort of leaders leaves me with more than contempt and outrage.
Opinion is one thing, but you have said (several times) he is guilty and has to be punished. That goes beyond opinion.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:40 PM

JASONZZZ



Are these endorsements that they believe he is not a cheat and a liar or are these endorsements of what appears to be his "academic work"? These academics might be able to judge that the works are good, but did they do any rigorous investigation as to whether WC actually produced those works under honest and ethical conditions? Anyways, I thought that we are letting all of the judging up to the CU office of research integrity and what not... hmmmm...

It also appears that you are confusing having an opinion and speaking it with actually going over there with torch in hand and tar in a bucket. I am most certainly free to express my opinion - especially when the evidence so far laid out pretty much paints a picture of a compulsive cheat.







Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:07 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I expressed no personal opinion or conclusion. As to your 'freedom' of opinion, libel is excepted.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:10 PM

JASONZZZ



It's sort of ironic that you would bring up libel - the willful and reckless disregard in presenting falsehood in order to malign a subject - in this particular thread. I think I almost lost my lunch laughing so hard over that.

I see and present only opinions as far as what's been printed and presented in media and public records so far. It might be libel if I had made up crap like "oh, he defrauded these people and bilked money out of them.", or "oh, he used his falsely obtained positioned to sexually harass the minors in his department"...

You know, I get tired of this sometimes. I thought that you claimed you used good research techniques, that you are some sort of great debater, that you are above using low-end tactics like this strawmen crap and this red-herring crap. But you are pretty much just the same as the folks and ideas you claim to oppose. When it comes right down to it, when you've ran out of crap to throw into the fan. You deploy the red-herring. Might as well get your ol' stalking horse ready while you are at it.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 22:09
But I don't think a liar and a cheat, who got to a position from fraud, and someone who not only mischaracterizes himself to sell his viewpoint should be allowed to be the head of any teaching department, nor in any position to teach.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 07:36
As far as a liar and a cheat. That's a pretty much forgone conclusion.
Most if not all of those sterling academic achievements are based on his lies.
The fact can't be denied that many of WC's writings are build based on his claim of Indian Heritage and his tenured position at CU is based on that.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:50
There is no fact that shows that he didn't lie about his heritage to get to where he is.

Friday, April 08, 2005 - 08:22
I think we should all take a hard stand on unethical misrepresentation and research misconduct - especially in the academic world where good scholarly research depends on at least that much.

Friday, April 08, 2005 - 12:32
I say we make the time to do the right things to make things right. Here are two liars and two cheats, two frauds who should be exposed and made to pay for their continuing snubbing of basic decency.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:libel

Definitions of libel on the Web:

a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"
the written statement of a plaintiff explaining the cause of action (the defamation) and any relief he seeks
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. "Defamation" is however the generally-used term internationally, and is accordingly used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel



Do you KNOW he claimed to be an enrolled Indian on his application?
Do you KNOW he got his job on the basis of that claim ? (and not due to, for example, academic merit)
Do you KNOW he plagiarized?

As you yourself have noted, these QUESTIONS are at this moment under investigation. In your posts, you forgot the required dodge words: claim (claimed), allege (alleged) etc

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:43 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Do you KNOW he claimed to be an enrolled Indian on his application?
Do you KNOW he got his job on the basis of that claim ? (and not due to, for example, academic merit)
Do you KNOW he plagiarized?


I think you've hit the nail on the head, Rue. As far as I know, the answer to all these questions is no (although the little bit I've read about the painting sounds suspicious. But then I have to consider the source. If it is true, I'm not sure I would call it plagiarizing. Copyright violation definitely. But I tend to think of plagiarizing as relating to the written word.).

I'll add a few more questions:
Would this be a crusade if Ward Churchill hadn't made his remarks four years ago?
Would this be an issue if James Guckhart had not been exposed as a practicing prostitute who had access to the White House on a regular basis for more than two years by pretending to be a reporter?
Would this be under investigation if the Governor of Colorado (Churchill's nominal boss) wasn't a member of Lynn Cheney's orghanization?

If you're interested, here is a statement from the current chair of the Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Colorado (written on February 15th). It's probably closest to my personal point of view. And it's probably safe to say that my own opinion on this topic was shaped, in part, by reading this letter a few months ago and then investigating the claims. I'll just include the summary paragraph.

Quote:

excerpt from http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_neocon.html
...
We have to be as clear as possible about the big picture. This is much, much bigger than an individual attack on Ward. What we're looking at is a carefully developed, pre-existing national strategy that has been searching for exactly the right breakthrough "test case." It has found extremely favorable conditions in Ward's situation and in the post-911 climate. As they've been doing already in other areas they want to dismantle the structural footholds (academic freedom/tenure, ethnic studies) that social movements gained for people of color and liberal and progressive intellectuals inside academe during the 60s & 70s. If they are successful in Colorado, it could set a precedent like Bakke. Raising the stakes even higher, Governor Owens has ambitions that reach as far as the White House. The next phases of his career hang on this crucial campaign that will give definitive proof of his leadership ability. If he pulls it off, it's a glorious triple coup-de-grace: undermine the legal foundation of tenure/free speech, hurt/ruin Ethnic Studies...and at no less than the strongest "liberal" campus in the state. His personal investment in this campaign is very high and he is likely to throw his whole weight behind it.



I guess if I was prone to argue like some of those who are caught up in the Churchill feeding frenzy I would just accuse them of being tools of racists and leave it at that. But I'm not that far gone .

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:03 PM

JASONZZZ



Guess you couldn't come up with a better legal definition for libel. At least bring up the Supreme court decisions on libel cases on public cases - Comm'on... Yep, guess google is the ultimate authority of legal matters. I've got to say, that's pretty good research...

In either case, the red herring is getting smelly - it's pretty old and rotten. Time to either bring it back to topic or get something new. And as a last pointer, whatever it is you want to call it, libel/slander whatever, has to be proven in court with charges brought - and the Supreme Court has a rather narrow definition of it as far as public figures go; so unless if you've got the spare time to file court papers and end up showing what a bucket of malarkey this is, I suggest you lay off your smelly tactics and get back on topic.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Are professors public figures??? I don't think so.

As far as red herrings- as has been so eloquently pointed out, Churchill himself is the red herring. Give it up Jasonzz.

Meanwhile, to add to Churchill's observations about little Eichmans- has anyone been following what's happened to the Mayor of Mexico City? Condi made it quite plain that she didn't want a socialist Mexican President, and Fox and the corrupt Mexican Congress- ever eager to comply with White House preferences- is trying to make it impossible for Obrador to run.

And we wonder why people around the world hate us? Sheesh!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:48 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Are professors public figures??? I don't think so.



Well... unfortunately for you, sez every single newspapers and the major US media outlets from Dec
thru Mar. So, although you are entitled to whatever delusions you can think of, it doesn't really matter what you think in this particular aspect. Most reasonable juror would likely be able to derive that on their own without much handling.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

As far as red herrings- as has been so eloquently pointed out, Churchill himself is the red herring. Give it up Jasonzz.




Well, for once we agreed! He is a big fat red herring in the progress of academic ethics and research.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:07 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Just a little nitpick. I thought the whole purpose of a red herring was that it smelled. Wasn't that where the phrase came from anyway? (Dragging a red herring across your trail to throw the scent of the bloodhounds off? The smellier the better). So it seems like attacking a red herring by saying it's starting to smell bad might not be the best way to go.

Jasonzzz: Your statement connecting ethics and research is telling. This is consistent with the goal of the groups behind the Churchill hunt - they don't agree that Ethnic Studies should be a research topic so they go after a researcher's ethics and then use that to broad-brush attack the field in general.

Signym: I read an article in the LA Times* ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexmayor8apr08,0,7
914216.story?coll=la-home-world
) about the political manueverings being used to keep Obrador from running but I don't recall any mention of Secretary of State Rice. Did you read this in another article?

* hat tip to Kevin Drum for the link to the article

* editted to add: I've been trying to find a story I remember reading about an east coast professor who was fired based on his participation in hate groups (white supremicist organizations). Does this ring a bell with anyone? I wanted to bring that story up as a related case but I don't remember any of the details of why the professor was fired. My initial reaction is that I would be against that firing based on freedom of speech grounds as well, but I've been holding back in an absence of information. So, short question, does anyone remember this and, if so, can you point me to a good summary article?

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I recall there was quite a flap about the David Project, a pro-Zionist organization which has gotten three Palestinian professors off the Yale (?) speakers list. I know that's not what you're referring to tho.

What I noticed is that right-wingers tend to cloak their real agenda (which is to eliminate any hint of liberalism) in very broad-sounding objectives such as "fairness", "ethics", "academic freedom" and so forth. So while liberals- who are mainly interested in creating fair systems that work for everyone- go haring and hounding off on trying to devise the optimal approach for a broad-range of situtations, the right wing is busy gutting it's enemies by any means possible. It's getting to the point where I'm reluctant to have thoughtful discussions about larger issues with right-wingers because that is clearly not their agenda.

RE Mexico- The previoust State Department's (Powell's) approach to Mexico was "We will accept any result as long as it's from a democratic process". As soon as Condi became Scy of State, the State Department issued a travel warning. I remember hearing that warning and thinking "wha.....???" because it was apropos of nothing- no sudden increase in Mexican crime, no international politcal issue brewing at the time (no important UN votes or anything). It was simply the Condi's warning shot across Mexico's bow in an area where Mexico is particularly vulnerable, which is their tourist economy.

One month after, Fox figured out a way to do Condi's bidding.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


JasonZZZZZZZ (asleep at the switch)

What is the red herring you're referring to? That I demonstrated you made false claims of fact and defamed someone?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:27 PM

JASONZZZ


can't argue your way rationally, logically, nor sanely. Can't put together well thought out strategy and can't put together any worthwhile real research. So you resort to name calling and school yard tactics.

Simply shameful.

What's next? you coming over to gimme a wedgie or something stupid?





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283














email his holiness at benedictxvi@vatican.va

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 9, 2005 6:00 AM

JASONZZZ



How about this Quincy Troupe fellow incident?

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i30/30a01001.htm



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL