[NOTE] In this blog or as I choose to call it BLOB (Web Lobby) I have never altered the archives that I can recall, except to add a link. The only editing has occurred within moments or hours of posting, as minor corrections. Maintaining this principle I refer to the previous post which I now amend.
In preface: While not meaning to defend any individuals particular choice of words, I do feel that they have a right to choose them their selves. Given the overall and most recent history of violence, and the Orwellian language and Homeland Security acts which have been used to overshadow and preempt not just freedoms but the value of dialogue, I find the inflammatory use of language a very small concern. Indeed it is a highest and best example of freedom as well as beautiful alternative to just saying “war is a last resort” while sabotaging our constitution and flaunting international laws and treaties.
To amend I will only highlight and add the comments that follow this section:
[From previous post] For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
The bold words leave much to the interpretation of the reader. I would emphasize these words in the kindest light, if I may use a wrong word in “kind”. While a reading of surrounding text may tend to further inflame, they may also further support the overall argument, which I will not be concerned with, given my preface. In fact if it takes outrageous language to get notice or productive dialogue, this seems the operating principle not only of our society but our leadership, if the are interested in dialogue at all. The outrageousness itself has no other value.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!
American Perspectives?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
ON MESSAGE; SS CRISIS
The crisis is that the president has a serious problem with language.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)