Here's some controversy to quell over...discuss.

[Blackie Malone]

Ward Churchill's essay on 9/11

Has anyone read this yet or heard about it?

What say you good people?

 

[brightlyiburn]

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere.

I have to admit, this is a good point. It really amazes me, some of the ways our current government is trying to spread "freedom".

 

[Blackie Malone]

He did make some valid points, I just think he could have handled his wording better.

 

[cloudy]

He did make some valid points, I just think he could have handled his wording better.

Yes, ma'am. He makes some very valid points, but his message is bound to be lost on some because of the inflammatory language he uses. On the other hand, I can also understand why he words it the way he does.

 

[brightlyiburn]

He did make some valid points, I just think he could have handled his wording better.

They usually could. As much as I don't like what's going on in the country right now, it amazes me, some of what people say. I actually read a book about Michael Moore awhile back, expecting it to be unfounded ranting and raving. It was, in fact, a rather well organized and well supported account of the "special" editing he does for his movies. It's made me take a closer look at what these "liberal speakers" have to say, and quite frankly some of it sounds just as ridiculous as much of what we're being fed by our government these days.

 

[Guest]

What say you good people?

Drop the fucking case you stinking twat.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When you rant, you loose all but those who already are buying what you are selling. In this case, I don't even know what he was selling, as I quit trying to pice through the invective long before he reached a sentient point of any magnitude. I am sure this went over well with his target audience, but I seriously doubt it made any impression on anyone not already firmly in the chior.

 

[cantdog]

Retribution.

People in safe places always scream for it, calling it justice. Should it chance that someone wants to deal it out to them, they stop being so sure about justice and begin to value mercy more.

 

[cantdog]

And Colly may be right, but after just so long, being polite to the murderers begins to pall. I think Colly's become heated, herself, when something really offends. I listened to her, at the time.

And of course Ward lost his job. The tame journalists would write the truth of what they see more often, but for the way people lose their job and end on blacklists when they do that. Ward has to lose his job or the rest of them might stand up.

cantdog

in the choir

 

[rgraham666]

I couldn't finish it.

Mr. Churchill should remember Matthewson's 23rd edict, "To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid."

Too many odd comparisons, such as comparing what happened on The Road of Death to what the Nazis did on invading Russia. He could just as easily picked what the Soviets did when they invaded Germany. That was not pretty either.

I don't like what Shrub II is doing in Iraq. I didn't like what his predecessors did. I didn't like Saddam Hussein and I didn't like what happened on Sept 11, 2001.

I don't like evil, end of sentence. But evil is done by humans, not by any particular subset of them.

 

[Lisa Denton]

They usually could. As much as I don't like what's going on in the country right now, it amazes me, some of what people say. I actually read a book about Michael Moore awhile back, expecting it to be unfounded ranting and raving. It was, in fact, a rather well organized and well supported account of the "special" editing he does for his movies. It's made me take a closer look at what these "liberal speakers" have to say, and quite frankly some of it sounds just as ridiculous as much of what we're being fed by our government these days.

This professor was just probably trying to get some publicity and went too far like Michael Moore. I finally watched Farenheit 911 yesterday, hours of a stupid fat man's delusions with comic book facts drawn up in crayons. The only surprise to me was that he didn't accuse GWB of sinking the Titanic at the end.

I now feel a profound pity in place of respect for those who told me I should watch it.

This professor got what he wanted, people know his name, idiots will be awaiting his next insightful essay. People with enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And Colly may be right, but after just so long, being polite to the murderers begins to pall. I think Colly's become heated, herself, when something really offends. I listened to her, at the time.

And of course Ward lost his job. The tame journalists would write the truth of what they see more often, but for the way people lose their job and end on blacklists when they do that. Ward has to lose his job or the rest of them might stand up.

cantdog

in the choir

Well, as I recall, the retreat down the "highway of death" was not quite what he recalls. I seem to remember Iraq trops taking everything that wasn't nailed down, it's called looting. I also seem to remember them retreating with their arms. A force retreating with their arms, is considered to be withdrawing under fire, and is a valid military target. Retreating confers no special protections if you are doing so while still armed. Had the allies not continued to attack the germas after the normandy breakout, the war could have lasted years longer.

I also note the author castigating the U.S. for using percision guided munitions in civilain areas. I note too, he dosen't mention the iraqi military dispersing both active and static military assets in civilian areas.

The article is extremly one sided, allowing no rebuttal and intentionally or not, failing to adress facts that don't fit the author's particular take.

I do get angry at times. I do rail. But I have never refused to grant those I am argueing with valid points and I usually address alternate takes and facts that don't neccessarily bouy my own position.

Considered arguments, address unpleasant facts that may be harmful to your position. Rants, simply ignore anything that dosen't fit what you are ranting about. Considered arguments also provide back up material, I note here no sources for figures are cited.

This article, is legitimate op/ed.

If you are going to opine, you have the choice of trying to reach people with opposing views or no view at all. You also have the option of just being vitriolic. He chose the later option.

In doing so, he gave up almost any opportunity to make an impression on those not already sharing his views. That too, is his perogative. In making that choice, however, he rendered his anger at the situation impotent to do more than appease his own angst. IMHO a considered argument, giving due dilligence to facts that don't support his view, would have made a much better vehicle for airing his grievances than a rant does.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If you are going to opine, you have the choice of trying to reach people with opposing views or no view at all. You also have the option of just being vitriolic. He chose the later option.

In doing so, he gave up almost any opportunity to make an impression on those not already sharing his views. That too, is his perogative. In making that choice, however, he rendered his anger at the situation impotent to do more than appease his own angst. IMHO a considered argument, giving due dilligence to facts that don't support his view, would have made a much better vehicle for airing his grievances than a rant does.

Yes. That is what frustrates me about rants from any perspective - and leads to almost fatal chagrin when they happen to be from my own side. They are pointless rhetorical acts. They acheive nothing. Oh, I suppose that they whip up fervor in the agreeing side - but frankly, I don't think that inciting humans to act like a pack of panicky animals is an especially noble goal.

Buried in our legal system, under the mess we've made of it, is an assumption about argument that I think the true ideal. (And why not go to ideal forms; I'm thinking Aristotelian ideal argumentation, and that's hardly a long step from Plato anyway.) The assumption is that if two sides turn up and present all of the best evidence and ideas in the most effective fashion, the truth will arise from the careful analysis and contemplation of those ideas. We will learn. We will develop. We will grow. We will create newer and better truths by trying our old ones by fire.

Alas, this is rarely the case. It's too quick, too easy, and too simple to just beat one's audience over the head with pathos and scream "THEY'RE going to get you if you don't stampede with the rest of us!" It's not the specific cause or issue that I mourn most bitterly when this happens; it's the utter loss of a real chance to think and learn, and to use discourse as the tool of our own betterment.

Shanglan