Ward Churchill to be fired for research misconduct

Re: Re: Fraud

I agree with you here, Simon. The media only cares about creating sensationalistm for the sake of ratings. We need to encourage an environment that fosters reconciliation, as you said, rather than one that lumps people in categories and feeds into people's anger.

 

Re: Re: Re: Fraud

The primary issue that arises from such distorted and revisionist articles is that it is journalistic dishonesty. Standards of ethical reporting are tossed out the window by the editors in order to convey their socio-political perspectives with a total disregard, as in this case, for blacks or whites! It also displays gross arrogance and condescension regarding their readers. In fact these editors with untempered arrogance believe that they can present such spurious allegations and journalism as objective reporting and that intelligent readers will "buy" their assertations without questioning its veracity. Absolutely disgusting.

 

Re: Re: Re: Fraud

The authors of this article are so entitled that they accompany the article with a photo of a black youth wearing a do-rag (a symbolic intimidating headress that many associate with gangs and "gangsta" behavior ), and then have the gall to accuse whites of sterotyping blacks as being aggressive, threatening, etc. In fact, the news media, movie and music industries and minorities themselves have actually capitolized on these stereotyped images to sell violent ridden movies, rap music that focuses on rapes, murder,etc, as well as hyping the image of blacks as being extremely tough, ready to fight and using the terms "mother-F" in every sentence (as well as refering to each other with the "N" word)! However, the MSNBC article does not touch on these significant factors that contribute to stereotyped images of blacks and that places the responsibility where it belongs.

 

It's OK for the media and liberals to use racial stereotyping, just not for anyone else...

 

There's such a thing as this? So there is such a thing as an "authentic black pose", some thing that all blacks share? Funny, I thought that of the tens of millions of blacks in this country, there were probably as many authentic natures as there are people.

Talk about stereotypes! If Limbaugh or Hannity had said it, they'd be skewered--and probably by MSNBC! And of course, they'd deserve it.

Call me crazy, but you think this type of culture described above may have just a mite to do with the negative stereotypes? Or are we to assume, given the tenor of the article, that his friends being killed in neighborhood violence or jailed for selling drugs was somehow my fault and your fault--that is, if you happen to be white? I'm trying to figure out what they're getting at.

My experience, having worked with inner city families, both as personal friends and in a tutoring program in the heart of the hood, is that the great majority of people who happen to be black and live there HATE the gangstas and wish they were all rounded up and shot. Many of them don't care beans about "brotherly pride" or any bilge like that, they'd just like to live their lives without fear, without wincing from gunshots and sirens day and night.

Many of them think that the stereotypes are very much deserved and the gangstas with the doo rags and the baggies and the swaggers--who kill each other with far greater frequency than whitey ever did--deserve every negative stereotype, as does anyone foolish enough to dress and/or act like them. I did an internship with a state attorney general's office back in law school. The head of the division, during voir dire, once told me that whatever I do, don't try to find a reason to strike a black juror if a gangsta's on trial, because the odds are, they'll want them locked away as soon as they see them, because unlike most white liberals, they have to live in fear of that culture every day.

Just what I've seen.

 

fauss- counldn't agree more

 

I agree with you. I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but it matters not to me. I have seen this man debate with some of the nations foremost "Conservatives". I must say he defended his point, the proof being in the audience response.

The latest debate I observed was at a major University, and the University audience mostly applauded for him. He made mince meat of his opponent. His opponents name escapes me, but suffice it to say he was a "Right Winger". In assuming I will be asked to back up these facts, I will say in advance "I DO NOT CARE TO". With all due respect, I have better things to do.

Just my two cents,

Go at it gentleman,

Abner

 

Thanks for your response. I was not being sarcastic and I'm not going to ask you to back this up since It's not a topic that matters that much to either of us, but I can see him frying an opponent. I don't like him that much and I'm glad he is on the hot seat these days, but he does make a great villain for a Bond movie. He does have charisma, I'll give him that.

 

Abner, you know I love you, but I'm not sure I'm ready to place that much faith in "audience response" as the arbiter of who won a debate. I'll bet that Hitler might well have made mincemeat of a lot of world leaders in a debate. In fact, in one famous speech--I believe after he'd committed the undefendable atrocity of invading Poland--he gave a speech that made Roosevelt look very foolish and made himself look like the put upon victim. Of course, it got a rousing response and lots of sarcastic laughter from the audience, and probably bolstered his image worldwide. "He may be a weirdo, but yeah, you know, that German leader does have a point...".

I'm just saying that the guy's a lunatic and could not possibly be more wrong. I care not about his debating techniques. I care a lot more about the insane things he says, the evil people with whom he seems intent on allying himself, the plagiarism, misstatements of history, and outright lies surrounding his "scholarship", and his reprehensible character as expressed publicly. That's all I'm saying.

 

And I respect your opinion as a scholar and a gentleman!

Take care Little Fauss!


Abner

 

And I thank you for your comments Michael! I wil concede I am merely engaging my opinion through observation. I will also admit to sometimes being somewhat "militant" in my mode of thinking. I do not apologize for this. I firmly believe what makes this country great is the fact that opposing views can be expressed in any forum. If this is lost, everything is lost.

I would like to wish you and your family a great Fourth! No sarcasim intended!

Abner

 

little fauss-

an excellent point. The method / effectiveness of the delivery does not the contents of the speech true

 

SIMON: A lunatic? Insane? Not at all. This man is merely an extreme example of an entitled culture that enables many people including those with power as well as individuals on the periphery of our society (including wanabes, get-overs, b.s. artists and incompetents) to have equal relevance, make money as well as gain national attention for their pseudo-relevant pontifications. Although not in the same category as Churchill do not think for one moment that when actor Tom Cruise, a member of a cult group, Scientology, made a number of national appearances on TV and denigrated psychiatry in treating mental illness, that he was not equally destructive as Churchill! Here is a very well known actor with all the power and influence accorded actors in our society, without a high school diploma or training in mental health (well of course Scientology has the answer to treating mental illness), coming forth and debating about a subject he has absolutely no knowledge about and without one iota of insight how his absurd mumbo jumbo may negatively impact on those who are suffering daily from psychiatric disorders. Yes, he has a prettier and more benevolent face and is beloved by many but his level of destructiveness, whether intended or not, is on par with Churchill.

 

It's also an example of an ill-fated, extreme statement taking a relatively unknown individual and putting them in the limelight of the news. Unfortunately, this happens all the time. A great example of this is Rep. John Murtha from my home state of PA. The man was a relatively unknown Congressman who wasn't even well-known in his own state, let along on a national level. He comes out last fall with his ridiculous statements regarding the war, and all of a sudden he's in the limelight, and people are talking about him for positions of leadership.

Does anyone think that people make statements like this in order to propel themselves from relative mediocrity to a position of notoriety? In this case it's certainly worked for Churchill and Murtha, both of whom have become relative household names after spending years being an unknown.

 

Two questions:
1. What inane statements did Murtha make about the war?
2. What was it Truman said about men who mistake notoriety for fame?

 

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.


Abner

 

Thanks, I wish you and your family the same. Happy 4th!

 

Last fall Murtha made the ridiculous statement that we should withdraw all of our troops from Iraq immediately. No matter what your thoughts on the Iraq war, especially at the time he made the statement, most military experts agreed that pulling all troops out of Iraq immediately was a quick recipe for big disaster.

Murtha went from relative unknown to household name in a matter of days.

Much the same as Ward Churchill.

 

"People often mistake notoriety for fame, and would rather be remarked for their vices and follies than not be noticed at all."

Harry S. Truman