0
   

CU Prof. should be fired!

 
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 09:59 pm
And no matter how one might explain Churchill's perspective on this matter, neoconservatives will demonstrate their fascist tendencies unequivocally on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 10:40 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
And no matter how one might explain Churchill's perspective on this matter, neoconservatives will demonstrate their fascist tendencies unequivocally on this thread.


You say this but in the same breath you will demand certain "neocon" groups be banned from schools and uni's.

Do you support conservative student groups having bake sales based on AA?
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 11:29 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
McGentrix, by his latest avatar, once again shows us the true nature of conservative morality.

Neoconservatives say one thing, but we all know what's truly on their minds.

They complain about Janet Jackson only because she didn't show enough during the Superbowl halftime show.

Amazing...


Grasping.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 01:57 am
He has the right to say what he wants, but not necessarily the right to teach at the university. He essentially advocated violence, although, after the fact. If he had applauded someone who had bombed an abortion clinic and said the victims deserved it, he would not now be working there, and we all know it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:15 am
Dookiestix wrote:
They complain about Janet Jackson only because she didn't show enough during the Superbowl halftime show.

No, actually, Coulter blasted it for being "simulated interracial sex".

Interracial sex being a bad thing, I presume.

But no, if we are to believe the conservative opinion here, its actually the liberals who are racist. Not conservatives.

That on an off-topic line of argument.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:18 am
Dookiestix wrote:
McGentrix, by his latest avatar, once again shows us the true nature of conservative morality.

Neoconservatives say one thing, but we all know what's truly on their minds.

They complain about Janet Jackson only because she didn't show enough during the Superbowl halftime show.

Amazing...


I'm sorry, what? Perhaps you can explain how a pictures of a mouse shows the "true nature of conservative morality"?

Your overdramatic statements are tired and weak.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 09:28 am
Dookiestix wrote:
McGentrix, by his latest avatar, once again shows us the true nature of conservative morality.

Neoconservatives say one thing, but we all know what's truly on their minds.

They complain about Janet Jackson only because she didn't show enough during the Superbowl halftime show.

Amazing...


Reminds me of the joke told by Bill Murry in "What About Bob?" ....

A psychologist is working with a patient and using the Rorschach inkblot test. He shows him the first inkblot and asks him what it reminds him of. The patient replies, "Sex." He shows him the second picture, and the patient answers, "Sex." This continues for about four more pictures until the doctor declares, "Sex, sex, sex. Is that all you can think about?" To which the patient replies, "Well, you're the one with all of the dirty pictures."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 10:18 am
Ruick wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Ruick wrote:
I don't think he should be fired for the said reasons in the Rocky Mountain News article. A stronger reason that is arguable is stated in the "Bull-S-***" article, even though i doubt the source's accuracy [perhaps a biased article]. Such as joefromchicago said, his ethnic credientials should not be ground for being fired. Although if being Indian IS a requirement for his position, i can see the reasoning. But wait, the college singled out Indians ONLY for that position? maybe the college should be accused of racial profiling?


Not "racial profiling," but discrimination in employment based on race/ethnicity.

Good first post, Ruick. Welcome to A2K.


ah heh thanks. Thanks for fixing my error too, im still a greenhorn Very Happy

I've used Racial profiling out of context, what is it's actual meaning? Just accounting the person's race when developing a list of suspected criminals [dictionary.com meaning] and nothing else?



Generally. From Wikipedia...

Quote:
Racial profiling is the use of race as a consideration in suspect profiling or other law enforcement practices.

Advocates are divided on whether race should be:

* considered if it's statistically significant
* never considered for any reason at all

While often associated with police procedures, the issue came into the international spotlight because race was included among the factors used by aviation authorities in several countries to attempt to identify potential terrorists and prevent them from boarding airplanes.

Virtually all advocates agree that race ought not to be the only factor in suspect profiling. Most would agree that the police should not, for example, pull over only speeders of a particular ethnic group while letting others go.

Some groups say that if a disproportional number of members of a race are, for example, stopped, searched, or arrested -- compared to the general population or to other races -- it must necessarily be due to discrimination. These groups regard the disproportion as evidence of "racial profiling" and oppose it. They want authorities to reduce the disproportion. Some members of this group point out that, even where disproportion is thought to exist in the number of minorities who commit certain crimes, by their very status as "minorities" they usually represent only a fraction of the total number of criminals, and therefore that the concentration of enforcement on minorities represents something other than a desire for police efficiency.

Other groups, in contrast to this view, claim that the disproportion is primarily a result of disproportional behavior by members of certain races. These groups deny that the disproportion is due to "racial profiling" and do not call on police to reduce it.

Including race as one of several factors in suspect profiling is generally supported by the law enforcement community, though there are many notable exceptions. It is claimed that profiling based on any characteristic is a time-tested and universal police tool, and that excluding race as a factor makes no sense. Minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it is claimed, so they get more attention from law enforcement. Proponents claim that suspect profiling that deliberately omits race results in less effective, inefficient law-enforcement.


Racial/Ethnic discrimination in employment is unlawful (e.g., refusing to hire someone based upon their race or ethnicity).
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 10:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
That's some new avatar, there, McG.


Eyecatching, isn't it?


Any chance you could get jp to make her scroll every once in a while?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 10:51 am
Chilling for thee, but not for me

Jonah Goldberg (archive)

February 11, 2005

If you're a liberal who's still moping like a dog whose food bowl has been moved, thanks to all the conservative victories of late, I have some words of encouragement for you: You guys are still way, way smarter than us about some things.

Consider the current flap about Ward Churchill and the recent one about Harvard President Larry Summers.

Ward Churchill, as you've probably heard, is a tenured professor of "ethnic studies" at the University of Colorado. Until recently he was the chairman of the department. When invited to another school to give a talk, it came out that he had written an essay comparing the civilian victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns." This was a reference to Adolf Eichmann, the chief architect of the Holocaust.

Known for making factually unencumbered statements about the evils of America, Churchill recently gave an interview in which he said he wanted the "U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." He thinks "more 9/11s" are necessary. He holds no Ph.D., and his scholarship - for want of a better word - is under relentless attack. Before the current kerfuffle, he'd attained whatever prominence he had by pretending he was an American Indian radical. He likes to pose with assault rifles. The Rocky Mountain News did a genealogical search of Churchill's past and found that he's basically a vanilla white guy playing Indian and enriching himself in the process. The American Indian Movement called Churchill a fraud years ago.

OK, flash back to the hysteria over Larry Summers. By now his auto da fé is old news. But let's recap. One of the most respected economists in America, president of Harvard University, and the former Secretary of the Treasury, Summers was invited to a closed-door, off-the-record academic conference at which everyone was encouraged to think unconventionally. Warning his audience several times that he was going to be deliberately "provocative," he suggested that there might be some innate cognitive differences between men and women.

This is not a controversial hypothesis in macroeconomics, and it is losing its taboo status in psychology, genetics and neuroscience. Thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers have been written on the differences between men and woman when it comes to various cognitive functions. Note I said "differences." Superiority and inferiority don't play into it, and Summers never said otherwise. Indeed, he ventured this hypothesis, after showing his obeisance to the more politically correct explanations: discrimination, not enough effort to recruit women, etc., etc.

So what was the reaction?

An MIT feminist biologist - who moonlights as a feminist activist - quickly got the vapors and stormed out of the room for fear of fainting. If she stayed any longer, she explained, she'd vomit. Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe compared Summers to people who cavalierly bandy about the N-word or who thoughtlessly wear swastikas. One hundred members of the Harvard faculty drafted a letter demanding that he apologize. The National Organization for Women demanded that he resign.

The dean of engineering at the University of Washington called his comments "an intellectual tsunami." Since the Asian catastrophe had only just transpired, the tastelessness of the metaphor may not be as apparent now as it was then. Regardless, if his comments were a tsunami, Summers' critics have certainly cashed in on disaster relief effort.

Forced to apologize over and over, Summers was then bullied into appointing not one but two new "task forces" on gender equity. Staffed with 22 women and five men, the task forces will no doubt discover that much more work needs to be done and that Summers should apologize more.

In the Summers affair, free speech and academic freedom barely came up, except among a few conservative commentators and one or two academics who were already known for their political incorrectness. Instead, Summers was a pinata to be bashed for material rewards and to send the message that some subjects are simply taboo even among serious scholars, no matter what the evidence, in closed-door, off-the-record meetings.

Meanwhile, Ward Churchill, whose scholarship is a joke, whose evidence is tendentious at best, and who called the victims of 9/11 the moral equivalent of a man who sent babies to the gas chambers, is a hero of free speech. He has refused to apologize. Many conservatives are forced to defend free speech and "diversity" in academia while liberals let the NOWers feed on Summers' flesh.

Liberals may despise what Churchill said, but it's a matter of principle now. The normally insightful and fair Mort Kondracke declared on Fox News, "I really think it's useful for universities to have people like this around, to show students and the rest of us just how odious some of the ideas of the far left are." Would Kondracke punt on a professor who endorsed slavery? I somehow doubt it.

Hopefully - and, I think, probably - someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel how the other side has mastered this game.

source
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 11:01 am
What happened to the poll here? Was the voting stopped once the result favored the desired outcome?

Now that's conservative politics in action! As for McG's avatar: his denial is kind of coy. Unlike that image....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:00 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
What happened to the poll here? Was the voting stopped once the result favored the desired outcome?

Now that's conservative politics in action!


Some liberals can never just admit defeat. Always a conspiracy. Laughing

D'artagnan wrote:
As for McG's avatar: his denial is kind of coy. Unlike that image....


His denial of what?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:21 pm
McGentrix wrote:
One of the most respected economists in America, president of Harvard University, and the former Secretary of the Treasury, Summers was invited to a closed-door, off-the-record academic conference at which everyone was encouraged to think unconventionally. Warning his audience several times that he was going to be deliberately "provocative," he suggested that there might be some innate cognitive differences between men and women.

Good article on that episode here.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:32 pm
I like McG's new avatar. I can't explain it, but for some reason it makes me want to sexually harrass my computer.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:35 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
What happened to the poll here? Was the voting stopped once the result favored the desired outcome?

Now that's conservative politics in action!


Some liberals can never just admit defeat. Always a conspiracy. Laughing



Then I demand a new vote, just like the Republicans in my state. They can't admit defeat either. :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:39 pm
Joe
It is oddly compelling, isn't it. I almost never use my lickbar any more.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:49 pm
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
One of the most respected economists in America, president of Harvard University, and the former Secretary of the Treasury, Summers was invited to a closed-door, off-the-record academic conference at which everyone was encouraged to think unconventionally. Warning his audience several times that he was going to be deliberately "provocative," he suggested that there might be some innate cognitive differences between men and women.

Good article on that episode here.


That is a good article, but can you see the point Goldberg is making?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:53 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
What happened to the poll here? Was the voting stopped once the result favored the desired outcome?

Now that's conservative politics in action!


Some liberals can never just admit defeat. Always a conspiracy. Laughing



Then I demand a new vote, just like the Republicans in my state. They can't admit defeat either. :wink:


Touche ... but let's not forget it was the Democrats who couldn't admit defeat first! It's a Goose/Gander thing.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:56 pm
McGentrix wrote:
That is a good article, but can you see the point Goldberg is making?

To be honest, McG, when I read the column I thought Goldberg had the right point re: Summers (not commenting on the rest), but was grossly exaggerating in his rhetorical excess. So I went to Google up some actual quotes to bring the story back to its real-life dimensions. But what I found was not what I remembered. Instead, what I found - the article I linked in being a level-headed account of the whole flap - basically confirmed Goldberg's account on the matter, minus rhetorical flourish. So I just posted the link.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 01:56 pm
Before all of this is over with, we're going to know more about Chief Spouting Bull than we care to.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540067,00.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 02:56:54