This book is a MUST READ. Of course it is old now and the 911 inside job has uncovered a much deeper level of a criminal empire. BUT IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for us to have an understanding of the ways that our democracy is undermined by the ILLEGITEMATE OWNERS of this world. The book is freely availabe from zmag.org website. Blogspot adaptation by u2rh2.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Media.s Anti-Obama Bias
Explaining the Media.s Anti-Obama Bias
by Randy Shaw Jul. 28 2009
A front-page story in the July 24 New York Times ("For Public, Obama Didn.t Fill in Health Blanks.) describes how Craig Brown, a 36-year old father of four, got increasingly agitated as he watched President Obama.s July 22 press conference on health care. Brown and his wife said that Obama and the Democrats "had not convinced them of the need for radical change,. that they were not convinced the system was broken, but that even it was, they were "not sure the government is the solution.. But in highlighting the Browns, the Times selected one of the nation.s least representative families. The Browns were among only 4% of African-Americans who voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, and using them to assess public attitudes toward health reform is like interviewing Clarence Thomas to get the nation.s pulse on civil rights. The Times has been almost consistently anti-reform in its news coverage of health care reform, and cable and network television news coverage has been even worse. Despite the November election results and high ratings generated by Obama.s election and inauguration, the traditional media.s longstanding opposition to progressive change continues.
The blogosphere is now filled with stories of strong media bias against President Obama.s health care reform. In fact, even skeptical progressives seem surprised that a traditional media that was so excited about the Obama presidency has now turned so strongly against "The Change We Need..
I am also a little surprised, mostly by the obviousness of the media.s agenda. When McCain supporters disproportionately represent public attitudes, and the media gives fifteen times the coverage to a negative CBO report on a draft health plan than it does to its positive report on the final version, then the traditional media.s hostile agenda is transparent.
There are two chief reasons for this.
The Audience for News
Younger voters, and those of color, strongly backed Obama, but these are not the primary viewers of cable news or subscribers to daily newspapers. This group remains disproportionately white and male, the demographic most likely to vote Republican.
CNN is desperately courting this demographic, which is why it has noticeably veered rightward since Obama took office. Much of CNN.s coverage is little different from FOX News, and is clearly designed to win slightly more moderate Republicans away from Rupert Murdoch.s network.
Many CNN viewers want to see coverage of Tea Parties, and hear Lou Dobbs bash immigrants on a nearly daily basis. The recent contretemps over Dobbs. promotion of the Obama "birthing. issue somewhat ignored the fact that Dobbs draws great ratings in his prime-time spot, winning CNN viewers who would otherwise be watching FOX.
Newspapers also serve a disproportionately conservative demographic.
It.s hard to find a progressive activist under 30 who subscribes to a daily newspaper. Meanwhile, the industry has left much of the potentially growing Latino market to the Spanish-language media. This has left newspapers writing for a much more affluent and politically conservative audience than the general public, and these readers want a product that questions and undermines, rather than facilitates, progressive change.
As the traditional news industry continues to lose viewers, listeners, and subscribers, producers and editors fear that appearing to support progressive policies will turn their customers exodus into a stampede. Even the more progressive MSNBC gives ample air time to the right-wing Pat Buchanan, when there is no left equivalent of Buchanan to be found anywhere on CNN.
So a major reason the media slants coverage against Obama.s progressive reforms is to satisfy its audience. And while the electorate is getting younger and less white, the shrinking offline news audience is moving in the reverse direction.
Corporate Media Ownership
It has been decades since Noam Chomsky described the traditional media as implementing its corporate owners. political agenda. Under this view, Obama.s success at securing newspaper endorsements reflected corporate America.s desperate desire to save capitalism, rather than as an endorsement of universal health care, immigration reform, EFCA or strong climate-change measures.
This notion that Obama.s victory was not a vote for progressive change has now become a media staple. For example, consider the July 22 New York Times comments of Mickey Edwards, a longtime Republican Congressmember and one of the founders of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Edwards claims he voted for Obama in 2008, and the media has anointed him as a politically "neutral. pundit in assessing the President. Edwards told the Times:
"A lot of people supported Obama because they wanted to repudiate the Bush administration. I was one of those people who supported him for reasons other than the policies he is proposing. He seemed more thoughtful, more contemplative . I felt he had the right temperament to be president. But I think his health care proposal goes beyond what the public at the moment is ready to accept..
So in a story that defines the health care debate as a "defining moment. for Obama, the nation.s most prestigious newspaper allows a longtime right-wing conservative Republican to "define. what Obama.s victory really meant.
Contrast this with the media.s response to George W. Bush claiming a "mandate. after winning the 2004 election much more narrowly than Obama won in 2008. The traditional media all agreed with Bush.s assessment, and none claimed that he won due to his "temperament,. rather than his ideology.
Similarly, there was no media chorus questioning whether Bush voters really backed the President.s agenda of investing billions more in Iraq, neglecting health care and the environment, or the other features of his platform. Its only when progressives win that the victory is ascribed to something other than issues.
In fact, one is hard-pressed to find a traditional news story that reminded people that we had an election in 2008 where the candidates publicly split on universal health care, and the pro-health care side won handily. Not just in the presidential race, but in the Senate and Congressional contests.
Jim DeMint was Right
South Carolina Republican Senator James Demint has taken a lot of heat by saying that health care could be Obama.s "Waterloo,. and that stopping progressive change here will prevent it elsewhere. But Demint was simply openly expressing what is heard in editorial offices, and among the corporate owners of traditional media.
Stopping health care reform enables corporate America to begin reversing the 2008 election. And these media owners know that it.s not what said in editorials that counts, but the slanted news coverage that shapes readers views because they perceive it as "objective..
As a representative of the California Labor Federation told me in discussing newspaper coverage of the Employee Free Choice Act, "why would we expect the corporations that own newspapers to cover EFCA in a way that could anger their largest advertisers? Of course they will slant the news against union.s interests..
Fortunately, the Internet will not allow the traditional media to again derail the nation.s hopes for progressive change. No wonder the Obama Administration is openly courting bloggers to tell the truth about health care -- they know that the traditional media has too much financial interest in bucking progressive change to ever change.
Randy Shaw discusses activist strategies for combating media bias in The Activist.s Handbook.
Chomsky says RTP (Responsibility to Protect) won.t be possible as long as imperial nations maintain control
Posted by Tala Dowlatshahi on July 24, 2009
World leaders gathered at the Untied Nations this week to attend a General Assembly organized thematic debate on RTP (Responsibility to Protect or .R2P.). R2p is a new human rights norm set up to address the international community.s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. RTP relates to a state.s responsibilities towards its population and to the international community.s responsibility in case a state fails to follow up on investigating and prosecuting a crime.
The debate, held at the Trusteeship Council this week in New York, was a charged environment from the introduction. Many countries do no agree with the current veto powers of the Security Council and others voiced concern on how an agreed framework could be provided to set up a legal and ethical basis for humanitarian intervention. Direct failures by the United Nations, in a state that was unwilling or unable to prevent or stop genocide, massive killings and other massive human rights violations like Sudan, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo were highlighted.
Supporters of R2P want the establishment of a normative basis for humanitarian intervention while opponents say justifying external breaches of state sovereignty encourages foreign aggression by stronger nations. Some dignitaries accused other participants of .living in a paper world, while they lived in a real world..
The UN Charter was underscored as the universal standard by which nations should be operating.
Professor Noam Chomsky, said he hoped the UN well but .every use of force, has been justified, even from the worst monsters..
Participants included Noam Chomsky, Gareth Evans former Foreign Minister of Australia, and Professors Jean Bricmont of Belgium and Ngugi wa Thiong.o from Kenya.
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, issued a report early this year on implementing RTP.
Chomsky: Sri Lanka, a Rwanda-like major atrocity the West didn't care
[TamilNet, Friday, 24 July 2009, 10:40 GMT]
Prof Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT, said Thursday during a United Nations forum on Responsibility to Protect (R2P), that what happened in Sri Lanka was a major Rwanda-like atrocity, in a different scale, where the West didn't care. "There was plenty of early warning. This [conflict] has been going on for years and decades. Plenty of things could have been done [to prevent it]. But there was not enough interest." Chomsky was responding to a question that referred to Jan Egeland, former head of UN's Humanitarian Affairs' earlier statement that R2P was a failure in Sri Lanka, where Inner City Press (ICP) noted that nearly 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed.
On ICP Matthew Lee's reference to the UN's doctrine of R2P which was signed by 191 states in 2005 and question if there was a consensus in UN about this doctrine, Chomsky described the power interests at play at the UN, and how Western Governments' policies of structural adjustments in other countries are tearing those societies apart.
Lee also noted that Robert Evans, former head of the International Crisis Group (ICG) had earlier said that UN had responded to Sri Lanka in the R2P sense.
Chomsky took issue with the optimistic characterization by Evan's of the activities of the UN with regards to R2P.
R2P is generally noted as Kofi Annan's greatest achievement in "humanitarian intervention," to bring governments and leaders massacring their own people to account.
Noam Chomsky, is known as one of the fathers of modern linguistics, a libertarian socialist intellectual, and is also described as a "hero of Homeric proportions," belonging solidly in the pantheon of US's finest minds.
======================================
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:05 AM MDT
Editor:
Re: Letter by Robert A. Webb, July 15, Star-Tribune ("Consequences of complacency"). At last a letter that makes sense! Good job!
Comfortable people seldom get concerned about anything unless they begin to get "uncomfortable." Therefore, boiling the lobster is done incrementally and before he is aware he's "in hot water," it's already too late!
Genghis Khan knew and used his knowledge of human nature to create the largest empire that ever existed in human history. He attacked each kingdom and city-state knowing that he could do so unencumbered by the neighbors who were too busy (or complacent) to organize a cohesive front against the Mongols.
Read up on Noam Chomsky and Roger Baldwin (Communist and founder of the ACLU), if you haven't already, who both recognized the value of incremental steps. Chomsky even stated that "progressives" alive during his day might not ever see the changes they strive for happening, but by replicating themselves through our education systems, they would practically guarantee socialism's success in the long run.
Example: Almost everyone who experienced the "first" Great Depression of 1893 ignored the warning signs and did not take steps to stop or prepare for the "second" Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s.
Ignoring history (experience) for an individual may have fatal results.
Ignoring history for a nation will most assuredly result in it's demise.
Hey, I liked Walter Cronkite, too, but come on now.
This is not the end of an era. That era ended a long time ago. And good riddance to it.
The idea that a single anchorperson of the corporate media should have enormous power over what Americans think is not only anachronistic; it.s undemocratic and distorting.
Walter Cronkite.s sign off, .that.s the way it is,. was itself a distortion and a conceit, masking the biases and choices and omissions that go into producing a newscast.
I.m troubled by the adhesive adjective .avuncular,. which, we were reminded again, was attached to his name. This implies that the citizens of a democracy are merely little unshaped nieces and nephews that have to sit at their uncle.s knee to get the received wisdom.
And the wisdom itself, even at its apogee, was less than what we.ve been constantly told these last few days.
Yes, it was important that Cronkite recognized Vietnam for the stalemate it was. But then he laid it on thick, calling Americans .an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could..
But we weren.t defending democracy in Vietnam.
We weren.t acting as honorable people in Vietnam, with My Lai and all the napalm and the carpet-bombing and the toll of 2 to 3 million dead Vietnamese.
But to admit that would have been, as Noam Chomsky observed long ago, to move .beyond the bounds of thinkable thought..
The corporate media bury their leaders with kingly honors. So it was with Tim Russert. Now it is with Walter Cronkite.
But we are not their subjects. And they are not our rulers. And as for me, I.ll take the current media landscape, with a multiplicity of voices and many megaphones, over the baritone and the single microphone at CBS News.
September 11 is now engraved on the consciousness of Americans. Yet for the South American country of Chile, the date has a different and much more tragic significance. It was on that day in 1973 that the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown in a CIA-backed military coup. Augusto Pinochet seized power. In the ensuing years tens of thousands of Chileans were killed, jailed, tortured and driven into exile. The US role, under Nixon and his National Security Advisor Kissinger, in first destabilizing and then overthrowing the Allende government was decisive. It will rank among the most grotesque interventions ever undertaken by the US. A few years after the coup, Nobel Peace Prize-winner Kissinger visited Chile. He told General Pinochet, " In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here."
CHILE
Noam Chomsky
an interview of Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian from the book Secrets, Lies and Democracy by Odonian Press
Richard Nixon's death generated much fanfare. Henry Kissinger said in his eulogy: "The world is a better place, a safer place, because of Richard Nixon." I'm sure he was thinking of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. But let's focus on one place that wasn't mentioned in all the media hoopla- Chile-and see how it's a "better, safer place." In early September 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in a democratic election. What were his politics?
He was basically a social democrat, very much of the European type. He was calling for minor redistribution of wealth, to help the poor. (Chile was a very inegalitarian society.) Allende was a doctor, and one of the things he did was to institute a free milk program for half a million very poor, malnourished children. He called for nationalization of major industries like copper mining, and for a policy of international independence-meaning that Chile wouldn't simply subordinate itself to the US, but would take more of an independent path.
Was the election he won free and democratic?
Not entirely, because there were major efforts to disrupt it, mainly by the US. It wasn't the flrst time the US had done that. For example, our government intervened massively to prevent Allende from winning the preceding election, in 1964. In fact, when the Church Committee investigated years later, they discovered that the US spent more money per capita to get the candidate it favored elected in Chile in 1964 than was spent by both candidates (Johnson and Goldwater) in the 1964 election in the US!
Similar measures were undertaken in 1970 to try to prevent a free and democratic election. There was a huge amount of black propaganda about how if Allende won, mothers would be sending their children off to Russia to become slaves-stuff like that. The US also threatened to destroy the economy, which it could-and did-do.
Nevertheless, Allende won. A few days after his victory, Nixon called in CIA Director Richard Helms, Kissinger and others for a meeting on Chile. Can you describe what happened?
As Helms reported in his notes, there were two points of view. The "soft line" was, in Nixon's words, to "make the economy scream." The "hard line" was simply to aim for a military coup.
Our ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, who was a Kennedy liberal type, was given the job of implementing the "soft line." Here's how he described his task: "to do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." That was the soft line.
There was a massive destabilization and disinformation campaign. The CIA planted stories in El Mercurio [Chile's most prominent paper] and fomented labor unrest and strikes.
They really pulled out the stops on this one. Later, when the military coup finally came [in September, 1973] and the government was overthrown-and thousands of people were being imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered- the economic aid which had been canceled immediately began to flow again. As a reward for the military junta's achievement in reversing Chilean democracy, the US gave massive support to the new government.
Our ambassador to Chile brought up the question of torture to Kissinger. Kissinger rebuked him sharply-saying something like, Don't give me any of those political science lectures. We don't care about torture-we care about important things. Then he explained what the important things were.
Kissinger said he was concerned that the success of social democracy in Chile would be contagious. It would infect southern Europe-southern Italy, for example-and would lead to the possible success of what was then called Eurocommunism (meaning that Communist parties would hook up with social democratic parties in a united front).
Actually, the Kremlin was just as much opposed to Eurocommunism as Kissinger was, but this gives you a very clear picture of what the domino theory is all about. Even Kissinger, mad as he is, didn't believe that Chilean armies were going to descend on Rome. It wasn't going to be that kind of an influence. He was worried that successful economic development, where the economy produces benefits for the general population-not just profits for private corporations-would have a contagious effect.
In those comments, Kissinger revealed the basic story of US foreign policy for decades.
You see that pattern repeating itself in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Everywhere. The same was true in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Guatemala, in Greece. That's always the worry-the threat of a good example.
Kissinger also said, again speaking about Chile, "I don't see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
As the Economist put it, we should make sure that policy is insulated from politics. If people are irresponsible, they should just be cut out of the system.
In recent years, Chile's economic growth rate has been heralded in the press.
Chile's economy isn't doing badly, but it's based almost entirely on exports-fruit, copper and so on-and thus is very vulnerable to world markets.
There was a really funny pair of stories yesterday. The New York Times had one about how everyone in Chile is so happy and satisfied with the political system that nobody's paying much attention to the upcoming election.
But the London Financial Times (which is the world's most influential business paper, and hardly radical) took exactly the opposite tack. They cited polls that showed that 75% of the population was very "disgruntled" with the political system (which allows no options).
There is indeed apathy about the election, but that's a reflection of the breakdown of Chile's social structure. Chile was a very vibrant, lively, democratic society for many, many years-into the early 1970s. Then, through a reign of fascist terror, it was essentially depoliticized. The breakdown of social relations is pretty striking. People work alone, and just try to fend for themselves. The retreat into individualism and personal gain is the basis for the political apathy.
Nathaniel Nash wrote the Times' Chile story. He said that many Chileans have painful memories of Salvador Allende's fiery speeches, which led to the coup in which thousands of people were killed [including Allende]. Notice that they don't have painful memories of the torture, of the fascist terror-just of Allende's speeches as a popular candidate.
Product Description This book is for the person who senses that there is something wrong in America, yet is not quite sure exactly what that 'something' is or how its basic construct operates and functions. It takes a look at events-past and present-and how events seem to be escalating out of control for the worse with all institutions of everyday life being simultaneously swirled into a plethora of chaotic corruption and confusion. It makes the reader aware that responses by government to these occurrences only seem to offer more control and less freedom-becoming more draconian with each corresponding event. With careful observation, one will be able to connects the dots to see that these events-like September 11, 2001 and countless others-were brought about to occur on purpose. The specific intent of these events is to convince the citizenry to sacrifice their civil liberties and freedoms under the illusion of 'peace and security'. The desired effect of this 'organized chaos' will ultimately turn America into totalitarian state:
a state that controls humanity's every move and activity with constant tracking and mass surveillance, resulting in the creation the Fourth Reich and eventual slavery on a planetary scale-the New World Order.
About the Author
Cass Swenson, a Minnesota native, is a freelance author who has been studying subjects like September 11th and the criminal atrocities of the Global Elite for the last five years. He is politically active in his city precinct and is also an architecture and engineering student through the Minnesota State College and Universities system. Organized Chaos is his first book.
nice article... congratulations. Great RECAP of the facts. The only thing missing is the CONCLUSION or even speculations.
I think the author is not only entitled but required to TELL US THE STORY as he thinks it has happened and HOW IT IS CONNECTED to our two-faced-matrix-world.
SOCORRO, New Mexico (STPNS) -- Late NFL safety Pat Tillman’s parents recently appealed to the U.S. Senate to seriously consider not confirming Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as Obama’s chief commander in Afghanistan. As they have done since their son’s death, they accuse him of covering up a murder. McChrystal apologized at his confirmation hearing for “misleading” the Tillmans and the nation regarding the nature of the former Arizona Cardinal’s death in Afghanistan in 2004.
Patrick Tillman’s entire chain of command repeatedly went to great lengths to disguise the fact that Pat was shot in the forehead at close range, apparently by one of his own platoon, while on routine patrol. Instead, the fallen Army Ranger was hailed a national hero who fell to “devastating enemy fire” while trying to take a hill.
Cpl. Tillman had been “fragged,” but within the week, McChrystal signed his Silver Star citation and the funeral was nationally televised. Bush and Rumsfeld basked; at last they had their recruitment poster-boy.
Truth be told
No one was ever prosecuted for the slaying, though the doctor examining the body wrote, “The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” and requested a criminal investigation.
Congress launched its own inquiry in 2007. The last soldier to see Pat alive testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he was ordered not to divulge – especially to the family – that a fellow soldier or soldiers murdered Pat Tillman.
Last July, the Oversight Committee released its report, “Misleading Information from the Battlefield: The Tillman and (Jessica) Lynch Episodes.” It states the “investigation was frustrated by a near universal lack of recall among senior White House officials … (and) the Defense Department did not meet its most basic obligations in sharing accurate information with the families and with the American public.”
Assassination?
Tillman had actually grown vocally disapproving of “the war on terror” after multiple tours and had arranged to meet with MIT professor and prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy Noam Chomsky upon returning home from Afghanistan. Pat’s brother testified that Tillman’s diary, which the family knew he kept in the field, was confiscated and never returned to them.
A 2007 Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press revealed that mysterious “special forces snipers” – never publicly mentioned by the Pentagon – came upon Tillman’s squad right after the shooting (London Daily Mail). Pat’s uniform and armor were quickly incinerated by his unit.
But Gen. Stanley McChrystal was confirmed anyway last month.
Facts for Thought
• Time remaining on Congressional authorization to deploy National Guard troops to Iraq: expired
• Authorization for the President to send Guard units to Afghanistan: none exists
• Portion of Iraq War vets Rand Corp. recently found to suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: 1 in 5
• Record number of suicides and “suspected suicides” among active U.S. Army soldiers in 2008: 143
• Rate by which Marines’ suicides increased in 2008 over previous year: 24 percent
• Distance from which computer operators in Nevada direct unmanned drones bombing Afghan villages: 7,500 miles
• Number of U.S. military bases remaining in foreign countries: 865
Kathryn Albrecht has thought for a long while that war is an extremely bad idea. She writes from idyllic San Antonio on the Rio Grande. Mrs. Albrecht’s opinions do not necessarily represent the Mountain Mail.
Interview with Filmmaker Peter McGrain 'How to Change the World…The Movie'
Filmmaker Peter McGrain has made a GREAT MOVIE - The whole movie is freely downloadable in RMVB (Real PLAYER) format, see link further down on this blog. 'How to Change the World…The Movie' is a HARD HITTING DOCUMENTARY that looks at the flaws in our system, the mechanisms that work against the environment, democracy and society -- MUST SEE!!
TRAILER: HARD HITTING DOCUMENTARY that looks at the flaws in our syste... more TRAILER: HARD HITTING DOCUMENTARY that looks at the flaws in our system, the mechanisms that work against the environmet, democracy and society as a whole. WE CAN STOP THE WARS SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND WINN BACK DEMOCRACY and this film shows you how.
Filmmaker Peter McGrain. (Courtesy of Peter McGrain)
LOS ANGELES—Anyone who values freedom and the sacredness of life, has uncertainties about the current direction of society, or feels hopeless and frustrated with the status quo, should absolutely see How To Change the World…The Movie.
And for those not particularly concerned with these matters—this film should be mandatory viewing.
"We live in a universe of unfathomable scale and incredible beauty. This really is a universe of infinite possibilities," begins the narration by writer/director Pete McGrain, against majestic images of the cosmos and a luminous shot of a fetus in the uterus.
McGrain’s film sets out to establish what has gone wrong in the world, urging his audience, "to keep an open mind, but question everything."
With erudite content and earnest narration, How To Change The World appeals to both mind and heart. Influential thinkers, including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Samuel Epstein, expound on the enmeshment of our modern society’s power structures. Government, media, and the private sector in the United States no longer provide the needed checks and balances originally intended by the founding fathers, thus putting freedom in question.
McGrain formulates a persuasive and chilling portrait of our future while urging us to put aside our collective complacency and hopelessness and reengage in the political process.
I sat down with McGrain at a popular writer’s café a few blocks from Venice Beach to discuss his film. The eloquent 40-something filmmaker, with Clint Eastwood confidence and Mick Jagger swagger, expressed his earnest ardor in Irish brogue.
"I don’t look at the world as an Irishman," says McGrain who grew up witnessing conflict, violence, and "unnecessary suffering" in Ireland.
"I left Ireland a long time ago," asserts McGrain who has since traveled the globe meeting people from all cultures and continents. "I am a man of the world, able to make better decisions about my world.
"If you look around the world and see all this turmoil, it begs the question, why?"
McGrain examined the mechanisms to understand ‘why’—issues he believes are systemic. What has McGrain learned from the process of making this film?
"I’m trying to be a journalist, and being a proper journalist means you have to take as many perspectives as you can possibly get," explains McGrain who now has a greater appreciation for the nuances and complexity of the issues.
"You get a more balanced perspective of the truth of the issue and a more colored sense of how complex it is."
No longer satisfied to produce work for the sole purpose of entertainment, McGrain is committed to creating work that truly can elevate the human condition. For this reason, he created an interactive Web site offering comprehensive information—a key component to How to Change the World...The Movie.
"You can’t change or address the systems unless you know what forces are working against you," summarizes the filmmaker.
We have selected a series of incredible documentaries that highlight in detail the various aspects of the issues that face us. And we will be adding new material all the time. Please support these incredible film makers by downloading from their websites. Though you can view most of this work on you tube nothing compares to having your own high quality copy to view when ever you want to. And When ever possible, get a download version instead of a DVD. DVD'S use up materials.
We have selected a series of incredible documentaries that highlight in detail the various aspects of the issues that face us. And we will be adding new material all the time. Please support these incredible film makers by downloading from their websites. Though you can view most of this work on you tube nothing compares to having your own high quality copy to view when ever you want to. And When ever possible, get a download version instead of a DVD. DVD'S use up materials.
WHY WE FIGHT. This incredible film by Eugene Jarecki charts the rise to power of the military industrial complex. Examining how this leads to inevitable conflict as companies compete for the profits of war.
BIG IDEAS: DEMOCRACY This film featuring veteran Brittish Parliamentarian Tony Benn looks at the history and nature of Democracy from the early Greeks to present day.
THE STORY OF STUFF. Consumerism broken down in to the lay man's terms. This wonderfully entertaining and deceptively simple film lays before us the nature of 'stuff' from beginning to end.
THE CORPORATION An incredible in depth examination of the rise of The Corporation as a power beyond the control of government. This film by Marc Achbar is a must see for any one trying to understand corporate abuse in our system.
We have selected a series of incredible documentaries that highlight in detail the various aspects of the issues that face us. And we will be adding new material all the time. Please support these incredible film makers by downloading from their websites. Though you can view most of this work on you tube nothing compares to having your own high quality copy to view when ever you want to. And When ever possible, get a download version instead of a DVD. DVD'S use up materials.
WHY WE FIGHT. This incredible film by Eugene Jarecki charts the rise to power of the military industrial complex. Examining how this leads to inevitable conflict as companies compete for the profits of war.
BIG IDEAS: DEMOCRACY This film featuring veteran Brittish Parliamentarian Tony Benn looks at the history and nature of Democracy from the early Greeks to present day.
THE STORY OF STUFF. Consumerism broken down in to the lay man's terms. This wonderfully entertaining and deceptively simple film lays before us the nature of 'stuff' from beginning to end.
THE CORPORATION An incredible in depth examination of the rise of The Corporation as a power beyond the control of government. This film by Marc Achbar is a must see for any one trying to understand corporate abuse in our system.
HAPPINESS MACHINES This riveting film charts the history of the Public Relations industry. If the powers that be wanted to control the populace then this documentary shows us how they would do it.
THE CORPORATION An incredible in depth examination of the rise of The Corporation as a power beyond the control of government. This film by Marc Achbar is a must see for any one trying to understand corporate abuse in our system.
THE STORY OF STUFF. Consumerism broken down in to the lay man's terms. This wonderfully entertaining and deceptively simple film lays before us the nature of 'stuff' from beginning to end.
BIG IDEAS: DEMOCRACY This film featuring veteran Brittish Parliamentarian Tony Benn looks at the history and nature of Democracy from the early Greeks to present day.
WHY WE FIGHT. This incredible film by Eugene Jarecki charts the rise to power of the military industrial complex. Examining how this leads to inevitable conflict as companies compete for the profits of war.
FROM THE HIP We had a massive response to the documentary. Many expressed deep concern about American troops in Iraq and I wanted to respond by printing a letter we received from a soldier now serving in Iraq:
"Every one thinks that service to your country is one of the most honorable things a citizen can do and I would agree entirely with that. The soldiers serving in Iraq are risking their lives for what they think is their countries best interests and I support every last one of them. I am one of them. However, someone has turned 'support for the troops' in to 'support for the war.' These are two entirely different subjects and we shouldn't let 'blind' patriotism confuse us.
If the reasons for the war are false then the best support you can offer the troops is to get them home, as fast as possible, right? The reasons given for the war in Iraq, and the ongoing expansion of the war in Afghanistan are false. If President Obama wants to come clean and tell the people the truth about these conflicts, and the people then agree to the wars, then that would be different.
That they lie and abuse the trust of good 'patriotic' people is disgusting, but not new. That is the reason we have got to get educated.
IT IS YOUR DUTY AS A CITIZEN, AND A PARENT, TO FIND OUT, AND 'ACT' ON THE TRUTH.
It sickened me to hear of a mother, whose Son is now dead, whose death she now wonders about, given the truth that is now coming out about the reasons for the wars. She is worrying whether or not she is a good 'patriot' because she is wondering about the reasons her son died! She gave her son!!!
Is that what its come down to? Do we have to deny the facts that stare us in the face, doubt our own best judgment and believe in the emperors new clothes to be a good patriot. Do we have to swallow lies to be a good patriot "? John Taylor. US Marines.
For anyone offended by the film I want to give you a complete and unqualified apology. Those serving in the Forces will never be the same again. It is tragic and I hope you share my passion for justice against those who sent our children in to harms way, but it is not the first time and it won't be the last until we are all prepared to face the facts. Those who fight the wars are always the poor uneducated. Those who profit never go. One look at history will tell you the truth. Pete McGrain
ROBERT FISK Robert Fisk has lived in the Middle East as a war corespondent for many years. This man shoots from the hip with a passion and understanding of the issues gained from being at ground zero for most of his life.
JOHN PILGER Award winning filmmaker,author and journalist John Pliger will certainly give you another side to any issue. Certainly one of the most entertaining and accurate writers of our times
CHOMSKY!! It always amazes me how few Americans have heard of Noam Chomsky. He is one of the most quoted authors of our day and holds honors in almost every country outside of the USA. Truly one of Americas, if not the worlds greatest intellectuals
It always amazes me how few Americans have heard of Noam Chomsky. He is one of the most quoted authors of our day and holds honors in almost every country outside of the USA. Truly one of Americas, if not the worlds greatest intellectuals.
TARIQ ALI A specialist in Middle Eastern affairs Tariq Ali is a treasure trove of insight and information and anyone who wants to understand the relationship between east and west should pay close attention to the opinions of this engaging intelectual.
SHORT SHARP SCIENCE Fascinating blogs and articles about the cutting edge of science and the environment.
ROBERT FISK Robert Fisk has lived in the Middle East as a war corespondent for many years. This man shoots from the hip with a passion and understanding of the issues gained from being at ground zero for most of his life.
Award winning filmmaker,author and journalist John Pliger will certainly give you another side to any issue. Certainly one of the most entertaining and accurate writers of our times.
ALTERNET This website is invaluable. Covering the leading events of the day, seven days a week. Please support these incredible outlets with your patronage and donations. www.alternet.org/
PACIFICA.ORG This publicly supported organisation is a must when ever you need to check headlines. They also provide live radio broadcast on line.
DEMOCRACY NOW. Democracy Now is one of the top journalistic news sites and channels in the USA. If you ant the other side of the story this is certainly one of the best plces to start
The main stream media is owned by just five very powerful corporations. They are not public service organisations!! They have no reason to tell you anything that doesn't serve their interests. So, you have to find out the truth for your self because if you base your opinion on bad or biased information than everything you believe is suspect. From this page you will find links to other sources of news and opinion.
BIAS: The main stream media, which holds enormous sway over the market and public opinion, serves views from the 'Center left' and 'center right'. However what ever story powerful interests want carried, the media will carry that story unfailingly. You may find the news sources here to be biased to the left, however, please keep in mind, the object is not to have a bias but to offer the other side of each story. We have to stop thinking in terms of left and right and try to find our way to the 'facts' of each issue. An easy example would be the media coverage in the lead up to the Iraq war. 'Proper Journalism' would have discovered the facts and laid them before us in order that we decide. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction, we also now know that Iraq had no connections with Al Queda. These were the reasons the administration gave for going to war. They were false claims and the main stream media either failed to do it's job, or was complicit, that is, they lied on purpose
DOWNLOAD THE WHOLE MOVIE: http://www.howtochangetheworldthemovie.com/media/howtochangetheworldrmx.rmvb tags: avi torrent xvid divx mov dvd video emule piratebay napster p2p share swap leecher seeder suck leech server bandwidth youtube googlevideo moveo mydrive rapidshare realplayer mencoder mplayer linux windows macos osx vlc videolan player.
The main stream media is owned by just five very powerful corporations. They are not public service organisations!! They have no reason to tell you anything that doesn't serve their interests. So, you have to find out the truth for your self because if you base your opinion on bad or biased information than everything you believe is suspect. From this page you will find links to other sources of news and opinion.
BIAS: The main stream media, which holds enormous sway over the market and public opinion, serves views from the 'Center left' and 'center right'. However what ever story powerful interests want carried, the media will carry that story unfailingly. You may find the news sources here to be biased to the left, however, please keep in mind, the object is not to have a bias but to offer the other side of each story. We have to stop thinking in terms of left and right and try to find our way to the 'facts' of each issue. An easy example would be the media coverage in the lead up to the Iraq war. 'Proper Journalism' would have discovered the facts and laid them before us in order that we decide. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction, we also now know that Iraq had no connections with Al Queda. These were the reasons the administration gave for going to war. They were false claims and the main stream media either failed to do it's job, or was complicit, that is, they lied on purpose!
IT IS VITAL THAT WE ALL MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET BOTH SIDES TO THE STORY.
DEMOCRACY NOW. Democracy Now is one of the top journalistic news sites and channels in the USA. If you ant the other side of the story this is certainly one of the best plces to start.
PACIFICA.ORG This publicly supported organisation is a must when ever you need to check headlines. They also provide live radio broadcast on line.
ALJAZEERA. We thought we might get some flack for this link so give me a moment here. Aljazeera report directly to the middle east. They have award winning coverage of one of the worlds leading hot spots and despite accusations to the contrary have managed to avoid partisan positions often taken by the west. However, even if one took the position that this is information given out by the enemy it would still be incredibly valuable to any one trying to asses their position. I found their coverage clean of any hyperbole and entirely informing. You should take a look. http://english.aljazeera.net/
Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.
In response to 2005 publicity from the mass media and in weblogs, Churchill was both widely condemned and widely defended. Some defenders who did not agree with Churchill's analysis and/or with his inflammatory phrasing nonetheless felt that the attacks on Churchill represented efforts at intimidation against academic discourse and suppression of political dissent.
At the height of the controversy, the University ordered an inquiry into Churchill's research, and then fired him on July 24, 2007, leading to a claim from some scholars that he was fired over the ideas he expressed. Churchill filed a lawsuit against the University of Colorado for unlawful termination of employment. In April 2009 a Denver jury found that Churchill was wrongly fired, awarding him $1 in damages. Contents [hide]
* 1 The essay * 2 Public controversy * 3 Defense of Churchill * 4 Churchill calls for the end of the existence of the state * 5 The CU Alumni Association Award * 6 References * 7 External links
[edit] The essay Main article: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
In "Some People Push Back," Churchill argued that effects of decade-long economic sanctions on Iraqis, together with the Middle East policies of President Lyndon Johnson, and the history of Crusades against the Islamic world, had contributed to a climate in which 9/11 was what he called a "natural and inevitable response."
The "roosting chickens" phrase comes from Malcolm X's comment about the assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy that Kennedy "never foresaw that the chickens would come home to roost so soon."
Most controversially Churchill referred to the "technocrats" working at the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." This phrase is an allusion to Hannah Arendt's depiction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann as an ordinary person promoting the activity of an evil system--a study she made in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. The phrase itself was coined by anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan. Churchill wrote, concerning statements that the attack had targeted "innocent civilians":
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire . the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved . and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" . a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" . counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in . and in many cases excelling at . it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. 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.
Churchill compared the American people to the "good Germans" of Nazi Germany, claiming that the vast majority of Americans had ignored the civilian suffering caused by the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, which Churchill claimed had killed millions of Iraqi civilians, including over 500,000 children. Churchill characterized these sanctions as a policy of genocide.
The essay was later expanded into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which won Honorable Mention for the Gustavus Myers Human Rights Award in 2004.
[edit] Public controversy
National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College as a panelist in a debate, "Limits of Dissent."
The text of the essay was quoted on the January 28 2005, edition of the Fox News Channel program The O'Reilly Factor and commentator Bill O'Reilly subsequently discussed Churchill on a number of other segments as well. The January 31 edition of The O'Reilly Factor featured Paul Campos, a University of Colorado professor, who said he was appalled at Churchill's comments. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly suggested that viewers wishing to voice their opinions could contact Hamilton College or Hamilton's president, Joan Stewart; Hamilton College subsequently received 6,000 e-mails concerning Churchill.[citation needed] The lecture was changed to a larger venue, but was later canceled by Stewart, following what she described as "credible threats of violence."[citation needed] Churchill has written that he received threats against his life as a consequence of his statements and the corresponding news coverage. Fox News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor in particular, led the coverage of Churchill's scheduled appearance at Hamilton College. In the three weeks following the January 28, 2005 debut, FOX ran 16 stories on the Churchill story (9 on The O'Reilly Factor). By contrast, ABC aired no stories on Churchill, CBS aired one (on its morning newscast), NBC aired two (one on its morning broadcast, one on the nightly news,) and CNN aired four stories. Thus, FOX News aired more than twice as many stories on Ward Churchill than the other four news networks combined.[10]
In response to what he called "grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning [his] analysis of the September 11, 2001, attacks," Churchill clarified his views in a January 31, 2005 press release:
I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
Ward Churchill , Statement to Rocky Mountain News
He continued:
It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage". If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when they are routinely applied to other people, they should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
Ward Churchill , Statement to Rocky Mountain News
Churchill clarified further in a February 2005 interview with Democracy Now!
If you want to avoid September 11s, if you want security in some actual form, then it's almost a biblical framing, you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As long as you're doing what the U.S. is doing in the world, you can anticipate a natural and inevitable response of the sort that occurred on 9/11. If you do not get the message out of 9/11, you're going to have to change, first of all, your perception of the value of those others who are consigned to domains, semantic domains like collateral damage, then you've really got no complaint when the rules you've imposed come back on you.
Ward Churchill , Statement to Democracy Now
On January 31, 2005, Churchill resigned as chairman of the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado.[11]
Former Colorado Republican governor Bill Owens and current Democratic governor Bill Ritter have publicly called for Churchill's dismissal.[12][13]
Many have been critical of Churchill's comments. Indian Country Today, a leading Indian-owned and edited newspaper, has commented on Churchill's claim to speak on behalf of Indian people:
We will defend a good Indian argument in these pages any time. But, again, there is no evidence that Churchill is Indian. Further, Churchill's statements are obviously devoid of even the most basic humanity that American Indian peoples hold dear. In no way does his insult reflect the views of Indian country. To know the response of Indian country to the 9/11 tragedies is to reflect on the humanitarianism shown by Eastern Native communities: from the Mohawk to the Oneida, the Pequot, Mohegan and many others who immediately put their people - ironworkers, ferry-boat crews and medical personnel - into the rescue and recovery operations, to the California Indian nations that expressed their solidarity with America and donated generously to the rescue efforts, to the Lakota families who brought their Sacred Pipe to pray at the site, leaving their quiet offerings early one dawn. This is always the preferred way of human beings - to understand the kind of empathy required to belong to the human race is essential in all political and economic discourse. To call the people who were murdered on Sept. 11 little Eichmanns is a hideous expression that when combined to Churchill's mistaken Native identity can only poison the public discourse concerning American Indians.[14]
Editorial Board of Indian Country Today , Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment, February 3, 2005
The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, meeting in executive session on February 3, 2005, adopted a resolution apologizing to the American people for Churchill's statements, and ratifying interim chancellor Phil DiStefano's review of Churchill's actions. DiStefano was directed to investigate whether Churchill had overstepped his bounds as a faculty member and whether his actions were cause for dismissal. The university's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct agreed that his words were protected by the university's academic free-speech code, but agreed to investigate subsequent charges made against Churchill of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication and ethnic fraud (see below). In May 2006, the University announced that its Research Misconduct Committee found that Churchill's publications demonstrate a pattern of research misconduct. On June 26, 2006, Chancellor Phil DiStefano recommended Churchill's dismissal to the Board of Regents, and relieved Churchill of his campus duties including teaching, service, and research. In August 2006, the CU student government passed a resolution to support the committee's recommendations to fire Churchill.[15]
[edit] Defense of Churchill
When Churchill's comparison of those who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, whom Churchill labeled as "technocrats", to notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann was first widely publicized in early 2005, media commentators such as FOX News's Bill O'Reilly and The Nation's Marc Cooper denounced Churchill's essay, but neither argued that he should be fired for his speech.
Free speech and the first amendment should cover all professors, no matter how repugnant. I think it legitimate to defend Churchill.s right to be a vocal asshole (heaven knows most universities are densely populated with such types on both the Right and Left).[16]
Marc Cooper , February 4, 2005
Cooper continued by describing Churchill's remarks as "carefully selected, hateful, unforgivable and demented, frankly."[16] A number of academics and activists defended Churchill's essay, or argued that it was not grounds for firing him from his teaching job. One of Churchill's fellow professors in the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado, Emma Perez, alleged that the attacks on Churchill were an organized "test case" by neo-conservatives to stifle liberal criticism of the War on Terror, and to undermine the funding of ethnic studies departments nationwide.[17] Betsy Hoffman, then the president of the University of Colorado, said of the attacks on Churchill, "We are in dangerous times. I'm very concerned. ... It's looking a lot like former CU President George Norlin being asked to fire all the Catholics and Jews of the McCarthy era."[citation needed]
Several defenders of Churchill disagree with Churchill's comments and characterize Churchill and his intellectual abilities as lacking, but defend his right to speak:
Churchill may be fired from his faculty position at the University of Colorado for having written and spoken some of the most moronic nonsense ever to emanate from the mouth of an alleged academic. But he should not be punished for being a hack. The folks who hired him should.[18]
Dahlia Lithwick , Slate, February 10, 2005
A number of other political commentators have analyzed the "Churchill Affair" in terms of a "witch hunt"; for example, Gilles d'Aymery, Fred Feldman, the Michigan Independent Media Center, Scott Richard Lyons (Native American Studies professor) and others.[19][20][21][22] Scholars, activists and organizations expressing concern over the firing include the ACLU, the National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Derrick Jensen, Drucilla Cornell, Bill Ayers and Immanuel Wallerstein.[23]
According to over 600 academics signing an "An Open Letter from Concerned Academics":[24]
To be clear: the issues here have nothing to do with the quality of Ward Churchill.s scholarship or his professional credentials. However one views his choice of words or specific arguments, he is being put in the dock solely for his radical critique of U.S. history and present-day policy in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Apparently, 9/11 is now the third rail of American intellectual life: to critically probe into its causes and to interrogate the international role of the United States is treated as heresy; those inquiring can be denied forums, careers, and even personal safety. . .The Churchill case is not an isolated incident but a concentrated example of a well-orchestrated campaign launched in the name of "academic freedom" and "balance" which in fact aims to purge the universities of more radical thinkers and oppositional thought generally, and to create a climate of intimidation.
An Open Letter from Concerned Academics
Two professors writing in defense of Churchill have questioned the politics motivating his accusers. Gary Witherspoon, an anthropologist and linguist, faults what he believes to be the inaccurate journalism and biased quality of the investigation that have marked the affair.[25] Similarly, sociologist Tom Mayer criticized what he believes to be the politically motivated tenor of the investigation of Churchill:[26]
The authors of the report on Ward Churchill present themselves as stalwart defenders of academic integrity [...] I see them as collaborators in the erosion of academic freedom, an erosion all too consonant with the wider assault upon civil liberties currently underway. The authors of the report claim to uphold the intellectual credibility of ethnic studies. I wonder how many ethnic studies scholars will see it that way. I certainly do not [...] I see committee members as gendarmes of methodological and interpretive orthodoxy, quite literally "warding" off a vigorous challenge to mainstream understandings of American history.
Tom Mayer , Swans Commentary
On Oct. 15, 2001, about the same time Ward Churchill wrote his essay, Chalmers Johnson wrote an article in the Nation magazine, which has been noted to represent a similar argument.[27] Here is a passage:
"On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are 'a beacon for freedom,' and because the attackers were 'evil.' In his address to Congress on Sept. 20, he said, 'This is civilization's fight.' "This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values - as a 'clash of civilizations,' in current post-cold war American jargon - is not only disingenuous, but also a way of evading responsibility for the 'blowback' that America's imperial projects have generated."
Chalmers Johnson , The Nation
A documentary on the reactions to Churchill's essay, called When They Came For Ward Churchill was produced by the Free Speech Network.[28]
[edit] Churchill calls for the end of the existence of the state
Pursuing a similar line of thinking to that advanced in his "Some People Push Back" essay, in an April 2004 interview with Satya magazine, Churchill said:
If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I've never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there's potential. That's about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually a de-evolutionary. I do not want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.[29]
Ward Churchill , Dismantling the Politics of Comfort
Colorado governor Bill Owens called this comment "treasonous", arguing that "Churchill has clearly called for violence against the state, and no country is required to subsidize its own destruction. That's what we're doing with Ward Churchill." On February 6, 2005, the Denver Post reported that this comment would be included by the university in its review of Churchill's tenure.[30] Although there has been some suggestion that the constitutionally overturned Smith Act should be invoked in order to prosecute Churchill for his remarks[citation needed], the debate is mostly focused on whether the First Amendment protects the tenure of a professor of a public university.[citation needed] Many, including Governor Owens, argue that the University of Colorado (or any other public university) is not required to support faculty that support the overthrow of the government.
On June 23, 2005, Churchill told an audience in Portland, Oregon:[31]
For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who had not conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit? ... Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.
Ward Churchill , Statement at Portland OR talk
When asked by a member of the audience about the officers' families, Churchill responded, "how do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"
[edit] The CU Alumni Association Award Main article: Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation
Teaching Recognition Awards are voted on annually by students at the University of Colorado; In 2005, more than 2,000 students voted. A plurality of students nominated Churchill for the award in the category for class sizes of 25 to 75.[32] With the ongoing investigations by the Ethics Committee, the Alumni Association responsible for presenting the award has yet to present the award to Churchill. Clark Oldroyd, The vice president of the Alumni Association stated that "We're giving that committee time to complete its study" and also stated that, "It just seems like the prudent thing to do."[33]
Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's "name has been cleared" by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam "if there were questions about the student's effort." Zimmerman is also quoted by the Denver Post as stating that Churchill's "award is being withheld, in part, due to his tendency to "antagonize and create enemies."[34] According to Churchill, "What Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman is really saying.obviously.is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Churchill's attorney David Lane contends, "They are punishing Ward Churchill for his free speech by withholding this award".[33]
Within the University of Colorado community, opinions on the Alumni Association's actions vary. Instructor Ann Ellis states "I think it's legitimate to withhold the award. I think the students voting on the award were trying to influence the investigation." Churchill is being evaluated, she said, "because the university has a responsibility to make sure that its faculty members are who they say they are." In contrast, graduate program assistant Mary Gregory said, "If it's a student award, and it has nothing to do with the review, then it should not be withheld."[34]
According to the website Indianz.com, which dedicates its resources to American Indian issues, "Students at the University of Colorado have overwhelmingly chosen Ward Churchill as their favorite professor but he will not be given the award because he is too controversial."[35] Churchill's fifty-four votes for the award were a plurality among all the faculty, but only a small percentage of CU's 28,000 students chose to participate. Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.
Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer and political activist. He was a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1990 to 2007. The primary focus of his work is on the historical treatment of political dissenters and Native Americans by the United States. His work features controversial and provocative claims, written in a direct . often confrontational . style.
In January 2005, Churchill's work attracted publicity, with the widespread circulation of a 2001 essay, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. In the essay, he claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. policy, and referred to some people working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns". In March 2005 the University of Colorado began investigating allegations that Churchill had engaged in research misconduct; it reported in June 2006 that he had done so. Churchill was fired on July 24, 2007, leading to a claim from some scholars that he was fired over the ideas he expressed. Churchill filed a lawsuit against the University of Colorado for unlawful termination of employment. In April 2009 a Denver jury found that Churchill was wrongly fired, awarding him $1 in damages, but this verdict was vacated by a District Court judge in July 2009.
In my last column, I pointed out that the nationalist and "cultural capital" function of literature classes are in decline. With their tenure lines evaporating, many literature faculty are grasping at the claim that they teach "reading" and "thinking."
By this they generally mean the training of managers and professionals in a degraded version of New Critical reading practices.spotting (or producing) ambiguity, complexity, and irony. For those who care about this sort of thing, this is really a version of a much older claim, that they teach rhetoric.
Combined with the right higher-ed brand names, the capacity to produce ambiguity and complexity in the tax code or the National Labor-Relations Act can get sold to a corporate law firm for a million dollars a year.
Of course that requires further training in the ability to live with oneself while eating meals that cost more than a retail worker.s monthly pay. That.s where a corresponding ethical agility.learned in, say, philosophy or theology classes.comes in handy.
The crowing by the University of Colorado administration after the latest twist in the Churchill case illustrates this claim pretty well. Provost Phil DiStefano seems to have huffed a few lines of Hogwarts Ambiguity Powder to keep a straight face while dubbing CU.s trampling on Churchill.s academic freedom, subversion of faculty process and transparent political thuggery "a victory for faculty governance."
It.s true that saying stuff like that comes with a price for administrators.obviously DiStefano.s abuse of Ambiguity Powder has caused his sense of irony to collapse.but he.ll be amply rewarded for this workplace injury. After years as the admin.s point man on the Churchill case, he.ll soon step into the chancellor.s job as the result of a search process that produced him as the "sole finalist."
DiStefano couldn.t have gotten his broomstick off the ground, though, without the teamwork of loyal CU alum Judge Larry J. Naves. The latter waved his wand of Dumbledorean Complexity over the jury.s verdict in order to vacate it, claiming that upon further reflection.you know, after the jury came up with a verdict he didn.t like.he believed that the Colorado regents were immune from lawsuits!
Yessir, Naves says, the Regents are immune from legal liability because.here.s the creative part.he thinks they.re kinda like judges, a "quasi-judicial body." They can.t be sued for decisions taken in relation to their jobs. (Unlike faculty at public institutions, who a growing web of hostile law says can be retaliated against for disagreeing with the thugs and political hacks who boss them.)
Now, the law doesn.t actually come out and say the Regents are immune.that.d be too pedestrian and straightforward. You need a good Reader and Thinker to see that.
As RaceToTheBottom points out, Naves could have spotted this analogy of Regents to judges, and the corresponding immunity from lawsuits before the trial, and spared Churchill the expense of a month-long hearing. But before the trial.not knowing its inconvenient result.Naves didn.t need this clever (and false) analogy.
Look for this stinker to be reversed on appeal. And if it isn.t.whoa, nelly. Strap on for a wild ride. Increasingly the Law says administrations have academic freedom.and you don.t.
Here.s your homework assignment for the day. Ask yourself what "academic freedom for administrators" means. Posted at 10:39:49 AM on July 8, 2009 | All postings by Marc Bousquet Comments
1.
This all makes sense if Ward Churchill is a scholar of integrity. Consensus seems to be that he may in fact not be. I.m not qualified to judge, which is just one reason I.m glad I.m not a judge.
Suppose hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that Churchill is the lying, cheating, plagiarizing charlatan he.s been accused of being. Ask yourself what "academic freedom for mountebanks" means.
Dan · Jul 8, 12:27 PM · # 2.
I direct everyone.s attention to the Gustave posting in the news column about the decision earlier this morning. Gustave gives a succinct summary of the law, and why the judge decided as he did
The most notable quotes from Gustave:
"Because equitable remedies may not be claimed in law as of right, the court is also obliged to consider the harmful effect, if any, that may be caused to third parties."
"The judge found that Mr Churchill did not, and could not, satisfy the "clean hands" requirement. Quite apart from the question of whether he should retain his job, a duly-qualified panel of his peers, properly applying the faculty handbook.s procedures, found that he had engaged in research misconduct. "
"The judge was particularly concerned by the plaintiff.s expressed intention immediately to file suit against the university "if they look at him cross-eyed" at any time in the future. This would, the judge observed, make the courts rather than the university.s governance structure the venue for deciding whether Mr Churchill.s job performance was satisfactory, something they have no business doing."
"Reinstatement not being appropriate.not least because of the all-too-predictable harm trying to force Mr Churchill and the University to get along with each other would cause innocent faculty members, staff and students.the only remaining question to be determined is whether the plaintiff should receive "front pay" in lieu. Here too the judge found that Mr Churchill had not met the minimal burden imposed upon him by the law. This was, essentially, that he should take whatever action was in his power to minimise the financial losses caused him by his dismissal. The judge found that to the contrary Mr Churchill had taken no action whatever in this regard."
Much as I.d like to agree that this decision is alarming (freedom of expression is being seriously challenged even here in the CHE blogs!), I cannot do so. Legally it was sound even if morally, spiritually, and Liberally outrageous to those who want to treat every decision as a threat to the sacred ox: tenure.
2 cents worth · Jul 8, 01:02 PM · # 3.
The particulars of the Ward Churchill case aside, "academic freedom for administrators" means the ability, without fear of personal lawsuits, to turn all faculty and librarians into "at will" employees who can be frog-marched to the parking lot, stripped of their college keys and ID cards/badges, and barred from the grounds for any reason or for no reason at all. It.s a very effective method for squelching dissent commonly used in the corporate world. Oh, they will dress it up with a healthy severance package, COBRA insurance coverage, and several months of employment out-counseling but it still comes down to a system for repressing dissent and a loss of academic freedom for faculty and librarians.
zing · Jul 8, 02:55 PM · # 4.
Marc, you tell so many whoppers here that.s its hard to know where to begin.
First, you falsely accuse the CU administration of "subversion of faculty process". The truth is that every faculty committee at CU unanimously found Churchill guilty of research misconduct worthy of sanction. The Faculty Senate does not want Churchill back. The process worked.
Second, you falsely accuse Judge Naves of needlessly holding a trial. The truth is that the attorneys for both sides agreed to postpone the immunity decision until after the trial.
Third, you falsely accuse Judge Naves of being "creative" in granting the regents immunity. Had you read his decision, you.d see that he cited extensive case law in support of his decision.
I don.t like the immunity case law any more than you do, and I agree that it stinks for academic freedom plaintiffs. But place the blame for this state of affairs where it belongs . on Congress and the Supreme Court . not Judge Naves.
Thomas Brown · Jul 8, 03:15 PM · # 5.
Yes, Churchill was persecuted for his comments and his firing was a direct result of it. However, he brought it on himself. If you.re going to be controversial, your scholarship should be airtight. By plagiarizing, ghost writing, and fabricating history, he gave those who wanted him fired the ammunition to get him fired. Heck, even his "little Eichemanns" comment was ripped off from a Mario Savio speech at Berkeley in the 60s. The real lesson in this is not that a scholar was silenced because of his controversial views; it is that if you.re going to be controversial then your scholarship should be airtight. Chomsky and numerous other scholars are hated for their views and statements but their scholarship is airtight and few tenured professors are fired for their views.
The Churchill case is simply a poor one to argue that it.s a blow to academic freedom.
CU Alum · Jul 8, 03:22 PM · # 6.
"The particulars of the Ward Churchill case aside . . ." my Aunt Harriett. WC.s defenders seem ready to concede that he engaged in plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabricating data, and making up sources. Is there any level of misbehavior that should not be protected by "academic freedom"?
Dan · Jul 8, 03:29 PM · # 7.
I like Marc.s allusion to a CU alums conspiracy. Here.s some more grist for your conspiracy mill, Marc: the Butz decision on which Judge Naves relied was authored by Justice Byron White . another CU alumnus. Yes, it.s all beginning to make sense now.
Thomas Brown · Jul 8, 04:17 PM · # 8.
Churchill got mugged? That.s only fair. He sure as hell mugged everyone else.
Fossil · Jul 8, 07:23 PM · # 9.
I feel mugged reading this column.
Dennis · Jul 8, 08:45 PM · # 10.
Nobody mugged Ward Churchill. However, his chickens certainly came home to roost. CU Alum has it right . Churchill was not a competent scholar, and his scholarly misconduct was easily uncovered. At that point, he became a liability to the university. Churchill has no right to expect immunity from public interest in publicly distributed publications.
Mr. Churchill.s apologists are missing the critical points:
Churchill WAS guilty of academic misconduct.
Committees of his peers . his fellow faculty members . determined Mr. Churchill had committed academic misconduct on a scale that warranted disciplinary action.
The regents agreed, and fired Mr. Churchill.
The actions of the faculty and regents are what shared governance is supposed to be about. Too bad you don.t like the outcome, but Mr. Churchill has no one to blame but himself. He proved his academic misconduct on such a large scale that the faculty committees could not overlook it. The university correctly dismissed him. Judge Naves followed the letter of the law, and concluded that the university had acted appropriately in dismissing Mr. Churchill.
The only people who got mugged here are the taxpayers of the state of Colorado, and the students unlucky enough to have wasted their tuition dollars and time sitting in a class listening to tall tales spun by a serial plagiarist and academic charlatan.
Orson Buggeigh · Jul 8, 09:02 PM · # 11.
Granted that Churchill.s research probably wouldn.t have been scrutinized if not for his 9/11 comments, can MB or anyone else point to another scholar found to have engaged in similarly egregious academic misconduct who was not fired?
Stumble It!
