Denver Blog

I've never been witness to a more non-journalistic issue in such a prominent publication. You would think that for people who previously talked about "getting out of your car and get on your bike" would have a clue about what they were talking about. They seek to portray academic freedom activists at CU as irrational and social outcasts. Furthermore, calling-out non-public individuals by name who really don't have much, if anything to do with the issue and portray them in offensive caricature is totally inappropriate.

Hilarious. Perfect way to let the wind out of Little Big Mouth. I love Kenny Be!

It's incredibly inappropriate and bad professional ethics to publish caricatures of random Churchill supporters along with their full names. It also simply doesn't make sense even in the context of the cartoon. As journalists, you have the responsibility to respect the privacy of people who are not in the public arena, and the individuals you caricaturized are not public figures, such as David Lane or Ward Churchill.

It's a friggen cartoon. Get a sense of humor, please.

I love how Ben, I mean Academic Freedom Activist (or do you go by just Ben?), is so riled up about this. Our economy is burning faster than a Ward Churchill cigarette, and all Ben can think about is poor Churchill's ass. boo hoo!

BTW, since cartoons and satire are apparently new to you, why don't you bone up on historical political cartoonists.
http://www.politics-and-candidates.com/articles/political-cartoons/political-cartoonists.php

While you're at it, why don't you research satire. They apparently don't teach that to spoiled liberal twats in Boulder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Oh, and for those that are interested, Ben seems to be always confused about the media portrayal of whackjobs:

http://www.dailycamera.com/blogs/letters-editor-blog/2008/jun/02/whitmer/

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/surprise-benjamin-whitmer-uncritically.html

This is utter drivel.

these cartoon are total crap

way to slob the conservative knob, glad you're a minority

Actually, Ward Churchill was doing what he always does when he denigrated the 9-11 victims as "little Eichmanns."

In "Struggle for the Land" (p. 369) Ward Churchill denigrates Indians he doesn't like as "hang around the fort Indians." On pages 369 and 399 he denigrates some Indians as "Vichy Indians." On page 370 he calls some Indian leaders "craven puppets" with "Quisling impulses." Churchill is calling these Indians NAZI collaborators.

These smears don't have a lot of credibility with me because I know that Ward Churchill cut his teeth writing for the KGB-sponsored "Covert Action Information Bulletin." In this KGB mouthpiece Churchill claimed that the FBI backed death-squads that murdered 342 Indians.

Yeah, right...

Who peer-reviewed that article?

Ward Churchill calls Indian people who don't toe his party line stooges, but really he's the stooge.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-denigrates-indians-he.html

I think it reveals the stakes of the Ward Churchill trial if, on this list of comments, we ask who the real dissenters are.

It is clear to me that the respondents here, and the readers of the racist cartoon you've published, want to protect free speech and reward scholarship while the dissenters concoct 'evidence' against him that are nothing more than personal attacks, and mock us ('boo-hoo') in what we are standing up about, and, regarding your article, what we are NOT going to stand for.

Too bad you've lost so much time digging up the typos and the minor inaccuracies of a real argument because those of us who want to read his books, and some of us who have invested time and effort in his classes, actually do some learning.

Having done some learning, we know that the ad hominem critiques here, meant to undermine his character (with caricatures), reflect, and rather honestly, that the opposition is in the minority and have no real argument against the importance of this writer or the right he has to tenureship.

What a shame it is that you have found some worthwhile incentive to give up your freedom to think critically about the real issues his work presents or those more personal issues that his trial presents. Other educated people know how to read what they are seeing, and how to understand what you are showing us.

Ps. Here is your next headline: "ReWARD Churchill."

Travis-

These are not small errors.

A real scholar doesn't call for hanging someone when he knows so little about the person that he can't even spell the person's name.

Churchill's argument in the cited passage rests on his proposition that Albright "responded" to Halliday. She can't respond in 1996 to what he says in 1998.

Also, Churchill "quotes" Halliday but doesn't cite the quote. He says it was in the NYT in fall of 1998.

This is the main quote about US "genocide" on which Churchill bases his argument.

I can't find it in the NY Times. Halliday was unhappy and spoke out, but I didn't see this allegation in the NYT.

Churchill wrote anti-FBI propaganda for the KGB. The publication is called the Covert Action Information Bulletin. He claimed the FBI backed death squads that killed 342 Indians. It's a ridiculous, stupid lie.

The AIM got money from the Iraqi Baath Party, according to Denver/Boulder Colorado AIM.

Churchill is for sale. He's a crude, blatant propagandist.

His fabricated smallpox story is like the KGB fabrication that America invented AIDS to kill black people.

He denigrates Indians who don't fall in step with his vision of AIM. He whitewashes criminals who victimized Indians and murdered people during the Wounded Knee take-over.

He gets away with his anti-Indian agenda by claiming to be an Indian.

You may know nothing about what you speak of, and a bad author, but at least you're entertaining.

However I may lighten your mood, I don't think any kind of politically motivated speech that you are engaged in will prevent the Jury from granting Churchill's rightful retainment at CU, or rewarding him damages appropriate to what he has endured.

Real justice will be served when you see that the condemnation you levy, in the above noted sic/joke column and in these commentaries, are politically motivated attacks which you paradoxically appear to ascribe to the author in question. They are eggagerations, misrepresentations, and falsifications. If I could copyright the propaganda techniques which you and your magazine are using (as they have been used before) you would be in clear violation of these signature methods of character debasement.

It is obvious to me, given the low-level at which your tools of rhetoric are being deployed, that these efforts amount to a conspiratorial attempt to reBuff Churchill’s critique of US hegemony where it comes to the annihilation of the Native American, the decimation of the people of Iraq, and (as argued in his controversial essay) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where, in the last eight years, we have seriously (and admittedly) lacked intelligence and leadership. More so, you have missed out on the gains of real academic analysis that is here to redeem the guilt we bear as a country and to illuminate a path toward justice and responsibility.

To sustain a defense for yourselves in this effort to fire a tenured professor, you will need to use different tools than the very ones that you are charging Churchill with employing; and they include both the acceptance and reflection of one truth: railroading Churchill will not de-legitimate his critique of the events of 9/11. It will only force history to add your names to the list of henchmen that engaged in forcefully silencing such critiques.

How aghast you seem at his use of language, however angry it is, seems so phony and immature that it appears you would also confuse his "hangman" metaphors with what our government actually did to Saddam Hussein. No academic literally takes the stage of executioner (it is not their job), and Churchill is not being charged with violence of any kind. He only means to make a point, with protected speech, just as the 8th grade game of hangman will help you fill in the meaning of: "W_KE UP!"

You've got only one leg left.

Jesus Christ, you're fucking everywhere, Snapple. Anyway, the kids strike back: http://tinyurl.com/bmmkhm

This is kinda fun.

Travis-

Churchill is not kidding about violence.
He writes himself how he abused his Indian wife Leah Kelly.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/02/assault-on-leah-kelly.html

Leah's entire tribe complained about Churchill.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/05/canadian-ojibways-support-family-of.html

Kenny Be, as usual you are spot on and thought-provoking for people on all "sides" of the issue. Progressives need to admit that assclowns like Churchill et.al make us all look like assclowns, and be willing to call them out on their b.s. Wart is genetically and culturally white, and all this unapologetic white-yuppie bashing just makes him look like the over-entitled, not very intelligent white guy that he is. He sure as hell doesn't speak for me, and I doubt he speaks for many Native Americans.