Quote:
Originally posted by OohTeenyWahine
I know the University of Oregon cancelled his lecture this month. It's been said on more than one occasion that the governor of Colorado wants him fired. And while most of his opinion doesn't count to the rest of us -- Bill O'Reilly calls him the "anti-American professor". Thoughts of McCarthyism come to mind.
|
None of this was the government, per se - and the comparisons to McCarthyism are specious at best. You're mistaking institutions and people who support the government for actual, institutional actions by the government. It may or may not become a slippery slope argument eventually, but for right now, "Red Scare" comparisons are as alarmist and flaky as Churchill's own declarations regarding capitalism, to my mind.
Quote:
Originally posted by OohTeenyWahine
To me, the story isn't about Churchill's three and a half year old speech. It is the systematic campaign against any scholarship that questions, argues or in any way challenges the government.
|
Again, who is supporting this campaign? Is it really against legitimate scholarship?
While there are certainly segments of the vocal minority, of which O'Reilly comiserates, that get quite a bit too affrontary for my tastes, I really just don't see this as systematic - especially considering research that identifies tenured professors as being overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic (which are not identical, contrary to GP's signature's implications).
I guess the bottom line is that, from a fairly moderate viewpoint, it seems like both sides are identifying only the extremes and accepting those as the 'norm.' It's caustic and frustrating.
Quote:
Originally posted by OohTeenyWahine
And don't even get me started on our local news media. It's as if they've all jumped on the O'Reilly bandwagon....they're falling over themselves to condemn the guy! They can finger point, roll their eyes, and shake their heads sadly until kingdom come. The warning is out there and clear, kids. Anyone associating with "unpatriotic rubbish" will be instantly painted with the same broad brush.
|
The guy's a dick, Sandy - his "Little Eichmanns" statements are absurd and patently offensive to a huge number of people, and even worse: it's entirely unnecessary to making his point. The reason for his comparison is that, much like Eichmann, the people in the WTC are just "doing their job" and thus are attempting to free themselves from blame and accept innocence post hoc (which he infers Eichmann received). Rather than saying this, he invokes the Nazi party, surely understanding the impact of such words. It's insane.
(as proof . . . peep
this article rejoining revisionist holocaust denial - then think of how this relates to his theories on Native American genocide and the government . . . )
He's not saved by the fact that he uses the phrase "little Eichmann" as a category for classifying people. He knows the connotation, and he's choosing to abuse it - except for now, it's even more clear why he's doing it . . . soap-boxing for an unrelated issue is the ultimate dick move, especially when it's still not freeing Leonard Peltier or returning wealth or prosperity to Native American populations in the US.