LLR Pages

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Lying Controversial Leftist Professor Ward Churchill Fired for Plagarism in His Essay, Not Because of His 9/11-Eichmann Claim

Controversial University of Colorado professor (now ex-professor) Ward Churchill, who has amassed a great deal of attention for his infamous essay (which has long since expanded to become a book) titled "Some People Push Back:
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" in which he compared the victims of the World Trade Center Tower on 9/11 to Adolph Eichmann by branding them "little Eichmanns," had just been fired yesterday by the UOC Board of Regents on a vote of 8 to 1 after a two-year investigation by the university into charges of plagarism and deliberately twisting and distorting research that he had committed while scribing his essay.

According to the New York Times, the board has this much to say on the firing:

“We wanted to do what was right for this university,” the board chairwoman, Patricia Hayes, said after the vote. “We did not address Professor Churchill’s freedom of speech as part of our discussion.”

The university president, Hank Brown, who recommended that the board fire Professor Churchill, said he deserved to lose his job because he had “falsified history” and “fabricated history.”

The interesting aspect of this entire ruckus is that Churchill not only stolen facts and information from other scholars to pass as his own while conducting his research (he postured as if his findings were his own when that simply wasn't the case), but he also deliberately and knowingly falsified facts to make his anti-imperalist points.

Moreover, Churchill and his sycophants have softpedaled the paramount importance of his plagarism, all the while contending that he is Native American (truth be told, he isn't) and a scholar (he isn't, considering he actually holds an MA in communications, not a Ph.D. in history). Worse, the former University of Colorado professor asserts that the U.S. Army was responsible for committing genocide on an Indian American tribe known as the Mandans by spreading a deadly strain of smallpox, thus wiping out the entire populace. This assertion, of course, is a bald-faced lie, which is even further substantiated by Native American history scholar Russell Thorton, who dismisses Churchill's claims by branding them a "just out-and-out fabrication."

Churchill, through his attorney, claims that he was canned because of his "little Eichmann" comments in his essay, as does Newsday in its report on his firing. However, Churchill, as Reason's Michael C. Monyihan accurately notes, was let go not because of his controversial "little Eichmann" remarks; he was terminated because of the established fact that he had committed academic fraud and wilfully and blatantly falsified historical facts to carry out his radical leftist/socialist agenda. That's what landed Churchill in hot water, not his pathetic statements on the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center Towers.

For those who want to read the notorious "little Eichmanns" paragraph from Churchill's widely-debunked essay, here's the quote:

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.

(Thanks goes to Reason's Michael C. Monyihan and Wikipedia for its useful information on this.)

U.S. Federal Farm Subsidies Now Immune to Congressional Reform

Collectivistic policymakers in the Beltway really have no idea how economics truly work: when you subsidize a business, you create more products and services than what the free market demands, thus undermining their value. When you eliminate subsidies to businesses and let the free market decide whether that business should continue, more than likely the net result will be that there will less of that business' products and services, thereby increasing their value. Although the initial downside to that is that prices will go up, that's only sustainable in the short term, not in the long term, because other unsubsidized businesses will compete and prices will go down due to supply and demand.

This simply isn't the case when it comes to U.S. farmers in the agricultural industry. According to the New York Times, congressional critics of past farm subsidies, including Democratic legislators, who have been opposed to such hand-outs and the new farm subsidies bill pending in Congress, are now supporting the bill because, as the Times reports, it "draws a veto threat" from Bush.

Here's more from the farm bill subsidy claptrap that the Times reports:

WASHINGTON, July 25 — For the many critics of farm subsidies, including President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this seemed like the ideal year for Congress to tackle the federal payments long criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms.

Many crop prices are at or near record highs. Concern over the country’s dependence on foreign oil has sent demand for corn-based ethanol soaring. European wheat fields have been battered by too much rain. And market analysts are projecting continued boom years for American farmers into the foreseeable future.

But as the latest farm bill heads to the House floor on Thursday, farm-state lawmakers seem likely to prevail in keeping the old subsidies largely in place, drawing a veto threat on Wednesday from the White House.

“The bill put forth by the committee misses a major opportunity,” Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday. “The time really is right for reform in farm policy.”

Faced with fierce opposition from the House Agriculture Committee, Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders lowered their sights and are now backing the committee’s bill, in part to protect freshman lawmakers from rural areas who may be vulnerable in the 2008 elections.

Instead, Ms. Pelosi helped to secure more modest changes, pushing the committee to provide $1.8 billion for programs that aid fruit and vegetable growers, generating support from lawmakers in states like Florida and California, Ms. Pelosi’s home, and deflating some traditional opposition to the farm bill.

All this talk about "protecting freshman lawmakers from rural areas" is just political speak for immunizing newly-elected lawmakers from political accountability, which is pretty much non-existent in the world of Congress. But Pelosi, a Democrat who has always voted for farm subsidies when they merely served her political interests, thinks by making a political trade-off with her lobbyists by going after the so-called "rich farmers" and allowing farmers to dry up their subsidy caps in the name of protecting corporate farms will somehow level the playing field.

This is what the Times wrote in part:

At the same time, she pronounced the bill a “good first step to reform” by ending subsidies for the richest farmers — those earning more than $1 million a year — and closing a loophole that let some farmers exceed subsidy limits by owning partnerships in multiple farms.

Both Pelosi, the Democrats, and the Republicans have no idea how destructive farm subsidies are, given that, for decades, they've only encouraged waste of crops and ensured a protectionistic safety net for long, established corporate farms while insulating them from new start-ups in the process. It's nothing more than a sick, corrupt protection racket for the corporate farm machine.

Democrats who say they are opposed to farm subsidies are only for them when they work to their advantage. The same goes for the Republicans. And they continue to misuse our tax monies and abuse their congressional power at the expense of their constituencies about whom they claim to care.

Money-Grubbing Lawyers Targeting Bars and Clubs Over "Ladies' Night"

Money-grubbing lawyers, on behalf of their male clients, are now filing lawsuits against bars and clubs over "Ladies' Nights" specials, claiming that they are discriminatory and unconstitutional, says ABC News.

Here's an excerpt of this nonsense:

Lawsuits could be putting "Ladies' Nights" at bars and clubs across the country on the rocks.

In about two dozen cases, plaintiffs contend these drink and admission deals for women constitute discrimination against men and should be banned.

Roy Den Hollander is a New York lawyer who says Ladies' Night drinks and admission specials are unconstitutional, and he says he's suffered personally. Hollander is also a graduate of Columbia Business School and seems like a guy who should be able to get into a decent bar and afford the drinks. So what irks him?

"I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen," said Hollander, who is seeking class-action status for his suit in federal court.

Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls Hollander's complaint "pathetic" and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women. Nevermind that some men are more than happy to pay for inequality in the ratio department.

Over the last 30 years, lawsuits stemming from promotions involving Ladies' Night have enjoyed considerable success in courts across the country where judges have held that single-sex discounts violate state and federal statutes guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, whose students have brought a Ladies' Night suit, says that these promotions are part of a broader class of gender-based price discrimination tactics like those used by hairdressers and dry cleaners who charge men and women different prices for the same service.

In Washington, D.C., he hopes to pursue what he calls restroom equity or "squatter's rights" in which he will sue public venues whose restroom availability, though seemingly equal for both sexes, has a "disparate impact" on women who must deal with longer lines and wait times.

Nightclub spokespersons and activists express concern that a class-action victory in a Ladies' Night lawsuit based on federal law could open the floodgates to a host of other suits against private businesses.