« Ackerman Responds To Nunez On Budget | Main | New Majority Profiled On FlashReport »

August 09, 2007

Comments

Jeff Solsby

Wasn't Norman Finkelstein the name of the Dad on Dharma and Greg? Just curious.

antony cooke

Since there is nowhere else to leave this comment, I'll put it here.

Jubal, you have betrayed your true colors, and you and your blog can no longer claim to have any credibility with news sources. You should be ashamed of your actions in deleting every comment except your own entry, regarding your most recent write up about Diane Harkey.

Don't lecture any of us on how we should proceed in writing comments when you haven't the courage to face any dissent. Perhaps the truth is not only as you see it, or want it to be.

One Who Knows

Jubal:

WARNING!!!

Since Jim Lacy probably pays Mr. Cooke by the post, you are cutting off his only source of income.

antony cooke

Committing libel is a risky thing, oh "One Who Thinks he Knows".

Jubal

Antony:

I closed that thread and deleted the comments. The comments ought to be a forum for discussion -- not mutual personal-trashing. That thread -- like every other Harkey-Dana Point-Lacy related thread, was degenerating into personal gossip and rumor-mongering.

When either side in this Harkey-Lacy death match can conduct a civil discussion, I welcome it.

I have no problem with dissent. There is plenty of it on this blog. You guys seem to have a problem dissenting in a civil, adult manner. This isn't a high school chat room.

Jubal

Antony:

Don't be a bully or come on here threatening litigation, unless you want to be banned. You and your cohorts are beginning to resemble the accusations you level at Harkey.

antony cooke

If you don't want to have a discussion on the facts, so be it. And I didn't threaten you or anyone else with litigation. However, Jim Lacy and I were libeled by one blogger.

Please don't refer to any one as a cohort, just because we want the public to have all the facts surrounding the Harkey controversy. The last Harkey thread contained wide amounts of information as well as challenges, and indeed we welcome challenges as a chance to articulate our point of view. But this baby had to go, along with the bath water.

Jubal, I thought we had developed an understanding - I even respected what you were trying to do with the tone and content of your site. I would hope that all of this could return, along with the statements of record which were made on the last Harkey thread.

I don't believe those statements made by Jim Lacy, even my own, ever degenerated into gossip or rumor-mongering; I would not be interested in a popularity contest based on those things. If every negative comment is labeled such, our freedom is over in America.

Cow

This is retarded, the post is about Sanchez and the anti-war protesters, go take your hate against Harkey somewhere else. Or at least save until Jubal post something else on the Harkey Recall effort.

Jubal

Antony:

Perhaps I overreacted, but you're not the one who has to read all these comments and parse the allegations from the speculative from the factual. But when it gets to the point where "DP Resident" weighs in with "here's the rumor going around about Diane Harkey" and someone else responds with equally snaky suggestions about Jim Lacy, I'd had enough and nuked the whole business.

Why don't you guys just link back your website, i.e. "click here for another reason why we are trying to recall Harkey."

Dan Chmielewski

Matt -- I am curious if you even read Ward Churchill's essay that caught so much flack. While he probably shouldn't have used the term "Little Eichmann's" there is a great degree of validity to the essay. But you have to read the whole thing in context.

David Horowitz once called Ann Coulter "a national treasure" which should speak for itself.

Patricia

His website reveals the same tired leftist memes: the raised fist, the Howard Zinn, the Chris Hedges...
http://www.standforjustice.com/

antony cooke

Hi again Jubal,

I appreciate your response; thank you for raising calming words.

Could I suggest that you look again at the thread in question and just delete those "rumor" and "snaky" comments, and let the rest run again as they were? The information being disclosed on the thread was of getting into areas of considerable significance.

Your forum represents one of the few widely participated-in forums, where these issues can actually be discussed outside all that surrounds campaign web sites and such. How often would people actually get a chance to chat this way with Jim Lacy himself? How could anything he says not be considered highly relevant and valuable? So please let whatever is discussed rise or fall on its own merits.

Anyway, I hope you'll think it over, and that we'll see those more thought provoking and information driven comments restored to that thread.

No hard feelings, Jubal.

Tony

One Who Knows

"How often would people actually get a chance to chat this way with Jim Lacy himself? How could anything he says not be considered highly relevant and valuable?"

I'm getting sick.

Jubal

Dan:

No, I didn't read it, but "probably shouldn't have used the term Little Eichman's" is a huge understatement.

But that's not the whole business -- the university found he'd engaged in plagiarism in his "scholarly" work, plus he pretends to be an American Indian.

In other words, he's a liar And a kook -- not the academic and victim that Lovell makes him out to be.

killerjoe

Is this post about Lacy/Harky, or about sanchez? One would never know from the posts.

Dan Chmielewski

Well, plagerism is a serious offense for an academic; as to his claim of being an American Indian, I don't see what difference it makes. And you have to read the paper before you can say the "Little Eichman's" comment was a huge understatment. I read Coulter and Malkin's "work" before I jump on them. But since you haven't read it, you're regurgitating far right talking points on Ward Churchill. His biggest crime from the essay was speakig out about US foreign policy mistakes in the mideast dating back decades, under both GOP and Democratic administrations.

If you want to get upset about the Little Eichman comments, then get upset about Coulter calling the Jersey Girls harpies for enjoying their husbands deaths. Churchill made a bad analogy; Coulter told a complete lie.

Patricia

"...as to his claim of being an American Indian, I don't see what difference it makes."

Because he got his job as an ethnic studies professor partly on the basis that he was a true American Indian. Another example of fraud--no different than lying about your education on your resume. And he stole articles from other authors to publish his "scholarly" articles.

Dan Chmielewski

Fair enough, but Ann Coulter has documented cases of plagierism in her books and committed voter fraud by using a false address to register to vote. Yet publishers adore her, she's not in jail, and the conservative right blow her kisses daily. What's her punishment?

josh

well, if you haven't read Churchill's essay, then i assume you HAVE read the examples of plagerism and the alleged copied sources and all of the other evidence that has been levied against him. i mean, you certainly wouldnt call him a plagerist as an outright fact unless you'd seen the proof, right?

i know professor lovell. he is very critical of ward churchill. just as he is critical of a lot of the political left (search for the mp3 of his show on michael moore. you'd love it!). just because he reveres zinn (and he does) does not mean he puts any lefty with a book on a pedastal. do you not get that he was protesting in a DEMOCRAT'S office for crying out loud? i'm sorry that the show's content is confusing to you but the subject was not for the purposes of exonerating churchill but rather to examine how his politcal witch hunt came about. and it was a witch hunt. he was not let go for what everone demanded his resignation for. his work was gone over with a fine tooth comb only when he said something unpopular (and rediculous, imo, but that's besides the point).

and as to the example professor lovell sets... he teaches criminology. he teaches about civil disobedience and where it has worked and failed. this is EXACTLY WHAT HE TEACHES. you make my head hurt. its like you're calling an auoto shop teacher out for changing his own oil. if he doesnt practice what he preaches you would no doubt throw that "isolated in an ivory tower of academia," grenade, no?

Patricia

"What's her punishment?"

If she committed plagiarism, the authors can sue her.
If publishers "love her" it's because she sells books.
As far as blowing kisses, that's just histrionics. Lots of people on the right criticize her.
If you think she's committed a crime, call the police or the DA. That's your right.

As to josh, you seem very young. Some people think that professors should teach, not indoctrinate or incite to activism. But if a school does allow political indoctrination, it should present both sides, professor versus professor.

josh

umm, he teaches how civil disobedience has worked and hasnt worked to advance social and popular causes. it has advanced women's sufferage and civil and equal rights just to name a few cases. do you think politicians just woke up one day and said, "oh, i think NOW would be a good time to let my wife vote?" uhh, no. so, what are the "two sides" you reffer to here? there are two sides to say, the war. but two sides to civil disobedience? okay, find me a professor who would argue against the effective use of civil disobedience and I'll pit my phd-free intellect against his any day.

oh, and by the by, the right uses civil disobedience. the people being arrested outside abortion clinics and family planning offices accross the country are not the stinky hippies you're blanketing the civilly disobedient to be. the israelis who stood against thier governments tearing down of settlements and were arrested in defiance last year were not the kumbay-ya singers you broad stroke those who break the law due to thier conciences to be. and good for them. i disagree with thier politics but recognize their courage.

so, with all due respect, you are confusing his stance on the war with the criticism of him being arrested (just like jabal confused jarret's criticism of the university of colorado with support of ward churchill, which he surely wouldnt have, had he listend to the show). in being arrested he is setting a good example in practicing what he preaches. i think you are worrying that hes indoctrinating his students against the war, which i could assure you hes not, but since you don't know me from adam i'd implore you to actually sit in on one of his lectures before you toss any more conjecture around.

Patricia

There's no talking to a guy who starts a post sarcastically with "umm..." and doesn't use capital letters or conventional spelling. You use the word "preach," josh, and that doesn't belong in the classroom. Just my opinion.

Keep reading history, even books off the Zinn-ology list.

josh

that whole "i'll use his sarcastic intro to completly disregard the points he made," device is good. i didnt use your inference of naivety on my part to dismiss you. i'd use your assumption that i only read zinn-olgy books to dismiss your points, i guess, had you actually made any (outside your observance of misspelled words-ZING! ya got me).

i was trying to show you that you can't "indoctrinate" that civil disobedience has worked or has been an important part of our history. you are so against it i'm sure you have some type of argument that overshadows it's role in our history (from the boston tea party to abolishion to suffrege to the veteran's peace movement of the 70's, to abortion and so on). i'd love to hear it. i am sorry you let the personal overshadow the core of the argument. truly sorry. if you can get over my lack of capital letters, then please feel free to email me with that at melissaandjosh at sbcglobal dot net. or, anyone else that has a problem with civil disobedience, please, i'd love to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that civil disobedience has been more harmful than good. might be insightful...

Patricia

Josh,
You're putting words in my mouth--I never called you a hippie or said I was against civil disobedience. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I will answer and then I'm done.

Civil disobedience is a tactic to achieve a political goal. Its putative non-violence does nothing to change the violence inherent in human nature or in political change. In India, civil war predictably broke out and 2 million people died after Gandhi non-violently kicked out the British; the Viet Cong killed and imprisoned another million or two when the "peaceful" anti-war movement won their political battle.

If you think Bush is responsible for the chaos in Iraq, then the "non-violent" civil disobedience crowd must take responsibility for the consequences of its action as well. IMO it is not only American presidents who should be criticized for "not having a plan"; everyone who takes political action is responsible for the deaths and other consequences of their actions as well. As for this "anti-war" movement, even David Corn calls its goals into question. http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/behind-the-placards/3458/

I'm just saying it's your duty as an activist to think about these things and professors to teach them before you act.

poetryman69

Energy Independence Now!


No more Oil Wars!


Stop funding the terrorists!


Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas


Turn trash into energy


Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.


If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.


If Australia can do LNG power so can we.


Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories