my two cents......

Where do I start?

Churchill's "Some People Push Back" is a perfect example of a legitimate argument whose end is defeated by the approach the writer uses to convince his readers. The writer presumes his readers’ knowledge of the subject is the same as his, which is almost childish.

Churchill, being a tenured professor at a fairly respectable university, should have more sense than to try to elicit positive action through accusations that we are all complicit in the 9/11 attacks, if that was his purpose. Otherwise, all he wanted to do was make people angry.

Language such as that which he used in this particular article is only meant to incense people. Those who agree with him will only agree with him more after reading this article, and those who oppose this view point will only resist it more vehemently after being compared to a prominent Nazi official.

In Churchill’s defense, this article was a part of book, which we have not read. Perhaps, given the greater body of evidence, the language would have been more justifiable. I hesitate in saying that, because I don’t truly believe that language like that will ever be very effective. I believe in sarcasm (in parody), of which there is plenty in this article, but he doesn’t use it effectively. Parody is a means of pointing out the absurdity in a certain belief, yet Churchill’s use is more as a tool for exaggerating facts.

If he is mad at the general public for not viewing the 9/11 attacks contrapuntally, then he should present the other side as a means of playing devil’s advocate. However, he should not outright insult the general population. That does help anything.

As to whether or not I believe he should be fired, absolutely not. As we mentioned in class, someone who believes in the right to free speech is agreeing to allow those with opinions exactly opposite to his to be spoken. It is necessary to have these sort of inflammatory remarks to spark debates. If no opposite side is ever presented, then, truly, no one will ever learn anything.

Reason is the ability to disprove an antithesis, not the ability to prove a thesis.

The end….I think…