Response to CA's Link

Did we read the Crazy Horse article? Is that the one I was supposed to be directed to? At any rate, on the Ann Coulter website, that's the one I read.

I agree that discretion should be used when addressing such a touchy subject. And I really don't know too much about Churchill, but I seriously don't think he's crossed the line. He is not saying we need to die, he's just saying we need to examine the facts and think about the consequences, in a very emotional manner. =) Nevertheless, I can't help but generally like what he says; pin me as a conspiracy nut.

I did, however, have a couple of irritations with Churchill, and I do also with Coulter.

"— Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps. I forgot Auschwitz had a casino."

This is a bit grossly oversimplified. I think casinos are pretty terrible for Indian reservations, even if they aren't the equivalency of gas chambers and the like. Then there is the fact that we took their land and the Trail of Tears, etc. Old Ward still is a bit hung up on that.

"The whole idea behind free speech is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. But liberals believe there is no such thing as truth and no idea can ever be false (unless it makes feminists cry, such as the idea that there are innate differences between men and women). Liberals are so enamored with the process of free speech that they have forgotten about the goal. "

Isn't it true that America has done the things he's claimed? With the exception of the blankets...I'm really not sure about that one. I wouldn't doubt it, even if it just happened as an accident. What is truth anymore? Can truth be based on values of "good" and "bad"? Active "liberals" are generally just "progressives." I don't think they've lost sight of the goal...we all want to live in an educated society that can put their personal beliefs aside to come to some sense of order. In one of my other classes (that some kids in rhetoric are also in) we have seen that we are still debating the topics of the enlightenment. Where do morals come from, can one seperate the ruling of others from God and God from science? These issues have never been resolved and I think the Churchill debate can be attributed, if not mostly, to that fact.

"Why is it, again, that we are so committed to never, ever firing professors for their speech? Because we can't trust state officials to draw any lines at all here? Because ... because ... because they might start with crackpots like Ward Churchill — but soon liberals would be endangered? Liberals don't think there is any conceivable line between them and Churchill?"

Campus is a place where the new thoughts are generated, where ideas of change can be implanted into our young, impressionable minds. Does free speech here scare people? Why? If he hasn't been forcing his opinions on his students, and has just been writing books--possibility of training some kids to make bombs aside--then really, what's the damage?

=)
I should edit this. I've probably contradicted myself. Oh well.