May 18, 2007 8:00 AM
Churchill backers misrepresented sources
Scholars quoted by a faculty group defending CU professor Ward Churchill against charges of academic fraud say their work has been misrepresented, report Berny Morson and Kevin Vaughan.
"That's just blatant distortion to make their point," said Russell Thornton, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose book was quoted in defense of Churchill.University of Oklahoma professor Circes Sturm, who was also quoted, said she has since changed her views on a piece of federal Indian law Churchill is accused of distorting. Churchill was among her sources.
"If I had known that there were questions about the accuracy of his work, I would have looked to other sources," said Sturm, who is quoted by Churchill's defenders.
Sturm's sources included essays by M. Annette Jaimes, Churchill's first wife. Churchill has admitted ghostwriting some of Jaimes' essays - a fact Sturm couldn't have known at the time.
"What a tangled web," Sturm said. "I wish I wasn't in it."
Nine professors, including seven from CU, defended Churchill in documents released April 23 and have filed their own academic misconduct charges against the CU panel that investigated Churchill.
Churchill's defenders, led by Cornell University American studies professor Eric Cheyfitz, said the review panel ignored sources supporting Churchill's contention that both Captain John Smith and the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox to Indians.Also overlooked, they argued, is evidence in the writings of other scholars bolstering Churchill's contention that the United States Congress in 1887 imposed a "blood quantum" standard to define Indians, similar to Nazi laws that later defined Jews.
May 18, 2007
8:51 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Good grief, here we go.
This is SUCH old news. Can't we discuss something that actually has relevance to scholarship, academia, and the state of universities these days?
Sheesh.
May 18, 2007
9:16 AM
jay writes:
Wolfowitz and Gonzales are going down the tubes, Blair resigned because of his ties to the manchild and we've got a new war czar on the record against troop increases, the centcom commander is telling the WH that they won't attack Iran on his watch and finally W is vetoing pay raises and benefit increases for the troops and vets and we're still rehashing Churchill? Isn't immigration enough of a placation of the wingnuts for one week?
May 18, 2007
9:24 AM
Anonymous writes:
Churchill only had part of the equation right!!
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
May 18, 2007
9:43 AM
Obvious writes:
Vine Carroll and RMN have a major hard on when it comes to Churchill.
May 18, 2007
9:50 AM
666 writes:
Churchill can fade from the news once he's been properly punished for corrupting the honor of American academia.
To all the liberals and centrists out there that have deluded themselves, FYI...it's OK to condemn Churchill for the loser that he is. Admitting the truth doesn't mean that you're a tool of the Repudlicker conspiracy.
BTW, 9:24, I'm sick of your Weekly World News conspiracy theories. I suppose you also believe that the moon landing was staged, that the Freemasons killed JFK, that the Microsoft Illuminati rules the United States, and that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory.
Grow up, moron. It may be cute to blurt out unbelievable nonsense when you're 3 years old, but if you're old enough to read, write and blog, you should really know better.
May 18, 2007
9:57 AM
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB writes:
WTC 7!!!!
How does a massive steel building come crashing down perfectly symmetrical at all four corners at free fall speeds due to a couple of fires that were unevenly spread throughout the building!!!!! I guess Physics took the day off while W was reading about pet goats!!
You can believe in the Official Coincidence Theory all you want but the truth will come out!!!!!
Back and to the left, Back and to the Left, Back and to the left!!!!
May 18, 2007
10:08 AM
milloy36us writes:
Hey Inside Job. You must get your info from Rosie O'Donnell. I guess idiots belong together.
If it is so bad here, go to China and see how they treat you.
May 18, 2007
10:11 AM
666 writes:
Wanker at 9:57
What makes you think that a force of some 160 million newtons - 35.9 million force-pounds - would not be a factor when exerted on buildings that had endured severe fires and devastating bombings in their 30-some year lifespan?
You're just talking to hear the wind whistling through your skull. You're as much an embarrassment to non-right wingers as Ward Churchill is. You both get off on telling ridiculously untrue things to people just to fire them up.
PS, what's with the mantra? You may lean left, but you're more backwards than anything else...
May 18, 2007
10:23 AM
TRUTH writes:
Strange how the 9-11 Commission report never mentions WTC 7!!! Stange how William Rodriguez's testimony was omitted from the report. Strange how NORAD stood down, strange that there were put options on the airlines, strange that high ranking officials were told not to fly on 9-11. Strange that there was molten metal at the bottom of all three buildings. Strange how WTC 5 and 6 didn't collapse and they suffered much worse fires and damage that WTC 7. Strange there are no photos of plane parts in Shanksville, and the Pentagon, strange that fire fighters reported bombs going off in the buildings. I guess can go on, but I guess you can believe that Massive Steel Buildings are built with Balsa woods and airplanes are made out of cardboard like the government would like you to believe
Coincidence Theory anyone???
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
May 18, 2007
10:24 AM
DJ writes:
So, more evidence of Churchill's lies, huh? Big surprise.
"What a tangled web" indeed!
May 18, 2007
10:53 AM
NW writes:
Sounds like "truth" has spent some time bumping the back of his head on the bottom side of Ward's desk.
Retard.
May 18, 2007
11:03 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Let Churchill stay, the more poison in the public school system the better.
Return Rosie to the view. The more poison on daytime television the better.
Impeach Bush and let Gore and Kerry be co-presidents till '08. The more poison in D.C. the better.
May 18, 2007
11:03 AM
TRUTH writes:
NW,
I can truly appreciate that being in denial and attempting to understand difficult issues that go against everything that you were bred to believe, but resorting to childish name calling truly speaks for the kind of person you are.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
May 18, 2007
11:16 AM
666 writes:
Strange how Inside Nutjob has enough brain power to operate a computer.
Strange how 7 World Trade Center was built on a foundation originally intended to support a smaller, lighter building, especially considering later remodels that made the building heavier and less stable than it already was.
Strange how it only took 2.5 years to build, kinda short for a big, strong office building.
Strange how there was heavy droppage on airline stocks EVERY FALL FOR THE PAST DECADE prior to 9-11.
Strange how someone would think that a janitor, some firefighters, etc. would even know what a bomb going off inside a building would sound like, or that their memories during a scary and stressful time could be trusted.
Strange how people that come up with wild-ass theories concerning conspiracies that don't make sense and can't be proven are still allowed to use sharp objects and are allowed to roam free, meanwhile harmless people who think they're Napoleon are ruthlessly locked up and drugged into stupor.
The Bush administration has done enough shady, corrupt business that someone wishing to condemn them doesn't need to invent this Vampire Easter Bunnies from Mars kind of conspiracy crap. Inside Rimjob, I'll bet you believe that there are Bat-People on the moon, that Area 51 is an earth based version of Mos Eisley, and that Evangelical Christians are human.
May 18, 2007
11:52 AM
shaupeen writes:
OK, boys settle down. We're all entitled to our own opinions, no matter how bizzare they may seem to others. I, for example, believe that flight 93 was shot down by USAF jets. That's my belief, and I'm entitled to it. The resulting stories of heroism and even the movie, are, in my opinion, great examples of spin. And we, the people, bought them. Hook thru sinker. Which makes me wonder what else we have swallowed.
And by the way, the "back, and to the left" mantra was from Oliver Stone's "JFK," when Costner's character was explaining the movements of JFK's head after the "kill shot" hit him. It's the keystone to THAT conspiracy...
May 18, 2007
12:03 PM
NW writes:
Truth,
I'm sorry you thought I was calling names.. I thought I was giving you a compliment by calling you a retard.
Maybe you're just a weirdo. I just don't get how you would think that it is impossible for a building to collapse once it has been hit by a gazillion pound fireball going a couple hundred miles an hour....and why you would spend so much time blogging about it to try to get 1 or 2 more jaggoffs to jump on your side. You're probalby one of those guys that wears tin foil around the house to keep the aliens away.
Yeah, I'm in denial... Rim Job. p.s., looks like you found a buddy finally. maybe you guys can go play some Dungeons and Dragons later or something.
May 18, 2007
1:10 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
666,
I was with you right until that last word. May I ask what set you off so bad on Evangelicals? (besdies me;-)
May 18, 2007
1:36 PM
TRUTH writes:
NW,
Please explain the collapse of WTC 7!!! Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. In any case raging fires could still not cause simultaneous and symmetric damage needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second
May 18, 2007
2:00 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
TRUTH,
Here is a link which shows that controlled demolition did not bring the building down.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
May 18, 2007
2:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.(Another Great Coincidence)
The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.
The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse. Even NIST has dropped the pancake collapse idea.
The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.
Please read Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin
May 18, 2007
2:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
I guess that is just another one of those strange coincidences that the BBC reported the collapse of this building 26 minutes before it did!!!! Along with Larry Silverstein's comments, just another one of those strange coincidences!!!! I know, most people took his quote out of context right, it was about pulling the fire fighters!!!! You can have that comment back.
The physics of what happen that day does not add up to a natural collapse of WTC 7. Seriously think about this, How does a massive steel building reinforced with concrete collapse at free fall speeds perfectly symmetrical at all four corners because of a a few fires that were spread unevenly.
WTC 5 and 6, were directly underneath 1 and 2, suffered way more damage from debris and fire, yet they never suffered global collapse. Makes your mind think doesn't it.
May 18, 2007
2:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
Worth Viewing:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
May 18, 2007
3:36 PM
THE SKY IS FALLING TOO!!!! writes:
Next we get to hear the theory of how "jet fuel burns at 800-1500 degrees (F) and steel melts at 2200-2400 degrees (F)." Nice theory, maybe the fires were hotter due to wind (bellows effect) and MAYBE the steel didn't melt, but only weakened enough to collapse, that would be wierd. Obviously that COULD NOT happen because of all those theories of how things happen. Guess what? In reality 2 planes hit the twin towers and they collapsed, sucks, huh? Maybe, just maybe because the buildings in places like NYC or Chicago are built VERY close together the fact that 2 110 story buildings collapsed it weakened the others. Nah, couldn't happen because there is a theory that it couldn't....Go back to craigs list, douchbag...
May 18, 2007
3:46 PM
666 writes:
Nutjob:
Besides the fact tha WTC 7 was thrown up in haste almost as an afterthought, in comparison to the other buildings, and the fact that the building was built too big and heavy for its foundation, and the fact that remodels in the 70s and 80s practically gutted it (3 entire floors were removed, and the upper floors were enhanced with no corresponding reinforcement on the lower), definitely creating weak points...besides all that, I guess it's a complete and total mystery.
Hogar:
2 words: Fred Phelps
2 more words: Jim & Tammy
2 more words: Dominionist Agenda
Evangelicals are not even as secretive as they used to be about trying to take over the nation and dismantle secular government. They're pretty overt about it nowadays.
There's that, and also the fact that I didn't want to be mistaken for a rightwinger. Nothing personal
>8^p
May 18, 2007
4:22 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
666,
2 words: Fred Phelps
This man is certainly the poster boy for the bad news of hatred. He and his clan should not get one more minute of air time, but the media loves a whacko, especially if they can tar all of Christendom with his antics.
2 more words: Jim & Tammy
Two ticks looking for a dog.
2 more words: Dominionist Agenda
A misguided effort by those who don't believe that God is bigger than politics.
Jesus didn't call them sheep for nothing. They do not represent Jesus, he speaks for himself in the Bible.
May 21, 2007
1:14 PM
609 days to go writes:
The loonies always look too hard for a conspiracy. Sometimes it is not what you do it is what you don't do that counts. There is irrefutable proof that Rice was warned about Osama's plans with quite a degree of detail as far as methods. There is little proof that WTC7 was demolished. For a strong case one should focus on the hard evidence. It is enough.