"free speech"

[kimo55]

University of Hawai'i professor David E. Stannard, in regards to tonight's speech by Ward Churchill, tells us:

"we honor first amendment by hearing professor."
wrongo chucko. I can be miles away from U.H. and the professor's speech and will in no way disrespect the concept of free speech or the first amendment.

I would in no way want to add to the audience number by my attendance. I have no interest in what he has to spew.
But that does not mean I would dishonor "free speech".
I am more concerned with what Churchill dishonors with this agenda of his.

And may I remind Stannard;
the free speech concept doesn't give permission to the ruffian to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: "free speech"

Heh. This whole Churchill thing makes me think of the furor over Professor Oliver Lee at UH. Is he still there, or has he retired yet?

[pzarquon]

Re: "free speech"

Some background, and an update this morning. Hawaii Reporter ran a letter from one of the sponsoring organizations yesterday. I see his speech here made stories in mainland papers, but not surprisingly there's a dearth of coverage in the university's own campus daily.

[kimo55]

Re: "free speech"

...Professor Oliver Lee at UH. Is he still there, or has he retired yet?

too creative to retire; he is in new zealand or is it australia? shooting a film.

[Miulang]

Re: "free speech"

If his wacko theories about 9/11 make people question their true beliefs, then I think Churchill is doing us all a favor. One thing I can't stand to see in this country today is the lack of critical thinking...most people are just willing to "go with the flow," and that's how we got this country into the mess it's in.

We've all been blessed with brains (well, most of us anyway ). We need to exercise that brain just as much as we do with the rest of our body. An atrophied brain sitting atop a buff body is just cannon fodder for the next war.

Miulang

[kimo55]

Re: "free speech"

If his wacko theories about 9/11 make people question their true beliefs, then I think Churchill is doing us all a favor.
Miulang

I will give him this, tho:
when he disses the victims of the 9/11 attacks, equating them to the highest level of the Nazi empire, he is manipulating the press, and doing it very well; getting immediate, front and center international coverage. When Ward Churchill tells us here; "Tourists can help Hawaii and Hawaiians by staying away, and people should break the kneecaps of tourists if that is what it takes to keep them from Hawaii."
He is tossing out soundbites. It's pavlovian.
I would not go that far. That's simply too inciteful.

But this gets press. And this results in bookings.
So, we ask:
what are his motives?
What will the masses learn from his message?!
mehtinks there are too many kneejerk reactionaries and non-thinkers who allow someone like Churchill to do their thinking for them.
yes, everyone has been blessed with brains. The gray matter between the ears. Trouble is, too many use just 10% or so, of the tool. And someone like Ward pops up, and idiots who need justification for more hate and their pro terrorist viewpoints get behind Ward and parrot his words.

People who question their own beliefs, those that actually perform critical thinking... don't need an incendiary person such as W.C...

[Miulang]

Re: "free speech"

Eh Kimo, What I want to know is why Churchill's baiting the press with sound bites is any less pernicious than what our "objective" national media are doing to the masses? Thus far, the Bush Administration has scored at least 2 hired guns to promote some of their policies (No Child Left Behind, Raising your children) and a ringer in the White House Press Room, and the media is lapping all of this up as gospel.

Maybe this is what drove Hunter Thompson to commit suicide. The dumbing down and brainwashing of the American public.

Miulang

[kimo55]

Re: "free speech"

Eh Kimo, What I want to know is why Churchill's baiting the press with sound bites is any less pernicious than what our "objective" national media are doing to the masses?

Miulang

dunno. nevah said was or wasn't.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: "free speech"

From what he has written and what he is reported to have said, Churchill sounds a lot like his friend Haunani-Kay Trask: abrasive and self-important. However, as offensively phrased as it is, he has a point. Calling the WTC workers "little Eichmanns" goes over the line; he should have stuck with his earlier writings comparing Americans with the "good Germans" who didn't object to Hitler. That, at least, is arguable.

[kimo55]

Re: "free speech"

Calling the WTC workers "little Eichmanns" goes over the line; he should have stuck with his earlier writings comparing Americans with the "good Germans" who didn't object to Hitler. That, at least, is arguable.

no.
Calling the WTC workers "little Eichmanns"
is;
"arguable"


'comparing Americans with the "good Germans" who didn't object to Hitler'
is more unarguable.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: "free speech"

I hope we both mean that the second is a more meaningful comparison.

[kimo55]

Re: "free speech"

I hope we both mean that the second is a more meaningful comparison.

All I know is:
"arguable"
means you can argue the point. It is argue-able. able to be argued. up for legitimate debate.

...as Merriam Webster tells us:
ar·gu·able
Function: adjective
1 : open to argument , dispute, or question
2 : that can be plausibly or convincingly argued
....and...
Entry: ir·re·fut·able
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin irrefutabilis, from Latin in- + refutare to refute
: impossible to refute : INCONTROVERTIBLE <irrefutable proof>



thus... "unarguable" means "irrefutable".

(which I wish folks would use, more than the klunky, awkward and by now nonsensical "argueable")

That said, I have just said what I said, having said that.

[Palolo Joe]

Re: &quot;free speech&quot;

That said, I have just said what I said, having said that.

Which is absolutely nothing. Your opinion of what is "arguable" and "irrefutable" is just that - an opinion.

[Miulang]

Re: &quot;free speech&quot;

Which is absolutely nothing. Your opinion of what is "arguable" and "irrefutable" is just that - an opinion.

I get one suggestion foa you, Joe. If you like beef wit Kimo about every single post he go make, den why you like cause pilikia in front of da rest of us? Kimo neva wen go say dat what he says is NOT his opinion. So you get your opinion and he get his (whoopee!). If you no can be moa constructive, den leave him alone. What you doing reminds me of what one sniper would do...take one pot shot and den run away.

Malama pono,
Miulang

[Palolo Joe]

Re: &quot;free speech&quot;

What you doing reminds me of what one sniper would do...take one pot shot and den run away.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not a sniper at all. I ain't running away. Kimo likes to run his mouth, and he has a right to, since it is his opinion.

When he tries to shove that opinion down the throats of others on this board and belittle them for disagreeing, however, that's when I find it necessary to chime in. Take a look at some of the older threads and see how many times Kimo derailed them with a pointless comment or a lame joke.

I've tried to be polite. I''ve tried to be constructive. None of that works with this guy.

And watch... now he'll edit his posts to change what he originally wrote. He's done it before, and he'll do it again.