Sorry to Wilt Your Woody, James, but…
May 2nd, 2008
(Note: This is a guest editorial by Ward Churchill.)
I’m still chuckling over the bang-up job Law Professor did yesterday in ripping the quivering innards out of Jim Paine’s idiotic contention that the Right’s favorite neonazi inebriate, Joe McCarthy, had nothing to do with blacklisting.
For me, though, the real howler in the latest batch of Painian drivel came amidst his gleeful commentary on the “unexpected pleasure” he experienced upon “learning that Hamilton College stopped payment on Churchill’s speaking fee check” back in the spring of 2005.
The source of this interesting factoid? An “exercise in mythology”—Paine’s evaluation—I published in Social Text a few months back. Well, ho-ho-ho.
We can afford to be charitable with this one, boys and girls. Let’s start by setting aside the fact that most English-speaking folks tend to refer to a “speaking fee check” as an “honorarium” (you can look it up, Bubba). The boy may well have been trying, as would even the most half-assed of editorial writers, to calibrate his prose to degree of literacy manifest in his readership.
And, since it’s obvious that neither Fred or Noj had the least idea what Paine was saying, even when he geared things down to the level of “see Jane run,” it seems appropriate that cut the guy some slack on this score.
Similarly, we shouldn’t poke fun at the glaring illogic of Paine’s managing—in the same sentence—to both declare my article to be an “exercise in mythology” and to gloat over what he obviously takes to be certain of the facts recited therein (hint: “factual” is an antonym of “mythic,” Bubba; do look it up).
After all, a pronounced inability to follow a coherent train of thought has been a hallmark of the “analyses” delivered on Pirate Ballerina since day one, and, given the intellectual impairments of it’s audience, the consistently with which it has offered self-contradictory argumentation has proven to be one of the blog’s most attractive features for readers like PhD Anthro and, er, Mickey Mouse.
No! No, I say. A thousand times no!
We must refrain from indulging in cheap laughs, since, as I’m sure we can all agree, they’re far beneath the dignity of the mighty Try-Works. Besides, they’re entirely unnecessary in this instance.
What’s really funny—at least in my admittedly twisted estimation—is Paine’s open endorsement of what, under Colorado law, adds up to a criminal act on the part of Hamilton’s “liberal” president, Joan Hinde Stewart.
Ho-ho. Talk about a fella stomping on his own dick. So much for your effort to pose as a “law and order conservative,” eh, Bubba? At this point, you’re coming off a lot more like some sort of weird cross between Charlie Keating and Glenn Spagnolo in drag (i.e., Spagnolo stripped of both his moxie and his balls).
Ye gads, man, have you no shame?
It gets better. Since Ms. Stewart’s check-stopping gambit was flagrantly illegal, she—or, rather, Hamilton College—did end up paying me the full and duly-contract amount. It also had to pay my attorney. And it was stuck with the tab for all costs associated with the case, which, to be sure, included a stable of sleek—and very pricey—Manhattan mouthpieces retained to try and stave off the inevitable.
That was in the fall of 2005, Bubba, about six months after the low-rent maneuver rousing all those warm and tingly sensations in your grubby little loins. So stop yankin’ on that pitifully undernourished nub you call a “luv muscle” and listen up. Your miniature woody’s already wilted, and I promise that the tale I’m about to tell will not be told in a manner too turgid for your notoriously tasteless sensibilities.
Here goes (ho-ho).
By the time all was said and done, President Stewart—or “Phoney Joanie,” as she was called by those who knew her best—had taken to emitting eerie howls over her cellphone, the result, it’s said, of noticeably spastic bowels, caused in turn by an increasingly vast sense of despair and personal humiliation—dare I say “degradation and defilement”?—that seems to have grown ever deeper—maybe even worse and worse—as the weeks rolled by.
While the onset of Joanie’s malady generated much astonishment among those unversed in such things, it came as no great surpise to who bothered to examine her situation in a rational manner.
I mean, what other outcome might reasonable people have expected to obtain from the facts that she’d authorized the expenditure of roughly triple the dollar amount the college originally owed me, all to prevent my receiving a cent, only to find herself staring in the face of the ugly prospect that she could even wind up being cuffed and jailed like a two-dollar whore for her trouble?
Well, sure, judge, your honor, sir. You bet. I’ll be happy as a clam to press charges against President Stewart. You know me, judge. I’m up for doing whatever I can to preserve and protect the integrity of America’s academic institutions from morally corrupt sleaze-bags like her. Clearly, there’s not a moment to lose. The sooner this wretched woman is in a holding tank, the sooner we can all breath easier about the example being set for our kids. Where do I sign?
The Great Wheel of Karmic Justice having thus begun to turn in earnest, Joanie was reduced to a frantic spate of telephonic grovelings, imploring me to please, please, PLEASE accept her supplications—not to mention a nice fresh check, certified this time and couriered to my lawyer—rather than having her publicly flogged, shorn, and placed in stocks.
How mortifying do you reckon that must have been for someone who’d figured to establish herself as a Heroine of the Right by putting me quite firmly in my place? Ho-ho.
Worse still, at the point she was compelled to figuratively assume that posture of craven submission most commonly associated with baboons (you can look that one up, too), she’d been unable even to secure the usual quid pro quo agreement that the whole transaction would remain secret.
Really, Bubba, long before her prematurely palsied hand put pen to paper, Joanie knew she’d gone and fucked the monkey, big time. Her defeat was, well, total, her bright future as an omnipotent administrator resembling a turd swirling in a toilet bowl on full flush.
Immediately after the check was sent, Joanie’s deterioration became much more conspicuous, or so I’m told. Her slide into the abyss was grim, amazingly swift, and apparently marked by an unremitting series of barks, shrieks, and moans, eventually subsiding into mewls, then gurgles.
Yes, it’s a savage and brutal story, Bubba, even tragic by some estimations. But, what the hell? Veni vidi vici, right?
I hear that the crumbling husk of what used to be the president of Hamilton College has been subjected to an intensive therapy regime involving regular injections of Ibogaine and constant emersion in icy baths for more than two years now, but, alas, it’s been all to no avail.
The prognostic consensus is that Joanie’s condition has become quite intractable, impervious to treatment, as if she’d chosen to enter a realm of true mindlessness, most likely as a means of freeing herself an intolerably anguished situation from which she saw no other possible escape.
As I understand it—although I might be wrong—the last coherent words she’s known to have uttered were, “Oh my god, they’re laughing at me again… Won’t that man ever stop? Please, can’t you make him just go away?”
What she may have meant by that is of course unknown, but they say the look of horror on Joanie’s face when she said it was simply indescribable, and those unfortunate enough to have witnessed her ghastly visage have suffered recurrent nightmares about it ever since.
Well, maybe not…
But one thing is certain: Whatever Joanie’s actual circumstances, she’s got plenty of company. Several of her peers have tried to run similar scams on me over the past three years, and I’ve got framed color copies of their now-cashed checks hanging like so many coonskins on the wall of my office to prove it. Right beside hers. Ho-ho.
There’s a lesson to be learned from all this, Bubba, but I think I’ll just let you sit around and fester for a while, trying to figure it out. You will, eventually. You can trust me on that score. I know about such things, and I doubt you’re going to find it especially amusing.
Editor’s Note: In a remarkable validation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, it appears that Jim Paine may have at last and no doubt unwittingly stumbled into a useful ecological niche. Hence, we’d like to thank Mr. Paine for the fine job of proofing he did on this article—pro bono, we might add—and note that we have entered the appropriate corrections. This being so, we feel it only fair, since proofing is one of the functions often associated with copy-editing, we hereby reward him for his services by formally crediting him as copy editor. It also seems fair to inform him that, since questions concerning authorship of the article have been raised on PB, the copy editor will be held responsible for any and all plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation contained therein. The basis for assigning such responsibility to a copy editor is of course the bizarre precedent established in the recent Ward Churchill case at CU, heartily endorsed by, among others, Jim Paine.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Great little piece, Professor Churchill, although I must admit that I’m a little sorry to see you wasting your time on a fly-weight like Jim Paine.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Let’s just say that swatting flies can sometimes be a recreational activity, Mr. Fa (or would that be Ms. Fa?), quite relaxing, and with an obvious element of environmental sanitization thrown in.
Flies, after all, are viewed from most perspectives as being truly filthy creatures, purveyors of disease and the like. So everyone should take a hand at pest control.
Not to worry about my expending a lot of time/energy on such things, however. I’ve not felt the inclination to post on a blog before, and doubt I’ll feel thus inclined again in the near future.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect that every 3 or 4 years ought to be sufficient. We’ll see.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Well, call what just happened a prime example why I tend to never to contribute to blogs. Would somebody care to tell me why my reply to Rama Lama Fa-Fa-Fa came up as being posted BY that individual?
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
It’s a glitch in the template, sir. Apologies.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’ll be darned. It’s true.
I guess I owe Laurie an apology. She claimed that the same thing happened to her a while back, and I, along with Rama and several others, disbelieved her. Maybe she isn’t really “Fred” after all.
Rama? Billy? Your turns to eat crow, doncha think?
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Okay. Sorry, Laurie, for wrongly accusing you of being “Fred” (if, in fact, you’re not). Now, that said, you’re still a scrunt. Just so you know.
And, Rosie, although you say you “owe” the Scrunt an apology, I don’t see where you actually made one.
How ’bout it?
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Some glitch, Ben. This is why I still prefer a wax tablet and a stick. That way, the mistakes are mine. But, maybe I should be glad that I didn’t come up as “Jim Paine” or “Thomas Brown,” right?
The question, of course, is whether the result of the “glitch” can be corrected. As in, can the attribution to Mr. or Ms. Fa-Fa be changed to reflect the fact that I rather than s/he actually posted the comment.
I suppose what happened is pretty clear by now to anyone reading this, but still…
I sure wouldn’t want to be accused of ghostwriting material for unknown bloggers or anything like that. Know what I mean?
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Sorry, Laurie, for wrongly accusing you of being “Fred.”
There, Billy. Satisfied?
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Fixed, sir. I don’t think anyone’ll be too confused, it’s happened to Crowell and Martin besides Laurie. Seems to have something to do with this Wordpress template, as I’ve seen it in other parts also.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Thank you, Dr. Churchill, I’ve enjoyed your piece as well.
With respect to your concern with being “accused of ghostwriting for unknown bloggers,” expressed in your comment earlier today, you should be aware that the self-proclaimed “moonbats” on Pirate Ballerina have been insisting for some time now that you are the ghostwriter of material posted by an otherwise unknown blogger calling himself “Charlie Arthur.”
Indeed, they’ve frequently claimed that Charlie Arthur himself does not exist, which, in variation, is to say that you ARE Charlie Arthur.
While they’ve offered no evidence at all to support—much less substantiate—their collective assertions, they’ve routinely advanced the latter claim in particular as an established “fact.”
When considered against this backdrop, I’m sure you’ll be amused to hear that one of PB’s most regular contributors, a chap calling himself “William T. Sherman,” completely reversed polarity this morning, warning readers not to “be fooled by claims that the author [of your guest editorial] is Ward Churchill. This diseased hack is clearly Charley Arthur.”
It seems to me that this perfectly illustrates your point regarding the self-contradictory nature of these people’s arguments. So, too, the observations recently made by “Tyndale” on how they simply invent whatever “facts” may seem expedient at any particular moment.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I’m not feeling especially apologetic.
The Scrunt has deliberately larded her stuff with so much bullshit that, even if she was actually innocent in this particular instance, there’d be no need for contrition on my part (or yours, as far as I’m concerned).
At worst, she’s simply getting back a spoonful of the same crap she’s entitled herself to ladle out.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Never apologize, Rama. Just ’cause there’s a glitch doesn’t mean Laurie ain’t Fred.
And, though it’s probably passe, I recommend Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation for Restoration Hardware, Sybil. As well as for a good introduction to what can be fun and interesting about the PoMo folks. (Although much is certainly laughable.)
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Good catch, Law Prof.
As follow-up, since “General Sherman’s” comment was made in connection with Jim Paine’s detailed proofreading of Churchill’s piece, I’d like to read his concluding phrase back to him: “…what university professor would take credit an essay like that?”
Say what, “General”?
Ain’t it a bitch getting caught doing exactly what you’re busily criticizing someone else for doing? Heh.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hmmmm… It looks like Jim Paine has embraced at least part of Churchill’s characterization of him as coming off like “a weird cross between Charlie Keating and Glenn Spagnolo in drag.”
Today, using “Spagnolo” as a pseudonym, he attempted to pull off a little apples/oranges slight of hand by equating what he says is Ward Churchill’s record in Boulder County “debtor’s court”—i.e., actually small claims court, a CIVIL arena—to Joan Stewart’s brush with the Colorado CRIMINAL court.
At one level, Mr. Paine’s equation would be no more idiodic—or deceptive—if he’d held that Dr. Churchill’s being issued several traffic citations would be “just as bad” as someone else being charged with grand larceny.
Actually, it’s even worse, however, since even traffic citations are based in statutory violations, while the matters brought before small claims courts involve none at all.
Mr. Paine grossly misrepresents what is contained in Dr. Churchill’s Boulder County record. While it shows that he has been involved in 9 small claims actions over the past 32 years, there is no indication in 8 as to whether he was plaintiff or defendant in any particular case, or how the actions were ultimately disposed.
For all Mr. Paine knows—and this is assuming that he actually bothered to review the publicly available information—Dr. Churchill filed claims against other parties on eight occasions over the past three decades and was successful every time.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Ward,
Whoa!
With one cyber swat you have effectively removed from Jim Paine the decision of whether to leave the seat up or down after answering the call to nature.
Daisy
May 4th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Benjamin.
Kudos on your two guest editorials!
Cyber ink at its best!
Daisy
May 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am
According to the New York Times, February 12, 2005, “Professor Rabinowitz had the $3,500 check sent to Professor Churchill, but college officials stopped payment. Professor Churchill still expects to be paid, his wife said; he did not return a call asking for comment. But Ms. Barrie said that the stop payment would remain while officials reviewed their options. “It’s in limbo,” she said. “A decision has not been made whether to pay Professor Churchill.”
“Ward Churchill” asserts “…Ms. Stewart’s check-stopping gambit was flagrantly illegal…” and “…she could even wind up being cuffed and jailed like a two-dollar whore…”
Really? Wasn’t this a civil matter rather than criminal? If it’s criminal, I must inform my bank that the “stop payment” button needs to be removed from their online banking site. Breaching a contract is now criminal. Does this mean all the people who have homes that are in foreclosure or can’t pay their credit card bills could go to jail?
How lovely that Churchill’s wife speaks for him, clearing up the misunderstanding concerning exactly what it was he waived for Hamilton College. Apparently he has his wife handle his collections for him. I gather he sees that as a clerical job and clearly women’s work.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I guess it is complicated to define what a civil matter is, but you can go to jail for writing a check over about $500 when you know you don’t have funds in your account to pay for it. I have a cousin in Colo. Spgs who was sent to jail because some people at a bar recognized him as a dummy with little ability to think one step ahead (he has brain damage because they used faith healing when he had meningitis), and they asked to use his bank account to cash their check rather than going to a check cashing place - but really it was stolen from the mail. He gave them the entire amount and didn’t ask to be paid for the service.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Benjamin,
I think you have been bamboozled. This “guest editorial” doesn’t contain the kind of language or logic typical of Ward Churchill. Instead, it has the tone of the usual TW comments. Note the quick statement and then paragraph after paragraph of nasty fantasies and pretend events and conversations. Compare this to the lengthy emails between Churchill and Paine, which were both civil and witty.
Do you think Churchill is spending enough time reading PB (”since day one”) to make this comment: “After all, a pronounced inability to follow a coherent train of thought has been a hallmark of the “analyses” delivered on Pirate Ballerina since day one, and, given the intellectual impairments of it’s audience, the consistently with which it has offered self-contradictory argumentation has proven to be one of the blog’s most attractive features for readers like PhD Anthro and, er, Mickey Mouse.”?
I know you will be disappointed and embarrassed to find this was not Churchill’s piece at all. You address the writer as “sir”, clearly showing your respect and recognition of his elevated position. I’m sorry someone betrayed you in this humiliating fashion.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“I guess it is complicated to define what a civil matter is…” Oops! Another victim of the “glich”. This is not mine.
It’s not so difficult to distinguish between check fraud, a criminal offense, and stopping payment on a check issued in error, which is not an offense of any kind. Even a check issued when it’s known funds are not there to cover it may not be criminal. If one believed Aunt Martha was sending money to cover the check and can show a plausible reason for that belief, there is no criminal offense. If the check isn’t made good, a civil court can enforce penalties and the item goes into a civil collection process, just like any unpaid legal bill.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Veni vidi vici.”
What an odd reference for an anti-imperialist to use. Funny.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Laurie, You really are a scrunt, Scrunt.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Daisy,
Care to expand on your theory? Name calling is beneath your academic standards, I think.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
This story about the Hamilton check has sure taken on much detail and significance since November, 2005. Here’s what Churchill said about it at that time. Notice he credits emails to Hamilton College for getting a new check. No begging, no arrests, no triple penalties, no crying, no assuming the position.
Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu 11/7/2005 9:06
“I don’t want you to worry, though. I’ve already banked the check. Actually,
I’ve banked the checks on every cancellation thus far, the last two being the
ones from Hamilton (remember them?) and Eastern Washington.”
“I’m thinking of running copies of Hamilton’s “stop payment” in juxtaposition
to the one paying me the full rate as a magazine cover. Full color, and with
credit given to the many e-mailers who made it possible. I could run the EW
check as an interior illustration.”
I guess Jim forgot this email. I think he needs to get the goop cleared out of his carotids and get the blood flowing to his brain again. It’s a good brain and it deserves feeding.
BTW, I think Churchill has a good brain, too. It’s a shame he’s wasted it on speeches to mindless groupies instead of serious ES students. Too bad he took shortcuts, too. I really think he could have contributed some important stuff if he’d been less lazy and egotistical. He is what he is, as we all are.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
So, now you’re an expert on law, Laurie?
There is of course a valid—and lawful—purpose served by the “stop payment” function, having to do with error, and/or preventing the wrongful receipt of monies paid in exchange for goods or services the receiving parties have failed to provide.
Such action might indeed serve as a basis for civil resolution, as you suggest, rather than criminal prosecution.
The problem with your argument is that these are not the facts of the case at issue. Ward Churchill did not fail to deliver the service he was contracted to provide. President Stewart unilaterally cancelled his contracted appearance at Hamilton College. While she was within her legal rights to cancel the event itself, Dr. Churchill’s right under such circumstances to receive the contracted payment was undiminished.
In other words, President Stewart held no lawful prerogative to release the college from its monetary obligation to Dr. Churchill. Dr. Churchill could of course have waived his right to compensation in the matter, but he plainly and repeatedly declined to do so. Hence, there are no legal grounds upon which to base any claim that the check originally sent to him was “issued in error.”
This is why President Stewart’s action carried criminal rather than merely civil connotations from the outset. Not only was there no lawful basis for it, but it was obviously deliberate.
Still, one should not leap to conclusions about what President Stewart was doing. To be guilty of fraud one must have a discernable intent to defraud another party, and, while it’s true that a check can be issued in error, so too can a stop payment order. Sometimes, a brief period of reflection is required for the offending party to realize that the latter is the case and thereupon make proper restitution.
In such instances, while the offender may be held liable for whatever damages may have resulted from his or her action, the requisite intent to defraud is presumably absent, and criminal charges seldom ensue.
Such, at first glance, seemed to be the situation in the case at hand. Indeed, you quote the New York Times quoting a spokesperson for Hamilton claiming that the stop payment had been issued in order to afford college officials time to “review their options [concerning the question of] ‘whether to pay Professor Churchill.’”
In actuality, Hamilton held no legal options in the matter, a conclusion any competent attorney would have reached almost immediately. Absent an intent to defraud, President Stewart should then, upon completion of the legal review, have ordered a new check to be issued and delivered to Dr. Churchill as expediently as possible.
From start to finish, the whole process should have taken no more than a month, two at the very outer limit of reasonability.
Dr. Churchill—although he was under no obligation whatsoever to do so—waited more than EIGHT months before bringing the matter to a head. By then, any claim that Hamilton still required time to”review” the situation would have been utterly preposterous. President Stewart had in fact repeatedly refused to speak with him by phone, or to communcate with him in writing.
This, Laurie, constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. And that, in turn, provides the basis for removing the case from the civil docket, where you place it, squarely into the jurisdiction of the criminal courts (both in Colorado, AND in New York, I might add).
It’s worth noting, I think, that President Stewart’s attorneys appear to have concurred in my opinion—and Dr. Churchill’s—since her agreement to meet the conditions he describes was entered within hours of his indicating that he would file criminal charges against her if the matter was not immediately resolved.
In conclusion, I’d like to say tha I’ve rather enjoyed this little exercise. Should there be any other sorts of petty criminal activity along these lines you’d like to excuse, please do present your argument.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Anybody catch “Fred’s” crowing on Pirate Ballerina yesterday about how the combined forces of “CU, the Rocky, and PB” have managed to keep Churchill pretty well pinned to the mat for “the past three and half years”?
Seems like he forgot to dispense a few props, doesn’t it? Like to Caplis and Silverman, for example? And the Denver Post? And Boulder’s own Daily Camera? How about Bill Owens and a pretty big chunk of the state legislature? And Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, ACTA… Good Christ, he even forgot to mention Rush Limbaugh!
Are we sure PB even belongs on the same page with these folks? I’m not, but if it does, then why not Drunkablog (from which PB has been lifting most of its material for the past year or so)?
I bet ol’ Freddy’s ego-tripping has caused some hurt feelings out there in the Joseph Goebbles Memorial Institute for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Or at least among the 8 or 9 members who take PB seriously enough to glance at it every now and again.
But no matter. That’s not really the point here.
There’s something more striking still about this blowhard’s verbal swaggering. And that’s that it’s pretty much on par with boasting about how the whole basketball team from the University of Kansas was able to beat Kobe Bryant—all by himself—in an exhibition game.
Or that a lynch mob managed to do its thing with a guy who could’ve kicked their asses one-on-one, any day of the week.
THOSE are your “bragging rights,” Fred?
Well, thanks be unto you for demonstrating beyond any shadow of a doubt what kind of putrid scum you really are.
And the best part? After three-and-a-half years of this swarm of cowardly motherfuckers throwing their best shots at him, it looks to me lke Ward Churchill’s still a long way from being pinned, much less beaten. Heh.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
No, Law, I’m not an expert on law. I am an accountant and bad debts are a part of fairly representing receivables. After 36 years in this line of work, I’ve seen a few bad debts and court rooms.
Sometimes bad debts consist of dishonored checks and sometimes there are controversies over the performance and/or terms of a contract. Sometimes the debtor has no money. Indeed, sometimes a debtor will discharge debts in Federal Court. Sometimes a (civil) law suit is required to sort it out. That’s the way we do it in the USA. To avoid the debtors’ prisons of England, people don’t go to jail for an unpaid bill unless they are guilty of fraud, which is damned hard to prove. Stewart could have let Churchill file a civil suit and the matter would might be unresolved today. I suggest her attornies decided it wasn’t worth the time and expense and recommended she just authorize payment.
Where did you get the information that Churchill threatened to have her charged with a criminal offense? How do you you know she met any conditions “within hours” of such a threat? Did you make this stuff up? Your time limitation as evidence of fraud are pure poppycock. If the passage of time determined the difference between a civil matter and a criminal charge, nearly every person who defaults on a loan or contested a bill would likely be subject to criminal charges. What nonsense! Furthermore, damages must be actual.
How do you know when Churchill received the replacement check? While Churchill may not have addressed the honorarium for 8 months (and I don’t know this), his wife argued it immediately. There was a misunderstanding about whether he had waived his fee or merely waived some privacy right concerning how much he charges. That there was a misunderstanding is a fact which no one denies. Until today, I’ve never heard anyone suggest Stewart intended to defraud Churchill. He’d have a devil of a time proving it.
As happened at UCB, Churchill’s people reported over 100 death threats. Stewart’s offices had also received threatening emails and calls. She actually supported the event but also knew she was responsible for the safety of the students. Stewart felt she had no choice but to cancel the event.
Now you and I don’t know what Churchill’s contract says concerning a cancellation and his honorarium. If the contract is vague or doesn’t address this circumstance, he may not have been entitled to payment. Furthermore, we don’t know what was said concerning a waiver by Churchill because he wouldn’t comment when asked by the New York Times.
Now tell me this: Do you assert that you are a law professor?
May 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Whoops! Attorneys, not attornies.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Fuck you, Laurie.
You waltzed in here not knowing your ass from your elbow in regards to legal matters yet you didn’t let that stop you from posting your analysis of the situation.
I kept mum in retorting as, unlike you, I had the good sense of knowing that it isn’t my area of expertize. I was confident that Law Professor would set you straight and he did not disappoint.
However, what really pissed me off wasn’t your stupidity for posting on subjects totally out of your league. and doing a fuck up job of it I might add, but for insinuating that Ward doesn’t respect women, in particular his wife Natsu.
It seems rather obvious to me that it is precisely because Ward has so much respect and confidence in Natsu, that he entrusted her with getting the job done, which she accomplished, and accomplished splendidly I might add.
You see if Ward truly didn’t have respect for women, there’s no way in hell that he would have had her involved at all, but that seems to have gone right by you.
So, to answer your question, I called you Scrunt because you are a scrunt, Scrunt.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Same to you, Daisy.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
BTW, Daisy, do you think law professor is an attorney?
May 4th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Same to me? LOL!
That’s the best you’ve got, Laurie?
Oh my!
No, “Yes, you’re correct, Daisy, I ought not have dabbled in law when I don’t know squat about it, especially since it is obvious from Law Professor’s response that I was way off base.”
No, “Yes, you’re correct, Daisy, I goofed by suggesting that Ward doesn’t respect Natsu, let alone women, _because_ he accepted her help?” Now that one was just really weird.
Instead, I get what is tantamount to, “You’re rubber, I’m glue?”
I don’t know what Law Professor’s profession is, Laurie, but from his posts on Try Works, it is obvious that he doesn’t have a problem concerning the locations of his ass and his elbows in matters concerning law.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
How odd. I have experience in and professional knowledge of business law and in fact, law professor agrees with most of what I’ve said. Didn’t you read it? You assume I know nothing of law and yet you also assume that someone calling themself “law professor” does, although you admit you don’t know “his” profession. (Odd, too, that you assume this person is a man.)
Daisy, for a very long time, Ward has let women fight his battles while he remains on the sidelines. You’d better learn what a respectful man is like before you find yourself under the boot of one who is not.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Laurie,
Oh, in response to your backhanded compliment of Prof. Churchill, whereas I agree with you that he has a good brain, I strongly take issue with your baseless charge that he is lazy.
The quality of books and articles that I have read by Prof. Churchill have been well thought out and are examples of excellent writing. The fact of the matter is that he has already “contributed important stuff.”
As for your insult to those of us who have attended Ward’s lectures: fuck you, you snobby bitch.
I may not be an Ethnic Studies student, but that doesn’t mean that I am not serious in my quest to learn about topics involving Ethnic Studies, nor that I am not a worthwhile audience member.
There is no reason that he ought to confine his words to a university classroom setting, although that is indeed a very valuable a worthwhile venue, which is obviously why Prof. Churchill continues to teach CU students at their request.
As for your comment about Prof. Churchill having a big ego, I’m wondering if you’ve even met him, Laurie.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
The two areas of disagreement are:
1. Breach of contract equals fraud, a crime.
2. Passage of time “…constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to defraud…”
Information about the facts of the case where sources of the information are undisclosed:
1. “Dr. Churchill—although he was under no obligation whatsoever to do so—waited more than EIGHT months before bringing the matter to a head.” (How does LP know this?)
2.”President Stewart had in fact repeatedly refused to speak with him by phone, or to communcate with him in writing.” (How does LP know this?)
3. “I think, that President Stewart’s attorneys appear to have concurred in my opinion—and Dr. Churchill’s—since her agreement to meet the conditions he describes was entered within hours of his indicating that he would file criminal charges against her if the matter was not immediately resolved.” (How does LP know what Churchill said to Stewart, what Stewart’s attorneys told her beyond she should pay and when they said it to her? Nothing says criminal fraud was any part of their conversation.)
4. “Dr. Churchill’s right under such circumstances to receive the contracted payment was undiminished.” (While there was a letter of acceptance, how do we know there was a contract including provisions for cancellation? Has LP seen the contract?)
5. “From start to finish, the whole process should have taken no more than a month, two at the very outer limit of reasonability.” (This is subjective. Just because law professor says 1 or 2 month is reasonable doesn’t make it so.)
May 4th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Laurie,
Most is not by any means all. It is the points of disagreement that are most striking.
*Law Professor* is a gender neutral handle so I treated the poster as such by using the pronoun *he*. If Law Professor has an objection and prefers that I use the pronoun *she*, I will gladly oblige.
It is your newest comment regarding your claim that Ward lets women fight his battles for him, that has me LOL!
First you made the strange claim that because Ward entrusted Natsu in an important matter it is evidence that he doesn’t respect women, and now you are criticizing him because he has had other women for allies as well that this is further evidence that he doesn’t respect women? What a hoot you are, Laurie!
As for my personal life, please don’t advise me for you are one frustrated scrunt and I have no desire to ever go down that lane!
May 4th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Daisy,
Ward Churchill wrote an email saying, “I’m thinking of running copies of Hamilton’s “stop payment” in juxtaposition
to the one paying me the full rate as a magazine cover. Full color, and with
credit given to the many e-mailers who made it possible.”
So if emails got him the check, what’s this new story about criminal charges?
May 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Daisy,
You said, “As for your insult to those of us who have attended Ward’s lectures: fuck you, you snobby bitch.”
Churchill’s assessment of his audiences:
“Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu 6/6/2005 7:13 Re: Salida
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I concur with you that the self-
described “space cadet” was a sad
—-(and all too representative) example.—- ”
I guess Ward must be a snobby bitch, too.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Daisy,
I have nothing against you except you drop the “fuck you” too easily and in ignorance. You seem to be a babe in the woods concerning Ward’s women hating. Read up and figure it out for yourself, woman.
And yes, I have read him and met him. I’ve watched him interact. Likewise with Natsu. My best guess is that she too will divorce him.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Daisy, I’m a little shocked, and very much elated. Thank you, ma’am, for joining in so vociferously.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
What? No thanks to me? Activity is a good thing isn’t it? So much better than the “no comments” blogs.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Thank you, Laurie.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
You are welcome!
May 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
You may well be an absolute whizz of an accountant, Laurie, but you really ought to learn a little something about the law before presuming to explain it.
It would also be helpful if you were to stick to facts bearing upon whatever case is at hand and stop trying to dazzle people with your “learnedness” by bringing up completely extraneous tidbits of information like the following:
“Sometimes bad debts consist of dishonored checks and sometimes there are controversies over the performance and/or terms of a contract. Sometimes the debtor has no money. Indeed, sometimes a debtor will discharge debts in Federal Court. Sometimes a (civil) law suit is required to sort it out.”
All correct—more-or-less—but so what? We’re not concerned with a “dishonored” check, but rather one on which the signatory deliberated stopped payment; that’s a very different matter. There’s certainly no suggestion that Hamilton College “had no money,” and there can be no issue involving “quality of performance,” on the unilateral initiative President Stewart, Churchill was not allowed to perform. The fact that “sometimes a debtor will discharge debts in Federal Court” is equally irrelevant, since neither party filed in that venue.
Now, on the topic of why Dr. Churchill’s appearance at Hamilton was cancelled—which you raised—it seems appropriate that I reframe a few of your own questions and pose them to you. How do you know that President Stewart’s…received threatening emails and calls [and therefore felt]she had no choice but to cancel the event”? How many such calls and emails did she receive? Have you yourself seen some/any/all of the emails, or are you simply taking her word for it?
Similarly, how do you know that President Stewart “actually supported the event” Because she said so?
Your observations about why President Stewart opted to cancel the event may be entirely accurate, Laurie. But, again, so what? Nobody challenged her prerogative to do so. The issue is whether this unilateral action on her part somehow absolved Hamilton College of its financial obligation to Dr. Churchill. I submit that no competent contract lawyer—or scholar even minimally proficient in contract law—would suggest that it did.
This is elemtary contract law, enforceable even on the basis of verbal agreements. Questions of contractual “vagueness” would not arise. And, absent language in the contract specifically entitling the college to unilaterally exempt itself from any/all obligations therein, neither would the question of whether Dr. Churchill might “not have been entitled to payment.”
All the more so, because of the very reason President Stewart—and you yourself—gave as a reason for the cancellation. It is settled law that institutional officials incur a special obligation to undertake whatever measures may prove nessessary to ensure the right of even the most unpopular speaker to speak in the face of an attempted “heckler’s veto” (e.g., threats of violence).
President Stewart’s failure to meet this responsibility—which effecively penalize Dr. Churchill for his previous engagement in constitutionally-protected speech by denying him a contracted forum—can in no sense be construed as a legally-valid basis for imposing a second such penalty upon him, this time in financial form. Quite the contrary.
This brings us to your rather peculiar contention that “we don’t know what was said concerning a waiver by Churchill because he wouldn’t comment when asked by the New York Times.” Again, so what? He was under no obligation to do so—then or now—and had he witheld comment from the Times, it would establish nothing at all.
More to the point, however, you’ve substantially misrepresented the matter. While declined to speak with the reporters personally, Dr. Churchill did in fact comment to the Times through Professor Natsu Saito, who was/is not only “his wife,” but—as a member of the bar—may be presumed to have been acting as his attorney (she is listed as counsel of record on several of the legal documents Dr. Churchill’s filed over the past four years).
Such a procedure is by no means uncommon. Indeed, it is customary. There is, after all, a very good reason why lawyers are referred to as “mouthpieces.”
What you yourself quote the Times as paraphrasing Professor Saito as saying on February 12, 2005, is that “Professor Churchill still expects to be paid.” Hence, we do “know what was said concerning a waiver by Churchill,” and it was quite clear: He did not waive his honorarium.
This is corroborated by the fact that the Hamilton spokesperson quoted in the same article offered no suggestion that Dr. Churchill had released the college from its obligation, or that officials believed he might be thus inclined. On the contrary, what was said, and again quite clearly, was that officials were exploring various “options” through which to avoid paying Dr. Churchill what he was owed.
Accordingly, there is no basis for the pretense that there “was a misunderstanding about whether [Dr. Churchill] had waived his fee,” less still that “no one denies” that such a “misunderstanding” existed. Nor is there any basis for the pretense that Dr. “Churchill may not have addressed the honorarium for 8 months.” He did so immediately, as is affirmed in the very New York Times article you quote, Laurie.
While your observation that, “If the passage of time determined the difference between a civil matter and a criminal charge, nearly every person who defaults on a loan or contested a bill would likely be subject to criminal charges,” is accurate enough, it is once again irrelevant.
To reiterate, the issue here is not simply that of an upaid debt. It centers instead on the stopping of payment on a check, which is a much different situation, legally (you really DO need to stop substituting apples for oranges if you wish to be taken seriously, Laurie; you fail to offer a single stop payment scenario anywhere in your entire polemic).
A stop payment can be construed as a form of fraud under every statutory code I’m aware of, unless the person who takes such action can demontrate a reasonable basis for it. That’s why Hamilton adopted what might be most charitably described as an “exercise of due diligence” posture to justify what President Stewart had done.
That’s where the time issue arises. Any such process of “reviewing options” cannot be extended indefinately. The interval involved must itself be of reasonable duration. As I said in my initial comment, two months would have been pushing reasonability to the very limit. After that, the appearance of subterfuge becomes increasingly pronounced, and that in itself can be employed as evidence of intent to defraud.
I could go on, but it should have become obvious to anyone still reading this that your entire reponse consisted of no more than contrived, and in many respects fraudulent, “poppycock.” Were a first semester law student to submit such sheer nonsense, I’d flunk them on the spot.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
You don’t even indicate that you have knowledge of the terms of any contract or that a contract existed. If you were my attorney, I’d fire you.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Furthermore, you continue to fail to disclose the source of your information about specific conversations between Churchill and Stewart and also Stewart and her attorneys.
How do you come to your definition of what is reasonable time in which to research a disputed claim for payment before the dispute is determined to be fraudulent? Do you think there may have been other questions concerning the appropriateness of paying out college funds when Churchill was prevented from performing due to threats of violence against him? You don’t say how you know there was too much time taken by the attorneys to assess the situation.
Tell my why Churchill attributes success in collecting payment to emails sent to Hamilton College in his behalf while you claim a threat of criminal charges induced immediate payment. Where do you get your information?
What part of my response was fraudulent? You use that word rather freely and I don’t like it.
To answer your questions:
“How do you know that President Stewart’s…received threatening emails and calls [and therefore felt]she had no choice but to cancel the event”? How many such calls and emails did she receive? Have you yourself seen some/any/all of the emails, or are you simply taking her word for it?”
I did take her word for it as reported by the NYT. She didn’t state how many calls and emails Hamilton College received. Stewart says Churchill’s people reported over 100 death threats. I have read none of these emails. I believe they were received because this is not the first time Churchill has been a victim of emailed threats. Saito reproduced a list of sample threats made in Colorado. I assume she didn’t falsify these samples. Has Churchill ever denied this report is accurate? If not, why do you question it?
“Similarly, how do you know that President Stewart “actually supported the event” Because she said so?” Yes. I also believe the college intended to go ahead with the event before the threats were reported by Churchill’s people. That’s what the media was reporting at the time. I didn’t see any reports that disputed that intention. Did you? If not, why do you question it?
You still assert the 8 month period before payment was collected. Do you know for certain when the second check was issued? How do you know? Have you seen the check?
I’ve asked all of these questions before. If you fail to answer, I’ll have no other choice but to assume you don’t have any answers and you were merely talking through your hat.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Is your name really Laurie? Should I trust you just because you say so?
May 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am
In case you hadn’t noticed, LP, the Scrunt (”Laurie”) doesn’t seem to have a lot going on in her life. So she fills the void with these endless blog email exchanges. Her technique is to babble on about things of which she is totally ignorant—or very nearly so—with the idea of sucking you in to correcting/rebutting her nonsense.
Any response of that sort simply generates another round of sweeping but ungrounded assertions from her—often, as you observe, having little or nothing to do with whatever you’re supposedly discussing—nothing to do with accompanied by a list of demands that YOU provide a detailed list of sources supporting everything you’ve said.
Responding to THAT simply generates another round of the same, as it already has in this instance, and so on into infinity. As this goes on, you’ll see that her “facts” keep changing (e.g.: She initially claimed that “STEWART’S offices” received death threats, now she’s claiming that the death threats received by Churchill were at issue).
There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from engaging her in any serious fashion, and if you keep doing so, she’ll “just drink up your time like wine”—to twist of Bob Dylan—until you find that she, like any other parasite, has swallowed it all.
Meanwhile, everybody/thing else in the comments strings get buried in her ever-mounting pile of horseshit. In this sense, although she has a different style, she’s no different from Snapple.
I and several others have repeatedly asked Ben to ban this bitch from the blog, as he has Snapple, and for pretty much the same reasons. To date, he’s declined, perhaps because she stopped posting for a while.
Well, she’s back with a vengeance, and some of us would really appreciate it if you’d stop encouraging her to become even more so.
(BTW, you know that she’s demanding a lot information designed to reveal your identity rather than substantiate your various points, don’t you?)
May 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am
maybe they’ll slip up and reveal that they’re Natsu or any other lawyer who is close to Churchill. Who is the lawyer which ‘Snapple’ focuses on for being KGB- Mark Lane?
May 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I take your point, Rama. In fact, I’d already caught on last night when I realized how much time I’d devoted to rejoining a stream of erroneous and utterly illogical assertions, the author of which cited only a single paragraph of a single article in the New York Times as substantiation, radically misrepresenting it in the process.
It occurred to me that nobody capable of writing the comments was likely to be dumb enough to make all those apples/oranges arguments simply by accident, and the woman’s distortion of the NYT piece smacked of outright duplicity (that’s what I meant by “fraudulent,” Laurie). So I broke off without bothering to finish.
By the time I’d submitted my comment, I found that she’d already posted two more “legal assessments,” including the one in which she informs Daisy that, “in fact, law professor agrees with most of what I’ve said.” That’s either an outright lie, or the woman is completely delusional. Either way, there’s no basis for carrying on a reasonable discussion with here.
An lingering doubts I may have had on the matter, were retired this morning by your own example of her substituting death threats received by Dr. Churchill for those she’d earlier claimed were received by Stewart’s office.
So, yes, I’ll stop. Before doing so, however, I will answer the questions I left unanswered by virtue of my abruptly ending last night’s response (and, yes, I’m aware that she’s fishing for clues to my identity; so be it).
1. Am I a law professor? Yes.
2. Have I seen the contract? Yes. It’s the standard boilerplate used for such purposes by colleges and universities across the country. It contained no extraordinary provisions. Absent an “act of God,” Dr. Churchill was therefore entitled to receive his full honorarium if the event was cancelled without his consent.
3. Have you seen the check? Actually, I’ve seen both of them.
4. How do I know Dr. Churchill didn’t “waive his fee”? Start with the fact that the check upon which President Steward stopped payment was issued in the first place, as well as the statements of both parties quoted in the NYT piece you misrepesented, Laurie. In addition there’s the fact that the honorarium was ultimately paid, and Dr. Churchill’s reiteration of the fact that he hadn’t in the post upon which our exchange is based. There’s more, but this should be more than sufficient.
5. “How do you come to your definition of what is reasonable time in which to research a disputed claim for payment before the dispute is determined to be fraudulent?” What I said was that, in the context at issue, 8 months constituted a sufficient indication of fraudulent intent to bring a complaint on grounds of fraud. Whether such a charge would have been sustained by a jury is of course unknown, since the matter was settled just before the complaint was to be filed.
6.”Do you think there may have been other questions concerning the appropriateness of paying out college funds when Churchill was prevented from performing due to threats of violence against him?” I’m sure there were (and are). I’m also sure that—unless you can construe them as an “act of God”—such questions are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
7.”Tell my why Churchill attributes success in collecting payment to emails sent to Hamilton College in his behalf while you claim a threat of criminal charges induced immediate payment. Where do you get your information?” For starters, you either misunderstood or are again misrepresenting what was said. Indeed, you’ve got it exactly backwards. Dr. Churchill was being sarcastic, saying that maybe he should publish a “thank you” to all the rightwingers who’d sent emails to President Stewart, pressuring her to cancel the cancel the event and stop payment on the check. Why? Because he viewed President Stewart’s “craven capitulation” to be a perfect illustration of an assessment he’d long been voicing about the “overall spinelessness of the liberal academy.” His idea that such a “thank you” should appear in juxtaposition to the check, was intended to make the point that “winning and standing by your principles are not mutually exclusive propositions.”
8. I didn’t answer the part about the “threat of criminal charges induced immediate payment,” did I? Actually, said claim was made not by me, but by Dr.Churchill in his post. Following your lead in simply taking Stewart’s word for it, I’m perfectly willing to take his. Additionally, I’ve had a look at the unfiled criminal complaint. The complaint is dated a day after the date of the settlement, so do the math. Unless the complaint was prepared after the fact in order to create a false appearance—a matter which would’ve required a conspiracy, given the signatures affixed to it—the timing seems unlikely to have been merely coincidental.
9. What is the source of your information on the nature of phone conversations between Dr. Churchill and President Stewart? There was only one such conversation, as I understand it. My source is Dr. Churchill.
10.What is the source of your information on the nature of phone conversations between President Stewart and her attorneys? None. Nor need I have any, since I’ve implied no direct knowledge of what was said. Rather, I’ve speculated in that regard, based upon how I’d advise a client in a comparable situation.
Now, as regards your observation that if I were your attorney, you’d fire me, allow me to observe that if you were my client I’d have already quit. More accurately, since my practice is quite selective, I’d never have accepted you as a client.
Finally, there are a few matter of disclosure I’d like to take care of before you even formulate further questions (which will, in any case, go unanswered). While we’ve always been based in different universities, I’ve known Professor Saito in a professional/scholarly capacity for well over a decade, and have long since come to view her as a personal friend. I’ve met Dr. Churchill only recently, through Natsu, and am far less familiar with him in a personal sense. I am currently preparing a study of academic repression in which his case of course figures quite prominently. He has proven quite helpful to my research in terms of providing documents, references, and referrals. This accounts for my access to materials/sources not generally available to the public.
Beyond that, I’ve nothing to say on such matters. My identity will be clear enough when my work is published.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Benjamin,
I’m glad that you were elated. I knew that you’d be shocked, anyone would be, that is save my immediate family members. LOL!
You are more than welcome! Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind unfettered by language restrictions. Other places aren’t so generous, as I know all too well.
Anyway, I was all set to offer you an apology for cussing in your blog if you had indicated that you had been the least bit annoyed with me. I’m glad that you weren’t.
Rama is correct that Laurie is fishing for info on our identities. It was most blatant in regards to Law Professor, but I also picked up on it in her comments to me which were issued to provoke me to reveal such info as my education level, age, and marital status. None of this is her damn business, nor is it even material to what I have posted here on your blog.
I want to add that I met Prof. Churchill and what I observed regarding how he treats women was much different than what Laurie has described.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Join the club, Daisy. I’ve encountered a number of women who’ve met Churchill, and several who seem to know him pretty well. None of them have witnessed or experienced anything resembling what the Scrunt—there! I said it too—describes as his routine behavior towards women.
Other than one embittered ex-wife, who even the scum over at PB admit is a nut case, the women who’ve known him longest are in my experience unanimous in the view that he’s pretty much the opposite of how he’s being depicted in such knowing terms by the Scrunt and her pals.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Law Professor,
Thanks for answering those questions and some I didn’t ask. I honestly appreciate your considered answers and I know it took some time and care to formulate them.
Just so you and the others know, I have no interest whatsoever in your identities. However, I really didn’t think WC wrote this blog and that’s where this all started. It just didn’t sound like him to me. I could be wrong.
Thanks for your time.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Well, do tell, Laurie: Who DID it “sound like,” in your expert opinion? Jim Paine? Fred? Billy T. Sherman? CU PhD Anthro? Noj?
Personally, I vote for the latter.
But, hey, I’m just as humble as you and Dennis Miller. I could be wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Fuck you, Quizzical. Don’t be trying to link ME to this scrunt.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am
C’mon, Miller, you know as well as I do that your opinions are just as wrong as Laurie’s. Which is to say that they’re just as Right. And for that to be true, they must be just as consistently based in conscious lies.
You’ve linked yourself, “pal.” Your turn to fuck off.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Listen, motherfuckrer, if you don’t retract that, I’m going to tell Bill O’Reilly on you, next time I’m on his show. THEN you’ll be sorry.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Well, okay, Dennie. Do what you think is RIGHT.
Alert Fred while you’re at it. Maybe he can pull together another lynch mob to brag about. Or at least a cross-burning.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 am
What the hell? That last one was mine.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yeah, well, it sure as hell wasn’t MINE. But it really doesn’t matter because you’re gonna get YOURS, you quizzical cocksucker.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Whatever you say, Dennie. But, hey, that’s just YOUR opinion. You could be wrong. Right?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Gee, guys, I hate to interrupt your little love-fest, but I’d like to report that it looks like a nerve has been struck on another front.
I just noticed that—in response to my comment in this string a couple days ago—”Fred’s” taken to flailing about over on PB, trying to redeem his crowing about how the combination of CU, the Rocky Mountain News, and—of course—PB has proven strong enough, as Fred imagines it, to beat up on Ward Churchill over the past three years.
The crux of his argument, or so he says, is that “Churchill’s wounds and suffering are self-inflicted.”
As in, “the boy brought it on himself,” therefore “had it coming,” and thus “got what he deserved,” right, Fred?
Sound familiar, guys and gals? Well, it should. Fred is guilty of plagiarizing the rationalizations of every member and every endorser of every racist lynch mob ever assembled.
All that’s missing is a regurgitation of the usual explanation that “the boy shoulda knowed better than to get so damned uppity, ’cause Good Christian White Folks like us ain’t gonna put up with it.”
That one, he paraphrases rather than repeating it verbatim.
Case closed.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Well said, Fan.
Just to add my own two cents, one can only wonder why, if Churchill’s invitations to speak at universities have dried—as Fred boasts—PB has posted so many items about where he was speaking and what he said over the past 9 months.
Oh, I guess I almost missed the subtlety of his position. It’s not that Churchill’s necessarily getting fewer invitations, but that they’re now coming from “lesser” institutions.
Like Yale, Fred? Columbia? The University of Toronto?
But Churchill’s lost respect among scholars, right? Maybe that explains why he was invited to make—and in fact made—a plenary presentation at the American Philosophical Association’s annual meeting just last month.
Saaaay…
I’d just love to be doing as badly as Churchill. How ’bout you stupid motherfuckers ganging up on ME for a while?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Yeah, right on, Sports Fan! And you too, Metro.
For me, the best part of Freddie’s frenzy is where he simply ignores the whole list of others you named as having played prominent roles in the pile-on, Fan, claiming that “like to portray Ward’s past few years as multiple encounters of combat with innumerable people on the right.”
Get it?
It’s not that what you said was accurate, it’s just how you “like to portray” things.
Well, here, once again, is the list: Caplis and Silverman, the Denver Post, the Boulder Daily Camera, then-governor Bill Owens,”a pretty big chunk of the Colorado state legislature, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, ACTA, and Rush Limbaugh.
So, now tell us, Fred-o, which of these “enumerable people on the right” were NOT part of the Churchill pile-on?
Could it be that Sports Fan “likes to portray” the situation the way he does because that’s the way it’s been. Or that you prefer to portray it in a completely different manner because you’re a congenital liar?
Just asking.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
You know the best part about this Fred character? He doesn’t really need anyone to administer his hot lead enemas. He likes to give them to himself. What a freak.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Rose,
Thanks for weighing in on this and offering your support!
The Scrunt has definitely earned her Scruntdom with her lame attempt at dabbling in “lawyering” and for her nonsensical argument that _because_ Prof. Churchill has women for allies and entrusts them with official matters of concern that he somehow hates them.
I ran the latter by my teenage daughter who called it right when she stated that if Prof. Churchill didn’t respect women that he’d never have had Natsu (She corrected my pronunciation of her name, btw) represent him in legal matters.
She additionally stated that the Scrunt didn’t like it that Prof. Churchill “doesn’t baby women.” !!!!
I was quite pleased she reached the same conclusion that I had of the Scrunt. I had been thinking of the term “coddling” in this regard, but I like her descriptor better.
It is precisely _because_ Prof. Churchill respects women and treats them accordingly that the Scrunt dislikes him. She simply doesn’t feel comfortable with men who respect women as full and equal human beings, and instead prefers those who “baby” and “coddle” them.
As for the Scrunt’s warning about boots on top of people, one need only look at the photos of the Killumbus Day protest and Abu Ghraib to see such perpetrators. These boots are a manifestation of racist oppression that Prof. Churchill has devoted his life to opposing.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Ben,
I’d also like to further address the Scrunt’s claim that Prof. Churchill’s lecture audience members consist of mindless groupies.
This was not the norm in the audiences in which I was present, where I rubbed elbows with other university educated individuals, as well as others who hold graduate degrees. Not that holding such degrees is in itself evidence of intelligence and that lack of them is evidence of its absence.
I don’t know what Ward may have been speaking about in the partial email message that the Scrunt posted as it contained too little information to tell….
However, from my own experiences communicating with people regarding some the very important issues that he often raises, “sad cases,” as he so described is going light on them. “Dumb fucks” would be more like it, but I suppose that he was being kind as he is aware that their thinking on such matters has been so thoroughly distorted via the continual cramming of our national mythos starting from preschool, when the first “holiday” that is celebrated each school year is Columbus Day.
I don’t need to tell you that as a nation, we are in denial regarding the genocide of the Native Americans. Oh, there’s a lame acknowledgment that a long while ago our ancestors mistreated them, but it never takes in the full brutal reality that took place, nor is it extended to present day national policies against our indigenous populations, let alone to that of other populations throughout the world.
The whole thing is simply relegated to the past as if it has no bearing on the present. That the genocide continues on to this day is never even perceived.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
It just occurred to me that I was a bit harsh in my last post for if someone attends one of Prof. Churchill’s lectures with the sincerity of learning from them doesn’t deserved to be lumped in with the dumb fucks even if they are sorry cases due to their thoroughly schooled lack of understanding of such issues.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Ben,
I wandered over to the PB website after reading Churchill’s blog debut with my daughter in order to give her background for understanding. She took one look at PB and declared the web-design to be ten years out of date. LOL!
In her words, “It is a pretty archaic design.” She also criticized the use of dark green as a background color on the margins of the website as it doesn’t offer enough color contrast for the ease of the reader.
In any event, since reading Laurie’s mean spirited posts concerning Ward and Natsu’s relationship, I had the suspicion that she was a jealous scrunt. This suspicion went up a notch when she asked you for a thank you after you thanked me for my participation.
Well, I found further evidence of this over at PB when she described your appreciation of my participation as an “ass pat,” which is quite telling seeing that she _requested_ from you a similar “thank you.” Grin.
This may mean that she has the hots for you, Ben. I’m sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. LOL!
Relax! It could also mean that she simply craves male attention of ANY kind, which can be further supported given the way that she interacts with her pals over at PB.
In any event, I nailed it when I described her as a frustrated scrunt.
I’d feel at least a bit sorry for her except that she used a racist term in reference to me: paddy wagon. Yeah, and I am partially of Irish descent, too.
What was striking to me about this is that I had just commented in here on what her visual about boots on backs brought to my mind.
So, it seems that she was warning me about possible fascist repercussions for standing up for academic freedom.
That is pretty sad, isn’t it?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I was cracking up because she described you like some mindless kid. Which I gather from your comments — particularly those referencing teenage children — you ain’t.
Anyway, great to hear so much from you. I’d be in this mix more, but I’m buried with money type of work right now.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Funny that the Scrunt would describe those in Churchill’s audiences as “mindless groupies” in view of the fact that she, Fred, John Martin, and Jim Paine all claim to have attended his lectures.
In fact, if you look at that long string email exchanges between Paine and Churchill that Paine once posted on PB, you’ll see that it was after Paine’s attending Churchill’s 2005 talk in Salida that Churchill made the remark about an audience member posted here by the Scrunt on May 4.
What the Scrunt carefully avoided mentioning was that Churchill was agreeing with PAINE’S characterization of a particular person—not the whole crowd—as a “space cadet,” and that the guy’s attitude/behavior was not unique.
Her Sruntness always pretends that her distortions are always accidental, but this one could hardly have been inadvertent.
It does raise a question, however: Now that she’s been outed on the matter, will the Scrunt be prepared to call Jim Paine “a snobby bitch, too?” The would awaits the answer with baited breath.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Note to the Factually-Impaired:
Dear Fred, I find your question as to whether I “have some fantasy that Churchill was drugged, bound and forced to appear on O’Reilly” most revealing. No, I don’t, do you?
The reason I ask is that Ward Churchill has never appeared on O’Reilly.
Nor, for that matter, have I ever said that Churchill has been “suffering,” or that he should be viewed as a “victim.” Quite the opposite, in fact.
My view, clearly stated, is that he appears to be doing better than ever, a matter implying neither suffering nor victimhood. It appears, in fact, that he’s been able to fight the whole lot of you to a standtill, pretty much single-handedly (as in, with one hand tied behind his back).
So, cudos to him, and a recommendation to you: Go administer yourself another one of those hot lead enemas you seem to enjoy so much. Maybe you’ll feel better afterwards.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Thank you for clarifying up the email distortion that Laurie posted, Beelzebub, and for putting it into its proper context.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Ben, Let’s just say that I’ve lived more than a few winters. Grin. That said, thank you again for letting me write so freely on your blog.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Logical question for Fred: If Churchill’s as disrespected and “irrelevant” as you keep claiming, why have so many of you expended so much time and energy on him? More peculiar still, why are you continuing to do so?
This brings up a more factual sort of question: If you’re correct in your evaluation of Churchill’s irrelevance, why has everybody from John LaVelle to Thomas Brown and the Investigating Committee gone on record with a diametrically opposing conclusion?
Are you possessed of some special power to see what others can’t, or do you just enjoy making yourself look stupid?
May 8th, 2008 at 2:38 am
I just want to say that I love you all and cherish your collective existences. It was a rough couple of days and I just dropped into this comment string since I saw it had gotten so long and I’m simply overjoyed. My heartfelt thanks as a fellow human being go out to all of you. Keep doing, thinking and feeling exactly what you do.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Hey, Tyndale! Ass pats for everyone!
LOL!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Uuuuh, Tyndale? Quite apart from our recent theoretical arm-wrestling—or whatever—you should know that I tend to treat such things as something of a sport, and that if there’s any sort of assist I can provide you, let me know. Awkardly put, no doubt, but sincerely intended. Let’s just say that I know all about rough patches. OK?
May 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I lubricate my rough patches.
Which doesn’t sound at all the way I mean it, but, y’know, you get the idea.
Evan Williams.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Well, hell, Freddie, I see that you’ve finally gone and said something uncontestably, to wit: “I can only speak for myself.”
So here’s a riddle for you: How can such a simple truth be reconciled with your earlier pontifications in the same string? Take this one as an example:
“The name ‘Ward Churchill’ has now become so devalued that anybody can make practically any point by simply saying, ‘That’s like Ward Churchill.’ Or ‘He’s like Ward Churchill.’ Boom, done, case closed.”
Sounds kind of like you’re presuming to speak for all helluva lot more folks than just yourself, doesn’t it? Do correct me where I’m wrong.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The real question, Fred-o, is how life’s treatin’ you down Taos way?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Leave the poor guy alone, HK. It looks like he’s having senior moments.
Like when he tried to score points on Churchill’s having “brought up” all that three-year-old business about the Hamilton check. Apparently it plumb slipped his whatever’s left of his mind that it was actually Jim Paine, not Churchill, who brought the matter up.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Dude - look at this. Eric McDavid got 19!!! years in prison today, essentially for possession of a Derrick Jensen essay (I attended the last day of his trial out of interest, and saw some of the footage of the entrapment of the informant, who is featured in the May Elle magazine ).
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/924438.html
These pdfs of two jurors essentially recanting their votes are noteworthy, and the attorney points to some recent cases where ALF types actually burned down buildings and got 4-7 years.
http://www.supporteric.org/updates.htm
Man, it’s like, the best McDavid could hope for is the country caving in due to a collapse of the currency, and letting people out due to lack of money. It was really bad seeing his mom cry, and I was more impressed by the guy than I thought I’d be because I originally pictured an aggressive showoff, but he actually seemed sort of reasonable. I also couldn’t tell whether his attorney was screwing up at various steps.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I looked at the Snapple blog. They were talking about KGB, Mark Lane blah blah - the ordinary themes, and they included a detail about an incident that they’ve referred to before, where Lane was stopped at Wounded Knee by the FBI for supposedly carrying in weapons. Now, he/she was specifically saying that Lane had menstrual pads, which the FBI said were for corking molotov devices. Now, that’s ridiculous. This just shows that he was essentially bringing in useful supplies that the people couldn’t make or gather on site, plus by the time someone had even 10 bottles worth of gas, that is quite a bit, so you don’t need stacks of stoppers for them. Um, don’t you think that the bottle or gasoline/ethanol would be far more essential for a molotov thing? Any small piece of fabric or cork or the original bottle cap would work better for holding it together. Also… why would they need throwing weapons. The FBI weren’t in any sort of wooden building, and one would have to get within 50m to use it, in a situation where they were being shot at.
Next, before returning to FBI praise and Churchill bashing, Snapple talks about sneaky cointelpro stuff the KGB does because they’re so treacherous, like writing fake pamphlets attributed to a jewish group
May 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
.. also, after that they have something hard to interpret about JonBeney Ramsey, Ward Churchill, and Mao Tsetung
May 11th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Jenna Bush has written a book for teenagers about AIDS. The book grew out of her job with UNICEF.
Jenna is an educator, not a propagandist, so she does not spread false and destructive anti-American canards cooked up by the KGB (as even the Russian Intelligence admitted in 1992) about how the American government deliberately infects people with diseases.
Mendacious charlatans like ex- Professor Ward Churchill, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the head of the Russian Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov should be ashamed of themselves for masquerading as experts and spreading destructive lies about diseases.
Ward Churchill spread a fabricated story that American Army deliberately infected the Mandan with smallpox. Rev. Wright spread the discredited KGB lie that the American Army made AIDS to kill black people. The head of Russia’s Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov spread the lie that Americans made bird flu. This lie is an embarrassment to real scientists in Russia. Churchill, Wright, and Zyuganov are spreading the same kind of destructive lies as medieval people did when they accused Jews of poisoning wells to spread the plague.
The truth is that Americans are working hard and spending a lot of money all over the world to educate people about AIDS and to treat this terrible disease.
This beautiful young teacher’s simple book is showing teenagers how to be compassionate, how to help the suffering, and how to stay healthy. She isn’t using a disease as an opportunity to stir up hatred of our country: hatred that poisons the minds of the very people we are trying to help.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/05/jenna-bush-and-henry-hager-tie-knot.html
May 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Yes, it’s great that Jenna doesn’t work for the KGB. I’m still trying to interpret how they’re letting Laura talk about Burma.
Look at this dialog with a lot of uninformed suburbanites and vegetarians about whether a tribe should be able to hunt, rather than purchase bacon at the store like decent people: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=362594