The Try-Works

Y’know, you try and try and try not to fuck with the Boulder Daily Camera too much since, well, it’s a rag dedicated to a shitty resort burg for pampered little assholes, and pointing that out seems a wee bit unkind.

But then you run across something so horrifically fucking banal, so embarrassingly typical of the glaze of outrageous entitlement and empty-headed brutality that Boulder represents that you just can’t hold back any longer.

Ladies and germs, you squirmed at Clint Talbott’s tortured prose, you winced at Heath Urie’s histrionics, but you ain’t seen fucking nothing like Aimee Heckel.

Brittany and I visited the club on a mission to answer our question. We did seven or eight walks around the dance floor before we concluded: It was not an entire house of babes, nor an entire house of not babes. And having come straight from work myself, sporting a bun, blazer and boots utterly inappropriate for the club environment, I couldn’t even decide which side of the spectrum I fell on. It seemed the club’s name itself carried little power.

It made me think about words and their role in fashion. Simply wearing words like “sexy” and “don’t you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?” don’t make it so — unless you believe it first, and it’s presented from a place of ownership and honesty. Thinking back on the incident of the confusing tattoos, I realized the real difference between the ink was not the words themselves, but they bodies that sported them. The “sexy” woman seemed apologetic of her mark, but Mr. Ambition was seeping with tenacity, from the way he walked to his confident explanation of the meaning of his tattoo.

Then there was Brittany at the House of Babes. Everywhere she walked, eyes followed her. I decided that relegated her to the “babes” section of the club.

Then I noticed what the eyes were staring at: “Melty your dreams into my ice cream.”

And we all know you can’t dispute that.

The rest.

Update: When Ms. Heckel says you can wear sexy slogans when they’re “presented from a place of ownership and honesty” what she means is don’t be fat.  Just thought I’d clarify, in case you missed it.

Update II: “I realized the real difference between the ink was not the words themselves, but they bodies that sported them”?  Was Clint Talbott the fucking copy editor?  Does the Daily Camera have any standards at fucking all?  Why the fuck am I bothering?

Update III:  There’s a whole archive of Ms. Heckel’s work.  If you’re have a slow day, the chuckles are on me.  My absofuckinglutely favorite line comes in the middle of godawful article about the difference between hunter shoppers and gatherer shoppers.

I am a hunter. I scour the premises, weighing needs and options. I slither through the aisles, slowly and steadily. I am deliberate and cautious. I know what I need and will only pounce when the wear-to-cost ratio is perfect. (Wear-to-cost is the number of times an object is likely to be worn divided by its price. The ideal ratio is $4.16, or one wear per month for one year on a $50 object.)

Finally, eyes like lightning strike my prey, pulling my shopping cart behind them. In one fatal swoop, I have already made my purchase before I realize that I have even caught it. My closet is color-coordinated, on a strict rotation during which any object that is not incorporated into an outfit within 51 days is discarded and replaced with a better version.

The rest.

Get it?  Her eyes, which are like lightning, strike her prey.

Just before pulling the shopping cart behind them.

That’s a hell of a pair of hands those eyes have.

Update IV:  Ms. Heckel also has a blog.  Hilarity ensues.

And raise a cheer.

You won’t have this idiot motherfucker to kick around no more.

About fucking time.  Dare we hope Heath Urie is next?

I’m starting to understand why Boulder village idiot Heath Urie still has a job at the Daily Camera.

Turns out he’s employed by an even bigger idiot.

Clint Talbot waxes poetic about ELF, showing his purplish ass.

Bad:

Colorado is familiar with this band of brigands. In 1998, ELF burned the Two Elks Lodge at Vail in protest of the resort’s expansion into what it said was lynx habitat. The damages topped $12 million.

Far, far worse:

McInnis knew (or should have known) that mainstream environmental groups had been condemning violence long before he railed against the new Monkey Wrench Gangs. Irrespective of what the congressman knew or intended, the result was clear: It conflated millions of non-violent and well-meaning environmentalists with a few felons who fashion themselves as friends of the Earth.

Read the rest.  If you can do so with being stricken to the soul by the Seussian sinew of this sentence-smith’s not-quite-suitable word selection.

Peter Michelson, one of the few staunch defenders of Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado (and a damn fine professor, which I can attest from personal experience), has taken on the horseshit flap about Max Karson’s obviously satirical piece in CU’s student paper.  A piece which has now gotten Mr. Karson suspended from the paper.

Mr. Michelson’s dead on, of course.  Right down to his take on Boulder village idiot and hack muckraker, Heath Urie, who drummed up this mess.  The following is the full article from the Daily Camera.

To read the Feb. 21 and 22 Camera articles by Heath Urie on Max Karson, an editor and writer for CU’s Campus Press, one must believe that Mr. Karson is a mad-dog racist advocating that Asian students at CU should be “captured and ‘hogtied’” and “rounded up for a ‘reformation’” because “They hate us all … And I say it’s time we started hating them back.” While all these quoted words do appear in Karson’s now infamous op-ed column, Urie’s description of the piece is so “wrong” that it borders on criminal libel.

Still, Karson’s work not only “infuriated some students and past members of the Campus Press staff” but caught the indignant attention of the university chancellor, “Bud” Peterson, who contended that Karson’s column “was a poor attempt at social satire laden with offensive references, stereotypes, and hateful language” and was moreover “not properly labeled as either satire or commentary.”

The chancellor instructed the dean of the School of Journalism to “consider what steps are appropriate to account for what was published.” Given that the chancellor was careful to note that Karson’s “column is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment,” his charge to the dean was at the very least suggestively vague.

But one doesn’t get appointed to deanships by being slow on the uptake. Dean Paul Voakes promptly announced that in his “humble opinion, the student editors on this Asian piece got it wrong.” Imagine that: a humble dean and students’ getting it wrong! I taught at CU for 30 years and don’t recall meeting a humble dean or students ever getting it wrong. So this was some serious business. And the dean addressed it seriously.

First, as pedagogue, he distinguished between freedom of speech, “including freedom of despicable speech,” and material “so gratuitously offensive that its intention … is missed by the readers.” As teachers of literature know, students often go in the guise of readers, and their engagement with the famous “intentional fallacy” is tricky at best. Accordingly, the dean’s admonition was pertinent. As he put it, he and the student editors needed “to have a chat about that.” That being the acquisition of sufficient “sophistication” to “know where (the) line should be” between freedom of speech and, well, its antithesis.

The “chat” had quick results, where the public witnessed how the dean complemented pedagogy with his functions as scourge of poor attempts at social satire (the chancellor’s judgment), editors “getting it wrong” (the dean’s judgment), and mother superior of “diversity” training: Among other reparations The Campus Press editors “will work with” CU’s diversity coordinator and establish a diversity advisory board and take “a series of diversity awareness workshops,” and adopt a policy of standards of “acceptability” for op-ed pieces.

In the context of education these are plausible punishments. But the real lesson here is that free speech at CU — i.e. speech for which one will not be, as the Chinese have it, “re-educated” — is subject to the literary standards of a not particularly literate chancellor, the offensiveness quotient of a Student Diversity Advisory Board and anonymous “professional journalists of color,” and opinion standards of “experienced opinion editors.” If these journalists and editors of opinion were to include personnel from, say, The Washington Times, The National Review, and the Fox network as well as the tasteful local media, to say nothing of the Camera’s Heath Urie and CU’s own PR department, then the standards of vulgarity, mendacity, incompetence and offensiveness should not set the bar beyond the reach of even such a determinedly errant student writer/editor as Max Karson.

But then, how “wrong” was Mr. Karson? If one goes to the Campus Press Web site, one can read his column. Contrary to the chancellor’s characterization, it is clearly indicated as opinion and commentary, and it is conspicuously obvious as satire. Further, its satirical context reveals how the presumably professional Camera reporter’s description “got it wrong.” So why would the dean of the journalism school ignore the evidence before his eyes, precisely what the Campus Press faculty adviser had seen and apparently approved, and take up the chancellor’s righteously wrong-headed cudgel?

The real issue here is not whether Mr. Karson’s satire is poor or sophomoric. Nor is it an issue of “damage,” as the chancellor claimed. Whatever the resolutions of CU’s Student Union Legislative Council or the public “upset” for which Dean Voakes felt obliged to apologize, Karson’s article could not and has not damaged anyone or thing, including the reputation of the university. The real issue is that the chancellor feared or was told it was “offensive.”

Offensiveness is what accounts for how the reporter, the chancellor and the dean took a shot at Kid Karson’s epistle and “got it wrong.” A cult of offensiveness has developed out of a “feel good’ ethos, whereby everybody is supposed to have the right to feel good. Its ideology thrives on college campuses and even extends to the law. Serious legal scholars have proposed that First Amendment rights be measured by the offensiveness quotient of an utterance, that one’s right to speak be moderated by whether it offends Mrs. Grundy or the ACLU or the Moral Majority or the Muslim community or the Asian community or Chancellor “Bud” Peterson.

It will never be law, however, because the Supreme Court, no matter how conservative or liberal it might be, will never approve its manifest capriciousness, both as law and social policy. But it can weasel its way into practice if people who should know better, people such as Chancellor Peterson and Dean Voakes, validate “offensiveness” as the arbiter of free speech in university discourse. That is the kind of thing that really does do damage.

Max Karson, a Try-Works favorite, has struck again, penning an obviously satirical opinion piece about racial tension at CU entitled, “If It’s War The Asians Want . . .” Unless I’m missing something, the gist of the piece seems pretty clear: that peoples who still retain their own non-homogenized cultures will assuredly get them wiped out by exposure to the University of Colorado. The piece plays on stereotypes, but Karson rather unambiguously makes the point that CU will do its damnedest to reduce folks to the stereotypes held by the overwhelmingly white student body; not that said stereotypes represent inherent attributes of the targeted parties.

It ain’t nearly as funny as it should be, but the reaction sure as hell has been. It being CU, the irony-challenged administration and student body have been tsk-tsking like, well, a Boulderite at a William S. Burroughs reading. And even more delicious, the entire staff of the Campus Press has been ordered to undergo diversity training.

So, what started all the fucking fuss about an obviously satirical opinion piece penned in a student newspaper? Well, it turns out it was misreporting of my old pal, Heath Urie. This from the indispensable Michael Roberts:

The ball got rolling with a February 20 piece in the Boulder Daily Camera by staffer Heath Urie. The article had a few flaws: As noted in a subsequent correction, Urie improperly identified the column as an editorial representing the opinion of the Campus Press as a whole and misstated the tenure of past Press editor Stephanie Clary, who remarked negatively about Karson’s attempt at generating yuks. Nonetheless, the report was quickly picked up by other media outlets — among them the Denver Post, Channel 4, the Rocky Mountain News, and even FoxNews.com.

The rest.

Let me repeat that: “Urie improperly identified the column as an editorial representing the opinion of the Campus Press as a whole.”

Let me rephrase that: Heath Urie, a journalist gainfully employed by a respected mid-market newspaper, ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN ARTICLE THAT PROPOSED KIDNAPPING ALL ASIANS AND MAKING THEM EAT BAD SUSHI WAS THE OFFICIAL EDITORIAL STANCE OF CU’S STUDENT NEWSPAPER!

Now, I knew Mr. Urie was a beer or two shy of a six-pack upon meeting him, but after this I’m starting to wonder that he hasn’t accidentally lobotomized himself with his nose-picking finger. One has to wonder how many times the Daily Camera’s gonna let this barely literate little asshole embarrass them.

Michael Roberts is on a roll, checking in with another update about Ward Churchill and the Boulder Daily Camera.

A More Messages blog from January 30 includes an e-mail Q&A with Ward Churchill, who responded to a query about the dropping of charges against one of his supporters over an episode involving Boulder Daily Camera reporter Heath Urie. However, the final section of the communique was temporarily omitted because it made a separate accusation against the Camera that required a response from the paper. With apologies to Paul Harvey, here’s the rest of the story, which deals with the 2005-2006 period when the question of whether or not Churchill should be allowed to continue in his role as University of Colorado Boulder professor ate up huge chunks of newsprint at publications across the Front Range.

The concluding section of Churchill’s e-mail found him responding to an assertion that editors at the Camera couldn’t squeeze in letters or op-ed pieces from some of his most prominent defenders, including the University of Hawaii’s David Stannard – yet somehow space for attacks against him was always available. According to him, this claim is accurate. He wrote that the Camera “simply declined to run [Stannard’s] or any of a number of other pieces favorable to me submitted from scholars around the country, meanwhile finding room to run hostile material on a regular basis.”

“The Camera wasn’t alone on this score, BTW,” he went on. “The Colorado Daily did pretty much the same thing… and so did the Post. The Rocky, of course, was worst of all. The Boulder Weekly was pretty much the only Metro Area rag that even made an effort at retaining something resembling balance.”

In addition, Churchill wrote that a Camera representative told him that, “despite running editorial material about me every single day, their policy was that responses appearing under my name could not appear more than once or twice per month. They did allow, however, that they were aware that this placed me at a rather glaring disadvantage, and that this was undoubtedly unfair. That’s when it was suggested that I write responses under other people’s names, and that they’d run them with a wink and a nod, thereby letting me have ‘my’ say while still maintaining ‘appearances’ (of what was left a tad mysterious). My response to that proposition was to ask why, if they felt material arguing my case [could] appear under names other than mine, they weren’t publishing the material submitted by people like Stannard. I got no answer.”

Clint Talbott, the Camera’s editorial page editor, begs to differ. Here’s his take:

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond. My brief response is this: The charge that the Camera declined to publish letters and op-eds favorable to Churchill or from Churchill supporters is completely false.

We strove throughout the relevant time to include letters and op-eds from supporters, detractors and those whose opinions could not be easily categorized. Below, you’ll see a sample of letters from 2005 that defended Churchill’s right to speak, his scholarship and/or his blow-back critique in the “Eichmann” essay.” [This material has been placed at the bottom of the blog.] We also published op-eds from vocal defender Tom Mayer, local activist Ty Gee and instructor Ursula Lindquist that challenged the Camera’s editorial view (and the academic committees’ damning assessment) of Churchill’s academic practices.

For the record, the Camera consistently defended Churchill’s right to make provocative claims about 9/11 victims. His scholarship was another matter, to us, and to his colleagues at the university.

I have no record of receiving anything from David Stannard, and I am not familiar with that name. I know I have received suggested op-eds from [CU sociology department staffer Tom] Mayer (and perhaps others) that were far too long to print. I have not spoken to Churchill since sometime in the mid-90s. So this conversation, if it in fact occurred as he says it did, took place either between one of two former editorial writers, one of whom is deceased.

It’s easy to say we declined to print “any number” of pro-Churchill pieces. It requires more rigor to specify a number; just a wild guess that he did not specify so much as a ballpark figure. Similarly, it is easy to recount an alleged conversation with an unnamed staff member. It is more revealing to name the staffer (which, I’m inferring, Churchill does not do).

We do have a once-a-month policy on letters. And we do not bend it for public figures, even when they are in the national spotlight. I can certainly believe someone here told him that much. Beyond that, however, I guess you’d have to take Churchill at his word.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Clint

What follows is nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material – the sort of commentary that may resurface if and when the onetime CU prof’s lawsuit against the university over his July 2007 dismissal reaches the courtroom stage. By then, Churchill and the Camera will likely have plenty more about which to disagree.

The rest.

Of course, almost all the “nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material” comes in the form of letters and open forum blog postings, rather proving Churchill’s point, and Mr. Talbott seems to have included anything that mentions Churchill in any sort of positive light by every letter writer in the last three fucking years.

So what’s missing?

Well, the obvious. During the period in question, the Boulder Daily Camera was giving space to every jackass, lunatic and rapist/murderer who’d ever had a bone to pick with Mr. Churchill. And then, as I understand it, was relying on their once-a-month policy to forbid any sort of rebuttal.

It’d be sort of like me, as a newspaper owner, calling Clint Tabott a rapist on the first of the month, printing his rebuttal, then calling him a child molester on the fifteenth and refusing to allow him to respond out of my sense of journalistic integrity.

An example?

How’s about when the Boulder Daily Camera, riffing on one of my favorite of the local media’s sleazy tricks, ran a Suzan Shown Harjo editorial accusing Ward Churchill of being an ethnic fraud, quoting Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt to that effect.

Think it might have anything to do with anything that Ms. Harjo’s buddies, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt, have a longstanding feud with Mr. Churchill that ain’t got a thing to do with his ethnicity?

That maybe what really gets under their skin is that Mr. Churchill and others in Colorado AIM have been accusing them for about a decade of being involved in a particularly nasty bit of kidnapping, rape and murder?

And that said accusations seem borne out by the fact that one of their cronies has already been convicted of said rape and murder and another one’s been extradited from Canada to stand trial?

Now, don’t you think the Boulder Daily Camera might should give a little space to that kind of information? Even if it violates their once-a-month rule?

Seems like a fair question to me. But, hell, maybe rebuttals as regards that sleazy little maneuver were some of the ones “far too long to print.”

Or, maybe, just some more examples of correspondence the Camera doesn’t care for getting, ahem, lost.

Yeah, just try to imagine that.

Anyway, Michael Roberts has an update in today’s Westword about the Passion of Heath Urie.

Class conflict: The October 18, 2007, Message revolved around Boulder Daily Camera reporter Heath Urie, who was prevented from entering a class taught on the CU-Boulder campus by firebrand instructor Ward Churchill. Back then, neither Urie, who pressed charges against Churchill supporter Josh Dillabaugh after the incident, nor the infamous prof commented on the matter. But a few weeks after charges against Dillabaugh were dropped, both are weighing in — and their viewpoints have absolutely zero in common.

Urie expresses regret that he became part of the story: “That’s something you never want to happen.” Yet he thinks he and his photographer, Joshua Lawton, acted in a professional manner throughout, and he defends his decision to call the police after his forcible ejection. In his view, “When somebody lays a hand on you, that’s when they cross the line.” He’s just as adamant that the accounts of the episode that emanated from Churchill’s camp bear no relation to reality. “They’re exaggerated, blown out of proportion and just inaccurate — and I stand for the opposite things as a reporter,” he says.

Churchill begs to differ. Via e-mail, he argues that charges against Dillabaugh should never have been filed in the first place, especially considering his contention that Urie initially identified his alleged attacker as someone else entirely: TryWorks blogger Benjamin Whitmer.

After the authorities declined to prosecute Dillabaugh, Whitmer suggested the Camera pony up an I’m-sorry, and Churchill concurs. “Apologies are owed by the Camera not only to Whitmer, and even more so to Dillabaugh, but to everybody in the room that night — including yours truly — and to its readers,” he writes as part of a Q&A at blogs.westword.com/latestword. “Any reputable newspaper would already have issued them. But, hey, we’re talking about the Daily Camera. So neither the word ‘reputable’ nor the word ‘newspaper’ really applies.” Churchill strikes the same chord when he’s asked how the Camera has treated him in general. “Truth is,” he responds, “I’ve received better treatment from the Klan.”

Guess that’s his burning cross to bear.

The rest.

Mr. Roberts also provides his full exchange with Ward Churchill and myself in his blog. As well as a quote from David Lane, who cuts right to the heart of the matter.

When contacted for his comments, David Lane, the attorney who represented Dillabaugh, was brief and to the point. “The charges against Josh were dismissed as they should have been because he never assaulted anyone,” Lane wrote. But Whitmer was much more expansive in the following e-mail exchange, conducted earlier in January.

Westword: What’s your understanding of the reason charges against Josh Dillabaugh were dropped?

Benjamin Whitmer: My understanding is the charges were dropped because the case couldn’t be proved — i.e., Mr. Dillabaugh’s lawyer talked to the DA, told them the Camera had a longstanding animosity towards Mr. Churchill and that if the case went to court, he’d run roughshod over Urie. Granted, that came to me secondhand, but that’s the way I heard it.

WW: Were you surprised by this decision? Or was it pretty much what you expected?

BW: It’s exactly what I expected. And what I’ve been predicting since charges were filed. I’ve been calling Heath Urie a liar from the outset, and that wasn’t hyperbole. He’s a lying little prick with a monstrous sense of entitlement. This was his attempt at retribution after going batshit when he was prohibited from entering the classroom. The only thing fucking dumber than Urie’s filing charges is the other lying asshole over at the Camera, [city editor] Matt Sebastian, implying [in a public statement] that Urie had been physically harmed. I’ve received rougher lap-dances than the treatment Urie got.

WW: When did you send your latest letter to the Daily Camera? [The letter demanded an apology from the Camera.]

BW: January 2nd.

WW: Was it posted on the blog right away? Or was there a delay? [A previous Whitmer letter didn’t appear online until after Westword contacted the Camera about it.] Did it also appear in the regular print edition today?

BW: It was posted on the blog right away. As to whether or not it appeared in the print edition, I have no idea. I’d rather gut myself with a rusty fishhook than read the Camera on a regular basis, so I don’t subscribe. [The letter was printed in the paper’s January 7 edition.]

WW: Have you heard from anyone at the Camera in regard to your demand for an apology? Do you expect to hear from anyone there in the future?

BW: No, I ain’t heard from anybody. And I won’t hear from anybody. To be honest, the only reason I sent the letter was in hopes they’d be dumb enough to “lose” it again. It was a stupid enough move on their part that it seemed worth seeing if they’d replicate it.

WW: What lessons should reporters at the Camera and/or other newspapers learn from what took place?

BW: Quit the mainstream media. The fourth estate’s populated by dribbling morons of which Heath Urie’s all too typical.

WW: Would you like to share any other comments about the resolution of the case?

BW: This is what the Camera does when it comes to Ward Churchill. This is typical. Like the Rocky, they hate Ward Churchill’s fucking guts, and they’ll pass up no opportunity to slime all over him. It’s this kind of sleazy horseshit that’s pissed me off throughout the so-called scandal, and it’s exactly what led to my attempt at giving them a taste of their own medicine on the Try-Works.

The only thing atypical about this incident is the stunning incompetence of Heath Urie. It’s one thing to attempt to smuggle in recording devices and rush a closed room to provoke a gotcha journalism incident. I expect no less when dealing with the Denver/Boulder media. But to file charges based on an insane, self-contradictory police report is something else entirely. I feel almost bad doing this, since Urie seems a beer or two shy of a six-pack, but I kind of owe him a hearty round of thanks. I can lecture about the hypocrisy of the local media until my eyes bleed, but it doesn’t have anything like the impact of Urie’s dipshit stunt.

A few days after this exchange, Churchill provided his own replies to a similar batch of e-mail questions:

Westword: What is your response to charges being dropped against Josh Dillabaugh?

Ward Churchill: There was never any basis for filing charges against Dillabaugh in the first place. Setting aside the fact that Urie was assaulted by no one – quite the opposite, actually (see below) — Urie described Ben Whitmer, not Josh Dillabaugh, as his “assailant.” Indeed, his identification of Ben was “confirmed” by a picture snapped in the hallway by the photographer who accompanied Urie that night.

WW: Are you pleasantly surprised that charges were dropped? Or did you expect them to be by virtue of witnessing the incident?

WC: Actually, I’d like to have seen it go to court. That way, the bald-faced nature of Urie’s lies would have ended up a matter of official record. And that, in turn, would have served to shed a bit of very useful light on the Camera’s editorial defense of the guy, as well as its broader editorial posture.

WW: Were you interviewed by representatives of the Boulder Police Department in relation to the charges?

WC: Nope. Nor by the campus cops, although I was standing within a few feet of the “investigating officers” at a couple of points while they were on the “scene.” That in itself would have made for some interesting testimony when I took the stand at trial, doncha think?

WW: Do you think charges should have been filed against Heath Urie, the reporter with the Boulder Daily Camera?

WC: Given the daintiness of the “standards” applied in bringing charges against Dillabaugh, Urie should definitely have been charged with assaulting Ben Whitmer. This is to say that when Urie came barging into the room, Ben put up his hand, palm toward Urie, and told Urie to stop. Urie then walked into Ben’s hand, and tried to keep moving forward (i.e., to push Ben backwards or out of his way).

My own view is that this is all chickenshit, pure and simple. But, since Urie, the cops, and the DA all opted to play by such rules, Urie should have been charged with assaulting Ben and possibly Dillabaugh.

He should also have been charged with menacing me (he was headed directly towards me when he ran into Ben’s hand), harrassment (he came charging right up into my face later, during the break, despite having been repeatedly told that I didn’t wish to speak with him), trespassing (he entered a closed session in a reserved room after being told he was barred from doing so), and something on the order of creating a disturbance (demanding his “right” to interview me right in the middle of my trying to deliver my lecture).

WW: Benjamin Whitmer has asked for an apology from Camera representatives in the wake of the charges being dropped. Do you think the newspaper should issue a formal apology? If not, how do you think the paper should respond?

WC: Apologies are owed by the Camera not only to Whitmer, and even more so to Dillabaugh, but to everybody in the room that night — including yours truly — and to its readers. Any reputable newspaper would already have issued them. But, hey, we’re talking about the Daily Camera. So neither the word “reputable” nor the word “newspaper” really applies.

WW: How would you characterize your treatment by the Camera?

WC: Truth is, I’ve received better treatment from the Klan.

WW: Are you teaching your class at CU this semester? Do you feel that the first class last semester was a success?

WC: It’s a year-long deal, so we’ll simply pick up during spring semster where we left off in the fall. And, yes, I’d consider the fall semester to have been a resounding success. It was, moreover, a genuine delight.

The rest.

Mr. Urie can wax philosophical all he wants, but charges have been dropped. His version of events has been found lacking by Boulder’s DA. And she’s known to buy just about fucking anything.

Update: Just noticed that Mr. Martin’s whining because he didn’t manage to worm his way into this story. Hey, maybe next time, you fucking parasite.

Update II: I like Michael Roberts a lot, but c’mon, don’t tell me that lapdance line shouldn’t have gone in the print edition. That motherfucker was solid gold.

Try-Works commenter Rockabilly Baby was recently kind enough to repeat a story I was groping for the other day to illustrate the character of Boulder Daily Camera editorial page editor Clint Talbott.

For your amusement, my favorite anecdote about the hellish little resort town of Boulder.  Which the rest of Colorado is fast in the process of becoming.

So now you’re stealing lines from the Klan itself, eh Bennie? That bit about Boulder being a “KKK dream community” was lifted from Tom Robb, head of whichever denomination of kluxers predominates down Arkansas way.

The story is that Robb was invited to keynote a Colorado Klan-sponsored commemoration of Hitler’s birthday in front of the old Boulder courthouse some years back. The usual Boulder suspects turned out to chant their opposition, burn a few candles, and wave signs promoting “diversity.”

You got to hand it to Robb. He looked them calmly in the eye and informed them via bullhorn that Boulder was a 96% white town by design, and—as such—is exactly what the Klan is trying to create.

His clincher was that if anybody in holding a pro-diversity sign genuinely desired to live in a diverse community, they should get the hell out of Boulder and relocate to Detroit.

Talk about silencing the “opposition.”

At that point, I’m told, the big anti-Klan protest melted away even faster than a polar icecap. But, hey, they were probably in a hurry to get home and pack for their big move.

And that’s why Boulder’s so much more racially and culturally “diverse” these days than it was 15 years ago. Right?

Over at Salon, Gary Kamiya takes on Gloria Steinem’s doorknob-dumb argument that compared to American white women — one half of the most pampered population on the planet — black guys have it easy. (Seems Ms. Steinem missed that whole prison industrial complex thing that’s been happening over the last couple of decades. Not to mention nigh a century of poverty data.)

In effect, Steinem was arguing that sexism trumps racism as a national concern and backing that up by claiming that women in America have fewer options than black men. But this claim is flawed, as a simple thought experiment shows. Would you rather be born in the U.S. today as a white woman (to choose the most privileged subset of Steinem’s “restricted” caste) or as a black man? Few would choose to be black. More white women are not in prison than in college, thousands of young white women are not shot down on inner-city streets every year, few if any white women have ever been arrested for driving while female, and so on. Steinem’s historical arguments are unconvincing because they aren’t up to date: She ignores the exponential advances made by white women and the failure of black men to keep pace. Leaving aside her omission of Jim Crow laws, and no matter how many black men may have made it into boardrooms before women (and there weren’t too many), it was never better to be a black man than a white woman at any time in U.S. history.

If we compare only middle-class black men to middle-class white women, Steinem’s thesis gets a little stronger — but not much. There is no way to quantify these things, of course, but I would argue that middle-class black men still suffer from the legacy of slavery and racial bigotry far more than middle-class white women suffer from sexism. Only if we compare wealthy black men to poor white women does Steinem’s argument ring true.

Some critics of Steinem’s piece have argued that racism and sexism can’t be compared because they’re apples and oranges, and that she’s inciting conflict between two victimized groups and two worthy candidates. But that’s evasive. Steinem had every right to make the comparison — she was just wrong.

The rest.

You can be a white feminist and vote for Hillary Clinton. But you can’t vote for Clinton if you’ve raised a single objection to George Bush’s murderous and insane foreign policy. There is no candidate more pro torture, pro mercenary, or pro war than Ms. Clinton. Likewise, her contempt for international law, particularly that which would limit civilian casualties, is fucking unrivaled.

So, yeah, a Clinton presidency would be a token victory for wealthy white women in the United States. But it’d also be a vote for the butchery of non-wealthy non-white women, the rest of the world over.

Meaning, in a way, it’s the perfect stance for white feminists, isn’t it? A vote for Hillary Clinton helps ensure white feminist interests, while ensuring the open imperialism that ensures their over-indulged status is reinforced.

All in the name of, ahem, diversity.

Update: You won’t be surprised to hear that Clint Talbott of the Boulder Daily Camera has weighed in on the issue recently. Quoting Steinem, no less.

Which only makes sense, of course. Given that the demographic of Clint Talbott’s paper resembles nothing so much as a KKK dream community.

Another apology for the entirely gratuitous Joyce reference. But, for fun, I sent the following to the Daily Camera.

Dear Editor,

A few months ago one of your reporters, Heath Urie, barged into a Ward Churchill teach-in which he had been informed several times he would not be allowed to enter. When he barreled into the room, I put my hand on his chest to stop his advance towards Ward Churchill, and another gentleman, Josh Dillabaugh, took Mr. Urie’s arm to escort him from the classroom.

Mr. Urie had been told repeatedly he would not be allowed in the classroom. Ward Churchill’s lecture was a student-organized private event, allowing attendance to be restricted by the students. This was confirmed by CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard in an October 6, 2007 article penned by Jessica Peck Corry in the Rocky Mountain News, and in an October 18, 2007 article penned by Michael Roberts in Westword.

Mr. Urie’s actions were a delightful example of the gotcha journalism tactics perfected by the Denver/Boulder media as regards Ward Churchill. This in itself is hardly noteworthy. The Daily Camera’s longstanding animosity for Ward Churchill — especially as evidenced by the content of the editorial pages controlled by Clint Talbott — is a matter of record.

However, Mr. Urie was not content to end his harassment there. Instead, he filed a police report claiming I assaulted him. When that allegation became untenable, he changed his story, claiming that he had been assaulted by Josh Dillabaugh, and filed charges. Then, in a press statement, Daily Camera City Editor Matt Sebastian implied that Mr. Dillabaugh and I had “physically harmed” Mr. Urie. For his part, Mr. Urie has refused to comment, stating in an October 3, 2007 Campus Press article by Rob Ryan that, “we’re gonna let the police report speak for itself.”

Well, it has. And, as of last week, all charges have been dropped against Mr. Dillabaugh by the Boulder DA, and none were ever filed against me.

As such, I demand a public apology from Mr. Urie and Mr. Sebastian on the part of myself and Josh Dillabaugh. Mr. Dillabaugh and I were asked to provide security for Ward Churchill during the student-organized event. We neither assaulted Mr. Urie, nor, as implied by Mr. Sebastian, caused him any physical harm. Mr. Urie’s attempt at gotcha journalism was spectacularly stupid. His following attempt at retaliation upon being thwarted bordered on the inane. That the editorial staff at the Daily Camera publicly implied violence on our part makes one wonder if the editors are competent to keep saliva contained in their collective mouth. Mr. Dillabaugh and I demand an apology.

Thank you,
Benjamin Whitmer

It goes without saying that there’s no way in hell I’m letting the Daily Camera slide for their horseshit lies. Clint Talbott, Heath Urie and Matt Sebastian have all claimed, in one way or another, that Mr. Dillabaugh and I assaulted Heath Urie. They’re fucking liars, and I will be demanding an apology; I’m just contemplating the form of that demand.

As I predicted, all charges have been dropped against Mr. Dillabaugh as regards our ejection of Daily Camera hack Heath Urie from Ward Churchill’s guerrilla class. The Boulder DA’s official stance is that it would be impossible to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ll agree with that.

Y’know, because Heath Urie’s a lying little asshole, as evidenced by his coverage of the non-incident, as well as the inane police report he filed. (Oh, yeah, and his bosses, Clint Talbott and Matt Sebastian, are lying assholes as well.)

As I’ve said from the get-go, there was no physical harm done to Mr. Urie. Nor was there any violence. Hell, there was scarcely an incident at all. There was only a lying little asshole working at a barely literate small-town rag who attempted to make his own news with a stupid fucking stunt, and then, when that didn’t work, tried to intimidate Mr. Dillabaugh and I to cover his ass.

The best part is that Mr. Urie and his dipshit bosses over at the Camera have been repeating ad nauseum that they wouldn’t comment on the case, insisting that our vaunted judicial system would prove the truth of their story.

Well, it has. You’re a fucking punk, Mr. Urie, and you’re all fucking liars.

Merry Christmas.

There are two days a year that seem to bring out the unabashed fucking dumbest in our local hacks.  Like some kind of boxer on an insane workout regiment, they forgo their impulse to the worst kind of gruesomely hackneyed sentimentalism 363 days a year, but come September 11th and December 25th they just can’t help but spurt their worst all over their greasy keyboards.

So I nominate the following for the My Just Invented Title of Newspaper Hack(s) Most in Need of a Crucifixion.

In third place, Paul Campos, for a stiflingly dull attempt at contrarianism, wherein, in his eternal quest to appear mildly relevant, Mr. Campos give us his take on a rightfully forgotten nineteenth-century nonsense piece by William Dean Howell.

In second place, The Daily Camera editorial staff, for this wonderfully condescending, tacky, viciously classist headline, which, as one of their readers points out in the comments, fucking nukes the contrived feel-good horseshit being peddling in the story.

And in first place, The Rocky Mountain News, editorializing for Christ and George Washington.

To the more than 2 billion Christians around the globe, most of whom will gather today in everything from cathedrals to mud huts to celebrate the birth of Jesus, Christmas has always stood for hope amid despair - a miracle of light out of the darkness and a promise of liberation from the bondage of sin.

To Americans - of every stripe, not just Christians - Christmas should also forever be celebrated as a beacon of hope and liberty. For it was on this day 231 years ago that a small band of Americans, against all odds, turned the tide of history and saved this republic in its darkest hour.

The rest.

Ah, the Rocky, closing 2007 by mixing clichés with all the subtlety and grace of a double penetration.  Excellent work, Mr. Carroll.  When your paper finally tanks, there’ll always be a future for you over at Hallmark.

Mr. Martin was kind enough to do what I’m too fucking lazy to do: procure lying asshole Heath Urie’s statements from CUPD.

You’ll be shocked to note that they’re the kind of self-contradicting horseshit which one usually associates with Mr. Urie’s journalism.

The first statement specifically names me as the guy who assaulted Urie. (At least I’m assuming he means me; the haircut and shirt color’s right, but he’s off on my height by four to five fucking inches.)

Urie stated that he wanted to press charges against the man who assaulted him. Urie stated that the man who assaulted him was about 5-7 to 5-8, white male with facial hair and either shaved head or very short hair, and possibly wearing a green shirt. Lawton added that the male had an accomplice present, a taller male with a pony tail. Lawton showed me an image of the male who allegedly assaulted Urie which he had taken with his digital camera. I could see in the image that the male had a green button-down shirt and short [hair].

So, in the first report, Urie’s so sure I assaulted him that he provides the cops a detailed description. Not only is he sure, but so is Lawton, who was a witness. In fact, Lawton’s so positive of the fact, that he took a picture of me and showed it to the cops.

But then in the second statement, Urie does an about face. Claiming that it was actually Mr. Dillabaugh who assaulted him. And this after he claims Mr. Dillabaugh blew smoke in his face. (I know: the horror.)

One can only assume that, it being Boulder, the tender darling was so affronted by the presence of cigarette smoke that he decided to change his story, naming Mr. Dillabaugh as the principle.

Or something.

Of course, both accounts are ridiculous. But the fact that Mr. Urie and Mr. Lawton are changing their story to fit whomever pissed them off last, speaks volumes about their journalistic ethics.

Boy, I can’t wait for this to hit the courts.

And, it’s the damnedest thing, but my memory’s getting a little overwhelmed by all the conflicting accounts. See, in the heat of the moment, when faced by two sniveling little media pricks, I can’t recall whether it might’ve been me that took Urie by the arm in the first place.

Update: I can’t stop chuckling at Mr. Urie’s oft-repeated assertion that he’ll let the police report speak for itself.

Well, yeah, I guess it does. In a nigh-psychotic, split-personality kind of way.

Updated: Post edited to make a little more sense.

There’s a piece about the so-called scuffle reported by the Daily Camera’s Heath Urie at the Ward Churchill guerilla class in today’s Westword. There’s one typo, just so you know. I’m quoted as saying that Mr. Dillabaugh took Heath Urie by the “arms.” That should be a singular “arm.” I told the Westword reporter, Mr. Roberts, the exact same thing I’ve told everyone else: “I put my hand on [Heath Urie] to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.”

But other than that, the article’s just chock full of fun.

Take, for instance, this excerpt, wherein lyin’ asshole Joshua Lawton offers up the kind of ignorance of the rules argument for his shenanigans that makes one begin to wonder if the Daily Camera might be seeking a new photographer in the not too distant future.

Later, Lawton goes on, Urie asked the three men described by Whitmer as young Republicans to take in his recorder, only to learn afterward that this was forbidden.

Ah, so Mr. Lawton only learned “afterwards” that trying to sneak recording devices in the classroom might be a fucking problem. Funny, I thought we’d made that no recording nor media stipulation pretty fucking clear. Y’know, after telling him and his lyin’ asshole partner, Heath Urie, about a dozen fucking times that, well, no media nor recording would be allowed.

Good God, Mr. Lawton, it’s no wonder the Daily Camera put a gag order on you two idiots. If for no other reason than to save you from drowning on your own saliva as you stumble and choke for excuses for your dipshit behavior.

By the way, I still find it pretty interesting that Mr. Urie didn’t mention his shenanigans in his Daily Camera article. His exact line was: “Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them ‘agitators.’” No mention ‘tall about his own ploy to sneak recording devices into the room.

But, hell, thanks for admitting it, Mr. Lawton. And consequently, of course, pointing out that your cronie Heath Urie is — all together now — a lyin’ asshole.

That ain’t nothing on their lyin’ asshole boss, though. See, I told Mr. Roberts that I’d sent a letter to the Daily Camera directly after Mr. Urie’s article appeared to set the record straight. And I also pointed out that, even though the Daily Camera pledges to post “all appropriate letters . . .in the spirit of openness” mine never made it. Well, here’s the Daily Camera’s editorial-page editor’s explanation.

When asked via e-mail about the letter on October 11, Clint Talbott, the Camera’s editorial-page editor, responded that it had been omitted because of miscommunication between him and the blog overseer. Before long, Whitmer’s screed appeared above a comment by Talbott that reads, “The Camera disputes this version of events and stands by its reporting.”

A miscommunication that just happened to occur as I called bullshit on Heath Urie’s article? A miscommunication that was reconciled as soon as a Westword reporter asked ‘em about it? That’s the kind of sniveling little assholism that doesn’t even deserve the trademarked Try-Works sneer.

As big a set of lyin’ assholes as those may be, however, they’ve got nothing on the Daily Camera’s city editor Matt Sebastion, who released a statement about the incident that read, “[w]e fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.”

Physically harmed? What, did we muss up Mr. Urie’s arm hairs? Bruise his tender ego?

The lyin’ little asshole wasn’t physically harmed. He wasn’t assaulted. He’s a pushy little prick with a head full of entitlement who burst into a room that he wasn’t allowed in, and was told to leave. That’s it.

There was no scuffle, no fracas, just one lyin’ asshole’s foiled attempt at gotcha journalism. And now, being the lyin’ little asshole he is, he’s trying to get revenge with a fantasy assault.

Here’s the same challenge I issued the Daily Camera in my letter:

You said I shoved you, Heath Urie. CUPD pulled me out of the classroom, told me that’s what you said, and that you would be filing assault charges. They had my description; I was the person in question.

Where’s my warrant, you lyin’ little asshole? Either file charges, or admit you’re a lyin’ little asshole.

Update: John Martin’s wormed his way into Michael Roberts’ coverage of the so-called scuffle over on the Westword blog. There’s not much to say, except what’s already been said: i.e., given Mr. Martin’s behavior towards Mr. Dillabaugh’s wife on the day in question, I think Mr. Dillabaugh was more than restrained in his treatment of the creepy little shit.

And, as I just noticed, even the Westword readers ain’t real confused about the issue. Take this comment left by Kane:

wow. If you go to that guy’s blog, it’s pretty clear that he is obsessed with Churchill, essentially to the point of being a stalker. They’re painstakingly detailing all aspects of his life, plus posting photos of pictures of students seen in his vicinity with their names.

They probably have a right to be alarmed by these people if they’re actually creeping up to them in public. I really don’t buy that the kid telling him to f#*k off was making a threat. What did the blogger guy do just before that attracted the attention. Probably hundreds of people watching the O’Reilly factor or listening to radio sent Churchill death threats, so why wouldn’t he feel wary about people coming up in public.

Seriously, everyone else was amused during the week that the Churchill made the news, and wrote a nasty email or two, but everyone with a life has moved on to other things.

By the way, anyone else noticed how tender these little darlings are? John Martin stalks Josh Dillabaugh’s wife, and Mr. Dillabaugh rightly tells him to get fucked, sending Mr. Martin into a frenzy of whiny outrage that still hasn’t ended; Heath Urie gets kicked out a meeting he had no right to be in, and he invents assault charges.

It’s a wonder these poor dears don’t just melt away in the sunlight.

Who the hell is Heath Urie you ask? Well, he’s the reporter from the Daily Camera who showed up last night at the Ward Churchill class organized by CU students. I can count about six lies throughout his article, but the biggest comes at the end.

Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them “agitators.”

One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.

The rest.

I was one of the two men, and according to Mr. Urie last night, it was I who pushed him, and the other gentleman who grabbed his arm. He was so sure of this, he sent several CUPD officers down with a description of me and the other gentleman, and an elaborate fantasy of being assaulted. Again, with me doing the pushing, and the other gentleman doing the grabbing.

Nice to see he’s already changing his story, don’t you think?

The real story as follows.

There were several reasons the Daily Camera shitheels weren’t let in. One damn good one is that the Daily Camera photographer, Joshua Lawton, had already violated Professor Churchill’s trust once, snapping a picture of one Churchill’s students during the initial scandal, and publishing it on the front page, after being specifically told to keep his camera off the students. But the main reason is that this was a student-organized event, and the student-organizers didn’t want ‘em there. They have the right not have these little pricks poking cameras in their faces and recording every word they say. And, as Churchill’s syllabus made very clear, the class ain’t a media event. (That said, an exception was made for two members of the CU student press. They’re students, and they still have the opportunity to set right their lives, and pursue an honest profession.)

The two Daily Camera shitbirds, Mr. Lawton and Mr. Urie, were confrontational from the get-go. They were waiting outside the classroom, and immediately jumped in Professor Churchill’s face as he arrived for class. He told them several times he had no comment for them. They then asked if they could attend the class, and were told no. (Although, that was later modified; Professor Churchill told Mr. Urie he could attend next week, without camera or recording devices, if he could show that he’d read the material. Having met Mr. Urie, I find it unlikely he could read the denser portion of his own newspaper, let alone a full-length book.) They did their required share of whining, bellowing, and etc., trying their damnedest to get someone to react to them. They were summarily ignored, of course.

Then, the little shits got busted trying to slip a digital recorder to three students entering the class. (Sound familiar? Why is it that these media types are so fucking inept, anyway?) Those are the three students turned away to which Mr. Urie refers. (Funny, how he left that part out.) When they were turned away, a whole new furor of shrieking and hair-tearing on the part of the Daily Camera crew ensued. Which, again, was ignored. And we all entered the classroom, sat down, and got to work.

Next thing we knew, Mr. Urie barged into the classroom, and strode towards Professor Churchill, shouting. He was holding a digital recorder in his hand, and obviously trying to provoke an incident. I and the other gentleman in question stood and approached him. I put my hand on him to stop his advance, and told him he had to leave. The other gentleman took him by his arm to escort him out, telling him the same. This set him into one of those panicky, arm-flailing, epileptic-type fits which seem so endemic amongst the local media and bloggers (no link), so I turned and asked another of the organizers to call CUPD. But when I turned back around, Mr. Urie had already decided to exit of his own volition. That was your grabbing of the arm and pushing.

About ten minutes later, CUPD showed up to inform us that Mr. Urie was set to file the aforementioned assault charges against us. We laughed, told them the story, and returned to class. Twenty or so minutes later, they returned to let us know that they’d spoken to Mr. Urie, informing him that he needed to act like a professional, that he wasn’t allowed to enter the classroom, and that he wasn’t allowed to harass people outside the classroom; he could politely request comment, but if told to get lost, he needed to leave his target alone. That seemed eminently reasonable to us, and we told CUPD as much.

Of course, at the break, Mr. Urie ignored these directives entirely, and began to harass Professor Churchill again. To his scant credit, we only had to remind him three or four times that he was out of line before he stalked off.

So, there you have it. According to CUPD, Mr. Urie is attempting to file assault charges, and detectives may contact us to pursue the matter.

They won’t, of course. Mr. Urie is a corny little asshole who tried his best to provoke an incident to fabricate a story. He couldn’t, so he did the best with what he had. It’s trumped up horseshit for his National Enquirer knock-off rag. But I’ll keep you updated.

Update: I still haven’t been charged with anything. Nor contacted by anyone. But word is that police are trying to serve the other gentleman with a physical harassment warrant. Which is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor up there with smoking in a public place. Heath Urie is still a lying little asshole, of course. His initial allegation was that I assaulted him. He’s now changed his story entirely, putting it all on the other gentleman.

Update II: The Campus Press has a pretty good article penned by Rob Ryan. Including a quote about whether the organizers have the right to refuse media from someone who might actually know what they’re talking about.

“It’s fairly common in discourse that private people are subject to the First Amendment. They’re not,” [CU Law Professor Richard Collins] said.

Collins did suggest that some states may have statutes that forbid secret meetings in any form, such as the Sunshine Law in Colorado, but that these laws typically do not apply to students.

“I’d be startled if students were subject to Sunshine,” Collins said.

The rest.

Update III: A Try-Works commenter has another idea on how we should approach this. Namely, that we should take the Daily Camera to court.

In my experience the only thing that will stop anyone from attacking others in the manner the Camera did is civil lawsuits. I have had police urge me to file civil lawsuits as they said that I would most likely win and that was the safest way to seek justice. This does not mean I am lawsuit happy. In fact, I would rather not have to take anyone to court. Unfortunately the harassment gets so bad that I have had no other choice but to file lawsuits and criminal charges in certain cases.

Let’s look at the facts of this incident. Judges love facts backed up with hard evidence. You have witnesses that a Camera reporter barged in and made a bee line for Ward. You have witnesses that would testify that it appeared the reporter was going to attack Ward physically by the way he rushed towards Watd in a threatening and angry manner. You have witnesses that can prove the reporter seemed very agitated and angry and that it appeared that Ward was going to be physically attacked or verbally threatened to the detriment of Ward and also other students in the class.

You prevented that attack in a careful manner and it appears to me the Camera reporter filed a false police report. The police have a duty to bring charges against the reporter. You have witnesses to him barging in. You have witnesses that he was causing trouble and harassing both Ward and students who support Ward and his philosophy. The Camera allegedly prevented people from learning in a safe and non-threatening environment and that is against the law.

Here is what you do sir: get written statements from the students who were asked to hide recording devices in their back-packs. Get signed statements from people who witnessed the reporter bum rush Ward. Get written statements that the reporter allegedly acted in a threatening and belligerent manner towards Ward and students and USA citizens attending the class.

Obviously you can take care of yourself physically and so can Ward but that does not give the reporter the right to endanger your safety and the safety of other students by barging in like he did. With written statements you have a case in civil court that would be tough to beat in my opinion. Remember the truth is on your side. Justice is slow but the truth always makes it worth seeking. You were gentle on the reporter and acted in a cautious and careful manner when escorting him out of the room. Other students saw this so get statements from them and present your case to a judge. Gather all that hard evidence and then pursue civil and criminal charges against the Camera.

Look for a lawyer who works on a contingency bases. With enough written statements saying students felt threatened by the reporter barging in the police have no choice but to file charges against the reporter. That reporter created a hostile environment in my opinion and that is a violation of federal law as people have the right to learn in a non-threatening environment.

CU gets federal money and so federal laws apply as well as state and local. Do not be scared of the Camera. As citizens of the USA and especially on a college campus we have the right to learn and listen to speakers without malcontents barging in and threatening people. The reporter headed straight for Ward in a threatening manner. He basically broke into the room when he was told specifically to stay out. In my opinion the reporter broke many laws including a few federal one as he endangered students who were there to learn.

The rest.

Update IV: There’s already one letter to the editor in at the Daily Camera regarding their horseshit coverage of Ward Churchill’s guerilla class at CU. The writer ain’t confused in the least about what the reporter was up to. Nor has anyone else been that I’ve been hearing from.

I still haven’t had any charges filed against me, but I am begging you to file them, Mr. Urie. We will take it to trial. We’ve got dozens of witnesses to back us up. We will run fucking roughshod over you.

The Daily Camera misrepresented Tuesday’s on-campus lecture by Ward Churchill. Out of curiosity I attended the lecture, and what I witnessed was not as The Daily Camera reported. To begin with, The Camera underreported attendance by over half (attendance was closer to 70 people, rather than 30). More importantly, they reported that three students were turned away for being “agitators” and that a reporter was “grabbed and pushed… prompting a report to police”. This is spin. The three students were turned away for attempting to sneak in a recording device given to them by a reporter. The reporter, out of options for recording inside the room, entered the classroom and refused to leave, effectively disrupting the beginning of the lecture. The police arrived later because the press was causing a ruckus and disrupting classes.

This series of incidents demonstrated exactly why Professor Churchill did not want reporters inside the lecture to begin with. The Daily Camera, mistaken again, thought that this was the most significant aspect of the evening, the sub-headline reads, “Controversial prof bars press”. The reporting focused on the press’ own role. They created a controversy, falsely reported the incident, and then suggested that the real news was that they were barred.

What the press missed entirely was the real significance of Ward Churchill’s new lecture series. What happened on Tuesday was an experiment in academic freedom, a course sponsored entirely by students, free of charge and open to all who come to learn. The justifications given in July for firing Professor Churchill included that he falsified information, how ironic that the reporting of his continued presence seems to do the same.

The rest.

Update V: I can’t believe I missed this, but according to the Campus Press, the Daily Camera release a statement in response to my take on the evening’s events, as follows.

We believe that our reporter, Heath Urie, acted ethically and responsibly while covering Ward Churchill’s class (Tuesday) night. He simply was attempting to ascertain why another news organization, the Campus Press, was allowed to have reporters and a photographer in the class, while all others were excluded. We fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.

The rest.

That’s a lie. We’d already addressed Mr Urie’s concerns about the Campus Press being allowed in the classroom. We’d already explained why. He was trying to disrupt the class and provoke an incident, pure and simple.

Update VI: I just sent this letter to the Daily Camera. We’ll see how open their new letter-to-the-editor blog feature really is.

I was one of the two men, who, according to your reporter, refused to allow student “agitators” into the Ward Churchill class on October 2nd. The reason being that your reporter, Mr. Urie, was using them to smuggle in a recording device after being expressly told they were disallowed.

I was also involved in ejecting your reporter from the classroom. He’d been told repeatedly he wasn’t allowed in the classroom, and he barged in after class had begun, and advanced on Ward Churchill, shouting. He had no questions we hadn’t already answered. His sole purpose was to disrupt the class and provoke an incident he could then write up in the Daily Camera. I don’t know what kind of tactics are considered acceptable by the Daily Camera’s editorial staff, but Mr. Urie’s would be scorned by the National Enquirer.

Moreover, his claim of being assaulted is a joke. I put my hand on him to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.

Mr. Urie has also changed his story at least once, claiming to CUPD that I shoved him, and that he would be pressing assault charges against me. Of course, I did no such thing, which is probably why those assault charges have never materialized. But I eagerly await them. I have at least three dozen witnesses who saw what happened, and I would like nothing more than to take Mr. Urie to trial. I demand Mr. Urie live up to his word and file assault charges against me immediately.

Benjamin Whitmer
Instructor, Ethnic Studies
University of Colorado

Update VII: Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I now have a new quote for our list of citations. “Thuggish as ever,” it is.

Update VIII: Everybody’s jabbering on about whether or not the students have the right to close Ward Churchill’s class. CU’s rules and regulations are real clear. Students have the absolute right to “set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media.”

It ain’t an open event. That’s been made abundantly clear. Attendance is at the discretion of the students. No one else gets a say. When a weaselly little shit like Mr. Urie barges in the classroom, he’s trespassing. It doesn’t what his reason is. In my opinion, we were more than restrained in our treatment of him.

Policy on the Use of University Facilities

V. Open Meetings

Those who qualify to schedule the use of University facilities may set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media, and such policies shall be stated at the time of scheduling. If such scheduled activities are closed to the public, they may be open or closed to the news media at the discretion of the sponsoring user. If such scheduled activities are open to the public, they are open to the news media. Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any open meeting. The presiding officer shall be the judge of whether such use is obtrusive and may, at his/her discretion, request persons to stop using their cameras or recording devices in a fashion which he/she deems to be obtrusive.

The rest.

Update IX: As of last night, October 6, no warrant for the arrest of either myself or the gentleman I was with has been issued. Another lie from the Daily Camera.

Update X: As poot and WTF have pointed out in the comments, some little idiot by the name of Jessica Peck Corry, from our local faux-libertarian group, the Independence Institute, has weighed in at the Rocky Mountain News.

To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.

Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.

Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.

In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.”

While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.

University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.

First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.

This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.

Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.

For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.

The rest.

In order. For the thousandth time.

1. As even Bronson Hilliard has “emphasized,” the event is private. If you don’t like how the organizers are determining enrollment, sue CU.

2. No one was turned away because of their “core beliefs.” The three young men who were turned away, were turned away because they were trying to smuggle in a recording device for Heath Urie. We’re not giving quizzes on core beliefs at the door. We’re turning away the media and known entities — i.e., bloggers who have tried to smuggle recording devices into other events held by students — and we will be ejecting disruptive influences. That doesn’t have anything to do with ideology, it has to do with a bunch of whiny little shits who can’t obey the stated rules. The rules ain’t gonna change.

3. And, yeah, private organizers are allowed to ban the media. If you want a hell of a glimpse as to why no one wants the fucking media around, take a look at Heath Urie’s little gotcha journalism stunt.

4. Kool Aid? I know you rightwing loons like your clichés, er, tried and true, but good God, that one’s been a dead metaphor since calling college students “bright-eyed.”

Oh. Right.

Must be the “critical thimking” these fuckers are so proud of.

Shit, did it again.

Just call me a “useful idiot.”

Update XI: The Campus Press has an interview with me here. The student journalists are a hell of a lot better than the so-called professionals, but there ain’t nothing you haven’t already heard.

Update XII: The aforementioned little idiot Jessica Peck Corry has a blog. There’s no place for comments as far as I could tell.

Update XIII: Heath Urie didn’t show this evening, no warrants were served, even I’m bored of this post.

Seeing as I had some luck getting letters into the local papers over the last couple of months, I thought I’d try a second round. I sent the following off Monday.

So far, with the exception of the Boulder Daily Camera’s Letters Blog, nary a bite. That’s life, as they say.

It’s hard to conceal the disgust that arises upon hearing that the University of Denver is presenting a humanitarian award to Newmont Mining CEO Wayne Murdy, so I won’t try. Many mainstream human rights organizations, including OxFam America, have long tracked Newmont Mining’s humanitarian record, including the forced relocation of tens of thousands, the uprooting of entire cultures, the poisoning of whole swaths of inhabited land, and, of course, the repression and murder of anyone who dares to protest their own immiseration at Mr. Murdy’s hands. I find it difficult to believe anyone with the ethical intelligence of a woodpile would present Mr. Murdy any award but a length prison term.

I won’t waste my time appealing to DU’s sense of decency. Indeed, given that Mr. Murdy’s nominator, Tom Farer, seems wholly aware of Mr. Murdy’s record, I’d just as soon appeal to that aforementioned woodpile. Instead, I’ll just note that if there’s a more deserved recipient of Ward Churchill and John Zerzan’s wonderful appellation “little Eichmann” than Wayne Murdy, I have yet to find it.

Only, given Mr. Murdy’s prominence and culpability in the crimes of Newmont Mining, we might very well remove the modifier, “little.”

This from our man, Clint Talbott, of the Boulder Daily Camera, about Mr. Karson:

Karson spent the night in jail and was charged Wednesday with “interference with staff, faculty or students of an educational institution,” and he was ordered to forgo alcohol, drugs, weapons and the CU campus.

Karson’s father bailed him out of jail and said the police over-reacted. “Max was arrested for making intellectual contributions in a class discussion about the tragic shooting in Virginia,” the father said.

Karson clearly made contributions. But it’s hard to call them “intellectual.” The more fitting term is “gratuitous provocations.”

Karson likes to “push the envelope,” to test the boundaries of free speech. Last fall, for instance, he offended women and ethnic minorities with his newsletter, “The Yeti.” What looks and smells like racism and sexism, he calls satire. Of course, satire is an art, and Karson’s art is, well, stunted.

Speech is one of America’s first freedoms, and its importance is signified by its eminence in the Bill of Rights. What Karson uttered this week may well have been — and probably is — protected speech. Karson may find his gratuitous goading gratifying. But he shouldn’t expect people to see the acts of a provocateur as those of an intellectual. And he shouldn’t be surprised to learn that faux threats, implicit or explicit, are sometimes taken seriously.

Keep reading.

To be honest, I don’t even know what the hell that last paragraph means. “Speech is one of America’s first freedoms, and its importance is signified by its eminence in the Bill of Rights?” No, it’s a right, idiot, because it’s in the bill of rights. It’s a legal right. If Mr. Karson’s speech “may well have been — and probably is — protected speech” then why the fuck are you attacking Mr. Karson? Seems your place might be to protect the first amendment right, don’t you think? Instead, as usual, you’re equivocating like Bill Clinton with a half dozen interns and a cigar in each hand.

I don’t care about Max Karson. I don’t care if he’s a jerk, has poor timing, is wholly immature, or is just, er, “cryptic.” He had a right to say what he said. A constitutional right. The only thing scarier than watching state and institutional power come down on him like a ton of bricks, is watching the media justify it. The media should be in the business of checking government, of defending our rights. You’re not a watchdog, Mr. Talbott, you’re a lapdog.

Oh, and since I’m on the subject, how’s about this from the Colorado Daily:

We’ve got some bad news for you CU: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Following the arrest of CU student Max Karson on Wednesday after a heated classroom discussion with other students about the dreadful killings at Virginia Tech, it seems like university administration and students are trying to stuff their fat faces with high-minded social libertarianism and stay on a strict diet of political correctness all at the same time.

Sorry folks, but you can’t defend Ward Churchill’s right to call dead New Yorkers “Little Eichmanns” out of one side of your mouth and condemn Max Karson for saying he can identify with a mass murderer out the other.

Keep reading.

I hate to beat a dead two-bit hack editorial page editor here, but I rather have to inject the following: CU hasn’t defended Churchill’s rights. Horseshit lip service aside, they’ve caved on every point. They’re in the business of railroading the professor as we speak, and their passion for free speech is just about equal to mine for, well, Clint Talbott.

That distinction belongs to the First Amendment:

A University of Colorado student was formally charged Wednesday — and warned by a judge not to “press the limits of certain envelopes” — one day after being arrested on suspicion of threatening his classmates by saying he’s angry enough to kill.

Max Karson’s father paid a $1,000 bond to set his son free from jail on the eve of the student’s 22nd birthday.

Max Karson wouldn’t talk about the incident after leaving the jail. But his father said officers “overreacted” to reports that his son — during a class discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings — said he “could relate to the killer” and “was angry enough to kill his classmates.”

“Max was arrested for making intellectual contributions in a class discussion about the tragic shooting in Virginia,” Michael Karson said, just before getting to hug his son and take him to dinner.

“We’re going to go try to remind ourselves that this is a great country,” he said.

Michael Karson, a professor at the University of Denver, said he expected his son’s charges to be dropped when he appeared before Boulder County Judge Noel E. Blum. Instead, he was officially charged Wednesday with “interference with staff, faculty or students of an educational institution” and ordered to stay away from alcohol, drugs, weapons and the CU campus — unless he’s meeting with officials for a judicial-affairs review of his case.

Blum warned Max Karson that now is not the time to push the envelope.

“You don’t want to test me on that,” Blum said.

Max Karson has a history of pushing the envelope: The newsletter he circulates on CU’s campus called “The Yeti” spurred controversy in the fall over what he said were satirical comments about women and minorities.

Keep reading.

I didn’t pay much attention to the first Max Karson brouhaha, but this one’s a joke. Unless Mr. Karson directly threatened his classmates with imminent physical harm, he has every right to push whatever envelope he likes. Sounds like Judge Noel E. Blum could use a refresher course on the Constitution. Here’s hoping Mr. Karson has the wherewithal to make a hell of a row over this horseshit arrest. Not to mention the — and don’t dislocate your jaw in shock here — cowardice and absolute contempt for free speech evidenced by CU.

This is the shit that scares me whenever one of these school shooting erupts. The onslaught on the Constitution begins immediately, from both sides. Cheap analysts slick around the networks, gibbering on about rap music, violent movies, videogames, etc, and the Michael Moores of the world begin their gun control crusade. I even heard a CNN anchor opine about the need to weed “strange people” out of universities.

I’ve been resisting the leftist urge to compare the Virginia Tech shooting to the Iraq war, because it’s so obviously nonsense. Of course the Iraq war’s the greater atrocity, and of course, the American population could give a shit about dead Iraqis. They’ve been proving that for twenty years. So what? And the analogies coming from the right are equally stupid. I’ve heard the shooter compared to suicide bombers and the 9/11 highjackers, for instance. That’s inane. As everyone from Pat Buchanan to old you-know-who has pointed out, the 9/11 highjackers had a political goal, as do suicide bombers. This kid didn’t. He was a lunatic, rather precluding much in the way of goals at all.

I don’t know why schools get shot up, but I know more will be. It seems like a facet of modern life we’re gonna have to learn to live with. We’re a nation of 300 million. There are more lunatics out there. We ain’t gonna figure out why they shoot people, because their actions ain’t gonna make sense. Rather self evidently, that’s what it means to be a lunatic. No amount of analysis is gonna get at the problem.

I submit that ain’t the point of the talking heads, anyway. Coming from the left or the right, they have an agenda and see an opportunity to exploit. They’re hoping you’re dumb enough not to notice what they’re saying is nonsense until it’s too late, until they’ve found some way to strip yet another freedom from you. For the record, I ain’t willing to give up even one freedom, even if I thought doing so had any prayer in hell of succeeding in stopping these shootings.

Anyway, if nothing else, all the jaw-wagging has given me a goal for the weekend. I’m gonna gorge myself with guns and violence. I’m up to the mountains for some target practice with my Glock 19, then down to the multiplex to see Grindhouse, then home to play Grand Theft Auto. Listening to Ludakris, all the while.

Update: Okay, so I don’t have a videogame system. And I’m not much of one for multiplexes. And though I do have a Ludakris album I got from the library after hearing he told off O’Reilly and Oprah, I’ve never actually listened to it all the way through.

But I will go shooting.

Unless a long-awaited package from Amazon is at the front door. In that case, I’ll probably do some reading.

But I’ll turn the pages violently.

Update II: Speaking of asinine analogies, Jim Paine and John Martin are now comparing me to the shooter. Because his plays are laced with profanity and violence, and, y’know, I’m profane and use violent metaphors, now and then. Mr. Paine being the dramatically smarter of the two seems to be joking. Mr. Martin, possessing the critical faculties of a woodpile, ain’t joking at all.

I just went through this, so I won’t do it again, but if Mr. Martin ever took it upon himself to crack a book, he might notice profanity and violence being kinda rather prevalent in the last millennium or so of Western Literature. If that’s his sole criteria, he might as well compare the shooter to Shakespeare, Chaucer or Hemingway.

Idiot.

Update III: Yes, I know I call Mr. Martin an idiot in every post, but good God, I can’t help it.

Update IV: This from Caplis and Silverman. Max Karson’s statements weren’t direct and they sure as hell didn’t pose any imminent danger. The word that keeps popping up is “cryptic.”

Of course, Caplis and Silverman are for expelling Mr. Karson. (Although, maybe not arresting him. Maybe.) The argument they keep posing about Mr. Karson is the same argument often made about Ward Churchill, and the same one posed by Judge Blum: that it’s his timing that’s the problem.

That dog won’t hunt. Constitutional rights are rights. They ain’t situational and they ain’t subject to temporary revocation. As I said above, here’s hoping the kid sues CU back into the stoneage.

Update V: After Ward Churchill sues CU back into the stoneage, of course.

The gun control squad is already rallying, of course.  After all, what’s the use of any meaningless act of random violence, if it can’t be used to further restrict the scant and ever-diminishing few freedoms left everyday citizens?

Meanwhile, what kind of reaction would you expect from, say, Boulder.   Well if Clint Talbott of The Boulder Daily Camera is any indication, you already know the answer: like Oprah fans, it’s all about them.

The killing of more than 30 people and wounding of at least 30 at Virginia Tech on Monday leaves many shocked and relatively speechless. Regrettably, some are not as speechless as one would hope.

As the scale of the rampage became evident, the ghastly scenes emerging from Virginia struck knowing eyes in Colorado, which have seen this before: grim SWAT teams leaving a blood-spattered school, the stunned and saddened face of officialdom trying to speak about the inexplicable, white ambulances with red lights waiting beside the bright-green grass of spring to carry off the dead and dying.

Keep reading.

Well, not actually all about them.  After all, Boulder ain’t really anywhere near Columbine.  But still, you know what I mean.  It’s always all about them.

Update: I have to know, Mr. Talbot, is Mourning in the Spring anything like Death in the Afternoon?  Will there be bullfights on the bright-green grass of spring?  Is everything that dribbles out of your computer so hackneyed that it makes you want to wire your own fucking jaw shut?

Update II: Yes.