OK, now you’re getting a bit overboard here. McCain a Philosopher King from The Republic? My Lord, that’s a bit of a stretch. Again, as I said before, I just don’t get into the armchair analyst routine. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’d just say that there may be simpler explanations for his behavior, such as vanity. Take a strong man with bold ideas, mix in a lot of vanity, toss in some mighty long years of suffering and you might just get a character like McCain. But do I think he’s got dreams of a benevolent dictator? Not nearly.

One piece of evidence nullifies this observation of yours, or at least provides a counterargument to it. If you read Newsweek’s post-mortem on the election, you would have read that Kerry offered McCain a sort of strange VP/Secretary of Defense job. I seem to recall that McCain told Kerry the idea was unconstitutional and insane. At least he showed some temperance on that one.

Secondly, Bush hoping the Supremes would do his dirty work for him after signing that garbage makes him a fool in my mind (and remember, I strongly support the man and wear, proudly, my W button and wristband every day). If W had Reagan’s powers of persuasion, or rather, had confidence in his rhetorical skills (I think he’s pretty good at public speaking, in a down-to-earth sort of way), he’d have the balls to get on TV every month and give Americans a sort of “State of the Economy,” and “State of the War on Terror” lecture. That’d go a long way toward educating Americans on the virtues of his ideas. And he could have done the same thing with that stupid political reform bill. Give the people the truth and they’ll always choose the right path (or at least most will). But he didn’t. If Bush did what Reagan did, and what Arnold seems to be quite good at doing (to lethal effect), he’d get a lot more people buying into the soundness of his ideas.

I’m just not ready to accept your view of McCain. Though I must say that he is a rather complicated man. Perhaps even a bit insane. But I just can’t go as far as you when contemplating the man’s motives.

Best regards,

KCTrio

Two points, the only way McCain makes sense to me is to view him as an ego-maniac who sees in himself Plato’s Benevolent Dictator, kinda like a Pope passing out benefices and punishing sins.

Vis a vis W signing that bill….agree that he blew it big time. But, I think that there was a compound reason. Given election 2000 he didn’t feel he had the clout to veto this and still get the things that mattered to him more, BECAUSE I bet that he thought that the SC would shoot it down. He probably thought that he didn’t have to spend a large part of his political capital when someone else would clean up the mess.

I should have been more specific. I’m not positing that Churchill is a man of character. I’m saying that instead of cowering to his accusers, he’s hit back. Do I think he’s an honest man? Of course not. Do I think he’s disgusting? Yes. And I like all of the rest of your adjectives, also.

But imagine if Summers and Hoope had reacted like Churchill. When one is confronted by a bully, somtimes the only option is to threaten the bully at the tip of a spear (metaphorically speaking).

If I were Dean of Academic Affairs, I’d have Churchill turned into a eunich. But you must admit, he’s pretty effectively put some fear into his accusers.

I hope this clears things up.

I’m sorry if I implied that I looked up to Ward Churchill. Please forgive my opacity.

Best regards, and thanks for the request for clarity.

KCTrio

Am I missing something here? Who’s Roger (a Zen question)? Are you referring to Roger L Simon? Anyway, I agree with Richard on this.

These are three distinct events that all represent three different problems:

1) Churchill: Tenure is the problem. Since when is free speech equivalent to the right to an audience? Thomas Sowell made this argument with devastating effect in his February 15, 2005 column entitled “Academic Freedom?,” which I’ll quote from here (link for this column is http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050215.shtml):

“Too many people — some of them judges — seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that, try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting your spouse before going to bed tonight.

“While this column is protected by freedom of speech, that does not stop any editor from getting rid of it if he doesn’t like what I say. But, even if every editor across the length and breadth of the country refused to carry this column, that would be no violation of my freedom of speech.

“Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience. Otherwise the audience would have no right to its own freedom. Editors, movie producers, speakers’ bureaus and other intermediaries have every right to decide what they will and will not present to their audiences.”

Churchill may be a fraud and a charlatan, but his freedom of speech is not and should not be without consequences. One must wonder if tenure combined with insane vitriol makes for a fiery combination. He is free to say whatever he pleases, but if the University where he teaches finds him to be a stain on the University’s reputation, as well as if they feel heat from their alumni association, then they should be allowed to fire the SOB. But with tenure, that can’t happen.

Finally, look at how Churchill is reveling in this stuff. He’s fought back with even more vicious vitriol, and people are lapping it up. Attempting to silence him has the opposite effect one would hope for: It’s made him more popular.

2) Summers: He’s the president of a university, and has been attacked by the sword of feminism for weeks now. No amount of backtracking will satisfy his enemies that are out for his head. He apologizes, backtracks, makes new promises, tries to be more sensitive, and yet none his critics backs off.

3) Hoppe: This is student blackmail, pure and simple. A professor is held under the sword of a raging minority (and one without rights in terms of dictating the content in the classroom), and the University slapped Hoppe upside the head. This still is not enough for his student accuser. Here is an example of anarchy or despotism run amok in a university. Or, you might call it student mob rule.

These three events have common threads, but they are all different. The latter two have to do with minority activists that try to silence those they disagree with, and in turn they have weakened the target of their wrath, while the first (Churchill) is growing stronger because people have questioned his sanity (I know that there are other things he’s charged with…plagiarism, forgery, etc., but I’m referring to his 9/11 speeches and ranting).

What opportunity does this present to the right? I don’t see mountains, but there is some. These three incidences could be used as a powerful media/education campaign to get the public behind the idea of doing away with tenure and also shed light on the fact that people must bear the responsibility of their accusations that they make (Churchill, Summers’ critics and Hoppe’s student accuser). That’d deal with the Churchill situation but only get at the fringes of the latter two. The other two are a completely different beast. Summers is attacked and silenced by professors in his ranks (subordinates, but tenured), while Hoppe is criticized by a student.

Can you imagine a student getting away with this kind of blackmail even 100 years ago? They’d be sent home with a “don’t let the door hit you in the buttocks on your way out” sticker. And there’d be hell to pay when he got home when his parents got a hold of him.

These three situations do have many things in common, but I think that they are distinct (Churchill acts like a man when challenged by those that wish to silence him, and has made his critic’s job more difficult), Summers acts like a weakling when he’s threatened and still can’t appease his critics, and Hoppe is simply being blackmailed by a student (and a complicit administration).

But these are just my opinions.

Best regards,

KCTrio

Churchill’s speech is to any reasonable mind, offensive, wrong, malicious … and protected by the first Amendment, just like yours or mine, and just as .

Where he can be and is being challenged is on trying to declare some kind of immunity based on tenure, since babbling about little Eichmanns in New York has precious little to do with ethnic studies.

Where he can be and is being challenged is on his own racist hypocrisy, falsifying his own ethnic heritage to steal a job from a real Native American.

Where he and CU can and are being challenged is on the inarguable fact of simple fraud. Churchill did not have the academic requirements for the courses he taught, let alone a department chairmanship. He never published in professional, peer-reviewed venues. He never fulfilled the requirements for tenure. This is all fraud on his part, and the part of CU. CU took money from its students for the courses they were required to take, representing them as being taught by a tenured, qualified professor, when they had full knowledge this was incorrect. This is probably grounds for a profitable class action suit against CU on behalf of those students.

Combining Churchill with Summers and Hoppe draws a moral equivalency between the conduct of the three that is patently offensive to the latter two.

I stand corrected on that one. Good example; I’d forgotten the depths that he went to thwart the investigations. I also recall his work with Kerry on the Vietnam/POW issue, and that seemed less than honrable.

What were his motives? I don’t know. Are they pure and simple those of an opportunist; or, are they worse, one who willfully misguides others for his own agenda?

I am still inclined to believe that he’s motivated by his own convictions, whatever they may be, and those convictions are honest and not based on trickery or subversion of the public goodwill. Maybe I’m wrong on this.

As I said, I don’t think much of the man, politically speaking, though I do respect his ability to forgive Kerry, his pretty damn good speach at the convention, and the fact that he fought for and suffered for his country. On this last thing, his suffering in prison, I can’t seem to lose sight of. And it is because of this that I still hold the man in high regard for these particular reasons. Though I’d never vote for him.

BTW: If you’d like a partial copy of the Barone interview in the Limbaugh letter, let me know and maybe I can figure out a way to scan a few parts of it and send it your way. Of course, I’d want to stay in the fair use rules. Anyway, Rush probably wouldn’t mind if I sent them to you personally; it’d help build his subscription base if you liked the quotes. If you’re interested, send me an e-mail at NKCTrio@yahoo.com and I’ll be happy to oblige.

All my best,

KCTrio

If you go through my posts, you’ll see that I agree with you on McCain supporting reckless legislation. And further, I stated that just becausse he has integrity doesn’t imply that he has wisdom. Sorry if I sound defensive here, but I am simply pointing out that I agree with you completely about the man’s support.

Where I would differ from you is that I’d avoid the armchair analysis as to the man’s motives. Whatever they are, he and we, are still, human, all too human.

Best regards,

KCTrio