This was in a Lynn Sweet article in this morning's Chicago Sun-Times
From that source:
"Senator Robert Byrd was one of the first senators I met with when I came to the Senate three months ago,'' Obama wrote in an e-mail sent out on behalf of the political action committee run by MoveOn.Org, the liberal advocacy group.
"Senator Byrd understands the history, the importance and the role Senate plays in our government -- at 87 years old, he's the most senior senator. He has spoken out passionately against a Bush foreign policy that has alienated our allies throughout the world. Today, he is fighting an attempt by Republicans to change the 200-year-old rules of the Senate that would allow Republicans to ram federal judges through the Senate with no regard for what others might say. Above all, Robert Byrd understands just how sacred the Constitution of our country truly is and fights every day to protect it.''
But Byrd was a major player in the 1940s in the Ku Klux Klan and was a segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Klocek case continues to gain momentum, Columbia University newspaper joins the fray
A tipster led me to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) web site, they have a blog, The Torch.
That blog led me to this article from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Spectator, which ties in the hypocrisy of those left-wing free speech advocates who stand up for the vile anti-American comments made by pseudo-Indian and alleged plagiarist, Professor Ward Churchill of Colorado University, as well as those fervently anti-Israeli spewings by Columbia University Assistant Professor (and classroom bully) Joseph Massad.
Both men have taken their lumps in the media, but mostly the "new media" and conservative friendly outlets such as Fox News. Leftits of course have eagerly jumped to defend the free speech rights of Churchill and Mossad.
The Columbia Spectator correctly points out (as I've mentioned here) that those lefties so drawn to support the phony Indian and the lecture hall thug have been largely AWOL in supporting the free speech rights of those who have views that don't conform to the left wing "truths "in Academia. Thomas Klocek of DePaul, who's cause we continue to champion here is mentioned, as is the situation surrounding the January comments by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who mentioned that maybe there is an "intrinsic" reason women have less success in advance scientific studies than men.
Of course, "off the PC reservation" remarks (sorry Ward, but I had to use that metaphor), don't seem to be viewed as free speech, but rather as racist and sexist rants by those the PC academic left.
Free speech for some, it seems to be.
That blog led me to this article from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Spectator, which ties in the hypocrisy of those left-wing free speech advocates who stand up for the vile anti-American comments made by pseudo-Indian and alleged plagiarist, Professor Ward Churchill of Colorado University, as well as those fervently anti-Israeli spewings by Columbia University Assistant Professor (and classroom bully) Joseph Massad.
Both men have taken their lumps in the media, but mostly the "new media" and conservative friendly outlets such as Fox News. Leftits of course have eagerly jumped to defend the free speech rights of Churchill and Mossad.
The Columbia Spectator correctly points out (as I've mentioned here) that those lefties so drawn to support the phony Indian and the lecture hall thug have been largely AWOL in supporting the free speech rights of those who have views that don't conform to the left wing "truths "in Academia. Thomas Klocek of DePaul, who's cause we continue to champion here is mentioned, as is the situation surrounding the January comments by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who mentioned that maybe there is an "intrinsic" reason women have less success in advance scientific studies than men.
Of course, "off the PC reservation" remarks (sorry Ward, but I had to use that metaphor), don't seem to be viewed as free speech, but rather as racist and sexist rants by those the PC academic left.
Free speech for some, it seems to be.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Big march this morning in Chicago honoring the Pope
As I mentioned a couple of posts back, I've been seeing lots of Polish car-flags flying from vehicles as I drive around town. There was a big march on Milwaukee Avenue on Chicago's northwest side honoring John Paul II. I guess other cities in the US could make this claim too, but John Paul II always, because of our large Polish-American population, the hometown Pope.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Latest on Klocek case: Lawsuit against DePaul may be near
The Chicago Journal, a downtown community paper, has spoken out about the free speech controversey at DePaul University. As with this blog, they mention that the Chicago area mainstream media has remained for the most part silent on this story.
John Mauck is representing Professor Klocek. Some interesting excerpts:
"Mauck said he decided to take the case after reading an October 8 letter from (School of New Learning Dean Susanne) Dumbleton printed in the school’s newspaper, The DePaulia, after Dumbleton advised Klocek not to speak to the press. Mauck took particular umbrage at a passage that focused on the content of Klocek’s speech rather than his conduct toward the students:
“'No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or their ethnicity,” Dumbleton wrote. “No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.'”
(The boldface was added by me for emphasis.)
Says Mauck, “That’s what got me going,” he said. “This was about content, not conduct.”
As I type this tonight, the link to that October letter from Dean Dumbleton is MISSING!!! Maybe their server is down. Maybe not. Stay tuned.
Notes: 4/8/2005 Blogspot's server was down too last night, so I've added couple of things that should've been there in the first place!
2nd Revision for 4/8. I found that link, the October 8 letter to the DePaulia from Dean Susanne Dumbleton.
And according to Klocek's attorney...
"Mauck says he expects to file suit against DePaul in the next few weeks on behalf of Klocek “unless DePaul should turn around and say we’re sorry and we’re going to make it right.”
John Mauck is representing Professor Klocek. Some interesting excerpts:
"Mauck said he decided to take the case after reading an October 8 letter from (School of New Learning Dean Susanne) Dumbleton printed in the school’s newspaper, The DePaulia, after Dumbleton advised Klocek not to speak to the press. Mauck took particular umbrage at a passage that focused on the content of Klocek’s speech rather than his conduct toward the students:
“'No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or their ethnicity,” Dumbleton wrote. “No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.'”
(The boldface was added by me for emphasis.)
Says Mauck, “That’s what got me going,” he said. “This was about content, not conduct.”
As I type this tonight, the link to that October letter from Dean Dumbleton is MISSING!!! Maybe their server is down. Maybe not. Stay tuned.
Notes: 4/8/2005 Blogspot's server was down too last night, so I've added couple of things that should've been there in the first place!
2nd Revision for 4/8. I found that link, the October 8 letter to the DePaulia from Dean Susanne Dumbleton.
And according to Klocek's attorney...
"Mauck says he expects to file suit against DePaul in the next few weeks on behalf of Klocek “unless DePaul should turn around and say we’re sorry and we’re going to make it right.”
Polish car flags salute Pope in Chicago area
I live in and work in an area with a large Polish-American population. Well it seems most of those Polish-Americans have car flags and they've hoisted them onto their vehicles in a salute to Pope John Paul II. I'm not exagerrating: Every two or three blocks while driving I see a car with a Polish flag on it.
Kerry staffer continues the Marathon Myth
Well, John Kerry is getting out and about for a while on crutches, according to the CNN web site.
The reason, according Kerry staffer April Boyd, "was an outpatient procedure to repair cartilage in his knee, which was damaged by "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running."
Well this site and it's predecessor, Blue States for Bush, has discussed the fabled marathon run of John "Baron Munchhausen" Kerry.
First, Kerry said he ran the Boston Marathon sometime around 1980. After Blue States for Bush correspondent Christopher Riley visited Boston Marathon headquarters and discovered there was no record of John Kerry ever finishing the legendary 26 miler, they pulled out what Football Fans for Truth called the "bandit card," i.e., he ran the race, without officially entering.
Now after "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running" John Kerry has been forced to have knee surgery.
How many marathons have you run, John?
And when are you going to sign that Form 180, authorizing the release of your military records to the public, Senator? You promised Meet the Press' Tim Russert you'd do that on January 30.
The reason, according Kerry staffer April Boyd, "was an outpatient procedure to repair cartilage in his knee, which was damaged by "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running."
Well this site and it's predecessor, Blue States for Bush, has discussed the fabled marathon run of John "Baron Munchhausen" Kerry.
First, Kerry said he ran the Boston Marathon sometime around 1980. After Blue States for Bush correspondent Christopher Riley visited Boston Marathon headquarters and discovered there was no record of John Kerry ever finishing the legendary 26 miler, they pulled out what Football Fans for Truth called the "bandit card," i.e., he ran the race, without officially entering.
Now after "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running" John Kerry has been forced to have knee surgery.
How many marathons have you run, John?
And when are you going to sign that Form 180, authorizing the release of your military records to the public, Senator? You promised Meet the Press' Tim Russert you'd do that on January 30.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
DePaul response to previous article
To be fair, I'll run this one in its entirety. I'll list my points afterwards.
Professor's critic grossly ill-informed
by The Post Editorial Board
by Robin Florzak, March 31, 2005
I was disappointed to read Daniel Hiester's U-Wire column that ran in The Post on March 28 ("Political discussions need to be leveled").
Since neither Hiester nor the syndicated columnist he cites in his piece called DePaul University to check their facts, the author erroneously characterized the incident involving DePaul instructor Thomas Klocek as a matter of academic freedom.
DePaul University has great respect for academic freedom. For more than a century, DePaul has fostered a free and open environment where vigorous debate is encouraged.
Contrary to Hiester's contention, academic freedom and personal beliefs are not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students.
Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.
Quite simply, the issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.
After university administrators met with Klocek, DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors. However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so.
Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.
DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff. DePaul's 23,570 students deserve nothing less.
-Robin Florzak is the director of media relations at DePaul University. Send her an e-mail at rflorzak@depaul.edu
Okay, here we go. Klocek does have a publicist working for him, but the law firm representing him hired the publicist. Not quite the same thing.
Secondly, Robin does not mention this nugget: Professor Klocek never received a hearing from DePaul and the School of New Learning. I haven't yet got to the bottom of this angle of the story, but it's my impression that the ball has been in DePaul and the School of New Learning's Dean Susanne Dumbleton since his suspension last fall.
Thirdly, pointing a finger, throwing pamphlets and the raising of a voice (and it's unclear if any or all of these things occurred in the way Ms. Florzak desribes above) is not recommended behavior. But since Professor Klocek has not been offered a hearing on these alleged transgressions.
Finally, DePaul's story keeps changing. Ten days ago or so, it was Professor Klocek's health problems which preventing the School of New Learning from putting him back in the classroom with the same number of classes as in the fall semester.
Professor's critic grossly ill-informed
by The Post Editorial Board
by Robin Florzak, March 31, 2005
I was disappointed to read Daniel Hiester's U-Wire column that ran in The Post on March 28 ("Political discussions need to be leveled").
Since neither Hiester nor the syndicated columnist he cites in his piece called DePaul University to check their facts, the author erroneously characterized the incident involving DePaul instructor Thomas Klocek as a matter of academic freedom.
DePaul University has great respect for academic freedom. For more than a century, DePaul has fostered a free and open environment where vigorous debate is encouraged.
Contrary to Hiester's contention, academic freedom and personal beliefs are not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students.
Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.
Quite simply, the issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.
After university administrators met with Klocek, DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors. However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so.
Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.
DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff. DePaul's 23,570 students deserve nothing less.
-Robin Florzak is the director of media relations at DePaul University. Send her an e-mail at rflorzak@depaul.edu
Okay, here we go. Klocek does have a publicist working for him, but the law firm representing him hired the publicist. Not quite the same thing.
Secondly, Robin does not mention this nugget: Professor Klocek never received a hearing from DePaul and the School of New Learning. I haven't yet got to the bottom of this angle of the story, but it's my impression that the ball has been in DePaul and the School of New Learning's Dean Susanne Dumbleton since his suspension last fall.
Thirdly, pointing a finger, throwing pamphlets and the raising of a voice (and it's unclear if any or all of these things occurred in the way Ms. Florzak desribes above) is not recommended behavior. But since Professor Klocek has not been offered a hearing on these alleged transgressions.
Finally, DePaul's story keeps changing. Ten days ago or so, it was Professor Klocek's health problems which preventing the School of New Learning from putting him back in the classroom with the same number of classes as in the fall semester.
U-wire writer speaks up for Klocek
This came into my e-mail box last week (still catching up on things) I'll run it in it entirety. This was published, via the U-wire (a college newspaper version of AP) by the Ohio University Post.
Political discussions need to be leveled
U-Wire
by Daniel Hiester
Indiana University, March 28, 2005
Liberals need to watch their mouths. After the build-up to war and the presidential election, it's as if they got drunk and said some things they shouldn't have. On www.sorryeverybody.com, liberals have posted messages such as, "We're sorry half our country is a bunch of morons." That translates from drunk-speak to English as "Hey, I'm not going down without a fight!" It's as if now, instead of sobering up and apologizing for their indignation, they're just getting drunker in their bitterness.
It's gotten so out of hand, columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote that liberals' lack of tolerance for conservative or moderate ideas amounts to "New McCarthyism."
That is an ironic choice of words, because the phrase is usually used to describe radical liberals being visited by Secret Service agents, investigating reports of "Un-American behavior." If liberals are so intolerant that someone would flip "New McCarthyism" around on them, it's a good time to stop and think about it.
In his column, Ambrose wrote about the leftist intellectuals standing up to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. The "mad professor" is most infamous for saying the thousands who died in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Hitler exterminate Jews during World War II.
While many were initially offended by the comparison, when one looks at Churchill's essay, to place his statements in context, his argument is nothing new: "the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved," he said, to the "mighty engine of profit." That doesn't seem too hard to swallow. The same thing happened with the British, French and Spanish back in their heyday.
If capitalism drives war, maybe it's just one small step to imply that those who work for "The Man" are guilty by association.
Most people I know who have asked themselves this question don't want to answer it, so they get up and fix themselves something to eat. I guess Churchill was hoping to preempt the snack attack by tossing the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Unfortunately, that use of hyperbolic rhetoric tainted the credibility of his entire argument and of anyone defending him.
Granted, Churchill is entitled to his opinion, and others are entitled to debate him; that's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. But should he be fired from his job?
If Churchill wasn't fired for his views, what about DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek? He was suspended without a university hearing after he debated against students who believed Israel is Nazi-like toward the Palestinians. Many believe Klocek was fired for not fitting into the cookie-cutter mold of what a liberal is "supposed to believe."
Why does it seem as though left-wing radicals are more entitled to their opinion than those on the right -or even in the middle?
A lot of radical opinions are more emotional than they are intelligent. It's easy to get emotional about things such as tyranny and war, but those who argue about it in public must understand the role they play in the big picture. When they let emotion drive their arguments, they're accidentally using one of the techniques Hitler used to rally support behind the Third Reich.
It is possible to engage the public's humanity without appealing to its emotions. Liberals hate to admit it, but President Bush does that all the time. We need to follow Bush's example and bring our political discussion back down to the level we can talk about at the dinner table, not the level that's liable to start a drunken bar brawl.
Political discussions need to be leveled
U-Wire
by Daniel Hiester
Indiana University, March 28, 2005
Liberals need to watch their mouths. After the build-up to war and the presidential election, it's as if they got drunk and said some things they shouldn't have. On www.sorryeverybody.com, liberals have posted messages such as, "We're sorry half our country is a bunch of morons." That translates from drunk-speak to English as "Hey, I'm not going down without a fight!" It's as if now, instead of sobering up and apologizing for their indignation, they're just getting drunker in their bitterness.
It's gotten so out of hand, columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote that liberals' lack of tolerance for conservative or moderate ideas amounts to "New McCarthyism."
That is an ironic choice of words, because the phrase is usually used to describe radical liberals being visited by Secret Service agents, investigating reports of "Un-American behavior." If liberals are so intolerant that someone would flip "New McCarthyism" around on them, it's a good time to stop and think about it.
In his column, Ambrose wrote about the leftist intellectuals standing up to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. The "mad professor" is most infamous for saying the thousands who died in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Hitler exterminate Jews during World War II.
While many were initially offended by the comparison, when one looks at Churchill's essay, to place his statements in context, his argument is nothing new: "the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved," he said, to the "mighty engine of profit." That doesn't seem too hard to swallow. The same thing happened with the British, French and Spanish back in their heyday.
If capitalism drives war, maybe it's just one small step to imply that those who work for "The Man" are guilty by association.
Most people I know who have asked themselves this question don't want to answer it, so they get up and fix themselves something to eat. I guess Churchill was hoping to preempt the snack attack by tossing the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Unfortunately, that use of hyperbolic rhetoric tainted the credibility of his entire argument and of anyone defending him.
Granted, Churchill is entitled to his opinion, and others are entitled to debate him; that's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. But should he be fired from his job?
If Churchill wasn't fired for his views, what about DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek? He was suspended without a university hearing after he debated against students who believed Israel is Nazi-like toward the Palestinians. Many believe Klocek was fired for not fitting into the cookie-cutter mold of what a liberal is "supposed to believe."
Why does it seem as though left-wing radicals are more entitled to their opinion than those on the right -or even in the middle?
A lot of radical opinions are more emotional than they are intelligent. It's easy to get emotional about things such as tyranny and war, but those who argue about it in public must understand the role they play in the big picture. When they let emotion drive their arguments, they're accidentally using one of the techniques Hitler used to rally support behind the Third Reich.
It is possible to engage the public's humanity without appealing to its emotions. Liberals hate to admit it, but President Bush does that all the time. We need to follow Bush's example and bring our political discussion back down to the level we can talk about at the dinner table, not the level that's liable to start a drunken bar brawl.
DePaul school newspaper responds on Klocek controversy
Okay, this is from last week, but I have some catching up to do now that I'm back from California. The DePaulia, in this article, discusses free speech, or more accurately in my opinion, the lack of free speech at DePaul University in Chicago.
It looks like things are starting to stir up at DePaul, according to The DePaulia.
Many petitions are circulating around DePaul’s campus in an attempt to defend the right to free speech. Some students are not even aware of (Klocek's) suspension, but several who are have been getting quite riled up over the event.
Good. Very good.
Now, once again, as far as I know, the Chicago area media, outside of ABC 7 Chicago, WBBM Newsradio 78 (article not archived) and the Chicago Jewish News have completely ignored this story.
And the mainstream media seem stupefied why there are bloggers out there! Would this story have died without blogging?
It looks like things are starting to stir up at DePaul, according to The DePaulia.
Many petitions are circulating around DePaul’s campus in an attempt to defend the right to free speech. Some students are not even aware of (Klocek's) suspension, but several who are have been getting quite riled up over the event.
Good. Very good.
Now, once again, as far as I know, the Chicago area media, outside of ABC 7 Chicago, WBBM Newsradio 78 (article not archived) and the Chicago Jewish News have completely ignored this story.
And the mainstream media seem stupefied why there are bloggers out there! Would this story have died without blogging?
Back in town, more blogging to follow
Hello, got back into town very late late night. The best I could, I've been keeping an eye on DePaul and the Klocek case. San Diego is great family destination (Sea World, the Zoo, Wild Animal Park and more).
Had two epic runs during the trip. (Yes, I really do run marathons). The first from Silver Strand Beach State Park in Imperial Beach, CA south to the Tia Juana Estuary--about a mile north of the international border. That's as far as I dared to go, as there were four helicopters at all times in the air, and a white border patrol pickup truck was racing my way when I turned around. (The estuary, most of which traverses thru Mexico is polluted--another good reason NOT to run further south, as I would've had to have waded though three feet deep filthy water to go further south.)
I ran a total of 12 miles that day.
The second run was two days ago, a 10 miler on the Pacific Crest Trail--a path that begins (0r ends) at the Mexican border and finishes at the Canadian border. I encounter just two people on that run, a Swiss couple who has just started their hike along the entire trail, a 2,600 mile jouney; they expect to finish their quest in 5 or 6 months. Awesome.
Look for more stuff on the Klocek case soon.
Had two epic runs during the trip. (Yes, I really do run marathons). The first from Silver Strand Beach State Park in Imperial Beach, CA south to the Tia Juana Estuary--about a mile north of the international border. That's as far as I dared to go, as there were four helicopters at all times in the air, and a white border patrol pickup truck was racing my way when I turned around. (The estuary, most of which traverses thru Mexico is polluted--another good reason NOT to run further south, as I would've had to have waded though three feet deep filthy water to go further south.)
I ran a total of 12 miles that day.
The second run was two days ago, a 10 miler on the Pacific Crest Trail--a path that begins (0r ends) at the Mexican border and finishes at the Canadian border. I encounter just two people on that run, a Swiss couple who has just started their hike along the entire trail, a 2,600 mile jouney; they expect to finish their quest in 5 or 6 months. Awesome.
Look for more stuff on the Klocek case soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)