Ok, I agree with Reg that this essay of Churchill's has been wildly misinterpreted by frankly just about anybody even remotely right of center. He wasn't at all advocating terrorism in any sense of the word - true enough. But still, I have a couple of major league problems with it nevertheless.

To begin with, I see this essay as a symbol of much of what I see as being wrong with the left in general today. His metaphors, "little Eichmann's" as one example, was so over the top and in such poor taste that it did nothing whatsoever to convince anybody but the most hardcore democrat to embrace it. No, rather it only served to even further polarize (though I wouldn't have thought it was possible) the division between the left and right in this country. After all, wasn't it both the left and right's goal (and rightfully so) to convince and or entice fence sitters to their way of thinking in the recent election? Well if so, then Churchill's nasty little diatribe didn't even come close to that end. He was only preaching to an activist choir here and I have to ask myself just what purpose his extreme condesencion served? The only answer I can even come up with is that it drew attention to one man - himself. But the ramifications for those who he is paid to serve are nothing but negative IMO.

And that brings me to my second problem. And in answer to Big Al's question as to why I feel that Churchill should be fired, or at least have the dignity to resign his position if he wants to be a respectable activist, is that his essay did absolutely nothing productive for either his employer, The University of Colorado, or his students. It was not even close to a good example of professorial responsibility no matter how you slice it. It was purely his own personal opinion, a commentary, and a hateful one at that. It wasn't a well researched and corraborated theory let alone fact. At least it certainly isn't supported as such. I was trained in the sciences...I want proof or at a minimum a very convincing argument as to why I should support such a theory. Simply offending my sensibilities just won't cut it. Especially if I'm paying you large amounts of money to be educated by you. Churchill popped off like an adolescent teen after copping his first feel. It reeked of utter inmaturity IMO. It was so very much in the manner of a Moore or an O'Reilly or a Limbaugh, but at least those guys get paid to deal in speculation. What Churchill doesn't seem to realize however is that professor's don't.

It's a Rathergate II if you ask me.

Marc

Not that it would influence my own opinion, but apparently a large majority of other's feel the same way as I do. How do YOU feel about it? -> http://www.vote.com/vote/60339247/