Bad dog. No biscuit. Go lie down by your bowl.

(i.e. “Your not drunk? Yes you are drunky…you have Wilbur credibility.”)

Its actually starting to become popular around campus. The other day I heard a freshman call another individual a Wilbur after he lied about sleeping with the kid’s girlfriend.

Its strange, but it makes since to me.

I attended and recorded the speech, which ran for just under an hour and a half, and was also able to get about 40 minutes of on-record interview. While Wilburs piece was a fairly straight-up reporting of what Churchill would probably most like to see remembered, in my mind there were many other quotes which shed far more light on his situation, his views and his politics. I certainly assumed that a man who is as highly critical of as many people and institutions as Dr Churchill is would have more to contribute to practical issues such as diversity plans and academic freedom, two issues with which he has significant first-hand experience. Unfortunately, (the honorary) Dr Churchill’s force of character is such that any question presented to him is reframed in his answer rather than directly adressed, creating a decidedly frustrating interview experience, made even more difficult by the presence of a number of young “true believers” surrounding us and interjecting into the interview. My overall impression was of a man who, having made a career out of brashness and confrontation now sees his multitude of enemies as stormtroopers of a monolithic system which cannot tolerate his dissent. A man who in the same speech can complain about not being able to live on a professors salary (over $90,000 per annum since 2003, according to this ) and without batting an eye call for the destruction of the state. Ward Churchill personifies the tragedy of resistance ideology, which makes for great rabble-rousing with its grandiose proclamations, but cannot offer a single word of advice for making the world a better place besides contributing to a fund to support jailed “ecoterrorists” and “tearing down the whole system, so as to live in harmony with nature.”

More on the confusions and contradictions of the martyr Ward Churchill in the upcoming issue.

In addition to being executed, he was also sentenced to become a go-to metaphor for lazy anti-capitalists.

Symposium organizers decided that canceling the professor’s keynote address was the best way to keep their event from straying onto the topic of the Churchill controversy.

Indeed. Yo: folks at the “proper” newspaper on campus - when you’re writing about a controversial speaker on campus, perhaps consider taking five minutes on Google to find out why he’s so fucking controversial. (Hint: the answer isn’t “Look! He said ‘Nazi!’) And if it’s not too much trouble, by the way, who paid for this fraud’s expenses?

Churchill made national news after Sept. 11 when he called some terrorist-attack victims “little Eichmanns,” a reference to Nazi chief Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for ordering the extermination of three million Jews during the Holocaust.

The point of the Eichmann comparison is not that he “ordered the extermination” of Jews, it was that he was the ultimate faceless bureaucrat. Eichmann is probably the most famous proponent of the “I was just following orders” defense. (For him, it didn’t work.) Churchill’s point was that the people in the World Trade Center were as complicit in evil as Eichmann was, whether they knew it or not. It’s nonsense, but it’s more subtle than just calling them Nazis.

“It’s nice being exposed to a perspective that most of the white people would never grasp,” he said, referring to Churchill’s Native American ethnicity.

To describe Ward Churchill in this way, with no disclaimers, in the year 2006 - frankly, it raises questions about the reporter’s credulity.

(This post has to do with Alex Deley, so if you’re a regular commenter who’s been waiting for a chance to deploy your latest spelling of the word “douche,” then it’s like Christmas in May for you.)

Oh shit, I forgot to comment on that article. I completely agree: another reporter should have done the story and the Emerald certainly should have mentioned that he was the reporter in question. I would say, however, that this was a failing of the editors rather than the reporter.

Actually, that reminds me of something, fan of Wilbur though I am. Consider this.

The editorial, which focused on the Student Senate, referenced a guest commentary Deley wrote that said an Emerald reporter was
a sensationalist. Deley said he wrote the commentary in response to coverage of the ASUO Executive.

Now, is Wilbur, as the author of this piece, not obliged to point out that he is also the Emerald reporter referenced within it? I’m just askin’.

(This post has to do with Alex Deley, so if you’re a regular commenter who’s been waiting for a chance to deploy your latest spelling of the word “douche,” then it’s like Christmas in May for you.)