Home | Away

Department of corrections

Ward Churchill:

“It should be emphasized that I applied the ‘little Eichmanns’ characterization only to those described as ‘technicians.’ Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack.”

Ann Coulter:

John Hawkins:  You’ve caught a lot of heat for a couple of quotes you made. In your column three days after 9/11, you said, “We know who the homicidal maniacs are.They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” You also said in an interview with the New York Observer, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” Do you stand by those quotes or do you think that perhaps you should have phrased them differently?

Ann Coulter:  Ozzy Osbourne has his bats, and I have that darn “convert them to Christianity” quote. (Thank you for giving the full quote. I have the touch, don’t I?) Some may not like what I said, but I’m still waiting to hear a better suggestion.

RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, “after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.”

The symmetry is uncanny, I tell you.

Personally, I think it was brilliant of Time magazine to schedule their paean to Ann Coulter for the week of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.  It’s just a shame that Ann didn’t take the opportunity afforded by the occasion—to affirm, once more with feeling, that she has no regrets about McVeigh blowing up that nasty government building with its liberal-elite day care center, and that she continues to wish horrible fiery deaths on everyone in the Times building except the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by.

I can’t wait for Time‘s fawning cover story on Churchill!

Posted by on 04/20 at 02:09 PM

  1. "Who knew that Ward Churchill could do such marvellous splits?”

    “He’s dreamy!”

    Posted by norbizness  on  04/20  at  04:24 PM

  2. Another great Ward Churchillism is my sometime opponent CA Senator Bill Morrow’s contention that “a growing number” of college professors “run their classrooms as if managing little Abu Ghraibs.”

    Thankfully, the good senator is not celebrating Hitler’s birthday in quite the way he had anticipated. His cut-and-paste version of D. Ho’s Student Bill of Rights died in the CA Senate Education Committee this morning, with a vote of 5-2.

    Gloat, gloat.

    Now all professors need to do is fend off these bills in about fifteen more states, and attend to the widespread perception that leftwing professors should not be entitled to the same First Amendment protections as demagogic rightwing media whores.

    Posted by Graham Larkin  on  04/20  at  05:32 PM

  3. Judging by Coutler’s complaints about her picture on the cover, one can only be led to believe that she would have prefered to have had the cover mimic Sharon Stone’s most famous “uncrossing of her legs” pose. 

    Interesting that a TimeWarnerTurnerAOL group company chooses to put an author published under the Bertelesmann group on its cover.  Nice corporate profit sharing don’t you think?  Course the two companies, along with Sony, are the major funders of the endless suits against file sharing activities, mostly by university students.

    Posted by  on  04/20  at  07:05 PM

  4. So you see an equivalence between Churchill’s statements on why the 911 terrorists would consider WTC a military target and Coulter’s direct endorsement for mudering NYT reporters and editors?

    Nice, Michael.

    Also nice of you to elide Churchill’s direct statement that he did not think anyone at WTC “deserved to die.”

    Well, at least you left in the part of Coulter’s explanation that she only thinks the news workers should be killed.

    You’re certainly our “responsible left” embodied, aren’t you?

    Posted by  on  04/20  at  09:22 PM

  5. Geez, compare Lou Proyect to Pat Buchanan just once and everything you say gets read as neoshachtmanite redbaiting.  I don’t think WC is being brought up to establish an “equivalence,” Sesquikind, but to elegantly hammer home the hypocrisy of the Time piece.  The fact that Michael doesn’t like Churchill is in no way necessary to the entry’s effectiveness; the contrast between the media response to Churchill and to Coulter is.  Add a line or two and it could have been written by someone sympathetic to the Counterpuncher in question.

    Posted by  on  04/20  at  10:37 PM

  6. I was very publically “NO SALE” when Ward Churchill became a media star. I got quite a reputation for being a sourpuss 11 and 12 years ago, when some of the faculty and students at UVA were drooling about him.  Do I feel vindicated for being a sourpuss? This, too is vanity.

    Oh, and the Detroit Tigers have a decent team this year. Better than even shot to play .500 ball. Any thoughts on the Mets yet, Michael?

    Posted by David Ross McIrvine  on  04/20  at  10:57 PM

  7. Uh, Too Kind, you might consider taking a deep breath, counting to ten, and re-reading what Michael wrote.

    Posted by NTodd  on  04/20  at  11:16 PM

  8. As for “Churchill’s statements on why the 911 terrorists would consider WTC a military target”:  the “little Eichmanns” characterization, of course, goes well beyond that.  Sure, they didn’t “deserve to die,” those little Eichmanns, but according to Churchill, they were facilitating the Holocaust nonetheless.  Anyone who wants to defend that proposition is welcome to do so, but should not be surprised when I fail to sign up.

    In fact, most of Churchill’s recent defenders have walked away from that line, preferring instead to point out (quite rightly) that chickens do come home to roost.  But then, it all depends on which chickens we’re talking about:  after all, the people who struck the WTC on 9/11 were not the Vietnamese, or the wretched of East Timor, or Chileans or Guatemalans or Nicaraguans or Palestinians.  Nor were they (a hat tip to Chris Clarke here) the Lakota or the Cherokee.  Churchill mouthed off about those chickens, and those little Eichmanns, long before he had any idea whether the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by Palestinian statehood, the Trail of Tears, or the restoration of the Caliphate.  Now, three years later, Churchill is willing only to clarify those job descriptions (food service worker, firefighter, dairy producer, child) that do not entail little Eichmanndom.

    And yet the remarkable thing is that Ann Coulter’s remarks are even more vile.  Not only does she call (repeatedly) for the mass murder of New York Times journalists, she insists that there is nothing to regret about the Oklahoma City bombing.  And there she is on the cover of Time, all because she “epitomized the way politics was discussed last year” and “her side won, rather decisively.” (These quotes from John Cloud’s interview in the Columbia Journalism Review.) Thanks, Josh, David, and NTodd—I thought my post was fairly clear about this, but I’m always happy for backup.

    And yes, I am the responsible left embodied, as it happens.  Thanks for noticing!

    Posted by Michael  on  04/21  at  12:55 AM

  9. You all really should read the entirety of Churchill’s remarks, which is what they were, stream-of-consciousness, knee-jerk pen to paper in the immediate shock after 9-1-1 occurred - not some thoughtful essay over which he laboured and poured for weeks or months. His thoughts in no way say what the media, and even most Lefties, seem to think they say.

    I insist that his piece deserves a thoughtful read. Whether or not you agree with what he says (I certainly disagree with much of it) it should be taken in its entirety, in the context and with the understanding that this is a rant on paper, nothing more and nothing less. Churchill has said so himself. And unless you advocate abolishing entirely our remaining freedom of speech, his writings certainly deserve the consideration that any of Anal Coulter’s hysterical shriekings routinely get.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  02:44 AM

  10. Churchill’s rant (supposedly in its entirety) can be read here: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

    He makes some relevant points among his rants, which is more than many professors can be accused of.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  02:52 AM

  11. Would Time have put Coulter on the cover if she had wished McVeigh had gone to the Time-Life building? (I know they’ve moved to a new building, named after their new corporate ID.)

    Are the Time editors such fools as to believe that any fascist bomber’s list of things to do wouldn’t eventually get around to them?

    cjr.com has an interview with the Time writer. He’s even dumber than is apparent from his piece.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  04:58 AM

  12. Jan, thanks for the link—but if you click on Ward Churchill’s name at the top of this post, you’ll get to the full text of the document I’m citing.  I’ve read the entirety of both texts, of course ("Some People Push Back” and “Ward Churchill Responds"), and while Churchill makes a number of cogent, plausible remarks in both pieces, I don’t see any point in overlooking the fact that he doesn’t back off the “little Eichmanns” bit.  Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

    And the “stream of consciousness” argument won’t wash—not three and a half years later.  His original remarks may have been written in the “immediate shock” of the moment, but check the date on the text I’ve provided here:  January 31, 2005.  He’s had plenty of time to reflect, now.

    Finally, to criticize Churchill is not to “advocate abolishing entirely our remaining freedom of speech.” The First Amendment covers prior restraint of speech by the state; it does not (as so many young conservatives seem to believe these days) guarantee speakers freedom from criticism.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/21  at  07:21 AM

  13. I notice that Coulter, perhaps in an attempt to exempt Bill Safire from her righteous wrath, left columnists out of her worthy target list at NYT.  Which also exempts Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman.  Perhaps another revision is in order, this time also finding a way for Chalabi’s mouthpiece Judith Miller and power junkie Elizabeth Bumiller to be out of the building when the judgement hits.  I don’t know enough about the internal politics of the Neo-Torquemadians to know whether David Brooks and Tom Friedman are part of the elect or not.

    Posted by corndog  on  04/21  at  07:45 AM

  14. One would hope that Coulter would also spare the Times‘ John Tierney, who has done such useful “high-end” (cough, hack) work on Ann’s behalf.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/21  at  08:03 AM

  15. The First Amendment covers prior restraint of speech by the state; it does not (as so many young conservatives seem to believe these days) guarantee speakers freedom from criticism.

    Bingo!  I don’t know how Freedom of Speech morphed into Freedom To Say Whatever The Fuck I Want And How Dare You Question What I’m Saying You Evil Fascist Censor Help Help I’m Being Repressed, but it annoys me to no end.

    Posted by NTodd  on  04/21  at  08:16 AM

  16. Now that you mention it, surely Coulter could be moved to intercede for Adam Nagourney, who so movingly wrote of the “lines of care” etched in Jeb Bush’s face as his conscience wrestled with the Terry Schiavo case.

    There’s Biblical precedent, you know, for sparing a sinful tribe if seven righteous people can be found. Not that Coulter probably is much familiar with the Bible, other than the parts about stoning gay people and slaves obeying their masters.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  08:25 AM

  17. I can’t believe I forgot Nagourney.  You’re right, ktheintz, we’re coming up on seven righteous people here.  Jeez, who knew that the politics of blowing up buildings were so morally complex?  We’re going to have to ask Coulter for another clarification.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/21  at  09:01 AM

  18. Do self-righteous people count, or is it just the righteous?  And is the ‘eous’ superfluous?

    Posted by NTodd  on  04/21  at  09:22 AM

  19. What about the far-righteous?

    Posted by Jeremy Osner  on  04/21  at  09:37 AM

  20. NTodd:I don’t know how Freedom of Speech morphed into Freedom To Say Whatever The Fuck I Want And How Dare You Question What I’m Saying You Evil Fascist Censor Help Help I’m Being Repressed, but it annoys me to no end.

    Oh, man.  Thanks for articulating my very thoughts much better than I could.

    Posted by Platosearwax  on  04/21  at  11:04 AM

  21. Sure, they didn’t “deserve to die,” those little Eichmanns, but according to Churchill, they were facilitating the Holocaust nonetheless.  Anyone who wants to defend that proposition is welcome to do so, but should not be surprised when I fail to sign up.

    “(L)ittle Eichmanns” conjures for me the railway schedules from Shoah. The station masters didn’t man the death vans and the cyanide hole, didn’t even know there was a cyanide hole, but were undeniably part of the machine. Station masters efficiently managed the problem of routing priority cargo to obscure destinations, effectively extracted product from all over a continent at war.

    If I’m a camp survivor looking to settle scores it is not Reason that stops the prosecution of the guilty at Nuremburg or the Glass Cage.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  11:35 AM

  22. You all really should read the entirety of Churchill’s remarks, which is what they were, stream-of-consciousness, knee-jerk pen to paper in the immediate shock after 9-1-1 occurred

    ...which were then published in book form more than two years later.

    Sorry, we’ve got to do better than Churchill to win this thing.

    Posted by GForce  on  04/21  at  02:29 PM

  23. The lack of symmetry can be thus summarized: when liberal academic says something irresponsible and stupid, it is news.  When a conservative pundit says something irresponsible and stupid, it is “political commentary”.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  03:10 PM

  24. One thing that bugged me about Churchill was when he went on Bill Maher’s Real Time, and Maher brought in a guy whose brother worked in one of the towers in finances and qualified as a “little Eichmann”. Churchill didn’t back down from his statement, but often he couldn’t look the guy in the eye- he kept staring at the floor when he responded. Really bothered me.

    Posted by  on  04/21  at  10:05 PM

  25. "Thanks, Josh, David, and NTodd—I thought my post was fairly clear about this, but I’m always happy for backup.”

    The last time I said I’d be happy for backup, someone poured large amounts of white weasel grease down my drain. Looks like my plumber will get rich. and what a noble sacrifice by the Weasel!

    Posted by david ross mcirvine  on  04/22  at  01:35 AM

  26. So is there a Stream of Consciousness/Immediate Shock exemption for making inexcusable remarks, whereby those remarks are forever exempt from criticism?

    Careful, Jan. The paleocons will be happier than pigs in a sty using that one.

    Posted by mythago  on  04/23  at  01:54 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Brown's Birth, and Death

Previous entry: Ratzinger selected as new pope; promises to end "reign of tolerance"

<< Back to main