Semper Fi

  • usmcinsignianavalaviator

My Favorite Posts

« Bill Moyers, the Star Tribune, and Jesus | Main | Boxer on Rice »


Churchill's need to "clarify" was due not to a fault in his essay, but to its distortion by dishonest reporters (and bloggers). None of the smears against him that have appeared in the media and blogosphere stand up to scrutiny, but that does not slow down their repetition by participants in the witch hunt. We see Churchill ambushed by a TV crew, in between classes and death threats. The interviewer's insolent tone ("looks like you ripped it off") leads me to doubt his denial that the camera crew initiated the physical confontation. Given the context of what appears to be a well-orchestrated witch-hunt, my guess is that the crew entered the campus with the mission of assaulting Churchill and filming his response, much like police who assault people and then charge them with the crime they themselves have just committed.

As for the plagiarism charge, I believe Churchill's explanation that he had the original artist's explicit permission. It's a little difficult to settle the issue, given that the artist is no longer around; but the raising of such an obscure point when the overriding issue is Churchill's political activity suggests that someone put a lot of effort into digging up dirt and found damned little of any substance.

Roscoe, could you explain how AK Press' mission statement justifies your terming any author it publishes "a raving moon bat, a lightweight, and an academic fraud"?

Churchill is highly regarded by his students, academic colleagues, and by legions of progressives (including me) who value him as both scholar and leader. His tenure was well-deserved and well-earned, and is now serving precisely the purpose for which tenure is designed, namely, as a bulwark against political attack. Almost none of Churchill's attackers can even quote him accurately. This discussion is not really about anything Churchill has done wrong. Rather, it's about what he's done right. He's being targeted for clarifying our understanding of American oppression and the the stuggle against it, and for inspiring those engaged in that struggle and related ones around the world.

Here's an overview of the scandal:


Well, there is now a link to "The Revolutionary Worker" on my site. Isn't that special.

First off, whoever you are (yes, I know, you must remain anonoymous or the black helicopters will get you) your comment mostly addresses issues that weren't even mentioned in my post. For example, there is nothing in the post about Churchill's physical assault on a reporter (he deserved it too, I guess) and his plagerism of art work (he might claim he got the original author's permission, but I think the buyers had a right to know they were buying "derivative" (i.e. copied) art). As such, it appears that most of your post is boiler plate and that you are wandering the web inserting it word for word in response to posts involving Mr. Churchill. So please excuse me if I don't respond.

The one part of the comment addressed to involves my conclusion that Mr. Churchill is a raving moon bat, a lightweight, and an academic fraud. You ask me to justify how this conclusion stems from the fact that Churchill writes in places like "AK Press".

Well, it doesn't entirely. Certainly most (actually all) academics publish in peer reviewed journals, and so if Churchill's stuff tends to appear in publications organized around anarchist principles, you have to wonder what the tenure committe at UC was thinking. But read my original post again; the conclusion that Churchill is a moon bat and a fraud is drawn from a number of factors, such as the fact that he "invents" the history in his supposed scholarly articles, lied about being part Indian (he lied about his war service too) and for his public comments, including his crude assertion that the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attack deserved it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Funny Stuff

The Bear Flag League

Blog powered by Typepad