by Charles
While working on a longer and most likely controversial piece, several articles caught my attention in the margins, so here goes…
Since my last post on the subject, I’ve read little on the travails of Ward Churchill, figuring nothing really important will happen until the committee investigating his work concludes its task. But Matt Labash is one of my favorite writers, combining piercing perceptiveness with a wicked sense of humor, so I settled in. His latest doesn’t disappoint. In his own rendition of gonzo journalism, Labash spent four off and on days with Churchill while he was visiting the Bay Area, documenting the human comedy swirling around the beleaguered professor. Saving one of his best lines for the finale, Labash describes an encounter with Bay Area Indian activist:
I ask Neconie what his Indian name is. "Just Neconie," he responds. "It’s an old Kiowa name. I don’t have one like Standing Water, or Leaky Faucet, or anything like that." I ask him what he thinks of Churchill’s Indian name, which is "Keezjunnahbeh," meaning "kind-hearted man."
Neconie shrugs. He hadn’t heard of it. "But Bay Area Indians, we have our own name for him. We just call him Walking Eagle."
"Why?" I ask.
"Because," says Neconie, gathering up his placards, "a Walking Eagle is so full of s–that it can no longer fly.
Next. As reported in the Independent, new satellite imaging techniques will open a whole trove of new literary works from Greek and Roman times.
Oxford University scientists have employed infra-red technology to open up the hoard, known as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and with it the prospect that hundreds of lost Greek comedies, tragedies and epic poems will soon be revealed.
In the past four days alone, Oxford’s classicists have used it to make a series of astonishing discoveries, including writing by Sophocles, Euripides, Hesiod and other literary giants of the ancient world, lost for millennia. They even believe they are likely to find lost Christian gospels, the originals of which were written around the time of the earliest books of the New Testament.
The amount of material is astounding: "Running to 400,000 fragments, stored in 800 boxes at Oxford’s Sackler Library, it is the biggest hoard of classical manuscripts in the world."
Victor Davis Hanson brings up the failed prognostications of so-called foreign policy experts Brent Scowcroft, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in particular their collective wrongness that the "Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron."
By way of Publius Pundit, Arthur Edelstein has put together a tyrants gallery of dictators of unfree countries, as identified by Freedom House. Note that Putin has made the list. Publius Pundit is a busy website, keeping tabs on revolutionary activity worldwide, including the slow-motion communist revolution in Venezuela.
Combined posts by Pejman and the Volokh Conspiracy thoroughly shred Jeffrey Rosen’s faux conspiracy, the Constitution in Exile movement. When an article tries to pass Cass Sunstein off as a moderate, mental red lights should start flashing.
Finally, Zacarias Moussaoui plans to ‘fess up, pleading guilty for his role as 9/11 al Qaeda participant.
Bird Dog, we don’t expect original material from you, but reposting urban legends? The “walking eagle” joke has been around for some time. There’s no more reason to believe it’s true when applied to Ward Churchill than to believe it’s true when applied to George W. Bush.
i am utterly baffled by the right’s apparent fascination with Ward Churchill. he holds no power, represents nobody, is held in high esteem by nobody, is completely unknown and refelcts the values of nobody.
Victor Davis Hanson brings up the failed prognostications of so-called foreign policy experts Brent Scowcroft, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in particular their collective wrongness that the “Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.”
careful with those quotes, Eugene. only someone who bothered to follow the link is going to know you’re quoting Hanson, and not the people you’re calling wrong.
“Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.”
What is the Bush Doctrine? and if by any luck it involves Democracy, where has it worked?
Think of him as a cockroach in your kitchen. Disgusting and unsanitary; not all that damaging, but still in need of squashing.
Me, I’m utterly baffled by who cleek thinks “the right” is; Churchill doesn’t hold much fascination for me at all.
You know, I’m going to agree with cleek. Why bother? Hell, I’d say that getting in a lather about him has the exact wrong effect. The reaction when to a poseur like Churchill should be to snicker very briefly and then go on to important business.
Me, I’m utterly baffled by who cleek thinks “the right” is
in this case, obviously, The Right consists of those who remain turgid for Churchill – bloggers, columnists, radio people, etc.. you know, the people we all call The Right for dozens of other issues.
my 70 year old father-in-law is a big fan of Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and all the rest of the GOP AllStars – he’s able to whip out the talking points on-cue and talking with him is like a real-life blog comment section! anyway, out of the blue one day he started talking about “that nut” Ward Churchill and ___talking_point___, ___talking_point___, ___talking_point___ . at the same time, he says he doesn’t know who Ann Coulter is. so obviously, this Churchill nut is the new bête noire infâme of The Right and is getting lots and lots of attention from the GOP Team Captains.
so, maybe “The Right” doesn’t include every member all the time. sorry if you feel left out 🙁
🙂
“When and article tries to pass Cass Sunstein off as a moderate …”
O.K. Fair enough. But I’m curious, Charles, your sensitive bias meter must be able to tell us precisely the name of the individual who occupies of exact, moderate center of the political spectrum, that even-handed soul who had parsed reality and reports it precisely as it is … as you do, for example .. but you can’t use your own name.
No fair, either, using an average of, say, the Obsidian posters. It’s got to be one individual who has access to the absolute, objective truth, whom I can read each day.
This will be a real time-saver for me.
When an article tries to pass Cass Sunstein off as a moderate, mental red lights should start flashing
See Andrew Sullivan on this — one should distinguish between his politics and his constitutional interpretations.
“Combined posts by Pejman and the Volokh Conspiracy thoroughly shred Jeffrey Rosen’s faux conspiracy, the Constitution in Exile movement. When an article tries to pass Cass Sunstein off as a moderate, mental red lights should start flashing.”
Of course, when one of Volokh conspirators the even titles his own book Restoring the Lost Constitution, the protests over the lack of a Constitution in Exile movement ring very hollow.
Bird Dog, we don’t expect original material from you…
I know Charles invited us on the left to put our guard up by declaring his longer piece will likely be controversial, but this opening of yours is totally unfair, Jes. Charles has always researched his stories thoroughly and more than a few times been the very first blogger that I’ve seen write on a story. Let’s give a bit of credit where it’s due and discuss the individual stories (pointing out one particular story is old is fair obviously), but leave out the ad hominems, please.
But further on that point, Charles, if the longer piece is more controversial than this suite of vignettes, it must be a doozy.
Me, I’m utterly baffled by who cleek thinks “the right” is; Churchill doesn’t hold much fascination for me at all.
Consider yourself the exception to the rule. Almost every commentator associated with “The Right” has been bringing up Churchill for months. From Instapundit to my friend Neil to Limbaugh to Hannity to… well, you get the picture. Conservative philosophers might not be ruminating on Churchill’s fate, but the attack dogs and the guys in the trenches sure are harping on it.
It’s as accurate as saying that “The Left” gets worked up over voting fraud charges in Ohio.
O.K., let’s clear this up once and for all.
When the Right is referred to generically in a bad light by Cleek, or me, or whomever, Slart is not to feel he has been personally maligned. After all, Slart’s Thoreau-like musings on the unhappy fate of his fruit trees, for example, give rise to wonderfully ambiguous open-ended questions of the proper role of government, in which all comers are welcome.
Therefore, when I state that I hate Tom Delay, “Tom Delay” is not synomynous with Slartibartfast, who, after all, merely wants Tom Delay to return to squashing cockroaches, not to be confused with, umm, squashing cockroaches, which can be fascinating if done properly.
Now, let’s practice:
I hate Tom Delay.
Note: I personally reserve the privilege of confusing the statement “Hillary Care is the leading edge of Stalinism in America” with the accusation that John Thullen personally starved and murdered most of the people in the Ukraine.
But, that’s just me, sensitive liberal soul that I am.
but this opening of yours is totally unfair, Jes.
Is it? How many times has Bird Dog written original material for Obsidian Wings – that is, not simply written a column for RedState and reposted it here? My impression (which may be mistaken) is that more often than not, Bird Dog just recycles his columns for RedState on Obsidian Wings.
In any case, the Walking Eagle story? It’s not even an urban myth – it’s a shaggy dog story that has now evidently got transferred from George W. Bush (who had the punchline last) to Ward Churchill.
If it were just being told as a joke, this wouldn’t be so disturbing. But this is being presented as an actual informal interview with a Native American.
I’d be interested to know what Native American political activists actually think of Ward Churchill. But we’ll never find out so long as people feel free to put words in their mouths.
My impression (which may be mistaken) is that more often than not, Bird Dog just recycles his columns for RedState on Obsidian Wings.
I think we should expect to see more of that (I’m doing it…posting things I write here on another blog). There are pockets of audiences and only so many hours in a day. Because something is posted on two blogs, like a column that’s printed in more than one paper, doesn’t mean the material/views expressed are not original.
Edward: Because something is posted on two blogs, like a column that’s printed in more than one paper, doesn’t mean the material/views expressed are not original.
Not originally written for ObsidianWings, at least. Originally written for a very right-wing audience at RedState: then copied to Obsidian Wings.
Dantheman–right, they don’t think it’s in exile, they think it’s been cholorformed and locked in a closet by FDR & his syndicate of corrupt liberal activist judges. How dare Rosen suggest otherwise?!?
Charles means well & is himself honest, but really credulous–his default reaction is to believe anything he reads if it supports his views, and disbelieve it if not.
That’s not how I read your first comment though Jes. Given that this post is not on RedState (not sure if Charles plans to post it there), though, it seems beside the point.
MY point is that I would quit writing here if everything I posted was met first and foremost with a dig like that by folks on the other side (as would anyone, I suspect).
I want Charles to stay. He’s very good, ObWi needs him, and it’s fun to debate him. That’s why I do this…to debate folks…not berate them.
Argue as passionately with him as you like, but argue the points. He posted his name at the top…if you don’t like his contributions in general, you can skip them.
I know it might seem I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill here (your comment was more transition than critique, I realize), but it begins to change the tone overall after a while, and makes me like this place less.
I am a sorry excuse for a man:
Please, Please don’t Bir
A) I need to go to work.
B) The TV is on and this is the 2nd time in a row that “The View” has some hot young woman on as a guest panel member. Anna Kournikova yesterday, not sure today.
Is Ellen Degeneres totally kicking “TheView”‘s ass or what?
Oh dear, I’ve totally lost my regular guy credentials.
But at least I was in an Indian Princesses program that stood up to the YMCA when the Y said that the Indian Guides and Princesses programs had to be re-themed or disbanded. So I think I have as much “Native American” cred as Ward Churchill.
Oops, Please dont let Bird post anymore. It’s so scary having an actual attack dog biting our ankles from the trenches
I meant to say
“Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.”
Um, I hate to get all technical and stuff, but there isn’t a Western-style democracy in the Arab World. Not one. Iraq may – MAY, over time, if it manages to stabilize – become an Islamist democracy, an expression that many would’ve considered a laughable oxymoron a few years ago. No one knows what’s to come of Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan; neither revolution has actually finished yet, and I’d like to wait and see before writing off, for instance, the influence of those millions of Hezbollah supporters. Ukraine was never part of the Arab World, nor part of the Bush Doctrine. The closest thing to a Western-style democracy in the Arab World is Turkey, which isn’t really Western-style, isn’t really Arab, and is just getting the idea that it’s not okay for the military to run things.
We’ve seen a lot of very moving images of Iraqis voting and Lebanese protesting Syria, but at some point you should start asking (1) when the actual democracy happens here, and (2) how that democracy reduces terrorism. You can vote for terrorists, too.
Edward: but it begins to change the tone overall after a while, and makes me like this place less.
What a coincidence; that’s exactly how I feel about Bird Dog.
What a coincidence; that’s exactly how I feel about Bird Dog.
I give up…carry on…
As regards the Constitution In Exile dustup, Mark Schmitt has an interesting take. Just because there isn’t a formal organization doesn’t mean that the movement doesn’t exist.
How many times has Bird Dog written original material for Obsidian Wings – that is, not simply written a column for RedState and reposted it here? My impression (which may be mistaken) is that more often than not, Bird Dog just recycles his columns for RedState on Obsidian Wings.
Your “impression” is completely and utterly false, Jes. I don’t recycle posts. I write original material and hit two post buttons instead of one. It’s like complaining when Peter Beinart writes something in New Republic and the same piece appears in the Washington Post. It’s a silly charge. I don’t write columns for Redstate or for Obsidian Wings.
I’d be interested to know what Native American political activists actually think of Ward Churchill.
First, I didn’t know the Walking Eagle line had been used before. Doesn’t mean the activist didn’t say it. As for how Indian activists feel about Churchill, the American Indian Movement booted him out. That’s why Churchill founded Colorado AIM, which is completely unaffiliated with AIM.
I give up
Not Moe’s type of “give up” though, right Edward?
Not Moe’s type of “give up” though, right Edward?
no…just in this particular battle. Charles is able to defend himself.
I love snark as much as the next person (ask DaveC), but it’s better when it’s designed to encourage more dialog, rather than less, IMHO.
That time, I didn’t mistake myself for Tom Delay. No guarantees for future misconceptions, though.
Is there a specific complaint you have with this? I mean, if you had posting priveleges, would you put up something radically different from what you publish on your own livejournal?
Whew!
Sigh. This loon Churchill again.
It’s fortunate that living caricatures exist in order to confirm the inner dialog that many conservatives seem to have with the left. A living strawman, if you will. I think that explains the long fixation that some have with the character. It starts to resemble an obsession. Although I think that Charles is hanging on to him a bit longer than is fashionable. Plus, it’s intellectually lazy to pillory a fool when you could be actually debating issues.
The best left-wing/liberal take I’ve seen on the Churchill was in this post from the Apostropher:
Ward Churchill sucks and he’s ruining this blog.
I don’t really begrudge Righties their fascination with Churchill. He’s a flake and a poseur and a cartoon lefty–what’s not to like? I’m mildly fascinated by the Jukes and Kallikaks who write at places like Townhall.com for the same reasons. But I am a little surprised that the editors of The Weekly Standard think their readers are so fascinated by Churchill that they’re running pieces on him still. TNR or The American Prospect doesn’t devote a lot of space to Doug Giles.
Ward needs to strike while he’s hot. If I were his agent, I’d try to get him a job at FOX News.
If only this were part of the rule book, the volume of posting by both conservative and liberal commentors would be halved, easily.
Those on the left suck… but of course I don’t mean anyone here.
I just mean lefties.
Slarti: I mean, if you had posting priveleges, would you put up something radically different from what you publish on your own livejournal?
My livejournal is my own personal platform. Sebastian Holsclaw also frequently cross-posts between his own blog and here, and that too is making use of his own personal platform and this blog. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
If I had posting privileges here and (for example) Democratic Underground, I doubt very much if I would cross-post articles: what was seen as a mild argument at DU would very likely be seen as trollish and provocative here. As I note happens when Bird writes for RedState and then repeats it here.
If I had posting privileges here and (for example) Democratic Underground,
then Jes would use some DU thread as proof that she’s a “moderate”.
😉
his default reaction is to believe anything he reads if it supports his views, and disbelieve it if not.
Specious charge, Katherine. I agree with 80% of Tom DeLay’s views, yet I wrote that he should resign from leadership. There are more examples.
As I note happens when Bird writes for RedState and then repeats it here.
Get your facts straight, Jes. I write most of my posts here, then cut and paste them over to Redstate.
“MY point is that I would quit writing here if everything I posted was met first and foremost with a dig like that by folks on the other side (as would anyone, I suspect).”
Hmm.
“When the Right is referred to generically in a bad light by Cleek, or me, or whomever, Slart is not to feel he has been personally maligned.”
May I reccommend hilzoy’s Who, Exactly, Is This “Left” About Which I Hear Such Strange And Dreadful Things? and my Useful Distinctions on this topic?
One of the most important things about this site is that we try (try I say, we are only human) to keep generalizations about broad labels like ‘left’ and ‘right’ only to definitions that are useful and descriptive rather than mere dismissive labels to be thrown at people.
“Me, I’m utterly baffled by who cleek thinks “the right” is; Churchill doesn’t hold much fascination for me at all.”
I only seemed fascinated with him because I got his name mysteriously confused with Lawrence Summers.
Like Charles, I write for obsidianwings and then sometimes post on RedState or Watchblog (a practice which has earned me few friends over there, much less here).
Sebastian: but those of us you have earned hope to make it worth your while. Somehow.
Hmm.
Don’t let that tempt you Sebastian…I can check IP addresses and tell it was all coming from you ;-ppp
Since I don’t go to Redstate.com, I’m glad Bird’s and Sebastian’s stuff makes it over here.
On the one hand, I have to agree with Edward’s reproof of Jesurgislac. I probably disagree with Charles Bird’s posts as often as anybody, but the spirit of ObWi is to argue the issues, not attack the poster.
On the other hand, I have a gripe for Charles. If he would address this gripe, I would certainly start reading a lot more of his posts. (Note this is a general comment, not a complaint about the current post, which apppears to be merely a brain-dump of miscellany.)
When speaking to a diverse audience that may disagree with many of your own personal presuppositions, I believe there is a best practice to follow if you want to inform or persuade. If you can first understand the core values and factual beliefs of those who disagree with you, then you can make a coherent argument that those facts and values lead to the conclusion you would like to support. If your values are the same, than you can offer evidence that supports the facts which would lead to your conclusion. If your values differ, you can find the source of those values in deeper shared core values, and make an persuasive argument to re-examine those values which are not shared. If you come down to an agreement on the facts, but completely irreconcilable core values … well, at least you know where you stand more clearly than before. My belief is that we rarely get down to that point.
In order to begin this process, a writer needs to first try their best to understand the viewpoint of the intended audience, then use that understanding to help the audience understand the writer’s own viewpoint. Along the way, it may be necessary for the writer to carefully examine his or her own foundational worldview, to answer the questions and challenges made by those who don’t share that foundation.
Although I often disagree with Sebastian Holsclaw, Slart, & von (being more to the left myself), I always understand and respect their arguments. The same went for Moe Lane, when he was here. I’ve actually been impressed on several occasions with Sebastian’s attempts to find a common ground to base his arguments on, and convince those on the other side of the political fence.
In contrast, it feels more to me like Charles is just stating his opinion without making any attempt to understand those who disagree with his viewpoint. When challenged, he’ll respond to the personal attacks, but not engage with the more thoughtful critiques of his facts or reasoning. As a consequence, not only does he not challenge me the way that Sebastian, Slart, & von do, but I don’t really understand his foundational worldview. In a previous thread I spent quite a while asking questions, trying to clarify Charles’s argument. He responded to some of the questions, then disengaged before I felt I really understood his point. He didn’t really engage others who disagreed with him either. When I called him on that, he responded “I don’t agree with her on critical facts, and given that impasse, I see no point in going further.” My answer at the time was “In fact, I think it would be quite productive to lay out which critical facts you disagree with, and lay out your evidence. hilzoy has been excellent about providing documentation for her factual claims. Perhaps you could do the same? How is it even possible to have a discussion if we can’t establish which facts we agree and disagree on, and what our evidence is for believing those facts?”
Now, it’s entirely possible that I’m extra sensitive to this issue because I tend to disagree with Charles. Perhaps Edward is equally guilty of this flaw, and I’m just more oblivious to it because I agree with more of his asumptions. I’ll leave it to the conservative commenters to bring it up if they have that complaint. (I’d have a hard time believing it of hilzoy, because I know she lays out the support for her arguments with amazing thoroughness.)
Anyway, it all comes down to my belief that ObWi isn’t just a place for those of different political viewpoints to take turns grandstanding. It’s a place for those of different beliefs to actually listen to and learn from each other.
Slarti: If only this were part of the rule book, the volume of posting by both conservative and liberal commentors would be halved, easily.
You’re an optimist.
Paul: Ward Churchill sucks and he’s ruining this blog.
Bwah! It’s funny ’cause it’s true…
All right, moving onto one of the overlooked morsels (scraping controvesy off of my shoes). That’s exciting news about the ancient manuscripts! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ll probably be daydreaming for the rest of the evening about all that was lost and now found. As soon as I get my time machine working I’m headed striaght to the library in Alexandria (I hope I didn’t cause the fire).
Now carry on. Bird Dog sucks etc.
Mo: All right, moving onto one of the overlooked morsels (scraping controvesy off of my shoes). That’s exciting news about the ancient manuscripts! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ll probably be daydreaming for the rest of the evening about all that was lost and now found.
Well, yes. I’m daydreaming that maybe we’ll find some lost poems of Sappho, lost plays of Sophocles, lost books of Aristotle…
Oh yes, in my litany of complaint about Charles Bird’s general posting style, I neglected to say thanks for pointing out the article about the ancient manuscripts. That does sound like exciting news.
Tony: in my litany of complaint about Charles Bird’s general posting style, I neglected to say thanks for pointing out the article about the ancient manuscripts.
I’d have thanked him too… except that I’d already heard about it a day or two earlier. For some people I know, this is far more exciting news even than a new Pope.
Tony, I appreciate your comments (BTW, I did respond to Hilzoy eventually). I don’t comment as much as I used to (and in not as much length) because of time constraints, but I try to do what I can.
Yes, the ancient manuscripts thing is very fine news.
Thank you.
I look forward to all of them confirming what I already know to be true. ;);)) two winks, three smiles.
Charles, fair enough. I certainly understand time constraints. Perhaps, as a compromise, you could try to anticipate some of the questions or challenges your audience will have, and address them in your original post? That would save time on trying to individually respond to all the commenters in a thread.
I am excited by the news of these manuscripts also. Is anyone else surprised that this hasn’t gotten broader coverage? Why hasn’t it?
Bernard,
I don’t know. I had heard about it on NPR before Bird Dog ‘s post, but not elsewhere, before or since.
Fair enuf, Tony.