Colorado Supreme Court rules against Ward Churchill in his bid to regain CU job
Steeeerike two! Since the D-blog missed the story by a mere 24 hours, he'll throw you to Mr. Pirate Ballerina, who has the interesting facts and figures as well as other stuffs both educational and amusing, like that Wart sold his Boulder house and moved to Atlanta a few weeks ago, a sign that even he knows he's not going to be teaching at CU (or likely anywhere else, for pay) again.
D-blog prediction: The U.S. Supreme Court has more important things to fuck up and will decline to hear Wart's case.
Anyway, as penance for being so late on this I waded through the comments at the AP story the Post lazily went with. Anti-Wart by a huge margin, but still, and as usual with newspaper comments, profoundly dumb (with a couple of exceptions I'll let you not look for).
But I noticed something odd. Look at how the Post notes those comments that have been edited by the commenters who make them. The Post will say, for example, "Last edited by _______ [the commenter], on Yesterday, 6:48 p.m., edited two times in total."
Besides the atrocious grammar, see how they count how many edits a commenter makes? Never seen that before. What's funny is, they don't do that for their own (or AP's, or anyone else's) stories. On those all they note is, for example (from the present story): "Posted: 09/10/2012 08:24:16 AM MDT September 10, 2012 5:41 PM GMT Updated: 09/10/2012 11:41:37 AM MDT"
"Updated," not "edited." And no hint on how many times it's been edi--updated. Strange.
But I depress. If this were a blog that, like some, encouraged the dipping of dangling anatomical parts into containers of artificially flavored, HFCS-sweetened trifle at moments of triumph, this CSC decision would warrant one of those itty-bitty kiddie-pac pudding thingies (those who have read Portnoy's Complaint no doubt will find a use for the bologna that's in the little sandwich as well).
Think I'll go back to bed.
Update: In Westwad, Chutch attorney David Lane opens up to his special bud Michael Roberts:
"I have very little faith in judges generally," Lane says. "I think judges, by and large, are appointed by the rich and powerful to protect the rich and powerful's interests in society. That's what their inclination is to do, and I think that's unfortunate."The man is truly insane. But he's realistic enough about his chances with the U.S. Supremes:
After all, Lane continues, "no one ever said Ward Churchill's First Amendment rights weren't violated.
"I don't have a lot of hope," he admits. "We should win, because the law should be on our side -- and I think it is on our side. So this is our last shot. But the statistical odds of the U.S. Supreme Court taking this case are pretty slim."Read whole thing for other nuggets and the overly circumspect statements of CU prez Bruce Benson and chancellor Phil DiStefano.