A trifle high-handed

State employees in Kentucky have been banned from reading blogs:

Political bloggers have joined pornographers, casinos and hate groups on the Fletcher administration's list of Web sites that state employees are blocked from visiting.

So have blogs and Web sites dealing with entertainment, auctions and humor, and sites that could transmit computer viruses.

Political blogs were among the categories added to the list yesterday. A blog is shorthand for Web log [haven't seen that little explanation in a while--ed.].

Now, most blog readers will agree with Kentucky in lumping "bloggers," as they're known, with pornographers, casinos, hate groups and, especially, auctions (though not humor). But banning political blogs altogether? What brought that on? The Louisville Courier-Journal has a possible answer:

One political blogger in Kentucky [BluegrassReport.org] said the timing is suspicious and charged the Fletcher administration has targeted his site because he is critical of the governor. On Tuesday, he ran excerpts of a New York Times story Tuesday about the state hiring investigation, which included quotes from him criticizing Fletcher.

Mark Nickolas, a Democratic blogger whose Web site is harshly critical of the Fletcher administration, said his site is important for state workers to read.

"It's phony to say a Web site like mine doesn't serve a legitimate purpose. People in government are developing policy and need to understand what's going on in the state, and they can help inform themselves of that by visiting my site," he said. "This shows the Fletcher administration's way of dealing with dissent is to censor it."

He also noted that access to sites of the political parties was not blocked. . . .

[State spokeswoman Jill Midkiff] said mainstream media sites were not blocked because they can provide state employees a broader range of news on issues that agencies may need.

Midkiff said the recent report from the state's consultant did not show state workers were visiting the sites of the Kentucky Republican and Democratic parties.

Charles Wells, executive director of the Kentucky Association of State Employees, said he did not believe state workers should visit political blogs on work time, but should be allowed to do so during breaks or lunch.

"And I don't understand why a state employee can go to the Republican Party Web site but not BluegrassReport" [they can go to the Democrats' site too] he said. "Drawing the line where they have has started another fight this administration didn't need to fight."

Here's the NYT story. Fletcher's in a heap 'a trouble.

Half-assed "research" noted

A quick and dirty look found three states' policies on employee internet use. Vermont doesn't prohibit its employees from reading blogs; neither does Virginia. And an executive order on internet use last year by Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne says nothing about blogs. The policies of all three states permit limited personal use of the internet on the employee's own time.

I thought the all-knowing and all-powerful source of state info, the National Conference of State Legislatures, would have more. But all I could find was a rundown of various legislatures' policies for their own employees, not for state employees in general. I also found a model policy on internet use that dates way back to 1997. Not good.

(via Romenesko.)

Update: Nicholas of BluegrassReport.org notes today that state employees can still access right-wing blogs. Whether he tried to pull up any leftie ones, including his own, he doesn't say.

Update II: The National Conference of State Legislatures has a blog!

Update III: Yes, I know that for Drunkablog readers the exclamation point in update II is utterly superfluous.

Worst. Powerfist. EVER.

Refuse and Resist is some variety of commie-anarchist site. I'd never heard of it before, but William Kunstler lent his threadbare name to its organizing committee way back in '87, so it must, I thought, be a good'un.

It's not bad. Refuse and Resist decries police brutality, holds an annual "Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers," links to the websites of Lynne Stewart and Cindy Sheehan (check out Ghandi looking down approvingly on Cindy et. al. Impeace Bush!), and laves Mumia. It also has an artists' section ("We Will Not Be Silent!") and a link dump to various articles of general leftoid interest.

So Refuse and Resist is right in there with the Z-Nets and Counterpunches and somewhat to the right of the totalitarian comedy stylings of MIM--and a perfectly decent target for mockery. But that idea went overboard when I noticed their "logo." Look on it and shudder:



The fist says Resist!: But don't we have to Refuse! first?

Beyond incompetent

This is without doubt the worst powerfist I've ever seen. It's an embarrassment to serious fist artists everywhere. Let's quickly go over its major flaws:

The fist (and I'm sorry to have to point out this disgusting fact) has legs.

Legs! I'm going to be sick.

That doesn't bother you? Okay, what's with the busted chain and noose around the fist's wrist or waist or whatever it is?

I can see a chain, but a noose? Not believable.

Why in God's name does the dead yellow lynched fist-with-legs thing appear to be doing The Bump, a "grinded groin" dance of the 1970s?

Refuse and Resist doesn't get a nickel out of me (and I was going to join at the $100-a-month level) until that fist is G-O-N gon, baby.

Update: Somebody should have told me Cindy had a new book out. Well, it doesn't matter. It actually came out April 1, so I'll be able to find it in the dumpster behind the ARC store by now.

Colodolo in the news!

Yes, it's Collorarardo in the news! Let's get-r-done:

Man shoves granddaughter at Elks (I mean, elks):

A California man has been jailed in Larimer County on charges that he shoved his 6-year-old granddaughter dangerously close to a herd of calving elk in Estes Park.

Harold Wellsted, 63, is also accused of hitting a 58-year-old Fort Collins woman who protested what he was doing and then knocking down her 82-year-old father, who had been using a walker, police said.

This guy was a piece of work:

Wellsted, who was wanted on a child abuse warrant out of California, has also been charged with assaulting an Estes Park officer in the booking room of the jail, said Estes Park Police Commander Wes Kufeld. . . .

Witnesses told police that a van pulled up and a woman, an older man and two young children got out. The family stepped over the fence and approached the elk, witnesses said.

"The grandfather . . . grabbed the 6-year-old child and pushed her toward the elk and told her to get up there so he could take a picture," Kufeld said.

One of the elk began rearing up and the child began to cry, Kufeld said. The witnesses began yelling at Wellsted. They said he approached one woman and hit her. Then he shoved her father to the ground, Kufeld said.

In wildly unrelated news, the Post notes that Denver had its best year ever for tourism. (Tourism Bureau motto: Do like Harold and bring the family!)

The Denver MSM are pissed off that Sheriff Mink of Jefferson County won't release videotapes made by the Columbine killers.

Two CU researchers have discovered why mothballs cause cancer. Scary quote:

Mothballs contain naphthalene, and some air fresheners have
para-dichlorobenzene or PDCB, both proven carcinogens.

Air fresheners cause cancer? The Drunkablog demands to know: what are air fresheners?

The Post editorialates: Quit giving money to bums, ya morons! It's a real problem; the bums (homeless! sorry!) are on almost every busy corner, holding their cardboard signs, smoking their rollies, and hanging out with their friends. The Drunkablog shall not quit giving them money, though; he doesn't believe in "10-year plans."

In disgusting pig news, the Rocky's "On the Town" columnist says Bill Clinton, in town Friday for, coincidentally, the groundbreaking of the Columbine Memorial, is a disgusting pig: Clinton eats two desserts (creme brulee and cheesecake). "'At the end of the night, he was headed to the bathroom' [no sh*t--ed.] [Strings restaurant owner] Cunningham said. 'He stopped by the big marble round table and said, 'Hey, are you guys having a good time? Isn't this a great restaurant?'"

Can't you just hear him saying that? And all the while he's holding in a big fat--never mind. Clinton also talked about Ethiopia and signed a menu that's "already at the framers."

Update: Yes, I added the "s" to "the framer(s)" so a stupid joke would work. Sue me (please don't sue me).

Lawyer confident Churchill would lose lawsuit

Scott Robinson, "a Denver trial lawyer specializing in personal injury and criminal defense" who writes an occasional column for the Rocky, says Ward Churchill will lose his (possible) lawsuit if he's fired by CU. Robinson concludes:

Churchill's attorney likens his client to Galileo. More apt comparisons are to erstwhile journalist Jayson Blair or disgraced young novelist Kaavya Viswanathan . . except for the fact that those two plagiarists owned up to what they did.

Not so Ward Churchill.

Will the committee findings be enough to insulate CU from legal liability for what could be viewed as a personnel disciplinary action undertaken in retaliation for Churchill's controversial public statements?

Probably so, even despite the ongoing demands for his dismissal by politicians, who appear heedless to the fact that they are providing valuable ammunition for Churchill to use in his upcoming legal battle.

Far more certain is this: After months of investigations, the costs of ridding the university of Ward Churchill are only going up

The whole piece is all over the place like that. Worse, Robinson doesn't say exactly why--for what concrete legal reasons--he's so sure CU would prevail in a court fight with Chutch. He doesn't, for example, address two worrisome points mentioned in this post--that CU conducted a confidential process in public, and that they went after Churchill because of speech they acknowledged was protected by the First Amendment. Do they need something akin to probable cause to investigate a professor's scholarship? Nobody has answered that--at least, not to this reporter's satisfaction.

Update: For some reason Iowahawk's classic "Chutch" TV script doesn't link to the equally classic Part Two: Chutch, Hawaiian Style! Rowwwrr!

Housesitting

Ventured into the mountains this weekend to help the Drunkawife secure her boss's mountain fastness from threats both foreign and domestic.


The Boss's mountain fastness.
This meant only one thing:


"The hills were alive" with the barks of Billy!
(Billy Bob, bottom center.)


We weren't isolated, either: Communications center at The Boss's mountain fastness.
The place has hummingbird feeders all over. We had to fill a couple of them. Fun fact! Despite their small size, hummingbirds are very noisy. They like to chatter and whistle all day long! All night too!


Bonus fun fact: Hummingbirds live on human blood.

We took care of the domestic animals too:

This is Misty, one of The Boss's dogs. She's an old sweetheart whose rotting teeth and pus-filled gums exude a mephitic miasma of death. Misty loves to be cuddled!

Update:

So the one acts all unconcerned while the other just sits there and stares. You could tell: they hated me.


Billy Bob: Stupid dog never goes anywhere without his frisbee.

Update II: Third link above should go to The Sound of Music, not The Hills Have Eyes. Fixed soon!

Update III: Sometimes Billy Bob tries a little too hard to dig out the grounders:

He doesn't go to his right very well, either, if you were thinking he could maybe fill that hole at shortstop.

Friends all over

That Ghanaian soccer player who waved an Israeli flag after his team's goals against the Czech Republic yesterday reminded me of the Pentacostalist parade that wandered by my house last year. They waved Israeli flags too. I e-mailed a link to that post to Melanie Phillips, saying something like, "bet you've never seen anything like this before!" and she e-mailed back, "Indeed." Melanie Phillips wrote that in an e-mail. To me.

"Indeed."

(via I forget where.)

Update: Natalie at B-BBC notes the "curious" way the BBC handled the story.

Update II: See, "curious" is in quotes because the Beeb's handling of the story ain't. Curious. At all.

Update III: Did I just say I sent an e-mail to Melanie Phillips that read, "Bet you've never seen anything like this before!" And that she replied, "Indeed"?

I'm so embarrassed.

Sat Eve Post 3-21-64

Knew it was going to be a music issue this week, but couldn't decide between the Beatles:


Cover story on the elevator-music specialists just after their first American tour. (Elvis Costello is said to have retorted Stipe-ward, "If it weren't for this elevator music, you'd still be taking the stairs." I have no idea what that means.)
And Dylan:


Like he's the pope or something: "A rare picture of Bob Dylan in seclusion."

Okay, it's the Beatles. Let's "meet" them. But first! This week's issue begins with next week's stories:


Can't wait for "Tart talk." But Kennedy for veep? Who cares! I want to know what scoundrel stole the the "Gary" from Francis Gary Powers. Not sure that "dark enigma" piece would go over so well in our present modern times of today, either.

A drug company ad:

And now he has Daddy's gun.

Couple of "interesting" letters to the editor. John Glenn's first run for the Senate inspires this effort: "I predict A-OK all the way to the White House for John Glenn.--Cecil W. Tisdell, Dougherty, Okla." (Actually if you scroll down to the "political life" section of Glenn's wiki you'll learn that he withdrew from the race after being attacked by a bathroom mirror. Who'd a'thunk?)

The other is a letter from the editor of The (London) Observer, David Astor, disputing the Post's claim that the newspaper hired Soviet spy Kim Philby even though "the highest executives of The Observer were made aware from the beginning that Philby was under suspicion, though nothing had been proved."

Astor replies that this is "the very reverse of the truth," and a 2006 Guardian timeline of The Observer has this to say:

1963 Kim Philby, widely accused of being the Third Man (the Soviet Spy who had let it be known that Donald Maclean was about to be exposed), was cleared by the British and American Government. He became the Observer's Middle East correspondent based in Beirut but was expelled and fled to Moscow. He had been the Third Man all along.

Were our faces red!

Next comes some happy talk:


Sigh.

Then the first of three (urp) articles on the Beatles, this one clumsily titled "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Music's gold bugs: The Beatles." Typical condescending early-Beatlemania bilge. Only the catty description of Brian Epstein as a "delicately mannered young man who once wanted to be a dress designer" stands out.

Then the man who warned America about the supposed dangers of subliminal advertising, Vance Packard, analyzes the Beatles' appeal. For the life of me I can't figure out what he's insinuating here:

The subconscious need that they fill most expertly is in taking adolescent girls clear out of this world. The youngsters in the darkened audiences can let go all inhibitions in a quite primitive sense when the Beatles cut loose. They can retreat from rationality and individuality. Mob pathology takes over, and they are momentarily freed of all civilization's restraints.

The Beatles have become peculiarly adept at giving girls this release.

Then a couple of pages of Lennon's, um, "Beatalic graphospasms":

Thorg hilly grove and burly ive,
Big daleys grass and tree
We clobber ever gallup
Deaf Ted, Danoota, and me.

Finally, the obligatory editorial, "Two cheers for the Beatles." It begins,

The Beatles have come and gone. Press-agentry has scored one of its greatest triumphs since the Ringling Brothers' Thomas Leef planted a midget on J.P. Morgan's knee.

Goodbye, midget.

Update: I've seen it a million times, but repeated searches failed to turn up the famous "midget in Morgan's lap" picture.

Update II: Special to Drunkablog regulars (if any): my friends, I used Wikipedia a lot in this post for historical background, so feel free not to click on anything that looks too, you know, difficult.

Ethnic studies chair to CU: Validate us

Albert Ramirez said the university needs to show support for ethnic studies:

The faculty of this department need to know that the leadership of the university considers both them and their discipline as legitimate and credible as any other department," said Albert Ramirez, ethnic studies department chairman. "It's an important message to hear.". . .

Ramirez laid out his feelings about the Churchill case and the problems in the department in a four-page letter, and he said he is meeting soon with administrators to discuss the letter.

"It is puzzling, in fact, that the university has not taken a more supportive role in regard to the department, since ethnic studies at CU has contributed significantly to the research and teaching mission of the university," Ramirez wrote, adding that the course and faculty ratings regularly exceed the school average.

In fact, the Churchill report explicitly voices support for the department and brands the Churchill mess an isolated incident, almost certainly to forestall complaints like Ramirez's:

"We have taken pains in this report to explain that the findings (of academic misconduct) apply only to professor Churchill and should not be casually generalized to the others in his department or field of study," the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct wrote. "We recommend that the chancellor consider means to ensure that the reputation of other faculty and staff in the department of ethnic studies is restored and maintained appropriately."

Ramirez just wants CU's "more supportive role" to take a particular form:

He has asked to fill the position of Churchill's wife, Natsu Taylor Saito, who recently resigned, and wants to make sure he can fill Churchill's job if he is fired. Ramirez said he isn't sure why the administration did not respond to the racist calls and e-mails the department received in the spring of 2005.

So he wants an assurance that CU isn't going to try to phase out the department through attrition. Oh, and those "racist calls and e-mails" CU administration didn't respond to?

Malmsbury confirmed that the ethnic studies department received racist e-mails and that administrators met to discuss the situation, but she did not address what was done in response to the e-mails or whether there would be a statement of support for the department.

What happened to the "calls?" And hasn't everybody on Earth received at least one racist e-mail by now? That gambit has completely lost its ability to outrage anybody except ethnic studies types and media wowsers. Toughen up, chaps and chapettes! You're revolutionaries!

Ramirez . . . said that the department is vital in the face of immigration controversy and other national issues.

"We help create for society voices that are now invisible," he said. "For a lot of society, that is kind of threatening and kind of controversial."

See? Revolutionaries.

Update: Pirate Ballerina links to a statement from Boulder Faculty Assembly Chair Jerry Hausen, who pours on the PC just the way Ramirez likes it:

Part of the fallout from this case has been public questioning of the validity of disciplines that focus on the historical and contemporary accomplishments of and questions of social justice concerning women, peoples of color and other groups that often have been consigned to the political, economic and legal margins of our society. Studying the contributions of marginalized, often underrepresented and, during some periods of American history, unrepresented citizens plays an important role in a broad-based education. Such courses invite students to consider the complexity of struggles to be treated with fairness and justice and to think critically about the vestiges of these struggles that persist in today's society. Courses that examine these parts of the American experience and provide opportunities to reflect on their causes and cures have significant value for helping our students become positive contributors to the continuing American dream of a society based on amity and hope. We call on the Board of Regents of the University to reaffirm its support for these disciplines.

Will the regents knuckle under to this? The suspense is freakin' awful.

Better-late-than-never update: Hi, PJM readers! Hang around and check out the Drunkablog main page. You'll be ashamed you did!

Yee! Also haw! It's the Colorado (news) Roundup!

Smile when I say that, pard.

Reaction to the Ward Report at the RMN blog is the usual semi-literate back-and-forth among the cognescenti, so just one summatory quote:

Ward Churchill is the fungating tip of a deeper cancer destroying Universities across the US.

Fungating. Describes the Drunkablog perfectly. (And notice how the D-blog upped his own vocabularity--"cognescenti," "summatory"-- to honor this fine word?)

Letter to the Editor: Where have hippies, their idealism gone? Maybe to Aspen for the summer. And you'll probably find lots of 'em at the Rainbow Gathering next month.

Sleeper

house sells after four years on the market. According to the News, "The price . . . paid wasn't disclosed, but those familiar with the deal said it sold for less than the asking price of $4.85 million, which already was less than half the original asking price of $10 million."

Here's the house:

Can you figure it out? Who wouldn't want to spend $10 million on a "clam-shaped" concrete house overlooking I-70? Woody Allen made a movie there, for Chrissakes!

Denver officials warn that they've, uh, misplaced 150,000 voter records.

Oops, found (most of) 'em!

An unusual manner of death: Sculptor killed by creation for DIA. That mustang was after him, man.

Finally, in local perv news, two (!) stories: High school teacher tries to hire teen for fight; and Colorado court: 15-year-olds [maybe even 12-year-olds] can marry under common law.

Update: Story updated.

Update II: RMN: Marriage ruling a "real shocker."

Let's have a go at some Circus Boys!

The Circus Boys in Dixie Land: or, Winning the Plaudits of the Sunny South, that is!

Strangely, given its title, Circus Boys in Dixie Land (1912) contains neither jot nor tittle of Southern flavor--no dialect, no happy "darkies," no Kentucky Colonels, no Southern belles, nothing. The author, E.P. Darlington, must have been tired the afternoon he wrote it.

So a couple of quotes that have nothing to do with the South. They seem to be about Teddy, one of the Circus Boys. First quote from Chapter I, "Under Canvas Again":

I've been thinking of an idea, Mr. Sparling," said Teddy by way of changing the subject.

Phil glanced at him apprehensively, for Teddy's ideas often had consequences of a serious nature.

"Along the usual line young man?"

"Well, no."

"What is your idea?"

"I've been thinking that I should like to sign up as a dwarf for the rest of the season and sit on the concert platform in the menagerie tent. It wouldn't interfere with my other performance," said Teddy in apparent seriousness.

Mr. Sparling leaned back, laughing heartily.

"Why, you are not a dwarf."

"No-o-o. But I might be."

Against all evidence, Teddy thinks he's a dwarf!

Another quote, from chapter XX, "Disaster Befalls the Fat Lady":

The result was that Teddy sat down suddenly. Fat Marie sat down on him, and Teddy's yell might have been heard a long distance away. Those on the tail end of the circus train saw the collapse, then lost sight of the couple as the train rolled around a bend in the road.

Down the bank slid the Fat Woman, using Tucker as a toboggan, with the boy yelling lustily. Faster and faster did they slide.

No links on the soft-core, pervs. And why is she called "Fat Lady" in the chapter title and "Fat Woman" in the text, hmmm? There's a dissertation in there.

Update: Just noticed that you can submit a quiz on Circus Boys stuff at the Literature Network site. Here's a start (answers in parentheses):

1. Are the Circus Boys gay? (yes)

2. Is there anything wrong with that? (no)

That's all I could come up with.

Update II: Couldn't find a bio for Edgar E.P. Darlington, just the cryptic notation that his name was a "pseud for Grank Gee Patchin," which I find hard to believe.

Update III: Dr. Phil's got a head like an anvil, doesn't he?

Update IV: Yes, "Grank" Gee Patchin is a typo. Not mine. Still no bio, but Darlington/Patchin did write the Pony Rider Boys series as well.

Same old, same old: Churchill publishes full response

Via Try-Works:

On February 2, 2005, Colorado Governor Bill Owens called for me to be fired because of statements I made about U.S. foreign policy that were clearly protected by the First Amendment. It would have been illegal to do so then, and it is just as illegal today.

More than 16 months ago Governor Owens informed then-CU President Betsy Hoffman that his office would "work closely with her and the Board of Regents to terminate" me. A few weeks later President Hoffman expressed her fears of a "new McCarthyism" to the Boulder faculty, and a few days later she resigned. Apparently this message was not lost on the remaining CU administrators.

The fact that CU has spent over a year and a great deal of money conducting a sham investigation of "research misconduct" does not convert an otherwise illegal action into a legitimate one. In its determination to fire me, the University has continuously violated its own rules, the Regents' laws on academic freedom, and the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection. As today's press release illustrates, CU administrators have conducted a "trial by media," not a confidential personnel investigation. Today's report is but the latest step in this process.

After encouraging malicious and frivolous allegations to be made, Interim Chancellor DiStefano, as complainant, submitted the resulting media stories as if they were his own allegations of research misconduct. These were then investigated by a committee which, over my objections, was dominated by CU insiders. That committee's report has now been rubber stamped by the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM), and SCRM's approval will proceed back up the internal hierarchy to Interim Chancellor DiStefano for his approval.

Anyone who bothers to read the investigative committee's unnecessarily long and obfuscatory report will see that the committee both deviated from and far exceeded its mandate to served as an unbiased, non-adversarial, fact-finding body. Instead, it functioned as prosecutor, jury and judge. Despite the availability of outside experts in my field, no one on the committee had expertise in American Indian Studies and the committee included no American Indians.

The investigative committee artificially constricted the time and manner of my responses and then disregarded the evidence I was able to present. It did not measure my work against the accepted practices of my discipline; instead it invented and applied a secret set of standards. Even so, it was unable to provide the required evidence that I violated relevant norms and, in the end, resorted to recommending harsh sanctions because I did not have the "right attitude."

This process has not demonstrated that I engaged in any serious research misconduct but that, after more than a year of painstaking review, those charged with firing me could find nothing more than a few footnotes and questions of attribution to quibble over. University of Colorado administrators have simply confirmed that they will shamelessly cater to political pressure, discarding the most basic principles of academic freedom in their attempt to silence me and discredit my work.

Ward Churchill

Boulder, Colorado

June 13, 2006

Update: In the same post, "John Moredock" on Try-Works' exclusive: "Amazing how we seem to keep scooping, like, everybody, ain't it?"

Yes, yes it is. But maybe a better word is interesting.

Update II: Can't seem to find the quote, but hasn't Ward made a disdainful remark or two about Try-Works in the past? So really, why did he give them this? Could it be that the spoiled, vain and foul-mouthed juveniles over there are the only friends he has left? Good luck, Ward.

Update III: The Rocky's updated story quotes Churchill's attorney David Lane rather than the man himself. The Post has already (1:00 a.m. MDT) dropped its short, linkless story from the front page.

Update IV: The Rocky finally has Churchill's response, and the story is back up with more detail on the Post's front page. After outlining the next steps in the process, the Post's Arthur Kane notes:

With all [the] steps [still needed to fire Churchill], it may seem that the Churchill investigation could stretch for years, but CU spokesman Barrie Hartman said sees [sic] an end to the year-and-a-half-long process, at least for the school.

"There is not only a light at the end of the tunnel but a big light," he added. "We should be done in three or four weeks."

Not including the lawsuit, of course.

Doddering cretin wonders

Do you think the new Superman movie will update his image so that now he fights for "truth, social justice, and the American Way"?

Update: Question 2: Doesn't anybody understand that this blog is a cry for help?

The Churchill Report: Interesting facts and figures

Now that I've actually read (some of, sort of) the committee's report, I can start criticizing it! This, from the Executive Summary, is funny:

With regard to corrective actions, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct is recommending that publishers of the articles, chapters, and books in which falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism were found be informed of the Investigative committee report. Although there may be no opportunity to publish errata or corrections in most cases, the Standing Committtee hopes that the publishers takes [sic] appropriate steps to respond to the Investigative Committee’s findings.

Yeah, that'll happen.

From the section "The role of context and motivation," a bit of CYA (it's elaborated later in the report):

In the Churchill case, the SCRM shares the concerns expressed by the Investigative Committee regarding the timing and context in which the allegations against Professor Churchill were raised. However, at each step of the process, the SCRM was careful to restrict its review to the allegations of research misconduct, without consideration of issues that have received widespread attention by others interested in Professor Churchill’s work. In particular, the SCRM’s deliberations were devoid of any discussions of Professor Churchill’s “9/11 essay,” or of issues of academic freedom or free speech in general. Rather, our work was specifically and narrowly focused on the finding of the Investigative Committee with regard to research misconduct.

I just don't know if that'll work. Probably? (The Drunkablog is nothing if not decisive.) More:

The SCRM strongly disagrees with critics of the Investigative Committee report who have suggested that Professor Churchill’s violations were isolated, mundane, or trivial. To the contrary we conclude that the violations are extreme examples of research misconduct, particularly in this area of study. . . .

Ever'body say d'oh!

The SCRM also was persuaded that making unfounded accusations and fabricating support for them, as, for example, that the US Army intentionally collected smallpox-infected blankets from an Army infirmary to spread the disease to native populations, is serious by any standard. It not only distorts an already tragic history but creates a social harm by spreading misinformation under the guise of scholarly research, injures the very cause being promoted, and casts doubt on other scholarship in the area.

In a feeble vote of confidence, however, they add,

We firmly believe that the process should raise no concerns for faculty whose scholarly work complies with accepted standards of research integrity.

Goodbye, Ethnic Studies. (Yeah, sure.)

Update: The committee subscribes to the Lone Gunman theory:

Impact. We discussed under the heading of "Seriousness" the impact of research misconduct on scholarly research in general. It is obvious to even a casual observer that this investigation has attracted considerable national attention. Some members of the public seem to have concluded that Professor Churchill's behavior is symptomatic of the academy at large; indeed, Professor Churchill's own comments may have bolstered this belief. As the Investigating Committee noted, these doubts and accusations have particularly challenged other, legitimate scholars in the fields of ethnic and Indian studies. As a committee charged with encouraging the highest ethical standars of research, we regret--and condemn as inaccurate and misleading--this erosion of public trust. We wish to remind all parties that this investigation had to do with one individual, and that his conduct should not be generalized to others. We consider the harm that his behavior has done to his field and to the academy more generally to be an aggravating factor in our determination of an appropriate sanction.

Update II: A significant omission:

In accordance with our rules, we explicitly inquired into potential biases or conflicts of interest, a process that included Professor Churchill's input regarding potential members of the committee--

not to mention the highly unwelcome but much more effective input of a certain scurvy-livered dog who uncovered the "potential bias" of two committee members and forced their resignations. Whew. The outcome could have been completely different, y'all.

CU committee recommends Churchill firing

The University of Colorado's Committee on Research Misconduct has recommended that Ward Churchill be thrown on the ash heap of history.

Six committee members recommended firing, two recommended a two-year suspension, and one recommended a five-year suspension. According to the RMN:

The recommendation from the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct will now be sent to interim provost Susan Avery and Todd Gleeson, dean of the college of arts and sciences.

Avery and Gleeson then will make separate recommendations to interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano, who will have the final say on whether Churchill should be fired.

An exact timeline for that decision has not been determined, but could come within weeks

Well, well, well.

Update: A response from Churchill in the Denver Post:

"Baloney. That's my one-word-response," he said. "The basic situation here is there was a call . . . for my termination clear back last February, whether or not it was legal. They're willing to take the heat and go to court if necessary and stand behind an illegitimate investigation."

Shockingly, I think Churchill's right, if only about the school's willingness to (finally) bite the bullet and give him the old heave-ho. After, of course, the lawsuit.

Update II: Funny line in the Post story: "Since [the "little Eichmanns" essay, Churchill's] case has been cited by conservatives as an example of how universities have overstocked their faculties with leftists."

Update III: This was via Hugh Hewitt, by the way. I vaguely heard him say something about it being a bad week for somebody (I didn't hear who, but I can guess) what with the Rove non-indictment, Bush in Iraq, and now (Hewitt said) "the University of Colorado." The Drunkablog went "uh-oh," and sprang into inaction.

Update IV: Here's the committee's report (pdf via the RMN).

Cowtown no more

I kept telling you bumpkins how hip Denver is, but you wouldn't believe me. Now you have to:

The world's most famous baby just made a Denver retailer the world's most famous baby clothes store.

Belly, an upscale boutique in Cherry Creek, supplied the tiny dove-gray T-shirt worn by Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt on the cover of this week's People magazine.

Since the magazine featuring Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and baby Shiloh hit newsstands Thursday, the store has been deluged with Internet and telephone orders.

The Drunkablog bought two tiny dove-gray T-shirts! And he doesn't even have kids! Anymore!
Update: One bowl of Brangelina every morning (w/skim milk) provides as much roughage as six bowls of Total. (Oops, I mean fiber.)

Update II: That is one weird headline: "Local boutique LANDS Brangelina's baby"?

Old style

Jim Romenesko's subtly named sorta-blog "Romenesko," which covers (mostly) old-style media, is indispensable to journalists and bloggers alike. It provides hard info, of course, but reading it is sometimes like listening in as the "professionals" tell stories about the glamorous world of newsgathering.

Romenesko's linking shows his concerns: articles on ethical issues ("'The practice of source confidentiality needs an overhaul'"; "Where should editors put the Duke lacrosse 'rape' story?"); journalism awards and citations (what is it with journalists and awards, anyway?); "interesting" interviews with newsies in the news ("Friedman doesn't worry about running out of column ideas," to which the only appropriate response can be thank God); and even the occasional nugget of condescension to bloggers ("Blogosphere is slowly establishing journalistic legitimacy").

But the site has always bugged me. Part of it is its bias, of course (which way are they biased, o putrid-livered one? Duh.), part of it is its stodgy earnestness (of a piece with its bias), and part of it is its aforementioned condescension to bloggers.

What really bugs me, though, is Romenesko's apparent compulsion to link to stories about how predictions of the demise of newspapers are so, so greatly exaggerated. It's as if he thinks it's his duty to bolster the morale of reporters, editors, owners and stockholders with the "good news" about newspapers.

The other day I searched the site using the phrase "newspapers not dying," and came up with (among others) "Newspaper industry hardly dying, says McClatchey CEO"--"Last year, the world celebrated the 400th birthday of the newspaper. Those of us in the business also recognized it as the 399th anniversary of the first prediction of our demise. Speaking as someone whose company is writing a $6.5 billion check to triple its newspaper holdings, I beg to differ." McClatchey, of course, is buying Knight-Ridder and (surprise) immediately selling off a number of its papers, so the CEO certainly doesn't have an ulterior motive for saying that. Then there was "Oft-told tale of newspapers' waning influence is wrong"; and, just a touch hysterically, "To say newspapers are dying is just crazy." Crazy, I tells ya!

It's not that Romenesko ignores the bad news--he doesn't, as that last link shows. It's just that the assumption with him is always that the decline of newspapers is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think so. The Drunkablog is a recovering five-papers-a-day man--of course, this was only during the time he was alcoholically inclined and unemployed--and now he doesn't subscribe to even the local papers, and hasn't for several years (he hasn't drunk for several years now either, but that's neither here nor there). It's a little sad, but newspapers are just too slow.

Abu's not here

The Rocky Mountain News' Rockytalk blog asked readers if it was appropriate for the paper to run the picture everybody's seen of a very dead Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi on its front page:



Most of the commenters were rational, more or less, and supported the decision to run the picture, so I won't bother with them. Here, though, are a few of the crazier reactions:

From "in market for evil dictator nuggets":

I think they should put the head in famaldahyde [sic] and sell it on e-bay. . . . And it would be a great conversation piece while entertaining. Would be cool if the eyes could twitch and a neck vein could pulsate.

From "Boulderite":

This is disgraceful. The Geneva Convention prohibits the display of dead or captured enemy combatants. The US should pay compensation to the people of Iraq and to his family immediately.

From "alcoholic":

If they put it on a stick and parade it through the streets of Denver, it would be a new excuse to drink [my man!--ed.].

From "Man of Truth":

Gee, this is about the 4th time that they have supposedly killed him. U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

And my favorite:

That sure looks like Tommy Chong passed out somewhere. Posted by Cheech on June 10, 2006 07:31 PM.

Duck!

In response to reader demands, here's another duck. It's a Spanish duck. Not a very good picture, but obviously that's never stopped me before:



The D-a-W thinks he (?) is just the cutest thing. She particularly enjoins us to note how he (?) is seductively wiggling his little butt-fan. It reminds her of me, she says. That's why, she says, she calls me "Duck-butt."

Where's George?

Going through my wallet just now to throw away the smaller bills (the Drunkablog does not deign to use $1's, $5's or $10's) I found a bill with this curious notation stamped on it:


"Track This Bill. www.wheresgeorge.com."

Basically an automaton that does what it's told, the Drunkablog duly went to wheresgeorge.com and entered the bill's serial number to see where it had been.

The wheresgeorge site has been around since 1998, supported, as the Washington Post explained in 2002, "by advertising, sales of T-shirts and other memorabilia, and by users who pay a fee for extra features." The Post continues:

If you haven't seen one of these bills, it's no surprise. There's about $600 billion worth of U.S. paper money circulating worldwide, according to the Treasury Department. In contrast, only about $101 million has been stamped "wheresgeorge." The bill with the most "hits" has been registered 13 times. But more than a million registered users seem to be obsessed with it.

Users compete for a "George Score," which takes into account how many bills they've entered and how many "hits" their bills get. Most high-ranking players have entered about 60,000 bills apiece. (One has entered more than 124,000 bills.)

The single bill the Drunkablog entered has traveled a total of 17 miles in 18 days. Pathetic. Boring, too. I mean, who cares? As the Post wisely pointed out,

[S]ome people wonder if sitting at a computer typing in dozens of serial numbers isn't kind of, well, dopey. Fans say you have to be intrigued by the thrill of seeing where money goes. Says hard-core Georger Tom Walsh, of Georgia: "You either get it, or you don't."

The Drunkablog don't, and now, neither do you.

Sat Eve Post 3-23-68

Damn those mailing labels: The Boston what?
Straight to the Speaking Out column: "Our Military Reserves Are No Good," by Lawrence Dietz:

A couple of weeks ago I sat, stupefied, through a TV rerun of the movie Buck Privates, a 1941 Abbott and Costello slapstick comedy. It occurred to me as I watched it that, with a change in costumes, Buck Privates would serve very nicely as a serious documentary about today's military reserves.

Googling "Lawrence Dietz" I found this story from 2005 quoting a "Retired U.S. Army Reserve Col. Lawrence Dietz." Almost has to be him, doesn't it?

Sixties humor.

Then a long piece on the results of a poll of an Indiana county that had voted for the winning presidential ticket almost every time since 1896:

Y-M-C-A!: Early Village People.

Despite their record, the county was wrong in this poll too, picking Johnson as the winner against Nixon--one week before Johnson withdrew from the race. Fun quote: "[Ronald Reagan's] TV image as a Good American impresses individuals who see in him a reflection of their own views. Janet Williams, the barmaid who hates hippies, thinks Reagan is worth giving a chance. I like the things he has to say about this country.'"

Speaking of hippies

Never heard of any of the artists mentioned in this story, but here's a little about William Satty and (if this is the same guy) Wes Wilson.

"San Francisco Rock is the Acapulco gold of rock 'n' roll. San Francisco posters, the Nouveau Frisco style and its offshoots, are the vanguard of the poster art."

A single quote from the profile (touting the release of The Boston Strangler) of Tony Curtis:

"I was constantly buying off everybody," Curtis explains. "My mother would come to the Paramount set and I'd say, 'Ma, how much do you want to leave me alone today? Thirty dollars, a new dress, or what?' I didn't trust people. I was literally afraid of people and animals, especially dogs."

One more ad:


Look into my eyes: He foresaw blogging! Except for getting the "making money" part slightly wrong!
And finally, an editorial that mentions a historical incident--and a quote about it--fondly remembered by 60s types: "Victory by destruction":

Ben Tre, a relatively peaceful town of 50,000 inhabitants in the Mekong River Delta, was entered by Communist guerrillas last month as part of the Viet Cong's winter offensive agains the cities of South Vietnam. To expel the guerrillas, American planes and artillery promptly blasted Ben Tre with high explosives and napalm. One American officer explained this, according to the Associated Press, by saying, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

Don't forget the eternally exploding suicide vest

Iowahawk guest commenter Abu Masab Al-Zarqawi says Heaven isn't all that great.

(via Tim Blair)

Colorado briefs

Sam "Sam'l" Arnold, authentic character and owner of The Fort restaurant in Morrison, died today. He did lots of interesting things over his (almost) 80 years, including teaching Julia Child how to open a bottle of champagne with a tomahawk (let's try that again), a feat she subsequently performed on the Tonight Show. Here's the Rocky's obit; here's the Post's inexplicably measly item.

There are a record 30,000 houses on the market in Denver, more foreclosures than almost anywhere, and no bottom in sight: "Selling a home? Good luck." Real estate magnate Drunkablog asks: You can't be imprisoned for debt anymore, right?

Remarkable: Since 1999 the Denver Zoo has reduced its yearly water consumption 75 percent, from 300 to 75 million gallons, and slashed its annual water bill from $154,000 that year to $38,000 in 2005. How'd they do it? Ask the flamingos.

Mega-jerks: Vandals defaced 1000-year-old Fremont Indian petroglyphs in the McInnis National Conservation area in southwestern Colorado. Note that the "federal land managers" don't even know when it happened, exactly; petroglyph panels are often so isolated they don't get visitors for days or even weeks, so the vandals are long gone by the time their depredations are discovered. It's been a problem for decades, and some panels along the Green River just 50 miles west have been hit as hard as anywhere.

Update: Here's a 1994 Westword review of The Fort.

Update II: Only through blogging could one learn, as I did this evening, that there's such a thing as performance underwear. What's next, multitasking pants?

Update III: Forgot this one: "Dog feces left at congresswoman's office." How dumb do you have to be to do something like that? How dumb do you have to be to get caught? (via, shamefully, Drudge)

Interesting fact or figure

I got this pathetic Hershey bar out of the refrigerator and brought it up to my (un-airconditioned attic) office less than 20 minutes ago. Even the almonds are melted. That's a succinct description of the weather in Denver right now: nut-melting.
Update: Sorry.

Update II: . . . and that's what it's all about--HEY'S!

Cursing called for

Bogger was down for many hours today. I gotta move. Unfortunately with technical stuff I'm like Thurber's grandma, who thought she could figure out the newfangled electric butter churn but finally yelled, "Would somebody take this goddamn thing away from me?!"

Update: Now I wish I had an interrobang.

Welcome back, Mary

Responding to a Page Six item about Morley Safer "dumping" on Dan Rather, Mary Mapes once again makes a fool of herself defending the National Guard document forgeries:

Page Six restates the conservative canard that our report "was found to be based on forged documents." That is just not true, no matter how many times Page Six or the Washington Times or some bitter conservative blogger repeats it. . . .

The Bush National Guard story is a fascinating and terribly under-covered topic, full of Texas-style intrigue, privilege and political skullduggery. . . .

They ["right wing bloggers, hate talk radio yackers, FOX News 'reporters,' conservative columnists, and those hollering people whose heads always appear in little boxes on cable discussion shows"] claimed that CBS used forged documents and they repeated that lie so often that it stuck. The mainstream media picked it up, repeating bloggers' criticisms without making any serious effort to investigate the story. But then that would have required real legwork, something that very few were willing to do on this subject.

As for document analysis, it is a mind-numbing and arcane discipline, an imperfect undertaking reserved for courtroom use, not for headlines or Internet political battles. Document analysis is certainly not meant to be done at 11 o'clock at night by someone with no training or experience sitting in front of a glowing computer nursing a grudge and spoiling for a fight. But that's precisely how the right's attack against Dan Rather and CBS News was launched.

That first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a Republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. Those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. His analysis was worthless. . . .

I don't believe we will know the truth about the memos until after the Bush team is out of office and people with information are no longer afraid to come forward. . . .

We missed you.

Update: Newsbusters is happy too.

Update II: This post should have included a link to Romenesko, where I found the story, but Bogger went down and is just now (5:24 MDT) back up. Here's the damn link.

Update III: LGF takes the opportunity to once again post the Throbbing Memo of Doom. Mmmmm, seizure-inducing.

Next train out

A letter in the Rocky today:

Specious attack

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is clearly the latest focus of a "swift boat"-style campaign. Each of us should be asking ourselves, "Who's next?"

The blatant participation of the Rocky Mountain News in this specious attack is just another reason I'm proud to have never paid a cent to read it.--Angie Burnham, Boulder.

Hmm. Angie loves Ward Churchill, and admits to stealing the Rocky. If Vince Carroll ever catches her she's dead meat. You can see it in his eyes.

Heil myself

Thinking it might be a swingin' movie like The Harrad Experiment, I watched The Goebbels Experiment the other night. Amazingly, it was even sexier!

Well, it was pretty interesting. Against rare and and stunningly preserved footage, almost none of which I'd seen before (and I'm practically David Irvingesque in my connoisseurship of Nazi film footage), Kenneth Branaugh reads excerpts from Goebbels' diaries with suspicious enthusiasm, tracing the rise and fall of the Third Reich through his oddly girlish writings.

No, I'm not suggesting Goebbels was a little light in the lederhosen. He wasn't, by all accounts, but I don't know how else to describe it. When he's happy you can practically see him jumping up and down and clapping his little hands with joy; when he's sad, you imagine him burying that pointy pockmarked face in a pillow to stifle his sobs. Branaugh is pretty good at bringing this out.

So the film footage itself is fascinating and Branaugh is as good as he usually is. The only bothersome thing was that the movie completely elided the fact that, even after Hitler took power, Gobbles was a class-struggling, purge-urging, capitalism-baiting socialist who described the coming workers' Utopia in the same way Dorothy described Oz (girlishly). Not to sound like John Ray or anything, but the Nazis were socialists--only for as long as they needed to be, it's true, but socialists nonetheless. Especially Gobbles. Here's a small hunk of a pamphlet he wrote in 1932 that lays out the Party's socialist plank:

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism....

A movie that professes to trace Gobbles' life shouldn't ignore a crucial aspect of it.

And again, just because I call him "Gobbles" doesn't mean I think he was homosexual, or that homosexuals have Nazi tendencies (as opposed to wanting merely to dress like them sometimes) or that there's anything at all wrong with being a homosexual. At all. It's just that, whether he was gay or straight, Gobbles gobbled Adolf Hitler--figuratively speaking, probably. And that's really bad.

Update: Here's the URL to Irving's website's movie section (no linking allowed): http://www.pzg.biz/films_nazi_propaganda.htm. Just don't buy anything. Who cares if the freak gets a couple of hits he wouldn't have otherwise?

Update II: The Drunkablog is still upset, however, that Irving is serving a three-year sentence in a Vienna jail just for exercising his right of free speech. Where's Mike Littwin when you need him?

Update III: One serving of Irving supplies 100 percent of your daily neo-nazi requirements.

Z-Net: Euston Manifesto "imperialist"

Somebody in comments the other day mentioned the Euston Manifesto. It's an unamazingly wishy-washy document, but still strong enough to rile up people like Joshua Frank at Z-Net, who says the manifesto "sounds imperialist to me." This, one supposes, means that The Nation contributing editor Marc Cooper and Dissent board member Paul Berman, among others, are imperialists for signing it.* Guess you gotta toe that line, even if it makes you look like an idiot. Cooper better not forget what happened to Christopher Hitchens if he wants to keep his Nation gig.

*And Norm Geras, the manifesto's main author and one of the nicest, most intelligent socialists on the internets! In fact, since Norm put the whole thing together, Frank would have to say he's the biggest imperialist of them all. That makes sense.

Update: This post was rewritten because it sucked. No facts were harmed in the process.

Giant throbbing brains to invade Aspen

The Aspen Institute's "Ideas Festival" is July 3-9.

The Post's Bill Husted reports:

So what's the big idea?

The Aspen Institute has a lot of them at the July 3-9 Ideas Festival - bringing together bold-name big thinkers to discuss the issues of the day. [Colorado Democratic Sen.] Ken Salazar is the only local boy on the roster. He had better start cramming.

Other participants include Madeleine Albright, Kurt Anderson, Bruce Babbitt, Atlantic editor James Bennett, Sen. Bob Bennett, William Bennett, Ben Bradlee, Sen. Susan Collins, former Disney boss Michael Eisner, Nora Ephron, National Endowment of the Arts chair Dana Gioia, Alan Greenspan, Arianna Huffington, Norman Lear, Rep. John Lewis, Amherst head Anthony Marx, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Queen Noor, Sandra Day O'Connor, Sydney Pollack, Sally Quinn, Cokie Roberts, Bob Schieffer, former Sen. Alan Simpson, Harvard prexy Lawrence Summers and actor Michael York.

What in hell are the two Bennetts doing there? Don't know about the senator, but Bill must still be paying off gambling debts. And in case you were wondering, the Drunkablog was invited, but had to decline because his transportation doesn't run in the summer.

Update: Just noticed that the Short Bus Warriors will soon be bringing their "Special Needs Tour" to a place of involuntary confinement near you.

Update II: Also just noticed that Husted refers to "Harvard prexy Lawrence Summers." Uh, Bill?

Non-drunken maundering

Lots of "666" posts out there, tomorrow being 06/06/06 and all. Even Tim Blair gives the date a mention. Readers if any will thus be fascinated by the fact that the Drunkablog's phone number ends in "666." This is why nobody ever calls him, he tells himself.

The Drunkablog has also been bothered by a recurring vision--Master Damien in his Buster Brown suit, peddling his little trike ashore at Normandy. That'd scare the sh*t out of the naaazies, wouldn't it?

Update: He still has the tricycle.

"Mamihlapinatapai"

Unlike many bloggers, the Drunkablog doesn't blather on about what books he's reading; it's a very personal thing to him, and perhaps a little embarrassing. But last night the D-a-W and I were all ready to watch a movie when we discovered that the remote was missing. We sat there for a moment looking at each other, comfortably ensconced as we were, waiting to see who would break first and get up to look for the damn thing.

This reminded me, naturally, of the word "mamihlapinatapai," which I had just run across in Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr Johnson's Dictionary. (Yes, yet another book about the pizza-faced fat boy with a thing for words.)

In his account of the methods Johnson used to write his definitions, author Henry Hitchings notes that "On the whole, the words it is hardest to define are common, everyday ones. According to the Guinness Book of Records [sic], the most succinct word and the hardest to define succinctly is 'mamihlapinatapai,' a term in the Fuegian language spoken in southern Argentina. It means, "Two people looking at each other without speaking; each hoping that the other will offer to do something which both parties desire but neither is willing to do.'"

I was going to mention this to the D-a-W, but by the time I found the remote I'd forgotten all about it.

(Credit: Lord of the Hissy Fit, et. al from The Wonderful World of Longmire (as seen on TV!). There are lots more funny covers there.)

Filler

Ran across a site that displays "V for Victory" stuff from World War II. It's run by idiots who won't allow links, so here: http://www.ww2homefront.com/vforvictory/v-for-victory.html. Lots of neato items, but they don't appear to have an example of one I found years ago at a garage sale:



A button. Note the dot-dot-dot-dash--"v" in Morse Code. The site doesn't point out an additional factoid: BBC broadcasts to occupied Europe began with the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth. Get it? Dot-dot-dot-daaaash. Cool.
Update: In order to "balance" my unhostile mention of the BBC, here's a link to B-BBC, currently discussing the false Iraq massacre story the new and not-improved BBC embarrassed themselves with this week.

Conventional wisdom

Any city that can lure the 1st International Tattoo Convention is a world-class city, my friend. This makes Denver a shoe-in for the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

Funny peculiar

Caz over at Avatar Briefs finds deranged comedy gold in a post on civility from (of all places) Club Chaos.

Family Guy

It's the January 30, 1965, Saturday Evening Post!
Can't seem to find the name of this Kleagle or Kludd or whatever he is in the article, but I wonder what the little lad thinks of this shot now?
This week's "Speakout" column gets things off to a rip-roaring start with "What's so terrible about germ warfare?" by Clifford F. Rassweiler ("Ph.D, Sc.D"). Rassweiler (Ph.D, Sc.D) begins:

We Americans put too much confidence in . . . the knowledge that by pressing a button we can destroy cities and even civilizations. We are victims of complacency. We have fallen far behind the Russians in the kind of warfare that many top military scientists predict will be the next step in the evolution of war--chemical and biological weapons. . . .

[T]there is the clear possibility that if we give this new kind of weapon the attention and support it deserves, we can make war more humane, even "benign."

Beeeeeooooo! Whoop whoop whoop! Tilt! Oh, the caption under Cliff's picture notes that besides being a Ph.D and Sc.D he had been "president of the American Chemical Society and the Industrial Research Institute" as well as "vice president of Johns-Manville Corp."

Next up is Eisenhower on what the Republican Party had to do to survive. This, of course, was a mere three months after LBJ's landslide victory against Barry Goldwater. Blurb: "Only by proving that it rejects 'reactionary, extremist and racist' ideology can the G.O.P. recover from its disastrous defeat in November." Good advice, Dwight! (Do you think he had a bowling shirt with "Dwight" written in scripty letters on the front?)

Then the cover story on the Klan. Representative quote:

The ignorant and frightened men and women who join the Klan claim to be uplifted by [its] savage doctrine. To them the Klan is a religion, a holy crusade. In North Carolina, a robed Klansman told reporters: "I feel nearer to God at a rally than at any other time. When I put on this robe it's a grand feeling. It's white--as pure as Jesus Christ."

I believe the Saturday Evening Post was biased against the Klan! Here's a good picture:


D'oh: no Ph.Ds or Sc.Ds in this bunch.
Next up is Joan Didion, and guess what? She's depressed! At least it's for good reason this time as she profiles Helen Gurley Brown, recent author of Sex and the Single Girl and Sex at the Office [rowwwwwwwrrrr--ed.]. Gurley Brown's audience, Didion notes genially, inhabits "a twilight world of the lonely, the subliterate, [and] the culturally deprived . . . whose last contact with the printed and bound word was Calories Don't Count."

This issue also has a profound example of how things never really change in a piece on the Museum of Modern Art. Sample quote, about an upcoming show:

Then there is The Responsive Eye, which the musuem has been working on for more than a year. Defining the criteria for acceptance, a museum staffer said, "If it makes you almost sick to your stomach, it's bound to get in."

Finally, the mandatory fake-doctor story. Whatever. Look, Life, and the Sat Eve Post were strangely fascinated by people who posed as what they weren't--almost as much as they were by quintuplets. (I thought Catch Me If You Can did a pretty good job of evoking that fascination, even though Lenny DiCaprio almost makes me sick to my stom--never mind.)

Update: There was a movie called Sex and the Single Girl as well. Here's a reviewer at Amazon:

Now get this one. In the early 1960s, Helen Gurley Brown wrote a decidedly controversial book on changing sexual mores among young American women. Hollywood bought the rights, threw out the entire book, and then tacked the title onto an extremely sexist little comedy.

(More old-timey magazine "fun" here, here, and here--look out, that last one isn't really work-safe).

NorthDenverTribuneWatch!

The NDT is really boring this week (!), but here's a decent Crime Beat item:

Berkley [sic--it's Berkeley] & Jefferson Park Neighborhoods:

The District is once again beginning to see an increase in Theft from Motor Vehicles in these areas. As we've mentioned in past articles, thieves are opportunists. Please understand that committing crime and taking advantage of innocent people is their job, their career and even their profession. . . . You may not think that leaving a gym bag filled with dirty clothes in your vehicle is appealing to anyone but to thieves it is. They do not know what's in that bag and to them, it could be money, electronics personal information or worse, they could actually like the smell of your sweaty gym clothes.

Recent college grads, be warned: As a job, a career or a profession--crime does not pay! (Even if you like the smell of other people's sweaty gym clothes.)

(Credit: Crime Does Not Pay #22 from The Greatest Comics of the 20th Century)

Story noted

A couple of bloggers (though I can't find them now) have noted yesterday's USA Today story about the strong religiosity of the Colorado Rockies and how it seems to be, um, working, in that the Rockies, miraculously, are somewhat less horrible than usual.

Ha! I shall repeat: Ha! Only the Drunkablog knows the secret behind the Rockies' ostentatious Christianity and their (temporarily) winning record. The Rockies (individually and corporately) use the cover of faith to conceal the truth: they have sold their souls to the sick, warped, child-molesting cult of a horned being so evil, so corrupt, so downright bad-smelling, that mere humans cannot look upon (or smell) him and remain sane: Dinger!

Update: The USA Today story (but not mine!) was disputed by some of the Rockies today. Once again: Ha!

Update II: Just noticed that Michelle Malkin posted approvingly on the story. She fell for it too. Ha-ha!

Could Churchill win in court?

Mark Wolf of the Rocky Mountain News' main blog (?), Rockytalk, posted last week on CU's legal costs for the Churchill investigation. Nothing new or even interesting, but it sparked some fascinating comments. Read the whole thread, but here's a "MisterN" on where things stand after the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct's report:

CU needs to get a handle on a number of legal problems before they take action against Churchill. Here are the top 4: (not an exhaustive list)

1) CU needs the authors to come forward and say their work was plagurized [sic]. Right now there are no authors willing to stand up and speak. That won't play well in court.

2) CU needs to get their procedural process in line, especially when it comes to the right to privacy in a personel matter. Trying to blame Churchill because he makes public responses to CU's public releases doesn't cut it. Churchill has the absolute right to speak out, and CU cannot. It IS a double standard, but it is a very legally binding double standard the CU needs to abide by. Procedural problems can flush the whole case down the toilet, even if they prove everything else.

3) CU needs to show exactly what standards have been violated. The committee's report spends too much time trying to prove that the committee knows everything, and that they alone can determine historical truth. They should have been quoting AHA standards and explaining how they applied to Ward Churchill's work.

4) CU needs to show that all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Churchill's Nazi quote. That is going to be a tough one. Especially when every single news story about Churchill starts off by reminding everyone that he compared 911 victims to a Nazi. It is very clear that none of this attention would exist without the Nazi quotes. Can CU prove that the inquiry would exist without the attention brought about by the Nazi quotes?

CU seriously needs to buckle down and get to work instead of just singing to the choir of Churchill-haters. Posted by MisterN on May 26, 2006 12:31 PM.

MisterN's points are seriously worrisome, ain't they? I can't seem to find it, but didn't some CU gink say the school could investigate an employee's scholarship basically for any or no reason at all? Mightn't a court think this somewhat high-handed, not to say untrue? Hell if I know.

A guy signing himself as "Laughing" (what's so funny, bub?) is more hopeful:

Some good points MisterN.

As for those coming forward to be interviewed about being plagiaried, I'd say they probably already have to an extent.

You can bet at the very least, they've been contacted by the committee, and they've probably all been advised by their own attorneys to keep mum until they've been either legally deposed by either side or they testify - which is a good thing at this point.

As for separating the "Nazi comments" from the core issue, I don't believe that's been a problem. Frankly, most people with a functioning brains stem admit that Churchill has a right to speak his opinion and that his 1st amendment rights have not been violated.

That's a hard point to swallow for these defenders and apologists who are desperately trying to link the core issues to "Free Speech" and who probaly still think Clinton was impeached and disbarred for "having sex"..

I agree with your points 2 and 3. However, knowing that a lawsuit is on the horizon, I'm sure that CU is getting their ducks in order - if they already haven't. The report is more or less a preliminary - which at this point is nothing more than a recap of their investigation. The nuts & bolts will come later. . . .

It will be interesting. Posted by Laughing on May 26, 2006 12:32 PM

MisterN replies:

Dear "laughing",

You are right, the committee already contacted the authors of the works Churchill is accused of having plagiarized. But they all refused to testify either in person or in writing. I'm not sure why that happened. If someone stole my work and I had a chance to get them fired, I would be on the next plane in an instant. These authors should have been the ones filing the complaints, not CU's administration.

You may be right that they lawyered up because they knew the committee results would be made public.

If that is true, then CU has an even bigger problem. This would be an example of procedural violation having a material impact upon the committee's work. The legal arguement would be that the authors didn't testify because the process wasn't kept private as the rules state it should have been. CU's procedural violation opens the door for Ward Churchill to claim the whole process was poisoned due to the violation, and that he didn't get a fair hearing.

Having witnesses not testify due to the threat of public exposure in what is supposed to be a private personel [sic] issue is a major problem for CU.

The reason for keeping the process private is to allow for both sides to present witnesses and evidence in a free and open mannor so the truth can be attained. The committee itself made reference to this when they decided they would keep their votes for punishments anoymous so they wouldn't be influenced by outside influences. The whole process should have been kept anonymous for the same reason.

This committee's report WAS CU's chance to get their ducks in a row. They need to get to work, and get creative on trying to fix this one.Posted by Mister N on May 26, 2006 12:33 PM.

In another comment the thoughtful MisterN revives the horrifying specter many Churchill-phobes had quit fearing long ago--a buyout:

[A] buyout is the only solution that makes sure there is no chance Ward Churchill never teaches another class at CU again. All other options (2-5 year suspensions, or going through a court fight over a dismissal) leave the chance that Ward Churchill will teach at CU again. Maybe as soon as next spring.

Benefits of a buyout:

1) The buyout will be the least expensive solution.

2) It can be implimented [sic]immediately.

3) No court cases.

4) Zero risk that Churchill teaches at CU again.

5) It pulls the media rug out from under Ward Churchill. He won't be able to attract media attention and use it as a plaftorm for his views anymore.

6) Ward Churchill doesn't get to continue to collect paychecks while the process drags on and on.

7) All the procedural mistakes CU has made in this process get swept under the rug. The only argument I've heard against it is that it doesn't "punish" Churchill enough. That doesn't balance out the benefits in my opinion. There is a time and place for idealism, and then it comes time to get the job done. A buyout gets the job done. Posted by MisterN on May 27, 2006 11:16 PM.

All speculation, of course, but does anyone still trust that in any given situation CU will take the moral rather than the expedient course?

Update: No.

Update II: Beautiful mutants wandering over from Pirate Ballerina! Any informed--oh, who am I kidding--uninformed (update: now I'll settle for insane) opinions about possible cracks in the Churchill case?

Update III: Thank you for supporting the Arts.

Update IV: Not a single comment yet (6:06 pm). Not even from Snapple, who's so Churchill-obsessed he posted a (lousy) takeoff called "Chutch at the Bat" in comments to a (dumb) post of mine on the National League West. I made a rookie mistake here (and I ain't no rookie): Never, ever ask people to comment. They will bury you--in silence.

Update V: The Drunkawife points out an appropriate song (via the National Institutes of Everything).

Update VI: Here are some children eerily chanting the words to Nobody Likes Me.

Update VII: JWPaine points out that hitting the link under "beautiful mutants" takes you to a forbidden page. It was just an ad for an exhibit of Mark Mothersbaugh's weird art. Here's an example that explains why I naturally made the connection with Mothersbaugh when I thought of Pirate Ballerina readers (yes, including me).