Excerpted from the Student Press Law Center

Link--

------------------

Richard Berthold, a tenured University of New Mexico history professor, told a freshman class, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote."

The statement, which he later apologized for saying, upset students and caused state Rep. William Fuller, R-Albuquerque, to suggest that the university fire Berthold. Berthold said that any attempt to fire him would violate his freedom of speech.

"I was a jerk," he told The Santa Fe New Mexican. "But the First Amendment protects my right to be a jerk."

University President William Gordon also reprimanded Berthold for his remarks and is considering taking disciplinary action.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

Yes, the 1st Amendment protects his free speech but where does the Constitution grant him tenure?

What if one his freshman students had a relative killed in the Pentagon? What if one of the freshman students had walked up to him in class and spit in his smug face?

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 05, 2001.

What if someone took your keyboard away?

-- What (If@Questions.com), October 05, 2001.

We lost one in the Pentagon. This...this makes me want to...want to...find this professor's ass and whup it good.

-- helen (breal@from.the.norm), October 05, 2001.

Helen,

I am VERY, VERY sorry to hear that.

You have my condolences and prayers.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 05, 2001.

PS - And Helen?

Don't waste your time whuppin' on a stupid professor. You'll only make your hands sore and affect his empty head not at all.

People like this guy prove the proposition that those who can't work, sell cars; those who can't sell cars, sell mobile homes; and those who can't sell mobile homes become tenured college professors. :)

These folks are in a quandry right now, anyway, as explained in this excellent commentary from the ever-irascible Andrew Sullivan. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 05, 2001.

Stephen, thank you. I didn't know the one we lost personally. I knew of him before this through relatives we shared. The thing that hurts is watching my elder stand out in the yard, his back straight, his hands jammed in his pockets, trying not to cry. This elder is the male head of our branch of the family. Watching his grief makes me want to kick the living shit out of this professor. The lost one left behind small children too young to understand what happened, and a widow too young too.

-- helen's button has been punched...proceed to the nearest exit... (git@a.rope), October 05, 2001.

As a former car salesman I am not quite sure what to make of that remark.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 05, 2001.

Down to selling mobile homes are we Unk? Seems like your well on your way to your PhD.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 05, 2001.

Couldn’t hack it huh, Unk?

-- Jackie (the@joke.man), October 05, 2001.

Stephen--

Thanks for posting the Sullivan piece. Yes, the Left is between a rock and a hard place. They need to scope out a new rationale. Right now, their Anti-Americanism leaves them looking like allies of the Muslim reactionary terrorists. Better get your best minds working on it guys, no time to waste. Your credibility dwindles.

Oh, if we could just bring back the Communists!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 05, 2001.

Here is a worthy follow-up to Sullivan's article, A War on Many Fronts, Charles Krauthammer.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 05, 2001.

To quote another's handle, I'm "bemused and amazed" at how some of our conservatives view this terrorism threat. The testosterone seems to be running, but is anyone thinking about the cost of JUST TAKING DOWN the one terrorist, bin Laden?

Here's a start. Of course AFTER colluding with all these governments who have terrorists of their own, it's suggested that we THEN go in and go after the terrorists in the very same countries that we just paid to help us get bin Laden. Who do we pay to help us do THAT? Do we just keep bribing countries to help us get terrorists in other countries until we get to the last country and look at our empty wallets?

And what's with this fixation on Andrew Sullivan lately? Is he the ONLY one you folks read on this subject? Have you bothered to read the opinions of Chomsky or Hitchens? At least these two are dialoguing on this issue.

Here's a transcript of a chat with Chomsky and MSNBC. Here's an article by Hitchens attacking Chomsky.

Here's a reply to Hitchens' remarks by Chomsky.

Before September 11, I read comments by conservatives regarding cutting taxes, how they felt they were over-taxed, and how they didn't want money to be spent indiscriminately. NOW, it seems that there's no bottom to what they're willing to pay, just to kill ONE man, who, IMO, may or may NOT be responsible for September 11. [Personally, I agree with the Jane Report and Israeli Intelligence. Mughniyeh plotted September 11. Yeah, of course he has "a past" with bin Laden. Y'all have a "past" with ME and TB2k. Does that make you a liberal or make any of us survivalists?]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

Anita,

Those could very well be the most stupid analogies ever uttered. Do you think that Iman Mughniyeh and Osama bin Laden get together to play bridge?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 05, 2001.

J: Good to see you respond. No, I DON'T think they got together to play bridge, but [as I said in another thread somewhere], there's nary a terrorist in the ME who hasn't met or been trained by BL. Heh. It probably has something to do with the old "Birds of a feather" adage.

Since you're here, however, and since you feel you're overtaxed and all, are you REALLY willing to support this endeavor?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

Promised myself that if I added a Bookmark I'd dump one. andrewsullivan.com just got added and I ponder. Thanks Stephen.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 05, 2001.

After looking at my "birds of a feather" response, J, I thought about the relationship [for lack of a better word] that you and I share as folks who post on this forum. We get together on a pretty regular basis, wouldn't you agree? We certainly "interface" at least once/week. We weren't playing bridge, but have we ever really agreed on anything? Would either of us want to be known as "an associate" if Intelligence found one of us engaging in illegal acts?

I also thought about some folks I associated with 20 or more years ago. SOME of those folks MAY have associated with others who bombed things. This whole association thing is starting to boggle my mind.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

Anita,

This is not a simple "either-or," nor are we targeting "ONE individual:" we are targeting terror worldwide. The main reason why terror has been so effective in the past is because no one wanted to PAY the price required.

And some of the money that you (yes, correctly) point out has been given to these mongrels by the West in the past is -- drum roll, please -- the very appeasement that has now most signally been demonstrated a failure.

On the economy: comparing our desires for the economy in a *peacetime* situation to that in *wartime* is incorrect, too. Apples and cumquats. I might try to carefully budget everything in the household, but if an emergency arises, you do what you have to.

We are now in Emergency Mode. Bin Ladin, the Taliban, Iraq and Iran have demonstrated that they are willing to carry out attacks on masses of innocent civilians. Can you honestly see no qualitative difference in the situation now, as opposed to that before Sept 11?

If you're asking me specifically what I'm willing to accept, it's quite a bit, including the rationing of gasoline and other essentials, just as our grandparents did in WWII. War is war. You can't fight it halfway.

Finally, if we seem to be quoting Andrew Sullivan a lot lately, well, hey; I can't help it if he's making an inordinate amount of sense. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 06, 2001.

Finally, if we seem to be quoting Andrew Sullivan a lot lately, well, hey; I can't help it if he's making an inordinate amount of sense. :)

My belief, Stephen, is that you were already "conditioned" to believe his conclusions before you read his pieces. IMO, you're not "stretching out" enough to see what's beyond Fox News and Andrew. I WOULD, however, be interested in your comments on the Chomsky/Hitchens debate.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 06, 2001.

My apologies to Roland for getting so off-track on this University Professor thing.

Here's yet another way of looking at what our country is doing/has done.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 06, 2001.

Anita,

Please. I am no more "conditioned" than you are.

I have read Noam's stuff; what made you think that I hadn't? He makes some good points, but draws several terribly erroneous conclusions -- one of the biggest is comparing legitimate military operations with "terrorism." That's nothing but the same old "moral equivalence" garbage warmed over and given a new coat of gravy.

Plus, note that people like him continue to scream that we cannot indiscriminately kill civilians. Bush has given every appearance of AGREEING with this. We are going to use very carefully targeted strikes to go after the Taliban's means of power.

At the same time, Bush has ordered TONS of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. Interesting that Chomsky doesn't mention this ... probably because it would take away from his cherished perceptions.

I cannot recall when I have been more in agreement with one of our leaders. It's almost scary; Bush is doing this almost EXACTLY as I would. No, it IS scary. :)

Target the Taliban. Encourage its replacement with another regime. AT the same time, use psyops and humanitarian aid to win the hearts of the Afghan people. It's perfect.

Now: on that factory in Sudan. Anita, that factory was targeted by mistake. It's deplorable, and it's one of the reasons why I opposed Clinton's approach to this (push-button, remote control warfare). You need grunts on the ground in battle gear to do things right.

Besides, Chomsky *conveniently* ignores a few facts about that factory. First of all, we have been sending aid to the people of Sudan, too; the leaders have confiscated it. The LEADERS of that nation, and not our strike on that plant, are the REAL reason why the people there are unable to obtain the needed medical supplies. In fact, as soon we realized our mistake, Clinton TRIED to send medical supplies in; the leaders confiscated it and used it to get rich and to control their enemies.

It's not so much what people like Chomsky say; it's what they conveniently ignore and leave out.

Now: on the rest of it, a quick history lesson for you.

Anita, just prior to WWII, guess who was Germany's largest trading partner? Yep, FRANCE. Up to a few months prior to Pearl Harbor, we were still selling tons of steel and raw materials and oil to Japan; when theri ships sank ours, it's likely that some of them were built with American raw materials! And so on and so on ...

People like Chomsky point to this and draw the wrong conclusions. Again: YOU MUST differentiate between pre-war and wartime realities.

I could write a complete Web site *proving* that "we" (meaning the West) *created* Hitler, and Togo, and Mussolini, using the SAME TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Whether we actually did or not isn't the point (this is still being debated today, by the way[g]). Once they attacked us and proved that they were evil, we HAD NO CHOICE but to go after them. All you can do is learn from the mistakes of the past, but you cannot fail to act just because you, in part, may be responsible for those mistakes.

(Off topic, but a further ironic parallel: to this day, there are some people claiming that Roosevelt knew the Japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen. A marvelous sense of deju vu comes over me when I read some people here claiming the same of Bush and the WTC.)

(Both, of course, are just paranoid conspiracy theories that pick and choose evidence to "prove" a point. Just like Chomsky is doing overall.)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 06, 2001.

We are Sudanese if you please

We are Sudanese if you don't please

-- (osam@ sings.the oldies), October 06, 2001.

I'm going to try and address both of your posts, Stephen, without repeating everything you wrote. First of all, I don't understand what you mean by a simple "either-or". I DO understand that the administration is targeting terror worldwide, although the link I provided regarding costs reflected ONLY what's been offered RIGHT NOW to countries to bring down the ONE man, Osama bin Laden.

Regarding your comments on the economy and the desires of conservatives, I thought y'all were against all the "humanitarian", "peace-keeping" missions that came in previous years. Regarding your "war versus peace" comments, I don't think one can compare THIS "war" to anything we've seen previously. It's more like the "war on drugs" which consumes a LOT of taxpayer dollars, but is never mentioned much in the press. You won't be asked to fight in this war, and you won't be asked to ration your gasoline and sugar, so you can forget about comparisons to WWII.

Thank you for your opinions on Chomsky. I had to laugh when you said that one of his "terribly erroneous conclusions" was comparing legitimate military operations with terrorism. Haven't you done the same thing by comparing THIS "war" to anything we've seen before [like WWII?] I ALSO laughed when you said, "People like HIM continue to scream that we cannot indiscriminately kill civilians." Do YOU know people who scream that we CAN?

Regarding the "TONS of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people", I'm not convinced we knew anything about that at the time Chomsky wrote his piece. Also, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. We've probably gone over this many times before, but the US tosses food to a country, the corrupt leaders steal the food, and nothing changes except that the legitimate farmers/merchants trying to eke a meager living are forced out of business. You wouldn't accept this form of "welfare" in the US, and I don't understand why you can accept it in foreign countries. My guess is that as many "hearts will be won" as were won when similar events occurred in Somalia, or YOUR next example of Sudan.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 06, 2001.

Anita,

I am overtaxed, my feelings have nothing to do with it. : )

As far as supporting the endeavor, yes I am. Contrary to what you believe, this war may very well turn out to be like WWII in some ways. We may indeed have gasoline rationing before it is all over. I don't expect internment camps for people of Arab descent, but I believe that the border situation will change in this country. If we want to continue to live as free people, then it is the only real choice now.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 06, 2001.

EVERYONE should have the right to say what they believe (even JBT). I had professors that I totally disagreed with, I stated my case, and people were left to believe what they wanted. I still graduated summa cum laude and to those of you who would fire that professor - I say remember TB2K.

(The above is in no way supportive of his views, though.)

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

Wait a minute, while I'm at it...

I'd like to thank Unk for providing a forum where everyone can express their thoughts instead of a one-sided manipulated garbage pit.

Those of you who want to suppress ideas make me sick.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

Well, Laura, that professor has the right to say what he wants to say. And I have the right to a jury trial. With a jury, first offense, prolly misdeanor ass-whupping -- wanna bet I walk with suspended probation, tops? And then my dear friend Boswell will be waiting outside the courtroom to commit a misdeanor too.

-- helen (he@burned.to.death), October 06, 2001.

LOL, Laura is still bragging about graduating "some cum loud".

-- (nemesis@awol.com), October 06, 2001.

Sure, babe, that's pretty close, it all depends on the offense!

Ideas are different than actions. (Just like arguing with pollies was a WHOLE lot different than deleting them. [Do you catch my drift?])

Look, I hate arguing this side because I strongly dislike Muslims. However, I love the exchange of ideas in the classroom and out. So, I'm going to go have a smile and a Pepsi.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

It's not a brag, Lars. It's a fact.

Deal with it.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

Why did you call nemesis, Lars?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 06, 2001.

Because that's his alter ego.

I remember the first time he posted as nemesis, and our conversations beforehand.

My trolls are obvious.

They have been around forever!

(Ok, maybe not forever,...just the last 2 years.)

I have a LONG memory.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2001.

I am intrigued. What was it specifically that proved that nemesis was, in fact, Lars?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 06, 2001.

J,

Just one of her random paranoid fixations as usual.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 07, 2001.