Spitting great sheets of flame

Written by Ben on July 11th, 2009

Not exactly a surprise, but Public Enemies isn’t one of the most historically accurate movies ever made. From Massad Ayoob.

That said, the historical accuracies disappoint.  The film opens with Melvin Purvis chasing Pretty Boy Floyd through an apple orchard. Floyd shoots at him (one-handed at one point!) with a Thompson submachine gun, and Purvis then single-handedly kills him with one shot from a European bolt-action hunting rifle (admittedly correct for the period.) However, history shows that this happened many weeks after Dillinger was killed; Floyd was armed with a pair of Colt pistols, one of which was converted to full auto; it was a cornfield, not an orchard; and while Purvis did indeed empty his snub-nose .38 Colt Detective Special at the fleeing Pretty Boy, it is believed to have been a rifle in the hands of one of the many other lawmen firing at the fugitive that ended Floyd’s life.

On the bright side, however, it looks like Johnny Depp’s one of the good guys when it comes to guns. From Yahoo News, via The Firearm Blog.

Posted in Guns | No Responses »
Tags: ,

Quotable: José Saramago

Written by Ben on July 10th, 2009

An excerpt from The Double, via Laila Lalami.

saramago

What do you do when you’re not at school, Oh, I read, listen to music, occasionally visit a museum, And what about the cinema, No, I don’t go to the cinema much, I make do with what they show on TV, You could buy a few videos, start a collection, a video library if you like, You’re right, I could, except that I haven’t even got enough space for my books,Well, rent some videos then, that’s the best solution, Well, I do own a few videos, science documentaries, nature programmes, archaeology, anthropology, the arts in general, and I’m interested in astronomy too, that sort of thing, That’s all very well, but you need to distract yourself with stories that don’t take up too much space in your head, I mean, given, for example, that you’re interested in astronomy, you might well enjoy science fiction, adventures in outer space, star wars, special effects, As I see it, those socalled special effects are the real enemy of the imagination, that mysterious, enigmatic skill it took us human beings so much hard work to invent, Now you’re exaggerating, No, I’m not, the people who are exaggerating are the ones who want me to believe that in less than a second, with a click of the fingers, a spaceship can travel a hundred thousand million kilometres,You have to agree, though, that to create the effects you so despise also takes imagination, Yes, but it’s their imagination, not mine,

Posted in Books | No Responses »
Tags: ,

5 brilliant, innovative handgun designs that performed as they were supposed to, but sucked anyway

Written by Ben on July 10th, 2009

From Hell in a Handbasket.

My favorite? The LeMat Revolver.

lemat

LeMat’s genius was realizing that the cylinder that held the loaded rounds, ready to be fired, revolved around a pin or axle of some kind. Why not make that axle really, really big? So big that it could be fashioned out of a cut down 16 gauge shotgun barrel.

Posted in Guns | No Responses »

Here, there, nowhere

Written by Ben on July 9th, 2009

I’m leaving Colorado to spend a week or so drinking beer, setting turtle lines, and shooting the shit with family and friends.

I’d like to say I won’t be checking in at all, but we all know better. It will, however, be on a limited basis.

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »

In defense of Palin

Written by Ben on July 9th, 2009

I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. At all. But I have been following her political implosion a little bit, and something’s been gnawing at me about the way the media has gone after her. Something which Stanley Fish nailed.

It was generally agreed that because the statement was structurally chaotic, even formless, Palin had written it herself. No self-respecting political operative would have produced something so badly crafted. One would have thought that this would be seen as evidence of the absence of calculation, but instead it was received as evidence of her Alaska-limited understanding of politics. (Doesn’t she know, they asked, that resigning is no way to run for president?) Rather than reasoning from what they took to be the political ineptitude of her performance to the possibility that it wasn’t political, they just continued on their merry, muckraking way.

Posted in Miscellany | 1 Response »
Tags: ,

Hitler finds out Michael Jackson has died

Written by Ben on July 9th, 2009


Posted in Miscellany | 1 Response »
Tags: ,

Ward Churchill and the death of academic freedom

Written by Ben on July 9th, 2009

From Pravda.

In reality, such an outcome was predestined. Blaming American foreign policy for spawning acts of terrorism automatically made Churchill a pariah in the eyes of the legal system, just as Malcolm X’s “chickens coming home to roost” statement in the wake of the John F. Kennedy assassination made him an outcast during the early 1960s.

Update: DU’s law school blog, The Race to the Bottom, has three more posts about the decision.

Offering this explanation for Judge Naves’ strange and — in my opinion — incredibly unethical decision to allow the trial to proceed all the way through before ruling on the quasi-judicial immunity issue:

Could it be that Judge Naves was shielding his ruling on the remedy by holding off ruling on quasi-judicial immunity until the trial was over? Maybe he was actually being crafty. If he had ruled on a motion for summary judgment earlier and stopped the trial at that point, then that ruling would have been subject to immediate appeal. Had he then been reversed, the trial itself would start at a much later time, leaving everything in limbo and perhaps taking Naves out of case on remand. This way, he accomplished three things: (1) expedited resolution of the issues, arguably important for the public interest; (2) exercised his own judicial discretion (or perhaps activism) to render a remedy he thought just, even if he is reversed on the severable immunity issue and (3) kept himself in the case, rather than risk it going to some other judge on remand.

Which primarily explains in more detail why Judge Naves waited until after the trial to rule on the quasi-judicial immunity issue:

One of the questions that must come to a thinking person’s mind is why would Judge Naves allow such an extensive trial to happen only to nullify it on what is essentially a legal technicality? The answer is that CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke did not raise this defense until after the trial on the basis that the specific elements would have to be proven in a trial-like setting anyway. If the jury had ruled for CU, there would be no reason to have raised the defense; since the jury ruled for Churchill on the First Amendment claim, O’Rourke could raise it as a post-trial motion.

Which explains Pat O’Rourke’s cleverness in essentially losing the jury trial, but winning through the quasi-judicial immunity ruling:

CU lawyer Pat O’Rourke has often been maligned throughout this trial. He wasn’t as dramatic or amusing as David Lane; his closing arguments were boring; his witnesses were impeached so often court observers began to cringe when they testified. But the startling outcome of Judge Naves’ Order is the legal version of the Tortoise and the Hare, or more specifically—the story of the Clever Trap.

Sleazy, yep. Cheap, sure. Effective, absolutely.

Update II: Michael Roberts writes about CU’s attempt to pry out-of-pocket legal fees out of Ward Churchill in Westword:

Hard to believe that CU really expects to get dime one of this amount — and even if Churchill is ultimately forced to pay, the sum will probably be dwarfed by the legal costs incurred while trying to pry it out of him. So why bother? Well, Churchill has inflicted loads of lousy publicity on the institution for several years now — at least from CU’s perspective. And the bad PR continues on HBO, which is airing Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech, a documentary that makes the folks lobbying for Churchill’s ouster look downright McCarthyite. This is one way for CU to return the favor.

Petty, yep. Vindictive to the point of stupidity, sure. Just what we expect from CU, absolutely.

Update III: As CU winds up their spin machine, it’s worth remembering that they didn’t win this case. They got off for the same reason the occasional rapist, murderer or child molester gets off even though they’re guilty as hell and the evidence proves it: a sleazy lawyer and a technicality.

Update IV: The appeal’s on the way. From the Denver Post:

“We would be saying, this is flat-out wrong. He is extending quasi-judicial immunity someplace where it has never been before,” Lane said.

Update V: Anthropologist Max Forte weighs in:

When I say that the freedom of academics takes a serious blow, it is because Judge Larry Naves — incidentally, a man who allegedly got accepted into university with the assistance of the father of Condoleeza Rice (source) — has decided, in very contradictory terms, that university administrators both represent faculty, and, are like judges and therefore benefit from immunity from prosecution from faculty (not just vacating the jury’s verdict, but the whole trial). Simply put, they are free to fire, presumably on any grounds, at any time. This also effectively puts an end to anything meaningful about tenure.

Update VI: There’s an interesting post on the National Review’s site which, while noting the quasi-judicial immunity issue, takes far greater exception to the rest of Judge Naves’ ruling:

Even after vacating the jury’s verdict, the judge engages in what seems to be a superfluous discussion of Churchill’s request for reinstatement (after all, if the jury liability finding is vacated, there is no real basis for equitable relief). In this discussion, he misunderstands the role of nominal damages in constitutional cases, conflates damage awards with liability determinations, grants a staggering amount of discretion to university officials who terminate troublesome employees, and essentially uses Churchill’s protected speech as a pretext for justifying the university’s adverse actions. The message the judge sends to faculty is clear: Get along with your colleagues — or else.

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

Churchill ruling nowhere near the final resolution

Written by Ben on July 8th, 2009

Scott Robinson, legal analyst for the Denver Post, has an interesting piece in today’s paper clarifying the oddity of Naves’ decision that the CU regents are a quasi-judicial authority. Although his words are pretty measured, it’s clear that Robinson doesn’t think much of Naves’ ruling.

The ruling by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves that set aside the jury’s $1 verdict in ex-professor Ward Churchill’s civil rights wrongful-termination lawsuit sets the stage for the inevitable appeal, an appeal that presents complicated and difficult legal issues that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update: Kevin O’Brien, writing for the University of Denver’s legal blog, The Race to the Bottom, is just as stumped by Judge Naves’ decision as the Denver Post’s legal analyst.

What is remarkable about the judge’s decision is that it adopted almost every argument proffered by CU’s legal briefs. Reading today’s trial decision felt like I was re-reading the CU briefs. For example, by not awarding even front pay in lieu of reinstatement, Judge Naves effectively blocked an award of attorney fees to Churchill on the basis that the $1 award represents a Pyhrric victory invalidating the award of attoreny fees under existing case law (in the event his quasi-judicial immunity ruling in favor of CU is overturned and the reinstatement and front-pay issues are no longer moot).

O’Brien also offers this, which I hadn’t even considered:

[I]t is clear today that Judge Naves’ ostensibly one-sided decision will raise the issue on whether he should have recused himself from hearing the case based upon the appearance of a conflict of interest since he is a CU law school alumnus.

That’s an interesting point to consider, although as O’Brien goes on to make clear, Naves’ alumni status alone does not constitute a “serious, objective risk of actual bias.” Anyway, The Race to the Bottom promises to “dissect” Naves’ ruling on its legal merits over the next few weeks, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the case.

Update II: Michael Roberts has a piece in for Westword (which kindly mentions me) and has this salient point to offer:

On the surface, this judgment makes little sense, since Naves could have come to this conclusion without even going through the motions of a trial.

Update III: The New York Times story also ends with a quote from Scott Robinson, noting the “extraordinary” nature of Naves’ ruling.

Update IV: There’s so much good stuff in The Race to the Bottom piece. Here’s another tidbit:

In effect, Judge Naves has, unless reversed on appeal, sanitized CU of the taint of the jury’s decision that CU terminated him not for research misconduct, but for expressing his first amendment rights in violation of the Constitution. Thus, not only is Churchill not entitled to the $1 jury award and the vindication the award represented, but his attorneys cannot seek reimbursement of their attorney fees conjectured to be over $1,000,000 since Churchill did not prevail in his Section 1983 first amendment claim. Most of this cost would never have been incurred by Churchill and his attorneys (or, for that matter, the jury’s time in sitting through a month long trial) had the issue of quasi-judicial immunity been determined before trial by Judge Naves through a motion for summary judgment that as a matter of law CU would prevail.

Note that last piece. As Michael Roberts pointed out above, essentially the whole trial was a charade. And a particularly vicious one as arranged by Naves, in that he seems to have let it continue solely to squander David Lane and Ward Churchill’s time and resources.

Update V: The Colorado Independent has a GREAT piece up on their site about Naves’ ruling, entitled “Judge rules against Churchill, grants CU Board odd absolutist powers”.

The jury decided that Churchill was in fact fired because talk radio hosts didn’t like what he wrote about the 9/11 attacks and because neither did GOP Gov. Bill Owens and neither did the CU Board of Regents — or at least that the Board didn’t think Churchill’s opinions were worth defending in the name of academic freedom and freedom of expression in general. Yesterday’s ruling suggests Judge Naves also places little value on Ward Churchill’s right to free expression, regurgitating in the ruling the defeated arguments of the state. And, not to be outdone, the Denver Post this morning jumps on board, regurgitating the regurgitations of the bench, reporting as fact in the second paragraph of its story the specious allegations of academic misconduct at the heart of the trial and that the state failed to substantiate for the jury.

Update VI: Democracy Now offers this in today’s show:

In Denver, a judge has denied former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill’s bid to return to his old job despite a jury’s finding he was wrongfully dismissed. Churchill sued the school after he was fired from a tenured position on charges of research misconduct. But Churchill maintains that the allegations were a pretext to remove him for his political beliefs. In April, a jury ruled in Churchill’s favor and ordered the school to pay his attorney fees. But on Tuesday, Chief Judge Larry Naves of Denver District Court said university officials are legally protected from Churchill’s bid to reverse his firing because they were acting as judicial officers. Churchill says he plans to appeal. His lawyer, David Lane said: “This is judicial activism in its worst form… a jury said Ward Churchill’s free speech was violated, and yet Judge Naves goes on for almost 50 pages, saying in so many words, ‘Too bad.’”

Update VII: Even the Wall Street Journal is noting that Judge Naves’ ruling “seems a little screwy”.

Update VIII: Marc Bousquet has piece on The Chronicle Review’s site, elegantly entitled “Colorado Judge Mugs Churchill”. (It’s also cross-posted on one of my favorite literary sites, The Valve.)

The crowing by the University of Colorado administration after the latest twist in the Churchill case illustrates this claim pretty well. Provost Phil DiStefano seems to have huffed a few lines of Hogwarts Ambiguity Powder to keep a straight face while dubbing CU’s trampling on Churchill’s academic freedom, subversion of faculty process and transparent political thuggery “a victory for faculty governance.”

He also notes Naves’ status as a CU alum.

DiStefano couldn’t have gotten his broomstick off the ground, though, without the teamwork of loyal CU alum Judge Larry J. Naves. The latter waved his wand of Dumbledorean Complexity over the jury’s verdict in order to vacate it, claiming that upon further reflection—you know, after the jury came up with a verdict he didn’t like—he believed that the Colorado regents were immune from lawsuits!

This is getting more and more interesting.

Update IX: I’ve been looking everywhere for full audio, or even a transcript, of the press conference given yesterday by David Lane, Ward Churchill’s attorney. As far as I can tell, it’s not on the internet. You can, however, hear snippets of it on yesterday’s Caplis and Silverman show, here, starting at 35:15.

Update X: From Denver’s main anti-Churchill site, Pirateballerina:

We contacted CU defense attorney Patrick O’Rourke this morning via email and learned that he intends to bill Churchill for out-of-pocket legal expenses, such as deposition transcripts, out-of-state travel, and witness fees. “We haven’t totaled those yet,” O’Rourke told us, “but those expenses will probably be significant.”

Rampant corruption, contempt for the Constitution, judicial thuggery, and now highway robbery. Seems par for course for team CU/Naves.

Update XI: I wish I could say I’m surprised about CU’s intent to bill Ward Churchill, but I’m not. CU has made it clear all along that their intent has been to not only trample Ward Churchill’s civil rights, but to completely destroy him.

I know Ward well enough to know that that’s not possible, but also I know CU’s administration well enough to know that they’d love nothing more.

Update XII: Good God. Even the rightwing educational watchdog group ACTA thinks Judge Naves’ ruling is off the mark. (Via Michael Roberts at Westword.)

The judge’s decision? It gets some things right, but is also problematic. Yes, peer review is critical to shared governance, academic autonomy, and professional standards. Yes, to reinstate Churchill would send an awful message to students — that academic standards don’t matter. But is the authority of trustees in fact comparable to that of judges here, as the opinion says? I am not so sure.

That’s pretty rich, in that ACTA was responsible for a portion of the drummed-up political pressure brought to bear on the University of Colorado to fire Churchill.

Update XIII: CU’s intent bill to Ward Churchill for out-of-pocket expenses is now in the Denver Post:

The University of Colorado will bill Ward Churchill for more than $10,000 in out-of-pocket costs the school incurred while defending against his wrongful termination suit, the university’s lawyer said today.

Update XIV: And from the Boulder Daily Camera:

CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke said he plans to file for recovery of those costs — which include flying witnesses in and out of Colorado and creating deposition transcripts — over the next 15 days and said the amount would be in the “five figures” and likely just shy of $50,000.

This is just conjecture, but it doesn’t seem impossible to me that this could be an attempt by CU to blackmail Ward Churchill out of filing an appeal. Right? Play up the amount of money they’ll be billing him in the local media, and then follow it with a phone call letting him know that they’ll rip up the invoice if he’ll only agree not to appeal. Hell, given what we’ve seen from CU so far, a little extortion hardly seems farfetched.

Posted in Miscellany | 3 Responses »
Tags: , , , , , ,

Statement by Russell Means, July 7, 2009

Written by Ben on July 7th, 2009

(From Uncut Conscience.)

If you’re an American Indian in the United States of America, whether you are a Lakota or a Navajo, a tenured professor or a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or an elected president of another country, you will not receive justice in any form from the white people of America.

They attacked Vine Deloria, Jr. (on the day of his funeral), Rigoberta Menchu and Evo Morales.  An Indian on a reservation can’t get justice.  And a tenured professor can get unconstitutionally thrown out, vindicated by a jury of his peers in a court of law, and it doesn’t matter.

Everyone I’ve named cannot fight back.  Evo Morales has to worry about being the president of a country; Rigoberta Menchu has to continue working for her people.  Vine Deloria is dead.  Indian people on reservations have no power of any kind.  Only Ward Churchill has the ability to fight back and win, and it’s still not good enough.  They still quash him.

The American Indian has been living at Guantánamo Bay since the founding of the United States of America.

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »
Tags: ,

Churchill v. CU — Update

Written by Ben on July 7th, 2009

(Just got the following from Ward Churchill’s wife, Natsu Saito.)

July 7, 2009

On April 2, 2009, after hearing evidence for a month, a Denver jury unanimously found that Ward Churchill had been fired from the University of Colorado not because of research misconduct but in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.

After more than four years of political attacks on Ward Churchill, a clear statement had been made:  the University of Colorado had violated the U.S. Constitution when it fired Churchill, a tenured full professor of American Indian Studies.

The normal remedy in such cases?  Reinstatement.

Today, July 7, 2009, Judge Larry Naves of the Denver District Court threw out the jury’s verdict, adopting the University’s argument that the Regents have “quasi-judicial” immunity from such lawsuits.  In essence, this means that the Regents and University administrators are free to continue to violate the Constitution.

In a 42-page opinion lifted wholesale from the University’s pleadings, Judge Naves went on to explain why Ward Churchill should not be given front pay, back pay, or be reinstated.

All of these are irrelevant, of course, if the jury’s verdict is not upheld. But the fact that the judge went to such pains to adopt the University’s arguments — which often directly contravened the factual record in this case — speaks volumes.

This ruling simply confirms what we have observed so often.  When given access to the facts, regular people on the street can make clear, reasoned decisions that uphold constitutional values.  It is rare, however, to find persons in positions of power who will not bow to political pressure.

Attorney David Lane will, of course, appeal this decision.  Ward Churchill’s reaction?  “I can’t think of any way to improve upon Steve Earle’s line from The Hard Way:  ‘There are some who break and bend.  I’m the other kind.’”

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »
Tags: , , ,

Ward Churchill not reinstated

Written by Ben on July 7th, 2009

Judge Naves has ruled that the University of Colorado does not have to reinstate Ward Churchill. From the Denver Post.

“I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court’s recognition that ‘considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,’ ” Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.

More to come. Much more, I’ll bet.

Update: You can download Judge Naves’ decision here.

Update II: A quick thought. Obviously, I’m disappointed by this, but hardly surprised. Most of you who know me know that I predicted a Churchill win in the court room all along. You’ve also probably noticed that I haven’t been making any predictions about Churchill’s reinstatement whatsoever. The reason for this should be obvious.

The University of Colorado lost the court case. Hands down. CU’s attorney, Pat O’Rourke, got his head handed to him. But, and a big but, he did a very good job of ingratiating himself with Judge Naves, and Judge Naves certainly seemed receptive to those willing to do a little groveling. This is pretty clearly shown in the pattern of rulings for CU handed down by Naves, and it made it real hard to see Naves doing other than nullifying the jury’s decision (damn activist judges!).

Again, this isn’t surprising. O’Rourke seems to be an old hand at ingratiating himself with those in power. Indeed, given O’Rourke’s performance in the court room, I think it’s fair to say that he’s only managed to get where he is by doing so.

It sure as hell hasn’t been natural talent.

So, unless I miss my guess, on to appeals.

Update III: Yep, we’re on to appeals.

Update IV: Y’know an interesting exercise might be to compare portions of Judge Naves’ ruling to, say, some of CU’s motions.

For instance, I stumbled on this line in Naves’ ruling:

Professor Churchill argues that the University is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the University waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.

Something about it struck me as oddly familiar. So, having way too much free time, I flipped over to CU’s Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Quasi-Judicial Immunity, did a quick search, and found this:

The University concedes that it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.

I’m no kind of lawyer, but it doesn’t seem entirely on the up-and-up for a judge to simply copy portions of his ruling verbatim from motions filed by one side or the other. If nothing else, it’s plagiarism, right? Which is pretty ironic, given the case and Naves’ ruling for CU.

Posted in Miscellany | 4 Responses »
Tags:

An assault rifle for everyman

Written by Ben on July 7th, 2009

From a photo essay about the AK-47 in Wired.

ak47_1a

Posted in Guns | 2 Responses »

Obviously I’ve already ordered a copy for the kids

Written by Ben on July 7th, 2009

From a common sense media review of Tender Morsels. (And, yeah, I really did order a copy.)

Note to the publishers and makers of best-children’s-books-of-the-year lists: What were you thinking?! In what possible way could you have considered this a children’s or young adult book? It opens with a sex act, and then in the first hundred pages the main character, a young girl, is repeatedly raped by her father, repeatedly gets pregnant, and then is repeatedly given drugs to cause horrible miscarriages, graphically described. After her loathsome father finally has his head bashed in by a horse, and a scene in which she examines his penis and wonders how it could have caused so much trouble, she gives birth alone. Then she is gang raped by five local teens, gets pregnant again, and contemplates killing her baby. Near the end of the book those five boys, now grown, are sodomized into unconsciousness. In between we get bestiality and some gruesome violence.

Posted in Books | No Responses »
Tags:

Guy Bourdin untitled

Written by Ben on July 6th, 2009

Via Cynthia Fiss.

guy_bourdin_vam_031

More here. Enough for maybe three or four dozen novels, depending on your stamina and your libido.

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »
Tags:

The Harry Crews collection

Written by Ben on July 6th, 2009

The University of Georgia Library has a podcast about their newly acquired Harry Crews collection, including audio from Crews himself. You can download it here.

There’s a lot of good stuff, my favorite being audio recorded by a student on the first day of a Creative Writing class taught by Crews, starting at around 5:00.

Posted in Books | No Responses »
Tags:

Life before Twitter

Written by Ben on July 6th, 2009

From the National Post.

Hoffman should know how to deal with nasty reviews. As several savvy commentators pointed out almost immediately after the scandal broke, she herself assassinated Richard Ford’s The Sportswriter in The New York Times in 1986. (See No. 2 in the list of review types above.) Twitter did not exist then, so Ford was forced to use more direct means of communicating his displeasure. He shot one of Hoffman’s books and mailed it to her. As he told The Guardian in 2003: “My wife shot it first. She took the book out into the back yard, and shot it. But people make such a big deal out of it - shooting a book - it’s not like I shot her.”

Posted in Books, Guns | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

Philip Roth’s dance mix

Written by Ben on July 6th, 2009

roth

Don’t ask me, but it’s a hit.

Speaking of Philip Roth, I recently went on a binge, and was oddly surprised to find the term “little Eichmann”  – which landed Ward Churchill in such hot water — in Roth’s The Counterlife.  As far as I can tell, that’s the first usage in print.

Now you know.

Posted in Books | No Responses »
Tags: ,

He’s smoooooth

Written by Ben on July 3rd, 2009

From PUNKADIDDLE, via The Valve.

We see an awful lot of this face in the movie. The movie, frankly, is a study of this face. Now, Depp is an extremely talented actor; and what I am saying is motivated neither by snippiness nor mere envy. But Depp is too good-looking for this role. The reasoning behind the casting presumably was something like ‘Dillinger had charisma, he was like a rock-star, a rock star who robbed banks! We need a big name star who oozes eleven types of charisma …!’ But Dillinger’s was a rough-hewn, wild-frontier-throwback sort of charisma. He was, it is true, renowned for being graceful but in a rough, tough, streetfighter sort of way. Dillinger was an alley cat. Johnny Depp, on the other hand, is Johnny Fucking Depp. It underplays his beauty to say ‘he looks like a male model’, given that most male models would sacrifice a limb to look like him. But a male model, and a fancy-pants clothes horse, is what he is in this film, all the time, in every scene, all the way through. He’s more than smooth. He’s smoooooth. In Heat we saw the world through the perspective of the De Niro and Pacino characters; in Public Enemies we spend the whole time seeing Johnny Depp. The film needed a lead who looked like this:

john_dillinger
And less like:

johnny-depp-mad-hatter

Posted in Miscellany | 1 Response »
Tags: ,

Ward Churchill reinstatement update

Written by Ben on July 1st, 2009

The Boulder Daily Camera — and, yeah, I’m reading the thing for the first time in months — has their semi-live, semi-updated blog of the hearing going here.

Update: No ruling today, but it should be coming early next week. David Lane, however, had enough fun with Dean Todd Gleeson (3:07 update) that I’ll probably be able to stand the wait.

Update II: There’s audio around from the local radio shows. I’ll post links to some in an update shortly.

Update III: The only Colorado journalist who seems to get what’s at stake in Ward Churchill’s reinstatement: Michael Roberts.

Update IV: KHOW neo-Stalinist shitbirds Caplis and Silverman have done something useful for perhaps the first time in their lives, and posted Ward Churchill’s full testimony here. And if you can’t get enough, you can also listen to their show, here, here, and here, which includes an interview with David Lane, if nothing else. I’ll listen to it today and update with highlights.

Update V: Nope, Caplis and Silverman, still useless. The audio which they claimed to be all of Ward Churchill’s testimony is only about two minutes long. As my dear old grandfather used to say, the geniuses at KHOW could fuck up a ball bearing with a rubber mallet. Anyway, maybe they’ll get it fixed, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

Update VI: The University of Denver law school’s legal blog, The Race to the Bottom, which has pretty much set the standard for coverage of the Ward Churchill trial (for all but a few fringe cranks, that is), has two posts about yesterday’s hearing:

Which offers this tidbit:

Professor Churchill’s testimony was—as ever—eloquent. He emphasized that he filed a lawsuit as “a matter of principle to preserve the concept of academic freedom, which is to say that political powers cannot silence professors because they disagree with their beliefs.” (all quotes approximate) “And to obtain justice, restitution, restoration to the position that jury found I was illegally removed from.” Professor Churchill reasserted his trial testimony that when asked if he wanted money, he said no.

And:

Which makes this prediction:

My prediction is that Judge Naves will rule on the law, which is that reinstatement is the preferred remedy unless the offending employer can prove that reinstatement will severely damage the violating employer’s enterprise. The burden of proof is with the First Amendment violator, and CU does not seem to have met that burden. While the witnesses—especially Professor Jessor—spoke passionately about the importance of research integrity to maintain academic standards, this is a pretty esoteric concept.

They are, as we’ve come the expect, exactly the kind of fair, balanced, and accurate reporting which it has been nearly impossible to find in the Denver media.

Update VII: All right, I lied. As much as I wanted to listen to the Caplis and Silverman show to provide highlights, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. Sorry.

Posted in Miscellany | 2 Responses »
Tags: ,

Another novel that writes itself

Written by Ben on July 1st, 2009

From the Boulder Daily Camera.

The men “fell to the floor” during the fight and that’s when, sheriff’s officials allege, Brooks used a nearby knife to stab both of them “in an attempt to break up the fight.”

Just a teaser. You’ve really gotta read the whole thing.

Posted in Miscellany | No Responses »

« Older Entries