Friends of America

During my daily cyber-visit to TLC’s quasi-political quasi-comical rival blog, Friends of America, I checked out one of the latest "posts" (if that's what you'd call it) about the radical Coloradoan professor, Ward Churchill. Burrowed within the incoherencies, flagrant plagiarism, and unduly prejudicial rants, I came accross a taunt within the post:

So now Max, if you would like to defend your party please counter this post on "The Liberal Conviction" and you can also try to tell us how the United States is going to hell.

So, Ricky, though I won’t defend Mr. Churchill’s statements and I won’t write about how the ‘United States is going to hell’, I will briefly school you in the importance of preserving dissent.

Clearly Ricky, the most important question here is not “why doesn't [Ward Churchill] attempt to run for office” nor, what the “innocent people and families” did to deserve what they received (because they did nothing), the real partisan contention of this debate is between a proclivity towards nationalism and anger verses a respect for freedom of thought. No one here supports the defamatory, benighted comments of Mr. Churchill, but the support they afford him is his federally protected right to voice his academic opinion regardless of public perception. Although Ricky, you claim that you “simply love America”, you evidently have little respect for the ideals that lay its ideological foundation, ideals like unquestioned freedom of speech and thought.

Analogous to the Lawrence Summers controversy, Mr. Churchill’s controversy surrounds the poignancy of his beliefs and ridiculousness of his rhetoric. If we attempt to restrict the beliefs of those who dissent within an academic capacity, then we tread a slippery slope. As A View from the West pointed out, if we restrict his ludicrous statements now, then we may, some day, begin to restrict other rhetoric which questions the status quo.

An important point is that Mr. Churchill is being paid by the state of Colorado. If his statements, rather than directed at the victims of 9/11, were direct to African Americans, Jews, or gays, would I be defending him? The answer, sadly, is yes. Should the state keep him on his payroll? That's up to the state. However, I will defend individual dissent because it is the lifeblood of democracy—regardless of how heartless, ignorant, derogatory, or insane the belief is. Luckly, in a true democracy, factions of one extreme will oft counterbalance factions of the opposite extreme. The United States can either be entirely censorious towards individual freedom of speech, or completely permissive. If we are completely permissive then one man's extreme will beget another extreme; by allowing an unregulated market place of ideas, minority opinions will countervail eachother.

As much as you "simply love America" Ricky, it is the fascists, not the democratic leaders, who advocate the death of dissenters like you do (“can someone put a cap in his ass to shut [Ward Churchill] up”). It is fascists who thrive using the same jingostic rhretoric that you employ. And, finally, it is fascists who believe that through non-violent speech, people can take their first amendment rights "to [sic] far". I say that the true “Friends of America” are those who respect the ideals enumerated within the constitution, not those who advocate the subversion of these ideals in the name of patriotism.