| |
|
|
|
#1
02-10-2005, 01:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 
|
| . |
|
#2
02-10-2005, 01:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
02-10-2005, 10:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think he should be canned, he has every right to write or say what he pleases on the subject. I don't know if you remember, but at my old college last year, there was a big controversy over an op-ed in the student newspaper regarding Pat Tillman. The kid who wrote it got death threats, the whole enchilada. And they wanted to take him off of the paper. Why? Doesn't anyone read things they don't disagree with? Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean that others don't and should be deprived of reading it.
As for his actual essay, I'll reserve my judgements until I can actually read the whole thing and not the selective little blurbs that the media wants me to read. 
__________________
|
|
#4
02-10-2005, 01:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist 
__________________
|
|
#5
02-10-2005, 01:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
What "freedom" is there in Iraq? They don't even have electricity and there's 9 billion dollars missing that disappeared around the same time L. Paul Bremer left the country. I could go on but I'll keep this in small doses so it's easier for you. The disinformation is so distilled in you I don't even know where to start. So here: Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday. An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds. "Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said. "The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded. The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. (Full story) Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll. "CPA staff identified at one ministry that although 8,206 guards were on the payroll, only 602 guards could be validated," the audit report states. "Consequently, there was no assurance funds were not provided for ghost employees." The Defense Department, which was in charge of the reconstruction effort, and former Iraq civil administrator Paul Bremer have disputed the findings. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN that the provisional authority was operating under "extraordinary conditions" and relied on Iraqi ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them. "We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided less-than-adequate controls over Iraqi funds that were provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process for hundreds of projects, essential services, Iraqi salaries and security forces," Whitman said. The occupation government established "major reforms" in Iraq's budgeting system, setting up a transparent mechanism for decision-making and beginning efforts to fight corruption, Whitman said. Under a U.N. Security Council resolution, the Development Fund for Iraq was to be used for humanitarian needs, economic reconstruction and repair of infrastructure, continued disarmament, costs of civilian administration and other programs benefiting Iraqis. Bremer, in a written response included in the report, said Bowen's report failed to recognize the difficulties of operating in wartime. "The IG auditors presume that the coalition could achieve a standard of budgetary transparency and execution that even peaceful Western nations would have trouble meeting within a year, especially in the midst of a war," Bremer wrote. Bremer, who received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in December for his work in Iraq, stated that auditors did not interview him, any of his budget directors or deputies in preparing their draft report. "On the whole, the office has done excellent work," he wrote. "But I do believe my colleagues at the CPA have a right to expect a level of professional judgment and awareness, which seems to be missing in the current draft report." Bowen's report, which was prepared for Congress, acknowledged that the insurgency in Iraq poses "the most difficult challenge" to reconstruction. "Even under the most favorable of conditions, rebuilding Iraq would be a job of daunting proportions," he wrote. But the provisional authority did not clearly assign managerial responsibility, and its rules lacked clear guidance on procedures and controls for dispersing funds, he concluded. Staffing shortages and turnover also resulted in inadequate oversight of budget execution by Iraqi ministries, he found -- and allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program should have raised concerns about the Iraqi government's ability to manage the reconstruction funds. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/ Last edited by gldstwmn; 02-10-2005 at 02:00 AM..
|
|
#6
02-10-2005, 02:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam
By Paul McGeough, Herald Correspondent in Baghdad December 22, 2003 Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president. The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency. American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day. However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. "Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!" The head of the PUK, Jalal Talabani, was in the Iranian capital en route to Europe. The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im". US officials said that they had extracted the vital piece of information on Saddam's whereabouts from one of the 20 suspects around 5.30pm on December 13 and had immediately assembled a 600-strong force to surround the farm on which he was captured at al-Dwar, south of Tikrit. Little attention was paid to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish militia might have been in on what was described as a "joint operation"; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraq National Congress, which said that Qusrat and his PUK forces had provided vital information and more. A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, quoted from an interview aired on the PUK's al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, in which Adil Murad, a member of the PUK's political bureau, said that the day before Saddam's capture he was tipped off by a PUK general - Thamir al-Sultan - that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours. An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East was quoted in the British Sunday Express yesterday: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time." There has been no American response to the Kurdish claims. An intriguing question is why Kurdish forces were allowed to join what the US desperately needed to present as an American intelligence success - unless the Kurds had something vital to contribute to the operation so far south of their usual area of activity. A report from the PUK's northern stronghold, Suliymaniah, early last week claimed a vital intelligence breakthrough after a telephone conversation between Qusrat and Saddam's second wife, Samirah. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true
|
|
#7
02-10-2005, 02:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In all honesty even if we weren't responsible for the actual capture of Saddam, I promise you that had we not been at war at the time, The Kurds would have never been able to capture him. So either directly, or indirectly America had a play in it.
__________________
Last edited by Brwn_eyes0511; 02-10-2005 at 02:14 AM..
|
|
#8
02-10-2005, 02:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Why did we invade Iraq in March 2003?
|
|
#9
02-10-2005, 10:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I guess you were asleep when the war began? When the reason congress was given to go to war, and the american people was a huge threat of WMD potential nuclear and biological weapons... And no I wouldnt call you an optimist--I would call you naive. Chris
__________________
CHRIS M.
|
|
#10
02-10-2005, 11:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And where's Osama?
__________________
|
|
#11
02-10-2005, 11:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 As for Churchill, the Univ. of Col. has requirements by which someone can be fired. Grounds for dismissal include: incompetence neglect of duty insubordination conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude sexual harassment any conduct falling below minimum standards of professional integrity. Here is an interesting essay on how his actions may or may not fit those criteria: http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000424.html February 05, 2005 Ward Churchill Affair: Various Possible Reasons to Fire Him I posted on Feb 4 and Feb. 2 on the Churchill affair. A couple of people have commented to me in emails that although the University of Colorado should not fire Ward Churchill maybe for his politcal views per se, he should be fired for other reasons, which may come up in the tenure-stripping investigation the University has started. This is what an editorial today in Colorado's main paper is saying, too. This follows strong political pressure. Gov. Bill Owens called for his firing. The Legislature more moderately condemned his views (they didn't call for him to be fired, as I said in my first version of this post).... ... Earlier Thursday, the state Senate passed a resolution denouncing Churchill's comments as "evil and inflammatory." The nonbinding resolution was identical to one passed Wednesday by the House. Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff cast the lone "no" vote, saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech. The fact that the politicians are calling for Churchill's firing for bad reasons is in itself a good reason *not* to fire him now. It is, of course, perfectly possible, though, that (a) he ought not to be a full professor at Colorado, and (b) there exist grounds for stripping him of tenure. Items (a) and (b) are two different things, as I will explain below-- essentially, the difference between (a) not hiring somebody, and (b) the person having done something bad enough to be fired for. Let's look at possible reasons for firing Churchill. The facts are described or linked to in my previous two posts. (1) Churchill incited a mob to shut down a Columbus Day parade, escaping criminal conviction but not guilt. This does sound like grounds to strip him of tenure. The University need not use "beyond a reasonable doubt", and this crime is particularly disturbing in a professor, more than tax evasion or burglary. But the University should have started the process back then, not now. (2) Churchill falsely claimed to be an Indian, maybe. In itself, race should not be the grounds for either hiring or firing, though we know that in fact there is tremendous racial discrimination by universities. (I discuss the facts in my Feb. 4 post.) If the lying is in academic writings, and crucial to those writings, then this would be grounds for firing. How it would be crucial is not clear but he might written something like the fraudulent book that got Rigoberta Menchu the Nobel Peace Prize. (3) Churchill got tenure under false pretences. If Churchill's publications did not really exist, or something like that, he should be fired. But I highly doubt that. (4) Churchill should not have gotten tenure, because he is not a good enough scholar. This is almost certainly true, from what I've seen on his website, but it must have been obvious to the tenure committee too. This goes back my distinction between (a) and (b). He should not have been given tenure, but it is too late for Colorado to back out of its contract now. It's very common for universities to have professors who got tenure 20 years ago but would not get it today. In fact, that is a sign of a successful university: that it has improved enough that it doesn't have to tenure the mediocrities it did 20 years before, and since those mediocrities have tenure, they are happy to see their departments improve. If I can hire new profs for my department that are better than me, I will, since we aren't in competition for the same job. Churchill's case is different-- he looks unqualified even by laxer standards than today's. But it still is not grounds for stripping him of tenure. It is, on the other hand, a good reason to buy out his contract. I would not be surprised if that happens-- he negotiates a $500,000 secret golden parachute and leaves everybody happy. (5) Churchill has improperly brought his politics into his classroom. I would not be surprised by this, though I haven't seen any evidence of it yet except for a claim by an activist that he gave her a bad grade for a political reason. Even if it turns out that he has been too political in his classroom, that doesn't rise to the level of being something for which the university immediately strips a professor of tenure. Instead, he should be given a warning and punished only later. Giving a student a bad grade for political reasons is a more severe offense, and perhaps justified firing, but I'd want very good proof. There are many, many, politically active, academically mediocre professors out there. Some departments are prone to hiring them, and some are not. The place to start dealing with this is not in firing, but in hiring, unless it is entire departments that are eliminated, which is a valid reason for firing people with tenure. That might be what should happen at Colorado-- disbanding the entire Ethnic Studies Department. But don't pick on just Churchill. Posted by erasmuse at February 5, 2005 02:32 PM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rasmusen.org/mt-new/mt-tb.cgi/419 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ward Churchill Affair: Various Possible Reasons to Fire Him: » Rasmusen on Churchill from ProfessorBainbridge.com Eric Rasmusen has weighed in on the Ward Churchill matter in several posts, the most recent of which lists five plausible grounds on which CU could fire Churchill. But I still think CU shouldn't do so. As Eric observed in [Read More] Tracked on February 7, 2005 12:19 AM » Professorial Obligations from Democracy Project The outrage that characterized the initial reaction to Ward Churchill's newfound fame hasn't so much passed as paved the way for more thoughtful writing on some foundational problems in academe. Among the more thoughtful I've come across is this post... [Read More] Tracked on February 7, 2005 02:11 PM Comments The issues surrounding Ward Churchill are more important and complicated than anything this shake-and-bake leftist has said. As an academic myself, I'm concerned that this situation will serve as an opportunity for right-wing attacks on, and wild assertions about, all of Academe and especially the institution of tenure. Tenure does serve a crucial role in ensuring that faculty feel comfortable in pursuing and speaking the Truth -- lofty as that sounds. But there's a two-way commitment. The faculty member in turn is assumed to be a professional who deeply and passionately loves a discipline, loves it enough to stay current in it, loves to talk about it and teach it, and to contribute in meaningful ways to it -- and this includes contributing work that can stand up to scholarly scrutiny from colleagues in the discipline. One certainly does have to wonder how Ward Churchill ever achieved tenure at a flagship state university. Given the very real possibilities being bruited about that he isn't even who he says he is, and hasn't done what he claims to have done in his life, you have to wonder as well if the hiring process broke down. The hiring committee was probably made up primarily of other ethnic studies faculty. But there had to be administrative approval up the line (been there and done that myself for several years). Did no one thoroughly check his references? And again, during the tenure process over a few years, probably no one but his own department was reviewing his work. And for the life of me, I can't figure out how a unversity hired a guy into a tenure-track position, and not only tenured him but allowed him to chair a department, without his having a doctorate. Curioser and curioser. Bringing politics into the classroom...hard to judge in a "discipline" like ethnic studies, which is usually an advocacy bull session rather than a serious research/teaching unit. Many colleges and universities have language in their faculty personnel policies about using instructional time appropriately, or something to that effect. Advocating for certain political viewpoints or actions rather than teaching about a subject would seem to pass beyond what a professor is hired to do and how classroom time is being spent. That may be one way to get at grounds for his dismissal. And if he in any way misrepresented himself as a minorty or lied about his credentials in employment forms, there is usually language on some of the personnel forms that would allow the institution to fire him for lying. But let's not jump to damning conclusions about all of American higher education. One university for whatever reasons dropped the ball in its duty to hire, evaluate, and supervise a faculty member appropriately. Letting the sunshine in on Churchill hasn't actually been so bad. Let his irresponsible rants be publicized. Let it be pointed out that he's a hypocrite for taking good pay from the very democratic, capitalist system he would like to see destroyed, while cloaking himself in one of its noblest concepts, freedom of speech. Better yet, do what the universities did well for centuries: set up a series of debates at the Colorado campus -- or anywhere else -- between Churchill and scholars in real disciplines who can take him apart on the illogic and historical inaccuracy of his assertions.
|
|
#12
02-10-2005, 11:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Has the actual essay been publicly released? If not, anyone who is "offended" by it without having actually read it needs to slapped. Hard.
__________________
|
|
#13
02-10-2005, 02:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
02-10-2005, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Three years ago?!
__________________
|
|
#15
02-10-2005, 11:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Billy Burnette Lp Self Titled On Columbia - Vg+ To Vg++ / Vg++
$11.99
BILLY BURNETTE - GIMME YOU - 1981 COLUMBIA RECORDS VINYL ALBUM - (VG/VG+)
$5.00
BILLY BURNETTE - (SELF- TITLED) - 1979 POLYDOR RECORDS PROMO VINYL LP - (VG/VG)
$5.50
Billy Burnette- Coming Home Music CD Album
$8.17
Billy Burnette Lp Self Titled On Columbia - Vg+ To Vg++ / Vg++
$11.99
Hybrid Mode
