Prof: I want U.S. off the planet (Ward Churchill Barf Alert)

I thought it was funny too, until I heard/saw 2 of his brainwashed students defending him on BO'R last week....scary.

terrorist

The fictional Nolan was a company grade officer in the US Army. His character is shown to be immature and hot headed not vicious and warped. Nolan may have been 'the man without a country' but he wasn't the man without honor. Asshill is.

I wonder what sort of criterion did the University of Colorado use to hire him?

I'll bet the University is feeling a little hung out in front of the world right now. If I were them, I would issue an apology...or at least an explanation.

I saw them too.

I'm pretty confident that they were exactly that stupid before their contact with Professor Hiawannabe.

Their level of stupid cannot be learned.

You are no doubt right about that!

Yes, evil psycho about says it. More of Asshill's bile from the article:

Churchill said he does not want a revolution. He does not want others to assume power in the U.S. Instead, he explained, he wants the state destroyed.

"I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether," he concluded.

In a foreword to the book Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (edited and introduction by Steven Best, a University of Texas El Paso philosophy professor and animal-rights activist), Churchill expands his Nazi comparison to modern medical researchers and meat companies.

"To assault the meatpacking industry," Churchill writes, "is to mount a challenge to the mentality that allowed well over a million dehumanized humans to be systematically slaughtered by the SS einsatzgruppen in eastern Europe during the early 1940s, and the nazis' simultaneous development of truly industrial killing techniques in places like Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka."

Churchill contends groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front haven't gone far enough in defending "animal rights." He claims that drawing a "line in the tactical sand" that embraces "property damage" but excludes murder is "arbitrary" – and again invokes Eichmann: "Given the opportunity to do either in, say, 1942, would it have been more effective/appropriate to have torched the office of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat whose peculiar expertise made an orderly implementation of the Final Solution possible, or to have eliminated Eichmann himself? The answer need not be rendered as an abstraction."

Now where is the Committee of Vigilence when it is really needed?

An apt observation. I totally agree.

While we are visiting the ghoul haunted woodlands of the kook left let me present this feculent gem also:

Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth
Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week that dangerous climate change is taking place today, not the day after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read this...
06 February 2005

Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of 2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human civilisation to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.

Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking place, and that time is running out.

Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.

The alarms have been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has reached "dangerous" levels.

Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford University, reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst predictions. And an international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.

Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before his company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil, one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments take urgent action there "will be a disaster".

But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had been called by the Prime Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He needed help in persuading the world to prioritise the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic powers.

The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from global warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations from top scientists and economists from every continent. These showed that some dangerous climate change was already taking place and that catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically simple and economically cheap, they said, provided that governments could be persuaded to take immediate action.

About halfway through I realised that I had been here before. In the summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.

It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.

I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. The conference formally concluded that climate change was "already occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice to the sense of the meeting.

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine life (see panel).

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I would say that this is now an awakened giant."

Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.

The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger, mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to blame. There were a few sceptics at Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier to find sceptics among media pundits in London or neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little research to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.

Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change, below 400 parts per million.

Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding 370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it down rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.

Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.

The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested the cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe combatting global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies.

The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the best chance of persuading him to change his mind.

But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the pollution reductions needed in favour of agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.

By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"

WATER WARS

What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources as populations grow and rains fail.

How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the future, and global warming will make it worse.

How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.

DISAPPEARING NATIONS

What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear off the face of the Earth.

How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising, partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.

How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands have already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.

FLOODING

What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under tens of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.

How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.

How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.

UNINHABITABLE EARTH

What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the world's whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much hotter and less hospitable planet.

How would this come about? A process involving "positive feedback" causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally tips the climate pattern over.

How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past. Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.

RAINFOREST FIRES

What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global warming.

How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.

How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.

THE BIG FREEZE

What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.

How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.

How likely is it? About

evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last week.

STARVATION

What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.

How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.

How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will increase in a warmer world.

ACID OCEANS

What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.

How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.

How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35 years.

DISEASE

What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide every year - reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.

How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the disease, and hundreds of travellers return with it annually. The insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.

How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened already.

HURRICANES

What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.

How would this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas where at present the seas are too cool for such weather.

How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.
7 February 2005 13:20

Search this site:

Printable Story

He should be the new poster boy for the left. Howard Dean, better watch out! YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

This guy is all over the news today.

The universities of America are infested with these fully tenured evil psycho losers. Their sole purpose (other than acting out their psychoses) is to poison the minds of young skulls full of mush, and recruit kids into following their whack-job agendas.

My son ended up in a "Women Studies" course this semester (apparently hoping to meet babes). He fled when found out it was, in his words, "Hairy Ugly Lesbo Recruiting and Man Hating 101."

Ok, Ward, this is getting rather hard to follow. Would you save us all some time and just publish your next book with a list of those who are not Nazis? Maybe there is something seriously wrong with you or maybe it is just those dark glasses. Do you see Nazis when you don't have them on? Because I have a theory that either those glasses came from a novelty catalog (Acme Novelty, p44, NaziVision - $3.99) and they enable you to see through a person's surface identity into their Nazi soul. Or, some drunk frat boys scratched a small SS onto your glasses and since then you just think you see Nazis whenever you have them on.

Now you see Nazis in the meat industry too. And you advocate violence against the industry in an effort to "mount a challenge to the mentality" that allowed millions of humans to be slaughtered by the Germans during WWII. Unless you really meant to say the abortion industry then I am not following you on this one. Perhaps I'm not putting my whole Nazi heart into our evil plan to make America the Fourth Reich. Here I thought we were killing those animals just because they taste so delicious. I did not realize it was being done as part of the grand American race purification scheme.

I'm also a bit confused on how you are linking the food industry to the killing of people unless you think we will start eating Jewish people or making fur coats out of Gypsies when we run out of animals. If that is the plan, then I've got to draw my "line in the tactical sand" right here. God told Moses and Moses wrote down for the rest of us some general rules on what is clean to eat. Now, I want to be a good cylinder in the engine of profit like the rest of us Eichmanns, but God instructed us not to eat critters that eat meat. So, if I am expected to start eating people then I want to put my order in now for some nice, lean vegetarians. Make that free range vegetarians, the ones that graze only on taxpayer funding, not those confined by the cages of competition. Oh, yea, and they will need to have a cloven hoof.

Many on the anti-war left think that some folks, gosh darn it, just weren't meant to live in freedom and we shouldn't be helping free them because they will just get into trouble. As wrong as that thinking has been when applied to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, I do apply it when I am deciding whether to help liberate oh, say a population of pigs or a community of cattle. I saw what happened when my dying elm tree dropped a branch on a fence and liberated the neighbor's suppressed black Angus inhabitants. They did not know how to handle freedom, they wreaked havoc! And I recall reading about the results when some animal rights nuts "freed" some mink. Most of the coats-in-waiting did not know how to handle their newfound freedom either and unceremoniously died.

However, I will recognize the "gallant sacrifices" that some of the "freedom fighters" have made in the war against the meat industry. Many, many squirrels, coons and birds have sacrificed themselves trying to get me to drive off their road. One particularly gallant deer sacrificed herself right on my front bumper recently. If her plan was to startle me briefly and end up partly on my truck grill and partly on my charcoal grill, well then I should pin a medal on what's left of her. I think I'll make it the Baked Potato of Freedom medal with Fried Onion Clusters for bravery.

So, who's next on Ward's enemies list? Is the mad professor going to wear his magic glasses to a baseball game and discover that the wave is really a big rolling double-armed "Hiel Bush"? Or will he wear them while visiting the U.S. Senate? Of course, there he is likely to see more of the Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz type of Germans. Incompetent, sure. Subject to bribes, sure. But the enemy nevertheless.

It has been fortunate for (pyscho)Ward's carreer that Nazi's had their brutal place in recent history, else he might well have had to reach back to Napolean for all of his comparisons to imperialistic America. That would not be good for Ward. We Americans, we can take it. Call us whatever derogatory names you've got...little Eichmann, Nazi, conservative, Christian...the list goes on. But, if this traveling flea circus had started comparing good Americans to the French there would be no muddling over tenure or free speech. Just a mighty chorus of '..git a rope!'.

I know this guy would like to think his pinhead is poking holes in the radiator of the "mighty engine of profit" and, even if that were the case, it's nothing a half can of StopFreak can't handle. However, I don't need to put on my SS glasses to see that the prof is actually one of those "little Eichmanns" keeping the not-so-mighty engine of ignorance running. In fact, to that hybrid engine which runs on hot air and BS, this guy is a walking power plant. So, I figure he is a legitimate target in the war to defend common sense and he should be fired! Out of a cannon, that is, toward Europe where all Native UnAmericans are welcomed.

Churchill is a pseudo-intellectual drivel spewing communist sissy punk. Maybe Castro will take him.

Week is starting off well. So far we have the Democrats decling in popularity with......Democrats! Now more publicity about the Madman from Univ of Colorado. Looking for a tidbit to make this a trifecta:)

I love that book! I always thought that Nolan's punishment should have been Johnny Jihad's punishment. But judges rarely have any imagination...

I have been thinking about this piece of garbage and wondering how many college students could actually tell you who Eichmann's was.

University of Colorado's main claim to fame is that it's been the #1 party school for ages.

He should be the new poster boy for the left. Howard Dean, better watch out! YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Dean/Churchill 2008! Let the campaign begin!

Week is starting off well. So far we have the Democrats decling in popularity with......Democrats! Now more publicity about the Madman from Univ of Colorado. Looking for a tidbit to make this a trifecta:)

Here's hoping Dean gets appointed DNC Unmedicated Moron in Chief.... to make your trifecta!