The Lies of Colby: New Spartacus? McAdams...

[Albert Doyle]

Albert:

They didn't use any logic at all. Except that they had the power to do what they did, period.

That isn't true. I read the details of the incident as it occurred and the powers that be in Dallas used very specific reasoning on why they excluded any conspiracy theory groups from the 50th. They specifically detailed things like CTer's being disruptive and spoiling the sanctimony of the event and being associated with panhandlers and circus-like distractions etc. It's all preserved on this site. They were very precise in their logic.

The reason they got away with it was simple: the research community is so disorganized and undisciplined and splintered, they did not promote a legal fund to challenge this in court. I, and others I talked to, were certain we would have won. The reason being that since this was named a national monument back in 2003, the city did not have the right to cordon it off. I actually warned against this back in 2012. I wanted to hire a lawyer back then since I got wind of this early. I was pooh poohed. Which shows the sagacity of our community.

A good example of a powerful group unfairly denying the rights of another.

Because, first of all, you and Drew do not render the actual facts of this case accurately. Evidently you have not read all the links we have at CTKA. Her class was not about gay marriage. It was about John Rawls' theory of universal liberty and equality under the law. She was just eliciting examples to start a discussion of that theory. That device is used all the time to begin to track toward the main subject. I have used it about a thousand times in my career. And I have seen it used masterfully by college professors I have studied under. They and I, NEVER lose site of the forest for the trees. And she did not want to either.

Uh ha. How could a theory of liberty and equality under the law NOT have anything to do with the Gay Marriage issue? The teacher imposed a double standard when she made an edict that prohibited any discussion of gay marriage in the light of religious views. I doubt if the student took a pro-gay marriage viewpoint and asserted an isolated issue with it, like the student did towards religious rights, that the teacher would have stopped it as being in violation of that greater device.

Your comparison with McAdams class is not an accurate one. Why? Because that class IS about the JFK case. So he has to address the critics. And he does. I have seen his syllabus. But further, the JFK case, and even the RFK case, have been taught in colleges and high schools for years. Without any interference from above. Phil Melanson arose to chair of his department even though he taught the RFK case and the JFK case. I taught the JFK case for 13 years. At times I had so many kids in my class I had to move it to the cafeteria. Never had any problems.

I don't see that as changing anything. The gay marriage issue is squarely in the category of universal legal rights. Seems like hair-splitting to me vs the greater issue.

Did you ever tell a dissenting student that he would be restricted by order from ever issuing a protest over Conspiracy Theory?

I find the matter here comparable to what happened to you yourself over on the Education Forum. You posted there with an appropriate level of disdain over the accommodated disinformationists. Because your posts were devastating to those dishonest posters Simkin stepped in and enforced censure due to his subjective claim that it had altered the intended tone and purpose of the board. You were placed in the same position as McAdams. Simkin used your disdainful entries as examples of hostile, aggressive, unacceptable conduct and speech.

A more accurate comparison would be this: If I had taught the class and I went into detail about the sexual predilections of Shaw and Ferrie and said that one reason for the plot may have been those of a a homosexual nature against Kennedy's virile, handsome playboy image--I would have been in trouble if I had a gay student and he complained about it.

As a side note there are good arguments that the powers that be used the homosexuality of Hoover, Ferrie, and Shaw as levers to get them to do dirty things for them. However one would be remiss to not recognize that those men probably also used that compromise to some degree to justify their actions. I'm not sure where I'm going with that, but I would say it was true.

But that is the difference. In one case, we are talking about the realm of ideas and concepts. In the other, we are talking about singling out a specific GROUP OF PEOPLE. One that has been persecuted and discriminated against for generations based upon sexual orientation. They did not establish any kind of equality before the law until relatively recently. And as a case from just a few years ago, where a young man was literally beaten to death because of his homosexuality, this shows that this kind of extreme, near psychotic prejudice is still around.

Which is exactly what the teacher did when she singled out the religious viewpoint and forbade it. If you are saying this viewpoint is not within the realm of "ideas and concepts" you are discriminating against it. Just as you would be doing if you tried to say it wasn't upheld by a "GROUP OF PEOPLE". All you are doing is switching from one form of discrimination to another. You are in effect using logic to justify discriminating against religious viewpoints. Let's not be shy about openly discussing where this is going. You claim to be defending a minority group but once you involve law you are talking a slippery slope where it will soon become an issue of religious organizations being sued in order to enforce it. And don't think that won't happen. In effect that enforcement would constitute "state religion" and therefore squarely violate the religious rights of those protesting. You can't have it both ways.

I feel I have a pretty good bead on things and the people you are defending will probably side with a Sunstein-like, overly broad "hate crime" paradigm where, once they sense it to be advantageous, will endorse Sunstein-like rules once given the opportunity. Look at which side Rachael Maddow took publicly on the Assassination. We live in a time where such a dangerous mob-like polemic was recently realized under the fascist Bush administration. No, the way I see it is the Right gets voices like McAdams to do their dirty stuff exactly because that same Right is one of the last hold-outs in preserving the original definition of Constitutional rights - the same rights that protect exposure of government crimes in the Assassination.

So when you and Drew try and belittle the idea of "hate speech" and equate it with first amendment rights, I don't understand where you are coming from. Or did you also forget about the case in Texas a few years ago where three rednecks chained a black man to a truck and literally dismembered him? Do you think they addressed him as an "African American" before they tortured and killed him?

Once the teacher addressed the protesting student as "homophobic" she crossed a line and created an exclusionary situation. I've been reading debates on the internet for years. I know this won't be popular, but after reading that teacher's statement it struck me as being similar to what some of the Lone Nutters write. They tend to overly resort to quotes and clips in order to make the opposition look bad and pose themselves as the victim. You can't deny she's as fervent in her opinions as the people she opposes. I don't think she honestly gets to the point in her rebuttal and exploits the political issue as much as possible in order not to do so. What she never gets around to is she got another teacher fired because of an academic/intellectual issue. The point I'm making is all people should be more worried about that than any offenses McAdams committed.

Any college freshman knows that there are limits to first amendment freedoms e.g. libel and slander, for just one. And thank God there are such limitations. And thanks God for instructors like Abbate who smells a ringer when she hears one.

And they also know that those rights are complex and also support the rights of the other side. If you read Ms Abbate's rebuttal she does not harbor middle of the road opinions. She is squarely within a feminist viewpoint as her vocabulary shows. To ignore that there are greater political issues here is not totally honest in my opinion. This was also a Catholic college in which the counter-opinion is not unusual or out of place. One man's ringer is another man's brave voice, so you are offering a subjective opinion there. One that resulted in a very firm firing that wasn't so tolerant or open-minded.

Nope, there's a greater issue involved here where this could cost right-wing support for conspiracy theorists which is not unsubstantial. In fact, whether intentional or not, this event could be a ruse by the powers that be to cause that very rift and split right-wing support of JFK Assassination conspiracy theory. Those powers might sense that they are losing on a direct basis, thanks to people like yourself, and designed this event in order to grab bigger political winds in their sails. Also, the Catholic church is now responding to greater political forces and not wanting further diminishment following the pedophile scandal. DePaul refused Finkelstein tenure because of such bully political pressure. No defense of the minority there. The resulting shift might send right-wing CT backers towards McAdams. Something that won't come without an appreciable loss to Assassination advocacy during a time of Republican gains in Washington. So there's all kinds of ringers Mr D. Some more expensive than others.

That's why I'm saying if you oppose McAdams for his assassination denial then do so directly. If there was ever an example of why free speech rights were created this is it. The Constitution works in mysterious ways.



.