Finally, some real, live bonafide news about the Neverendingstory (Churchill division): Oral arguments in the appeal in the case of The Perfesser v. Everybody Else are scheduled for Oct., 20, 2010 2:30 p.m. The three empaneled to hear the arguments are Court of Appeals judges Dennis Graham, Gilbert Roman, and Diana Terry. (via Leah, @sspats be upon her)
Also via Leah, Churchill's reply brief, filed back on June 4th, but heretofore unnoticed by us (if we remember correctly).
Leah's Favorite Quote:
The University’s claim that reinstating Professor Churchill would prevent it from holding Professor Churchill or others to accepted academic standards in the future [Answer Brief, p. 53] is similarly unfounded. Contrary to the University’s assertion, Professor Churchill has never expressed an unwillingness to conform to accepted academic standards. Indeed, the bulk of the evidence he provided at trial went to establishing that he did comply with such standards.
No news, just lighting a courtesy match to move that photo down from the top of the page. We'd been considering some sort of humane action for the past few days, but pip-pip's pleas were hard to ignore, even though they were mostly muffled by the sock.
Now, for some palate-cleansing carriage returns.
There, that's much better, isn't it.
We can only hope The Perfesser will do something mildly relevant very soon and we can push that pic on through the cloaca—the squeakhole, if you will—of fleeting infamy.
|Ok, so we had entirely too much fun with this:|
Rizzo poster #2
Rizzo poster #3
Rizzo poster #4
Rizzo poster #5
Rizzo poster #6
Rizzo poster #7
Rizzo poster #8
Rizzo poster #9
Rizzo poster #10
Rizzo poster #11
Update (25August10): According to Ann Coulter, all the millionaire part-timers running the City of Bell were Democrats
The one newspaper to cough up party affiliations, The Orange County Register, admitted that the corrupt officials were all Democrats only in response to reader complaints about the peculiar omission.
From our Big Shoes department: Things may be looking up for
'Worse Than Ward Churchill'? We don't think so
What do professors Julio Pino, Peter Kirstein, and Juan Cole have in common (besides philosophical halitosis, that is)? They've all been compared unfavorably (mistakenly, as it happens) to Ward Churchill. Why mistakenly? Because all three professors are obvious and blatant in their loathing of the US and their love of terrorist regimes, lending each a certain air of honesty Churchill himself has yet to breathe. Pino and Kirstein are best known (if they are known at all) for their billets-doux cheering on the deaths of Americans. Cole is more a media whore—a Gloria Allred of the academic world, one might say—whose poisonous message makes him the darling of Olbermann, Maddow, and Cooper.
By comparison, Churchill plays (or used to play) it rather coy. He does (or did) so because it is always foolish to call attention to oneself when one is attempting to burn down a house. While the aforementioned professors take events and spin them to the detriment of the US and to the benefit of their heroes (and—in the case of Cole, at least—for their own aggrandizement), Churchill (until he foolishly waved his arms around while holding matches and standing next to a can of gasoline, that is) systematically turned US history into an Elders of Zion tract.
So who's worse: Those who very publicly cheer on the terrorists, or those who surreptitiously provide the tectonic shifts in the narrative necessary to disarm those who would otherwise deny the terrorists the moral high ground?
We know our answer. What's yours? (ht willibeaux, AoS, DrunkaBlog)
Very OT: MarathonPundit dares enter the Halls of the Mountain King (aka Rocky Mountains).