The Churchillian rebuttal will be comedy gold. Every clain he makes can be checked.
Do you suppose authorship for this task will be sublet to lackeys, or will Churchill sign his own name to the project?
Lackeys, at least at first.
Then sockpuppets.
Then, maybe, Wart.
(I think I'm becoming snapple.)
John Brown.
Churchill M. Wardonicus.
Arthur M. Charley.
Ima Phake Creek.
Francis the Talking Mule.
Your Old Friend Stinkboy.
Hoecake Scarfer.
Don Winslow of the Navy.
Be on the lookout. (That's not a possible phony user ID, it's a warning.)
Plus:
jimpaine
what the
Noj
Laurie
jgm
Joe Sullivan, etc.
(Hoecake scarfer?)
The Scarfer clan lives.
And Hoecake's the worst one of the bunch.
"For the first time, the true history of the American Indian Movement (AIM) is revealed through the eyes of an FBI Agent who was there...It is time to set the record straight for the benefit of all Native Americans. "
Not to rain on everyone's parade, but the FBI has never had the best interests of Native Americans in mind, however, Churchill never had the interests of Native Americans at the forefront of his mind as well, even during his unfortunate tenure at CU.
AIM really did create rifts in families up at Pine Ridge that carry over to this day. The evidence of the rift between Colorado AIM and National AIM is proof of that tension.
Russell Means just won't seem to go away and with what he's done to not only at Pine Ridge, but down at Navajo as well.
Of course it's a he said/he said argument, but with Churchill's recent firing and proof of plagarism and well all the other stuff he's done over the years it'll be easy to believe the words of someone whose never been scrutinized in the published world, but let me reiterate again, the FBI and this author does not have the best interests of NA's in mind, but I'll still take it for what it's worth.
Just my $0.02.
"With over a thousand endnotes, dozens of photographs, two appendices, and never-before-published primary source material, Trimbach’s book documents the sad history of a victimized people sorely in need of a spiritual and economic revival."
Depending on the quality of the references and source material, and the way they are used, it is not necessarily he said/he said.
Unter-radicals at Try-Works point out that the book is not peer-reviewed. Incredible.
IMHO it is a he said/he said.
Who gives a @#$* about what the assholes over at tryworks say about peer review cause Churchill's work was never peered reviewed until the past two years of course.
The early Try-Works buzz is a possible preview of the angles of Charley Arthur himself.
That peer review business is a sensitive subject over there. The Churchill CV shows a number of publications in "peer reviewed journals." To point out that many of the journals appear to be only nominally reviewed, the articles shoe-ins, basically that their peer review is a joke, produces volcanic moral spasms.
(Have we not persecuted this man enough?)
No, General, we have not.
"The Churchillian rebuttal will be comedy gold. Every clain he makes can be checked."
"Do you suppose authorship for this task will be sublet to lackeys, or will Churchill sign his own name to the project?"
I doubt they will read it. Already the words "Vanity Press" have come up at DBAB.
Speaking of "vanity presses" and "peer review" (always sensitive subjects for Wardo), how many of his claimed peer reviewed pubs were in Issues in Radical Therapy, or whatever the title was?
Because that journal was "desktop-published" (remember that phrase?) on Chutch's old Apple II, out of his own house. He ghostwrote most of the contents. The pieces that he took credit for were part of the resume inflation that got him the CU job to begin with.
And which of Churchill's own books were not published with a vanity press? I can only think of one.
Trimbach’s account is a first-hand eyewitness source. That would hardly need a peer-review.
Still, Trimbach’s book was peer reviewed by Judge Webster who was head of the FBI and the CIA.
Another reviewer, Tim Giago, used to live next to the Trading Post at Wounded Knee. His family cabin was ruined by AIM.
Paul Demain, another Indian journalist, also reviewed the book.
Ward Churchill wrote for a KGB/Cuban-sponsored publication called the Covert Action Information Bulletin. See Christopher Andrew or Mitrokhin or CAIB on my site.
The purpose of the CAIB was to discredit the FBI and CIA. See “Sword and Shield” (232-234).
Andrew was the head of the History Department at Cambridge.
So if Wardo writes for the CAIB, who are his peers?
I just notice that today Mr. Paine provides a list of publications Churchill says he has been in.
I don't see the CAIB in this listing, but it has been listed in the past and I have seen at least one article.
Please check out what the Cambridge historian Christopher Andrew says on 232-234 in "The Sword and Shield" about the CAIB, a propaganda mouthpiece.
This book is on-line if you have a subscription to www.questia.com
Churchill is always calling people FBI agents and stooges, but he writes for a magazine that is controlled by the Soviet-era KGB and the Cuban intelligence.
A big theme of their propaganda has always been that the US uses biological warfare.
Snaps, CAIB isn't on the PB list because it's not on Churchill's c.v. list of PEER-REVIEWED publications.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Still, why would he need a peer-review? He is writing a first-person account of something he experienced first-hand.
It is more like testimony by an eyewitness. Like his memoirs.
I have only read a little bit of the book, but I think it has the ring of truth.
You guys always doubted Trimbach and sort of made fun of him--not as bad as you mock me, but still. Now you see that he came through.
I never doubted it for a moment.
He is telling a lot of things I have tried to explain, but he does it a lot better, of course.
Looks like that's what they're going to do, Laurie, just ignore it.
Biological weapons: The U.S. has used biological weapons, and has tested them domestically
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/H...0712/
S00060.htm
I see Hilda - so Ward is vindicated.
Anyway, Snapple, peer review is not done with a book of this sort. There are editors, and people are free to review the book, but there is no panel of experts who can prevent publication until all their objections are satisfied. Noting that the book is not peer-reviewed is just stupid - that is the point.
Lots of academic books are not subject to peer review, either.
None of Churchill's books were peer reviewed.
I had a question about Churchill's publishers - what is the correct term? Is it "left-wing crank press?"
Heidi,
Will you read the book?
Commenting by HaloScan
