Some thoughts on the firing of Ward Churchill

Some thoughts on the firing of Ward Churchill.

Don't underestimate the important precedent this sets. Ward was wrong, the 9/11 victims aren't the “little Eichmanns,” the University of Colorado at Boulder Regents are! From the article:

As to Churchill’s charges that the review of allegations was rigged against him, Brown called it an “extraordinarily long process” with “countless hearings” and said that “there isn’t anybody who can look you in the eye ... and say that this case hasn’t had due process.”

"Due process" through a rigged system misses the point of due process entirely!

Besides, since there is dissagreement over whether this is about political cencorship or academic integrity (it should be obvious which I believe), I still think it imperative that the benefit of the doubt must go to academic freedom. For censorship is a far worse fate than even a valid charge of misconduct; the credibility machine can work the latter out on its own!

Taking a Tentative Stand: I Vote for Clinton (Updated)

Ok, I thought it was about time to take a closer look at the Democtratic presidential cantidates and figure out who I support. While I won't claim this to be a definitive and final position, there's still a long time yet for new information to pop up, I'll make a tentative foundation of support: I still like Hillary Clinton the best.

Since I work a double shift today and I ran out of news and email to occupy me far sooner than normal, I had a long time to browse various sources of issues/stances for each cantidate. As has been the case in recent elections, I still found Project Vote Smart to be the best single source (pay special attention to the "Interest Group Ratings" for each cantidate, I think they're the most revealing), although a bit disheartened to see that Clinton and Obama refused to submit a NPAT and Edwards' is from 2004 [SEE update below]. I suspect this is a result of Kerry's flip-flop label and a perhaps justified fear of having their positions used against them by morally narrow-minded opponents. Nonetheless, still unfortunate...

A few thoughts on each cantidate:

Edwards isn't bad on the issues, per se, but he doesn't jump out from the other top cantidates either. He wasn't in the top couple spots on my list last time around, and nothing has changed that now. I still think he'd make a great VP for either of the other cantidates.

Obama is great. I love his energy and the enthusiasm he is able to proudce in his constituents, especially young people. He is with me on most issues and is supported by the interest groups I care about. The only thing that sets him apart from Clinton to any significant degree is his experience. It is unfair to call him inexperienced, that's far from the truth. But he doesn't have the vast and proven history of Clinton, either. I think he could make a great president, but I think Clinton would be a better one and he still has plenty of time for his chance. Besides, the Senate need outspoken leaders that can get national attention like he has shown capable of doing. I'd like to see him continue in that role for a term or two more, personally.

Clinton, however, still has my vote at this point. Like Obama, I agree with her on most issues and she has the support of the right interest groups for my priorities. On top of that, however, she has years of experience in Washington and what i would call a good (as opposed to great/ideal) record on the issues I care about. If I had to pick a single issue that is my priority for this election it would be universal healthcare. Noone can beat Clinton on that mark at this point. Michael Moore's comment in Sicko notwithstanding, I still feel she is the best cantidate to push this issue to a productive conclusion. (That's not to say I'm entirely uncritical of her on it, and Moore has made me at least step back in question on this issue for her. I'll let time flesh it out more before the election.) In the end, I think she's the best cantidate at this point, but I await some of the debates closer to the election to get a more focused sense of each of the cantidates.

From a more general perspective, I like the idea of a black male president, but I also like the idea of a woman president. But they don't just cancel each other out on this point; I think we need a woman in that position more than we need a black man. I almost hate to make a statement like that, I am in no way prioritizing opression. But historically, black men have achieved rights in the US before women (black women, of course, are rarely considered in their own right altogether!). In general I truly believe a woman president would do more for pushing our country culturally forward than would a black male.

We'll see how things change as we get closer to the election, and I fully qualify this post as tentative. But I have always been a fan of Hillary Clinton and I truly think she would be a great leader for our country at this point int time.

UPDATE: I was just contacted by Mike Wessler, the coordinator of new media for Project Vote Smart, who came across this post in a google blog search. He thanked me for my comments about thier website and reaffirmed that they "strive to constantly be the premier source of trustworthy, non-partisan, non-biased information on candidates and elected officials at all level of government." I genuinely would agree that they fulfill that role very well (they have bountiful information on both federal and state cantidates). He also said that they will soon be sending the NPAT to the 2008 cantidates and directed me to their blog, The Voter's Speakeasy, for more information on how to help make sure the cantidates fill it out for this election cycle. Check it out and please pass on information about Project Vote Smart to your friends so people can stay fully informed about the issues they care about.