No big deal getting through but the topic at hand is Ward Churchill suing to get his job back. He's alleging that he was targetted for his "Little Eichmann's" essay written after 9/11 (yeah...that POS). He was fired for plagarism as confirmed by 3 seperate panels BUT--says Churchill and his lawyers--he never would have been investigated had he never written a controversial essay hence he was fired for protected speech.
I called with the following analogy: Suppose a dirty hippy (yes, I used that term) is carrying a sign that says "Impeach Bush" but he's also smoking a joint. Suppose a private citizen who voed for Bush twice sees the dirty hippy and tells the cops the hippy is smoking a joint. Does the fact that the private citizen disagrees politically with the hippy give cover to the fact that the hippy is smoking pot even if engaged in a political protest at the time? Does political protest give cover to general acts of lawlessness?
To my delight the female half of the hosting team picked-up on using the term "dirty hippy" and said she liked how I worked around the reflexive yammering about Churchill's supposed victimhood.
