svxr8dr

iTrader: (1)

Ward Churchill aint got shiznit on this one:
I’d like to introduce you to associate professor at North Carolina Wesleyan, Jane T. Christensen
Here is her faculty web page http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/, proudly reeking of antisemitism and conspiracy mania.
Here is the course she’s teaching for the Spring 2005 semester: (POL 495) 911 The Road to Tyranny.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen...20syllabus.htm
COURSE DESCRIPTION

The events of September 11, 2001, indisputably changed the course of American politics and history. This course is offered so students may examine various events and policies leading to 911. In particular, this course will focus largely on the specific destruction in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. We will examine the official story and analyze it critically. We will consider alternative explanations of what occurrred as well. 911 was a catalyst for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the attack on civil liberties in the United States. We will examine each of these with a critical eye. The goal of this course is to arrive at a solid understanding of how 911 has shaped our political future and to promote critical analysis by students of this catastrophic event and its aftermath.

This course is outside the scope of traditional “political science” in many ways. First it is “unscientific” in that it relies much on eyewitness accounts and speculation. Secondly, there is not yet a solid literature on the September 11 “attacks” or on the war on terrorism. This literature is emerging, particularly on the latter. Thirdly, this course will rely somewhat extensively on alternative news media accounts and a variety of films and videos in lieu of literature
Read the whole page. You’re not going to believe her list of recommended web sites and reading sources for this course; it’s a who’s who of moonbats, antisemites, and conspiracy lunatics.

And here is her final exam for (POL302) The American Presidency.

THE PRESIDENCY

FINAL EXAM

Instructions: Write essays on each of the following 4 questions (25 points each). Your answers should be at least one page each, no less. You will be graded on your writing and organizational skills as well as your ability to bring the readings into your discussion. This test is designed to see how well you have thought about the materials we have read and discussed and your ability to discuss these materials after you have reflected on them.

1. How has the war on terrorism contributed to the powers of the Bush presidency? (Discuss at least 4 ways).

2. Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America.

3. Whose interests are served by the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration?

4. Describe and discuss the role of the Bush advisors. Who are they? What is their agenda? And how is it being carried out?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Jane T. Christensen (on the left). It's a good thing she mentioned being on the left because I was beginning to have doubts.

Just as many right-wing conservatives cling to patriotism and the American flag, Professor Christensen makes sure you see her pretty educational wallpaper. No surprise that it's at the top of the front page where everyone can catch its elitist stench.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Her credentials are very weak. There's no way she should be a college prof, regardless of her political opinions. And those test questions are loaded with propaganda.
It's a good thing not many people go to North Carolina Wesleyan (I've never even heard of it...) and that she's only an associate prof. Hopefully the admin will see she's a charlatan before she gets tenure.

bpang1

iTrader: (25)

Whew...she's pretty hardcore!

I's a Pol Sci grad and damn my profs were left leaning but not THIS left leaning!

The best thing was that my profs would try to be as non-partisan as possible and would discuss the "Practice" or "Principals" of politics rather than specific political issues like war and the middle east. For that they would actually have classes relating to the issue which would turn into big debate periods but they were all very educational because an OPEN MIND was always encouraged.

This lady's classes may have been pretty interesting though

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I don't buy her legitimacy. Not doubting the story nor her credentials, but she's no different than the media; latching on to that which gets the most attention.

There's nothing wrong in being critical of anything, however you'd better have your facts straight.

I once read a Ludlum story, don't remember which one, but the nemesis in the story was a Osama rip off. However the way that he stated things added legitimacy to their cause. Essentially, he was saying how much his culture lost ground or was subtly defeated everytime an Arab or Muslim drank a coke or watched anything MTVesque or played a video game. It adds legitimacy but much the same way that a vigilante would have you believe that he's justified. It just don't fit into the system.

Now, I'd imagine that that's her angle. How America asked for (like my father would say) 9/11. Because of the PROGRESS that the US sees and influences upon other cultures, we're somehow 'decadent' due to that. In the same way that pot influences users to use Heroin, video games influence kids to blast 9 or 10 kids in their school.

You could base a thesis on a core theory like that, but right or wrong, the preferred application of passenger-jets-as-guided munitions vs the application of diplomacy can't be justified!!!

End of story.