NYT: A Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom

[Up2Late]

(...Mr. Nass, a Whitewater Republican, said. “It is an embarrassment for the state of Wisconsin. It is an embarrassment for the university...” and we can't have a university lecturer, who's not even teaching the "...9/11 Commission Report was incomplete ..." stuff, possibly transferring his doubts via osmosis, can we?)

A Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom

NYTimes.com

By GRETCHEN RUETHLING
Published: August 1, 2006

MADISON, Wis., July 26 — Sipping on a bottle of water and holding a book about the history and future of Islam, Kevin Barrett ticked off a few examples of what he saw as evidence that the Sept. 11 attacks had been an “inside job.”

(clip)

...Mr. Barrett, who has been a teacher’s assistant or lecturer on Islam, African literature and other subjects at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, since 1996. “The 9/11 commission has its conspiracy theory, and we have ours.”

Mr. Barrett’s views, which he described on a conservative radio talk show in June, have outraged some Wisconsin legislators and generated a fierce debate about academic freedom on a campus long known as a haven for progressive ideologies and student activism. “They apparently have no limits to what can be taught in the classroom,” Representative Steve Nass said of the university’s decision to allow Mr. Barrett to teach a class this fall titled “Islam: Religion and Culture....”

(clip)

...The week of July 24, Mr. Nass, who is up for re-election this year, sent a resolution signed by 61 state legislators — all but one of them Republican — to Gov. James E. Doyle, a Democrat, and university officials condemning Mr. Barrett’s “academically dishonest views” and demanding that his one-semester contract to teach the class for a salary of $8,247 be terminated....

(more at link) <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/education/01madison.html?ex=1312084800&en=dbabebbac8594d64&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>

[wildbilln864]

1. great post!

I hope the people will demand answers to the many, many unanswered questions!

[Bolo Boffin]

2. JOTS?

Off to the dungeon with ye!

[Up2Late]

5. This article is not about the guy's"controversial views," this is about...

...the RW Thought Police trying to get this guy fired for something unrelated to his job, which is a very serious problem.

I hope the dungeon dwellers will re-post this there themselves, if they want to debate that aspect of this guys life, and not drag this important article about Wisconsin's Orwellian Thought Police down by dwelling on that.

[rodeodance]

42. yes, the WI legislature has swung to the Far Right!! last few years!

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Where? I thought it made 'The Greatest."

Where d o you stand on this boloboffin? Should he be fired or not?

[readmoreoften]

9. Why invoke these names, my friend. /nt

[John Q. Citizen]

11. As in don't

feed the animals?

[readmoreoften]

16. what you said :) /nt

[itzamirakul]

8. The importance of controlling the debate...

Is freedom of speech in trouble at our colleges and universities? According to this paper by Mearsheimer and Walt, there is an active attempt to prevent discussion of all sides of a topic.

www.londonreviewofbooks.com/v28/n06/mear01_.html


<snip>
Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to ‘vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the national pro-Israel effort’.

The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.

<snip>
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.

A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended in large part to promote Israel’s image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to help counter the ‘Arabic point of view’ that he thinks is prevalent in NYU’s Middle East programmes.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. That "paper" was poorly done.

It has been ripped to shreds, even by those on the left! Noam Chomsky, not a friend of Israel, ripped it to shreds.

[readmoreoften]

18. I see nothing wrong with an academic department that studies Israel anyway

Many departments have political reasons for their existence. As in 100% of cultural studies and area studies programs.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. I don't either.

I was discussing the "paper" that the other poster was talking about. It is not very well done.

Edit: grammar issue

[itzamirakul]

25. Neither do I see anything wrong with departments that study Israel.

What I do have a problem with is when there is a possibility that the debate is controlled to give only one side of the argument. If this is not happening, then there is no problem, but if it IS happening then we should surely know about it.

Most Americans are so complacent they are not likely to take action against the stifling of freedom of speech anyway, even if the proof of it was stuck up their noses. I don't know many parents who will rush off willy-nilly to complain or protest at their child's college if they hear about the controlling of debate on that campus. It's one of those shrug your shoulders events.

[itzamirakul]

22. Well, that of course is your opinion, and Chomsky's opinion and

the opinion of many others who apparently have their own reasons for "ripping" it "to shreds." Anyone who reads this paper surely has the intelligence to google for its opposition voices also.

I believe in debate...fair debate...and I think all sides of a story should be told...not just the part of the story that makes one side look right all of the time.

I have read this paper several times and I think it deserves a hearing as well as do the dissenting voices against it. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I am more concerned with just who has influence, i.e., control over the U.S. government than I am about the ME conflict.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. I am all for debate.

But, I am also for fair and honest "reporting." Whereas all sides should be told, it doesn't mean all sides deserve merit. Like you, I have read the piece several times. However, IMO, the ones' who have the power over the US government, has been and will be, corporations. As "strong" as the "Israeli" lobby may be, if Israel wasn't strategically important, there would be no "Israeli lobby" power!

[itzamirakul]

33. It used to be "our" government. Who controls it now? And do we care?

First, I think that the individual reader should decide for himself/herself just what has merit and what does not. I don't think that anyone should be dictated to as to what deserves merit. To pre-judge that all sides do not deserve merit smells strongly of arrogance and entitlement. IMO, all sides deserve the respect of being heard equally and fairly. Otherwise we are back to the question of controlling the debate.

Second, I am not fool enough to believe that it is only corporations that have major sway over our government. I think there should be open and transparent debate over the way our foreign policies and even our domestic policies are being shaped and even written by a few powerful individuals in America working collaboratively with a foreign government. I doubt that many Americans know that this is happening since most don't even remember what they had for breakfast, but a debate would inform more people and give them the opportunity to either agree or disagree with the way things are now being done. If enough Americans are in agreement with this new "Shadow government" then the rest will have to go along. But if not....


www.londonreviewofbooks.com/v28/n06/mear01_.html

<snip>

Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to persuade the administration and the American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said, should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do with him.

The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’ from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in providing advice on the letter.

<snip>

Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.

<snip>
Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby backed it and Powell lost.

<snip>

US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has Bush ‘wrapped around his little finger’, the former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing today.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. The paper is crap!

It is not worthy as a source of proof of anything other than poor research and what not to do! Seriously, look at this line..."Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain,.... Do you really think Bush knows who that was?! Or what it even meant to be compared to Chamberlain? Had we being talking about Bush, Sr. (possibly)....Regan...maybe he would have known...but this president?! Do you even think he could name all 50 states, much less know anything about a historical leader?!

Here is a "clue" for you...."money makes the world go 'round." So, even if corporations aren't the ONLY source, to think that they aren't the major driving force...well, just look at the immigration issue...or the "outsourcing issue," or the "bankruptcy issues," or the "credit card issues," then tell me, that corporations aren't the driving force! Even better....who got the reconstruction contracts in Iraq? NOLA? Who sells the weapons? All corporations!

[itzamirakul]

38. Remember that during the Revolutionary War in America that it

was English subjects who turned against their ruling English "masters" across the sea in London.

I expect that we will see that kind of thing happen again as American citizens sort out their loyalties. Some of those who are the most ardent supporters/defenders of The Lobby today will end up being its greatest foes when they discover that the benefits of such a group do not include the best interests of the American people.

BTW, the authors of this paper do include corporations and corporate heads as being a part of The Lobby. But corporations do not attend meetings and think tanks where policies are decided and written up for the government...they send their individual representatives. The major corporations to which you refer have departments within their organizations dedicated totally to writing government policy. Or at least to let CNN tell it this is so. Maybe CNN just made that up out of whole cloth...I don't know...but it sounds like something the corporate heads would do for their own benefit.

Just think, if you are a ceo of a major corporation, you can write policy that not only benefits your organization and makes you tremendously popular/powerful with the stockholders, but you also get a chance to write the rules that make you personally, filthy, stinking rich with absolutely no taxes and no consequences, all of this while the American people watch you with eyes wide shut. It's a great life if you control the whole thing, isn't it? :) You can also write policies that enable you, the ceo and your corporation to rob the U.S. Government through rerouting the money allocated to special government funded programs. You can even try to loot the Social Security Funds.

It is true that corporations now have all the rights of an individual person, but the corporation is totally helpless without its human controllers...powerful individuals. Unelected people who are doing the jobs that our elected officials are supposed to be doing. It is this that I would like to see brought into the strong light of day and the bored, lazy, uninvolved American citizens become aware of. Then, after this country becomes the United States of the Lobby, they will have no reason to complain when America becomes the largest concentration camp on the planet.

This Lobby is also the same group that Hillary Clinton referred to years ago as a "vast right wing cabal."

[JackNewtown]

57. Where do corporate interests lie on I/P?

Let's look at the three major economic groups involved in this:

1) Oil companies
2) Weapons producing companies
3) All other companies

Clearly conflict benefits #2 but the unique US stand on the conflict does substantial damage to #1 and #3. Let's look at something as simple as Coca-Cola. Are its sales helped by the US position in the 57 Muslim states and among 1.3 billion Muslims? Of course not.
If corporate interests ruled US policy toward Israel, the American position would be like that of France.

[AliceWonderland]

47. The paper may well be without merit -- or as you put it, "crap"

Or, it may not be crap. But I surely couldn't tell from your post above, which was an emotional stringing together of phrases, not an argument. Perhaps you outlined your case better elsewhere, I am not sure.

Bush is clearly not an intelligent man, but to base a case on an assumption that he doesn't know how Chamberlain is -- that's supposition.

In addition, thank you so much for the "clue" -- how very instructional. I do not doubt the role or power of corporate entities. But stringing together a number of broad, generalized examples does not present much of a case that other actors could also be influential.

You could well be right. But one couldn't tell from your post.

Have a great day!

[JackNewtown]

56. 94-2, 352-21 say it all

If this were soley about $$$$ the US would be neutral or even pro-Palestinian like every other country on the planet. Those countries also want money, and they clearly realize where their economic interests lie. Moreover, in the case of the US, its current policy hurts its national security which inevitably hurts the economy. It is amazing how different the policies of nations with AIPAC are on Israel...

[Up2Late]

36. I've only read what you've posted, but I'd have to agree with...

...the others here who say it's crap.

Here's a link to a pdf file, to a response paper, written by another Harvard Professor, Alan Dershowitz: <http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/facultyresponses.htm>

<http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf>

Here's the Abstract for the Dershowitz paper:

Abstract

The working paper by Academic Dean and Professor Stephen Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer presents a conspiratorial view of history in which the Israel Lobby has a “stranglehold” on American foreign policy, the American media, think tanks and academia. In his response, Professor Alan Dershowitz demonstrates that the paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted; and embarrassingly weak logic is employed. One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.” In light of the paper’s errors, and its admitted lack of originality, Dershowitz asks why these professors would have chosen to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards, especially given the risk – that should have been obvious to “realists” - that recycling these charges under their imprimatur of prominent authors would be featured, as they have been, on extremist websites. Dershowitz questions the authors claims that people who support Israel do not want “an open debate on issues involving Israel.” He renews his challenge to debate the issues.


Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy1:
A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper”
by Alan Dershowitz (2)

(more at link) <http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf>

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Friend...

I am glad you can see that there is more than one side...but posting from Dershowitz, you are going to get called all kinds of names! It doesn't matter that he did decimate the paper with fact. He is hated by the "leftists."

Search for Chomsky's retort. You will not get blasted as hard!

[Bridget Burke]

44. Well, if Dershowitz did "decimate" the paper....

He still liked 90% of it.

[MrPrax]

45. LOL

Using Dershowitz to refute The Israel Lobby...LOL...yeah I am sure old Al is going to out himself.

[Zynx]

52. You do not need to debate positions that have no factual value or merit

Racist ideas, complete moonbat "theories" (The US government caused the Asian tsunami with HARP), previously disproved scientific theories (Earth is flat) or unprovable scientific theories (Intelligent Design) are not worthy of debate. Debate requires at least two arguable positions, and such ideas lack that.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Academic freedom is in danger with these Neanderthal Repos.

Apparently they consider the prof. to be "politically incorrect."

[Ghost Dog]

4. This one will have legs. Looking good.

:popcorn:

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Nothing like trying to shut the guy up to make it into a big deal, eh?

There no such thing as bad publicity.

[Grateful for Hope]

60. Absolutely! n/t

[readmoreoften]

10. "Apparently they have no limits to what can be taught in the classroom"

No. Actually thery don't. Hence the term: ac-a-dem-ic free-dom

[Behind the Aegis]

13. and what about things like this...

"And early this year at Northwestern University, Arthur R. Butz, a tenured professor of engineering, drew strong criticism after saying he agreed with the belief of the president of Iran that the Holocaust was a myth."

[eridani]

14. Does he discuss this in his engineering classes?

If not, it isn't relevant to his academic career.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. I agree if it is NOT taught in his classroom.

Even bigots have to make a living.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. he does not.

I just found this article, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/08/butz, which "confirms" he does not espouse his views in class. However, I wonder what would happen to a professor that espoused views that slavery in the US was not as bad as "liberals" make it out to be.


But here is a question for you...how would you feel being taught by someone that denied the Holocaust? His published work was based on his theories. Would you question how he does research? What implications might that have on what he teaches?

[Up2Late]

29. Let's not go there O.K., the Holocaust denier guy was someone else at...

...the Northwestern University, the NYT writer just sited his situation as an example, to show several examples of this sort of pressure tactic, which I think is coming from the Extreme RW Christian Fundamentalist/"Bush is God" pressure groups in both cases.

You should check out this July 9, 2006 article By Matthew Rothschild, Editor of "The Progressive magazine, sounds like Nass has been on this guy's case for a while: <http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc070906>

And check out the RW A-hole the Republicans are running for Wisconsin Governor this year, man I hope they don't have new Diebold voting machines this year:

<http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc070906>

"...Nass, a Republican, was joined by fellow Republican Mark Green, a member of the Wisconsin delegation to the House of Representatives, who is running for governor against Democrat Jim Doyle.

"Not a dime of either taxpayer or tuition dollars should be going to Kevin Barrett so he can tell students that September 11 was a creation of the government, and that the most murdering terrorist organization in the world is a myth created by the CIA,” said Green.

Doyle, for his part, said the university should take a “hard look” at “whether he has the capacity to teach students,” according to the Capital Times of Madison.

Barrett told the Capital Times that Doyle “is making himself into another McCarthyite....”

(more at link) <http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc070906>

Matthew Rothschild, hummm, might be a distant cousin, if he's one of the New York Rothschild's.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I get what you are saying...

...however, we need to look at the FULL perspective of "revisionists." I am not saying that this particular person (the one talking about 9-11) fits into that category, but we do need to make sure that what is being taught is responsible. Is the research sound or is it opinion? And if opinion, is it stated as such?

[nam78_two]

66. eh I don't know about holocaust deniers....

IMO thats a whole other thing from something like 9/11 truth stuff...

Holocaust deniers are usually toxic in their bigotry and anti-semitism.. I do get the whole thought police argument and yes I don't have a very cogent argument for keeping people like that out of educational institutions...

But, I am uncomfortable at the thought of some Nazi-worshipping, anti-semitic holocaust denier being anywhere near an educational institution...:shrug:

That particular guy especially-I remember that NW guy striking me as a racist bigot...He sounded like the kind of guy who would fail jewish students...

I am not jewish, but I am a minority and holocaust deniers/racists etc. in educational institutions frighten me...
Its a visceral thing...

[eridani]

43. If you are a historian who is a holocaust denier--

--that puts you in the same category as a chemist teaching that the four elements are earth, water, air and fire. Those are professional disqualifications. But engineers are allowed to bloviate about Intelligent Design and the Bavarian Illuminati on their own time.

[Zynx]

54. Agree

That's like a geologist preeching Young Earth Creationism.

[mhatrw]

65. Why is it not OK to invoke Nazi metaphors in an internet debate, but

just fine to invoke Holocaust denier metaphors?

Just wondering ...

[readmoreoften]

15. He's a professor of engineering. He shouldn't be talking about history

Academic freedom protects research in the discipline that you teach. You can't be a math teacher who talks against the occupation of Iraq or an engineer who wastes his class's time by denying the holocaust. It's not covered as "academic freedom" because its not an academic pursuit. Don't get me wrong, it's DISGUSTING. But as far as I know, it's also not covered by academic freedom.

Now if a tenured professor in the humanities is a holocaust denier, then there is a serious problem because it is his/her field. I don't recall this ever being an issue in the US. Serious venom against Israel continues to be a problem in some departments, but not so far as that *they wholesale deny the history they are supposed to teach*. If any Humanities department was so negligent as to give tenure a holocaust denier, it would cause a crisis. I don't know of such a case in the US. If you do, let me know, I'd love to see how it was handled.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. I agree.

If he is not teaching it, then it is simply his opinion. But, let's keep with the hypothetical for a moment. What if he was a history professor teaching this? What of 'academic freedom' then? What about the sociology professor that teaches "gays are a threat to the institution of marriage? (more likely to happen then the first example)"

On edit: I have found that he does not teach his "thoughts" in class. But you should really look at what he has written! Here is an article about him: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/08/butz

On edit...again! Damn spellcheck!

[readmoreoften]

26. There are definitely professors who teach that, even subtly.

I'm sure you'll find tons 'o homophobes in the conservative universities like Vanderbilt, Pepperdine, University of the South, etc. And probably some slide by in moderate and progressive schools. I am really disturbed by the folks who wrote that "The History of Rape" book. As in "the elderly and children are less effected by rape then women in their childbearing years" and "all men are hardwired to rape and the only thing women can do to protect themselves is cover up". (Did you know that you were hardwired to rape women, Aege? Just to let you know.) And their research was pretty shoddy too.

If a colleague started quoting the Family Research Bureau, I'd attack their sources not their ideas. Attack the sources and the ideas dry up a lot of the time.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. There are those that teach that. I worked for universities!

I have heard I was "hard-wired" for rape before. It disgusts me. To me, that is NO different than saying Blacks are "hard-wired" for criminal behavior, Jews, for being cheap, Gays, for being pedophiles, etc....

Like you, I go for the source (well, I try to...sometimes, I am too pissed off and go for the one spouting the bullshit)! I try to be objective, but, being human, I often fall short. I have also been guilty of spouting stupid shit!

Interestingly enough, because I am "pro-Israeli," I am a "freeper/troll/kool-aid drinker" among other things, but I am anything but. My liberal ass would be scooped up just as fast as anyone here!

[readmoreoften]

28. Like they're going to take Israel into consideration when they scoop us up

I hardly think you're a freeper troll, aege. :) And your liberal ass would be scooped up faster than many of the folks here. The pink triangle and the star of david are not get out of gulag free cards.

And as for those "hard-wired" arguments, I guess that's why I love trannies so much. Have a genetic female take some T and see how "hardwired" they are for knitting and needlepoint. I supposed homophobes are hardwired for gay bashing too.

Oh, aege aege aege.... . :)

[Behind the Aegis]

31. LOL! OK....Spell my name right! AEGIS! LOL!

I know! You are trying to imply that I am old! LOL!

As for my avatar, well, once they find out I am a feminist and a pagan to boot...well, they won't know how to dispense with me!

As for homophobes, I think we both know what they are "hard-wired" for....:evilgrin:

Seriously though, we both also know that hate is fostered. It doesn't matter what gender, sex, orientation, political affiliation, or any other descriptor, one has....hate knows no boundries...it is like death. It is too bad that 'love' couldn't be as boundless!

[readmoreoften]

58. heh heh, I was giving you an affectionate nickname...

In my mind I pronounce it-- eege. But I'll call you Aegis if you like.

"Why he's a feminist pagan homosexual Jew, off to the gulag."
"But look here, it shows that on Democratic Underground he did make some posts supporting the state of Israel."
"Well then. That's another story then isn't it?"

As a lesbian ex sex-worker labor activist lefty college professor with a transgendered partner and a Jewish dad, I don't suspect they'll be many mitigating factors for me either. :evilgrin:

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Sorry, didn't see your reply.

Now, I see what you were doing...I must say it is much nicer than what I have been called here recently!

As for getting hauled off, I think they wouldn't know which one to grab first! That would be our chance to run! :)

[nam78_two]

67. eeek is Vanderbilt a conservative U.?

Oh great! I am taking up a postdoc position there in a month :(...

As it is we are being told (by people that lived in TN for 10+ years) that being an East Indian "sand niggar" dating a Caucasian man we will face a lot of difficulties down there!


And we are going from super-blue Ann Arbor. We were hoping that Vanderbilt and surrounding area would at least be ok.....
We are super-apprehensive about moving down there anyway but it was a good offer...

ugh ugh ugh...:-/

[mike_c]

46. I disagree-- I don't know about you, but my degree says...

...Doctor of Philosophy-- as a scholar I'm expected to be both an expert in my field and broadly educatated-- and at least moderately conversant-- with topics outside my field. As a professor, that knowledge informs my teaching, often even when it is utterly unrelated to the topic in hand (I teach ecology and entomology courses in the biology department of a western university).

Professors profess in the classroom, which is to say that they argue in favor of their own world view-- views that more often than not are shaped by consensus among other scholars, but there is no requirement that they be, and in fact much intellectual development depends upon those who buck consensus. Academic freedom exists specifically to protect that process. Students attend in order to observe the process in action and to learn by example. Unfortunately, legislators and many students themselves don't understand this role anymore-- they think a professor's job is to teach course content, essentially to parrot consensus world views, and that the content should be vetted somehow so it is safe to learn, so that radical views are not substituted for conventional wisdom.

That expectation is simply wrong. There would be no academic growth if we make university professors chanters of scripts, even though that inevitably means that occasionally radical perspectives must be debated, like the case of the holocaust denier up thread. A professor's job inside the classroom is to challenge students, to push their thinking outside the realm of the comfortable and predictable, and their job outside the classroom is to challenge themselves and their colleagues.

[eridani]

62. Yes. There is something worse than being a holocaust denier

--and that is leaving decisions about what truth is in the hands of the government, any government.

[Rex]

23. 'They apparently have no limits to what can be taught in the classroom'

Notice how the Repuke is mad about this. Knuckle-dragging fuckwit.

[heliarc]

30. I'm a little wary...

Of the reference in Barrett's statements to the Le Figaro article pinning a CIA chief of station to Osama in the month of July 2001. The problem with this article is that Le Figaro was under direct Carlyle group ownership (reference: their website) during the time period when that article was published and the claim can not be corroborated by another news source. The motive for discrediting the CIA at that moment might have been to further distract attention from whatever work Carlyle or its subsidiaries may have been working on at the time. Of course there is little hard proof of a WTC demolition plan, but the effort to pin the complicity of the CIA with Osama might have a lasting benefit to an organization separate from the US goverment that might be planning such a demolition.

Food for thought. Interested folks might pick up a new book of essays Edited by Paul Zarembka, Professor of Economics, SUNY at Buffalo, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0762313056/sr=8-1/qid=1154424809/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3883730-9683036?ie=UTF8

The book is another more organized intellectual volley being thrown at the 9/11 commission report. This from a respected Marxist Economist.

[Up2Late]

35. You sure he's a Marxist? His book is $105.00 Dollars U.S.!

That looks like a Capitalist price to me.

And as for Le Figaro, I had not heard the "Carlyle Group ownership" part of the story before, but I did sort of remember them being called the "Conservative" French paper, right?

Better not go down that road here though, or the thread will get banished to the conspiracy dungeon.

[heliarc]

37. Which conspiracy do you mean...

Theirs or ours... Carlyle lists Le Figaro as being under their ownership for a period of time that includes the publication date of that article. http://www.carlylegroup.com/eng/industry/casestudy-755.html

105 dollars insures that the writers get paid what they deserve. Also insures that the hardcover lasts in a public library so that any and all can read it if they want. Insures that the small numbered edition won't require too much capital and reprints won't be necessary when the CIA raids the publishing house disguised as Arab "terrorists." Sounds pretty Marxist to me...

Seriously, though. This is the hardcover edition of a book published by Elsevier. That is a very highly respected Sciences Publisher that prints mostly textbooks and works meant for scholarly work and libraries. If you would rather they print 20 million more paperback copies and destroy a forest doing so, and then because there's a huge financial stake in the sale of this investment of capital they water down the salient information by pressuring the editor to remove certain sections; well... that sounds a little more capitalist to me.

[Up2Late]

39. The thing about the price of the book was a Joke...

...sorry, I forgot the :evilgrin:

But pretty much all of the stuff in the second paragraph, which I deliberately edited out (because it's background info that everyone here has heard thousands of times before), all of that is off topic. We have a separate forum for that type of discussion (Sept11). If the discussion goes down that road, the post will get moved to that forum, something I'd like to avoid.

If you want to discuss that aspect of the article, try posting the article there too.

Sorry, I've got to get some sleep now.

[heliarc]

40. Sleep well.

The world never does. I don't think its off topic at all by the way. Another intellectual speaking out about the issues in the article. The background information is part of the clip in the post... Oh well. Sorry to try to get the facts out.

[Up2Late]

48. Believe me, I haven't slept well since November 6th, 2000...

...the night before our national nightmare began.

I don't know how long you've been into this issue, but we've been talking it, going over every detail for 3 to 5 years, but since about 2004, approximately when the crazy dis-info began, the issues have degenerated into the same category as the "...they didn't really go to the Moon..." arguments. Bogus dis-info has totally polluted the issue now, which is why the threads get banished.

[heliarc]

50. I've been interested since 2001

But the issue hasn't quite gotten any less important has it? Despite the "Dis-info..." You admitted to not hearing about the Carlyle connection to Le Figaro even though you've been "going over every detail" of the issue for 5 years. I gave a source and a link. "Dis-info" is quite logically information of a different sort and I think that my point at the onset was to make light of the fact that the professor had possibly fallen prey to dis-information himself.

Your post had as its topic a man who wanted to speak his mind about Islam, and the War on Terror. And the man himself is quoted in your post arguing that point. I don't think it's fair to redirect pertinent commentary to other threads.

[Up2Late]

61. No Dork, this article was about Freedom of Speech, and the RW thugs...

...trying to get the guy fired, even though he wasn't going to teach anything about the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theories. The part of the article about his "9/11 Truth" involvement was Background information, not the main focus of this important story.

The fact that he believes these things on a personal level shouldn't be grounds for the guy losing his job, any more than if your boss fired you for talking about these things outside of work.

This is absolutely a much more important issue than the issue of if you believe the 99% of the worlds structural engineers that DO believe the official theory or the 1% who don't believe it.

What I was trying to warn you about, when the post was in LBN, was that the moderators have a very low tolerance for 9/11 conspiracy theory talk in LBN.

Your inability to take a hint, and that post at the bottom of the thread with all it's links to the 9/11 Wacko sites, has landed this important story in the September 11 dungeon, where only you "9/11 Truth movement" idiots will see it now.

I was very into this issue for years, but most of us have moved on. I don't debate the stupid crap that you folks seem to think are important here in the September 11 forum. Most of what is still "unclear" here. is bogus dis-info, planted by the CIA or Pentagon with the purpose of clouding the facts and issues, even Alex Jones has said as much in an interview on NPR, back when the 9/11 Commission released it's report. No. I don't have a link, look it up yourself if you want to hear what he said.

Thanks a lot!:argh:

Yes, I am pissed off, and am done responding to you now.

Good-bye, enjoy your windmill fight Don Quixote. :mad: :rant:

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. Glad to see him called "a skeptic on 9/11" right in the title in the NYT!

Much, much better than "conspiracy theorist" or "left-wing fanatic," or "shrill liberal," or all the other terms we see for people who dare to raise questions about what the Bush Administration has done, especially about 9/11, which is the epicenter of it all in my opinion. Implies that there is something to be skeptical about. The "skeptic" has the flavor of "not easily fooled," or "sees through shams." To see this term applied to a person who has been trying to open the eyes of the US public about 9/11 is a promising development, IMO, as is the fact that it made the paper at all and that the article strongly implies that Nass's attack is politically motivated.

Promising.

[AllyCat]

51. This argument has been all the rage here.

A recent poll on one of the local news websites showed most respondents felt he had a right to talk about it if it contributed to the debate in a class. Wish I could find a link for the poll but it's one of those "unscientific" ones.

[QuettaKid]

55. agreed. good to see the word "skeptic" instead of

the knee jerk "conspiracy theorist". K&R.

[graphixtech]

53. The Attack According to the NYT (FRONT PAGE Photo on 9/12/01)

The Official Story
The Attack According to the New York Times
by Jim Hoffman


Below is the front page of the New York Times the day after the September 11th attack. The headline: "HIJACKED JETS DESTROY TWIN TOWERS AND HIT PENTAGON IN DAY OF TERROR" makes sweeping conclusions about what happened on September 11th. As an exercise, count the number of factual errors in the headline. Scroll to the bottom of this page to see an enumeration of errors we found.

Three of the four stories on the page have titles that allude to the enemy and what the president will do to punish them. The front-page story with the "President Vows to Extract Punishment for `Evil'" title is actually a general recounting of events and does not mention the planned punishment. The first sentence of the article is revealing.

Hijackers rammed jetliners into each of New York's World Trade Center towers yesterday, toppling both in a hellish storm of ash, glass, smoke, and leaping victims.

This sentence suggests that the destruction of each tower occurred immediately following its jet impact, leaving out the 102 and 56 minutes that the North and South Towers stood after they were hit. The sentence asserts that the towers toppled, when in fact they exploded in place. Of the five photographs on the front page, two are of the South Tower collision, but none show the centerpiece of the day's horrors -- the towers' explosion into dust. Any such image would contradict the assertion that the towers toppled...
(more)
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/frontpage.html






An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html



The Hidden History of Building 7
http://www.wtc7.net/


on edit: added NYT cover image

[Grateful for Hope]

59. Look at that..

25 votes for greatest page! This means a lot more than actually being on the greatest page would mean.

[SupplyConcerns]

63. So it doesn't matter that he was RIGHT?

That's the worst, when people won't even deign to hear the evidence of the govt. being involved in 9/11.