The part-time teacher vowed to teach the official version of the attacks alongside the Sept. 11 theory to which he subscribes. He said he would neither tell his students what his view was nor penalize them for not buying the theory....How interesting that the student who did not perceive bias is the one who became convinced of the truth of the conspiracy theory. It's not surprising. Trying not to show bias -- as Barrett was told he needed to do -- doesn't necessarily produce neutrality. It is more likely that it will package the message in a more palatable form.
Andrea Bromley, a sophomore, came away saying Barrett had failed to be impartial.
"It's become much more opinionated now that we're doing 9-11," Bromley said, referring to the tone and progress of the course. "He's trying to explain both views, but he's biased. I don't feel like he's presented enough info on the other side."
Freshman Jesse Moya disagreed, saying Barrett had been "very objective."
Moya, who said his uncle died in the World Trade Center attacks, said he had entered the course believing the attacks were the work of Islamic terrorists. He now believes otherwise.
"It seems like a more logical explanation that it was the U.S. government," he said.
Here's an earlier post on the subject of Barrett's class and the required neutrality pose, with much discussion of a Stanley Fish's op-ed about it.
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
Wonderful, another useful idiot for Isalmic fascism. Kudos to UW Madison.
The school has an obvious (and historical) tolerance for anti-US propaganda. I hope the mood is not yet sufficiently radical to permit another building to be blown up there, like the 1970 bombing by campus radicals of the Army Math Research Center, which killed a young physicist.
That's the next logical step from these types.
John: He's not a professor. He was a part-time, one-semester hire to fill in for someone. That's not meant as an excuse. There really is a problem at the hiring phase, which is what I've been saying all along. The issue of firing him was a distraction from the real question: hiring.
Pogo: You should know that we have a mostly conservative faculty group on campus that supports free speech and opposed firing Barrett. These are the same people who fight against speech codes and the like.
"It seems like a more logical explanation that it was the U.S. government," he said.
Lost another one.
"It seems like a more logical explanation that it was the U.S. government,"
Depending on what premises Barrett sold this kid, the above could very well be true. Of course, some of those premises are likely to be things like "George Bush is the most evil leader in the world", "the Jews run the world", etc. Taking those as true, yeah, logically, it makes sense.
It doesn't mean that it isn't also batsh*t crazy.
Also, it's easy to claim someone is "objective" in their portrayal when they spout things you already agree with. "Boy, this guy's a straight shooter" you think, as he confirms all the things you know to be true.
Re: "...we have a mostly conservative faculty group on campus that supports free speech and opposed firing Barrett."
I didn't know, and I'm heartened to hear it.
Over time, Barrett has proven to be a further liability to the campus, not solely because he's vigorously anti-American, but because he's vigorously anti-intellectual (while posing as one).
Regarding free-speech for teachers, I don't view firing all that differently from not-hiring. Either way he's quieted. The latter method may feel more coercive, but it's no different in the final effect.
Mr. Moya should hope that his published comment doesn't follow him around and pop up every time some potential employer does a check. There are open minds, easily influenced minds, and empty minds.
As college students we all said and did things we later regretted. Admittedly, Moya sets a standard for stupidity few are going to equal. But ten years from now he'll be trying to blot out any recollection that this episode ever happened.
Barrett's crazed ramblings are unlikely to warp permanently the reasoning ability of his students, if they had any to start with. To do this, Barrett would need Svengali-like talents which have not been apparent in his rather dim career up to now.
The remedy for bad speech is more good speech. Unless Barrett's course is the last one Moya ever takes, reality will get in touch with him again.
Where do the Jews and the Masons fit into all this? That's much more logical than the gov't doing this. What are they teaching at UW
"It's become much more opinionated now that we're doing 9-11," Bromley said, referring to the tone and progress of the course. "He's trying to explain both views, but he's biased. I don't feel like he's presented enough info on the other side."
That's because if you look honestly at the 9-11 commission report, it doesn't hold water. All it takes is a high speed internet connection, and about two weeks to break through the cognitive dissonance. I found out just by googling "why did WTC #7 fall?". Hundred of hours later, I'll never look at anything the same way I did before I started. It's kind of funny, I'm a registered republican and I can honestly say there's just as many people in denial about this issue on the left as the right.
foxlets: After I wrote that, I thought the same thing: "unless he wants a career in academia." LOL!
tjl: True, but who knows what will follow us around forever now that everything is stored semi-permanently on the internet. In fact, many companies and private background check agencies routinely google applicants names to see what might pop up. They definitely can find if someone is registered to vote or not, how often they vote and which party they are registered in because that is now easily researched public record. And some of the private agencies have purchased email, commercial transaction and bulletin board subscriber lists, allowing them to pierce anonymity in many cases. Privacy is a thing of the past.
Seven Machos: Where? Who? What are you talking about? What I mean to say is, who commenting here disagrees with your point? Perhaps I overlookes someone, but I didn't notice a single conspiracy theorist commenting here thus far.
There is also the part about Osama admitting that he had attacked the Towers.
Osama must be another Bush stooge.
Osama must be another Bush stooge.
Oh, no! Not a stooge, Osama is a CIA operative!. I thought everyone knew that ;)
Personally, until I see a picture of Osama holding a newspaper dated today (or whatever day the picture is taken), I'll continue to lean towards the idea that he is buried under a few hundred feet of dirt and rubble in what was once a tunnel.
In this particular case, I'm a Missourian.
"That's because if you look honestly at the 9-11 commission report, it doesn't hold water... I found out just by googling "why did WTC #7 fall?". Hundred of hours later, I'll never look at anything the same way I did before I started."
Did you read the NIST report? Which aspects did not "hold water"?
Just because there's a plethora of sites on the net saying there's something fishy about the WTC collapse doesn't mean those sites are correct. Too many of them peddle the same misapprehensions and mistruths; it's less a wide variety of information, and more an echo chamber of "me too!" that leads to all those sites you've Googled.
So, anyway, what exactly doesn't hold water about the WTC 7 collapse?
All it takes is a high speed internet connection, and about two weeks to break through the cognitive dissonance. I found out just by googling "why did WTC #7 fall?". Hundred of hours later, I'll never look at anything the same way I did before I started.
I am related to several engineers who have spent thousands of hours over four years getting a professional degree. They have no time for this idiocy, because they make a living building and demolishing things in the real world. I'll take their word any day over someone who got their two-week degree in Conspiracy Batshit at the University of Google.
Actually, I said it. I've been a General Contractor for 20 years. I have a brother 11 months my junior with a master's degree in civil engineering. We've studied this.
Anyone defending the official theory, should in fact have read the 9-11 commission report. There is no denying that. If you haven't done so, please don't waste time quoting popular mechanics. They can't explain the demise of building 7 any more than the 9-11 commission could.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8To3cX9Mudw
Again, which aspects do not hold water?
And how about the NIST report? That's a separate report from the 9/11 commisions. Is that one also inaccurate? If so, can you list examples of how?
Or, as an alternative: What is the explanation for the tower's and WTC 7's collapse?
Where do the Jews and the Masons fit into all this? That's much more logical than the gov't doing this.
That's because you haven't penetrated to the heart of the conspiracy: the Jews and the Masons control the government. Secretly. (You may optionally throw in the Trilateral Commission, the Knights Templar, and/or the Ascended Masters of your choice, to taste.)
There is nothing that can't be explained by a good conspiracy theory because a good conspiracy theory can always be extended. Contradictions are explained by referring back to the conspiracy, viz: "'But X and Y are enemies, how can they be conspiring together?' 'Aha! That's what They want you to think!'" If you find yourself thinking in patterns that contain a pre-emptive explanation for every seemingly contradictory fact, suspect yourself of having fallen into a conspiracy theory.
I love how crazy the conspiracy theories surrounding WTC7 are. Airplanes are hijacked and crashed into the two towers and the Pentagon, but for some reason the conspirators also wired building seven -- a building that, I suspect, few Americans even knew existed, and fewer still remember collapsed -- to blow. Because, I guess, destroying the towers and damaging the Pentagon wouldn't really have gotten Americans riled up for a war. No, what really got us ready to kill us some Ay-rabs was that Building 7 -- once *that* collapsed, then we'd really had all we could stand.
And the conspirators did all this in order to declare war on Iraq. They just forgot to actually, you know, tie Iraq to the attacks. Which I guess just goes to show that even the most brilliant plan always overlooks something. They ended up having to make up a story about WMDs -- and then forgot to plant proof of THOSE in Iraq, too. Man, its a miracle those guys can tie their own shoelaces in the morning, I tell you.
I think RJ needs to see this film. It'd teach him something about the hubris of self-educated conspiracy theorists.
Sorry, folks, didn't catch this the first time I read it:
"...please don't waste time quoting popular mechanics. They can't explain the demise of building 7 any more than the 9-11 commission could."
Red herring. Pop Mech didn't try to explain the WTC 7 collapse in complete detail. They were merely addressing myths about controlled demolition and the supposed "light damage" the building sustained, as well as arguing in favor of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) analysis. See for yourself here:
Pop Mech story link
My point is that any claims made in the article were based on the NIST assesment, some of which has been revised and much of which is still being studied (info available at NIST's site; be advised that the material at the PopMech link is already dated in some aspects). So attacking PopMech is a way to disparage the NIST research without confronting the expertise and careful, deliberate research the teams are conducting.
Anyway... It's a common 9/11 conspiracy fantasist tactic to attack the Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Myths article; you see them doing it all over the web. You also see them raising all sorts of red herring claims, taking quotes out of context (eg. the infamous Silverstein "Pull it" quote), favoring fantastic claims by some witnesses over the claims of others, etc. RJ here is doing nothing that hasn't been done elsewhere in attempting to throw doubt in the minds of others. It's all misdirection. If RJ were indeed truly interested in discovering the truth, he'd realize that said truth is not to be found in the ludicrous narratives of the 9/11 conspiracy fantasy clique, but rather in the careful analysis of the NIST groups, as well as the careful analysis of the holes in the conspiracy fantasist's assertations.
For resources:
NIST site dedicated to WTC 9/11 research: http://wtc.nist.gov/
Basic 9/11 Myths & conspiracy debunking sites:
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
James Randi Educational Foundation's conspiracy theory posting forums (James Randi is a pseudoscience and paranormal phenomena debunker most famous for challenging psychic & telekenetic Uri Geller):
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
Bad Astronomy conspiracy posting forum:
http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19
Anyway RJ:
Which aspects of the WTC 7 collapse narrative put forth by the NIST group does not hold water?
And: What is your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा