Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Speaking of planes & buildings...Follow

#1 Oct 11 2006 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
College Professor Likens Bush to Hitler
The Associated Press by way of CNN wrote:
A university instructor who came under scrutiny for arguing that the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay his students are being required to buy for his course.

The essay by Kevin Barrett, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11," is part of a $20 book of essays by 15 authors, according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press.

The book's title is "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out." It is on the syllabus for Barrett's course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Islam: Religion and Culture," but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.

Barrett, a part-time instructor who holds a doctorate in African languages and literature and folklore from UW-Madison, is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group's members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the ***** inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies," he wrote.

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the **** dictatorship.

"That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by," he said.

He added: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."
I could probably make some defense or potential explanation for some aspects of the story but, all in all, I'm left with the impression that the guy isn't someone really suitable to teach.

I say this having never met the guy nor experienced his classes to see how much of his own theories he allows to seep into the general lessons. But that's my impression.

And I'm impressed, as always, to see that the 9/11 Conspiracy Cabal has such experienced voices as a doctor of African languages and literature and folklore to tell me how the 9/11 attacks were physically impossible to have been committed by terrorists Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Oct 11 2006 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
He added: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."
Smiley: lol


GODWINS!!!
#3 Oct 11 2006 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
We all know Bush could not have planned something like that so well.
#4 Oct 11 2006 at 11:45 AM Rating: Default
Bush lied, people died, angels cried, the lord sighed, french fried, poopy pied, freeze dried...etc.
#5 Oct 11 2006 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Who knew that Bush was such an integral part of Islamic Religion and Culture.

And much to everyone's surprise, the words "Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the *****" is not a comparison of said people.

I need to get me sum more edjumaction obviously.
#6 Oct 11 2006 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
It's said that Hitler pronounced the word "Nucular"


QED
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#7 Oct 11 2006 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
A cheap ploy to try to boost sales. Time to make Africa part of the Axis of Evil!
#8 Oct 11 2006 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Atomicflea wrote:
Time to make Africa part of the Axis of Evil!


We won't even need to "bomb them back to the Stone Age".

Win-win situation, I say.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 Oct 11 2006 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Am I the only one who found the writing in this article a bit "akward"?

Quote:
A university instructor who came under scrutiny for arguing that the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay his students are being required to buy for his course.

The essay by Kevin Barrett, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11," is part of a $20 book of essays by 15 authors, according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press.

The book's title is "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out." It is on the syllabus for Barrett's course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Islam: Religion and Culture," but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.



I'm confused. The essay is in the book, which the students are required to buy for the course. But is it one of the essays that they actually have to read and presumably report/write on? The second bolded section is *incredibly* confusing. When it says "not including Barrett's essay", does it mean that his essay is not included in the list of those required to be read? Or that there's three that must be read, not including Barrett's, implying that there's four total *including* Barrett's?

Wouldn't it have been better if the writer had just told us if it was required reading or not? That's pretty significant IMO. We also need to know what the positions of the other essays are (required and not required reading). After all, if there's two that talk about Conspiracies and how Bush is a failure and what not, and two that praise Bush for his actions and agenda, then you can argue that this is a "balanced" body of coursework representing different views of the issue. If all the essays are essentially different authors writing the same or similar things, then it's not...

I'm not going to jump on this one either way. While I do think that there are a lot of really crappy teachers at the university level, and that many use their positions to impose their political ideology on their students in the guise of "education", I want to see that he's actually doing this first. Just pointing at one part of his syllabus in a vacuum doesn't do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Oct 11 2006 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
A cheap ploy to try to boost sales. Time to make Africa part of the Axis of Evil!


Lol! This is how many professors make their money. Salaries are so-so. But they publish books and then make their students buy them to take the course. That's where the bucks roll in...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Oct 11 2006 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
I had to reread that line. Awful grammar.
#12 Oct 11 2006 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm confused. The essay is in the book, which the students are required to buy for the course. But is it one of the essays that they actually have to read and presumably report/write on? The second bolded section is *incredibly* confusing. When it says "not including Barrett's essay", does it mean that his essay is not included in the list of those required to be read? Or that there's three that must be read, not including Barrett's, implying that there's four total *including* Barrett's?
Jesus, Gbaji. No wonder you have a hard time making sense.

The collection was required to be bought, and, as part of that collection, the essay written by the professor. Out of the entire collection, certain essays were required reading, but his was not one of them.
#13 Oct 11 2006 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
The collection was required to be bought, and, as part of that collection, the essay written by the professor. Out of the entire collection, certain essays were required reading, but his was not one of them.


Except that's not actually what it says.

"It is on the syllabus for Barrett's course ... but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.

That specifically says that three of them are required ready not including Barrett's essay. Taken literally, that means that the list of three does not include his essay. That only means that his is not one of the other three mentioned. You cannot conclude from that sentence that his is not *also* required reading.

If I say something like "There are only three people working in the building right now, not including me", do I not imply that I'm also working in the building? There are only three fires in the county right now, not including this one. There are only three birthdays I have to attend this year, not including mine. There are only three helicopters in the sky, not including the news8 chopper.


All of those statements imply that there are *four* of those things in the same "condition". That's why the wording is screwy. It does not actually come out and say "his essay is required reading". But the wording used strongly implies that it is. If they wanted to be clear, the wording should have been:

"The book is on the syllabus for Barrett's course ... but his essay is not one of the three essays required for the course".

or...

"The book is on the syllabus for Barrett's course ... his essay is one of the four required reading assignments".


Each of those is abolutely clear as to whether his essay is required reading. The one they went with is not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 11 2006 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm confused. The essay is in the book, which the students are required to buy for the course. But is it one of the essays that they actually have to read and presumably report/write on? The second bolded section is *incredibly* confusing. When it says "not including Barrett's essay", does it mean that his essay is not included in the list of those required to be read? Or that there's three that must be read, not including Barrett's, implying that there's four total *including* Barrett's?
Jesus, Gbaji. No wonder you have a hard time making sense.

The collection was required to be bought, and, as part of that collection, the essay written by the professor. Out of the entire collection, certain essays were required reading, but his was not one of them.


Smiley: dubious
#15 Oct 11 2006 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
And for tonight's homework assignment, I want you all to watch the Loose Change internet video and write a 3-page essay on how awesome it is.
#16 Oct 11 2006 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
May God strike me down for agreeing with Gabji over Flea but I'd read that line as saying that there was a book of ~15 essays that students had to buy. Out of those fifteen, three were required, not including the professor's, for a grand total of four.

I assumed that the professor's essay being required reading for the class was what made it "news".

It is horribly written though and I could see an argument made either way. As I said, since it was a news story, I read it assuming the worst case scenario.

Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 2:08pm PDT by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Oct 11 2006 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Jophiel wrote:


It is horribly written though and I could see an argument made either way.

Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 2:08pm PDT by Jophiel


Dude...weak. Grow some cajones.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 293 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)