by NewKid » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:24 pm
I'm just throwing this out here. Not sure what I think about it really. <br><br>I've watched some of news coverage, both tv and internet, and while a lot of 9-11 truthers are happy about Barrett's exposure and some of the disastrous debating techniques of his opponents <br><br>(see, e.g. here<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/barrett-challenges-rep-nass-to-debate.html" target="top">www.911blogger.com/2006/07/barrett-challenges-rep-nass-to-debate.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br><br>I wonder if this isn't really serving as major "don't go there" sign to academics in general. Not just by the rightwing agitprop brigade, but the left's reaction more particularly. Even though Barrett looks like he'll keep his job, this kind of scrutiny and pressure is a major turn off to most academics, who, even if they're open to 9-11, won't want to touch anything like this with a ten foot pole for fear of the reaction. Ward Churchill probably got more academic freedom support than Barrett did for his comments (and Churchill's not even a real academic!). <br><br>I don't know. Watch this video and see what you think status conscious upwardly mobile academics would take away from this. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/barrett_cnn.wmv" target="top">www.911podcasts.com/files/video/barrett_cnn.wmv</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>(My guess -- "Poor slob. He's that old and he doesn't have tenure. He can't even tuck his shirt in, much less know when to shut the hell up. I don't want to be like him.")<br><br><br>The reason I think it's important what academics think is that the 9-11 movement needs more of them both to generate solid, nondisinformational work, and for public relations reasons as well. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/12/06 7:32 pm<br></i>
