Having recently begun graduate school at Columbia, I’ve had the dubious opportunity to come in contact with a number of people whose views are a bit off the deep end of the left. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising considering that Columbia’s very namesake was Columbus, the notable pioneer whom everyone was convinced was going to sail right off the deep end of the left side of the earth, but instead “discovered” a whole new world. Unfortunately, many contemporary Columbian conspiracy theorists aren’t discovering a new world so much as “revising” an existing one. And they don’t have science on their side. Instead, all they can claim is a slew of “rising documentarians” like Dylan Avery who have a lot more questions than they have answers.
It all started with a friend of mine whose bicycle happens to also be a traveling protest. He baffled me one day with the assertion that the person behind 9/11 was none other than George W. Bush. I asked him if he had voted for Lyndon Larouche. He said no, that he couldn’t stand the guy. So I inferred that he wasn’t totally nuts, and that questioning the official story behind 9/11 must be more prevalent than I had previously thought. Less than a week later, a Ph.D. in computer science whom I consider to be very intelligent made the same assertion, referring me to the documentary Loose Change. I expected him to continue with a slew of “motivational” arguments of the form “look how much political capital The Bush Administration has gained from the attack”. I have very little patience for such arguments, because they are utterly devoid of evidence, and rely on the spurious logic that if someone benefits from something they must have caused it, which, if they’re feeling pretentious enough, they might falsely attribute to some philosopher like Foucault. But this person went right into questions of evidence, arguing that no plane ever even hit the pentagon, that it was instead a tomahawk missile. (pause for a moment to digest this)
The evidence? In the photos in the video, there are no skid marks on the lawn, not very much plane wreckage is visible, and the hole in the building was supposedly not wide enough to fit a plane. I’m not going to spend a lot of time boring people with the nitty gritty details, but there are no skid marks because the plane hit the building before it hit the ground, and the hole was wide enough. Mr. Avery asserts the hole was exactly 16 feet wide, but it’s hard to see how he gets this figure from photographs taken from a great distance. And why should we believe his numbers? The documentary is full of numbers and junk forensics that no one has any compelling reason to believe, but unfortunately, we all can’t help but believe, merely because it’s on a TV screen in front of us, and we’re programmed through years of CNN-watching to trust our television set. I imagine true believers won’t be satisfied with these criticisms, so I’d encourage them to do their own research, starting on wikipedia, snopes, and other sites that are somewhat apolitical. After years of interaction with holocaust revisions, I’ve come to believe that the only person who can disabuse you of your own crackpot notions is yourself, so I won’t try too hard.
Personally, I could not live a normal life anymore, going to class, parties, applying for jobs, etc… if I had even a mild suspicion that our government had masterminded 9/11. I’d feel like I had to join a militia and begin plotting a good old-fashion banana republic-style coup. I’m flabbergasted that so many people I run into are at least partially convinced that the content of this documentary is true, yet they continue to discuss it in the same breath as conversation about exams and sexuality (two other things which shouldn’t be discussed in the same breath). Even if they aren’t ready to start a militia to overthrow our tyrannical Orwellian brainwashers in Washington, I’d at least expect them to do some minimal research into the veracity of these claims before spouting them to my innocent ears over what had seemed like an enjoyable dinner.
Let me add that I am not a robot inserted in the matrix just to make this point. I was one of the few voices in 2002 and 2003 arguing based on the reports of U.N. weapons inspectors and defector testimony that there was no hard evidence of WMD in Iraq; I am not one to toe the government line for its own sake. I, too, found Loose Change extremely convincing until I stepped back and looked at criticisms. I hope others will do the same.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Monday, March 06, 2006
Ouch
"Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money."
Isn't this a total violation of the rights of private colleges? You might as well grant military recruiters the right the come into our homes to try to convince our kids to sign away their lives to the military while they're playing GI Joe.Hate Comes To Columbia?
This is a response to the Op-Ed "Hate Comes to Columbia" by Chris
Kulawik and Josh Lipsky, heads of the College Republicans and the
College Democrats. In this piece, they criticize the invitation of
Professor Norman Finkelstein to a speaking engagement at Columbia
by United Students of Color Council, and other like-minded student
organizations. From the tone of the piece, one would have thought
Mr. Finkelstein were Hitler's lost brother. Yet the quotes of Mr.
Finkelstein they garnered are surprisingly un-provocative. It is
not necessarily "anti-Semitic" or "terrorist sympathizing" to say
"some of the things Bin Laden says are true", or that Holocaust
denial has provoked a "level of mental hysteria" among the Jewish
community, or to criticize those who profit from the tragedy of the
holocaust. Nor do I think it is in bad taste for Mr. Finkelstein to
criticize the concept of "Jewish choseness", considering that it
has led to a segregated Israeli state in which Palestinians are
second class citizens, if citizens at all. They also accuse Mr.
Finkelstein of Holocaust revisionism, but I see the editor has
wisely issued a correction. Far from being a "holocaust denier",
Mr. Finkelstein refers to his own parents as "holocaust survivors".
If this is all the criticism they can muster against Mr.
Finkelstein, then to say that he "spews hate" or to question his
professorship is inappropriate.
They also cite an argument made in the Yale Daily News which makes
an analogy to slavery, asking: "Would the university sponsor a
speaker who criticized the African-American community for
‘exploiting’ slavery and segregation? No—of course not—and rightly
so." It's interesting they would give this example, because
conservatives who get speaking engagements at Columbia and Yale
routinely make precisely this assertion when they accuse
affirmative action advocates of having a "victimization complex".
For instance, David Horowitz, who spoke at Columbia in 2003 (and
incidentally has a cover story in yesterday’s Spectator), paid for
ads across the country just a few years before attacking slavery
reparations. Horowitz asked the questions: "What about the debt
blacks owe to America? …Where is the gratitude of black America and
its leaders for those gifts?" Horowitz was implying blacks should be
grateful for their ancestors’ enslavement, and that they were
exploiting slavery by seeking reparations. This did not stop
Columbia from inviting Horowitz to a speaking engagement in 2003.
Now there’s a man who spews hate, yet judging from yesterday’s
front page Spectator article in which Horowitz accuses three
Columbia professors of "indoctrinating" students, Columbia is ready
and willing to listen to this man, despite his history of accusing
blacks of exploiting slavery. If Horowitz is given such credibility
despite his apparent hatefulness, clearly we should give Finkelstein
the same leeway, even if his opinions are shocking and
controversial.
To those who still question Mr. Finkelstein’s professorship, I would
encourage them to do a little online research on politically neutral
sites. According to Wikipedia, Finklestein initially achieved fame
for discrediting the 1984 historical bestseller "From Time
Immemorial", by Joan Peters. At the time, Finkelstein was virtually
the only person to criticize Peters’ demographic argument that most
of the Palestinians had only immigrated to Palestine in ’48 (this
argument was used to discredit Palestinian right to statehood).
Finkelstein’s assessment is now widely accepted; even Daniel Pipes,
the ideological equivalent of Ann Coultier with respect to Israel,
now acknowledges that Peters’ book "uses statistics sloppily, and
ignores inconvenient facts". Thus Kulawik and Lipsky’s claim that
Finkelstein "makes his living off of absurd statements that garner
comfortable speaking engagements" is extremely unfair. It is
difficult to deny that Finkelstein’s eternal questioning has led to
the debunking of myths about Israel that may have otherwise
perpetuated indefinitely.
In my opinion, the best assessment of a professor’s scholarship
comes not from the heads of political organizations, but from peers
in academia. Raul Hilberg, the foremost expert on the holocaust, has
this to say about Finkelstein’s much-maligned book:
"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time
of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of
these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the
right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with
the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining
to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually
conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He
is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the
reserch, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results.
I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years,
will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."
update: here's a good response piece in the spectator
Kulawik and Josh Lipsky, heads of the College Republicans and the
College Democrats. In this piece, they criticize the invitation of
Professor Norman Finkelstein to a speaking engagement at Columbia
by United Students of Color Council, and other like-minded student
organizations. From the tone of the piece, one would have thought
Mr. Finkelstein were Hitler's lost brother. Yet the quotes of Mr.
Finkelstein they garnered are surprisingly un-provocative. It is
not necessarily "anti-Semitic" or "terrorist sympathizing" to say
"some of the things Bin Laden says are true", or that Holocaust
denial has provoked a "level of mental hysteria" among the Jewish
community, or to criticize those who profit from the tragedy of the
holocaust. Nor do I think it is in bad taste for Mr. Finkelstein to
criticize the concept of "Jewish choseness", considering that it
has led to a segregated Israeli state in which Palestinians are
second class citizens, if citizens at all. They also accuse Mr.
Finkelstein of Holocaust revisionism, but I see the editor has
wisely issued a correction. Far from being a "holocaust denier",
Mr. Finkelstein refers to his own parents as "holocaust survivors".
If this is all the criticism they can muster against Mr.
Finkelstein, then to say that he "spews hate" or to question his
professorship is inappropriate.
They also cite an argument made in the Yale Daily News which makes
an analogy to slavery, asking: "Would the university sponsor a
speaker who criticized the African-American community for
‘exploiting’ slavery and segregation? No—of course not—and rightly
so." It's interesting they would give this example, because
conservatives who get speaking engagements at Columbia and Yale
routinely make precisely this assertion when they accuse
affirmative action advocates of having a "victimization complex".
For instance, David Horowitz, who spoke at Columbia in 2003 (and
incidentally has a cover story in yesterday’s Spectator), paid for
ads across the country just a few years before attacking slavery
reparations. Horowitz asked the questions: "What about the debt
blacks owe to America? …Where is the gratitude of black America and
its leaders for those gifts?" Horowitz was implying blacks should be
grateful for their ancestors’ enslavement, and that they were
exploiting slavery by seeking reparations. This did not stop
Columbia from inviting Horowitz to a speaking engagement in 2003.
Now there’s a man who spews hate, yet judging from yesterday’s
front page Spectator article in which Horowitz accuses three
Columbia professors of "indoctrinating" students, Columbia is ready
and willing to listen to this man, despite his history of accusing
blacks of exploiting slavery. If Horowitz is given such credibility
despite his apparent hatefulness, clearly we should give Finkelstein
the same leeway, even if his opinions are shocking and
controversial.
To those who still question Mr. Finkelstein’s professorship, I would
encourage them to do a little online research on politically neutral
sites. According to Wikipedia, Finklestein initially achieved fame
for discrediting the 1984 historical bestseller "From Time
Immemorial", by Joan Peters. At the time, Finkelstein was virtually
the only person to criticize Peters’ demographic argument that most
of the Palestinians had only immigrated to Palestine in ’48 (this
argument was used to discredit Palestinian right to statehood).
Finkelstein’s assessment is now widely accepted; even Daniel Pipes,
the ideological equivalent of Ann Coultier with respect to Israel,
now acknowledges that Peters’ book "uses statistics sloppily, and
ignores inconvenient facts". Thus Kulawik and Lipsky’s claim that
Finkelstein "makes his living off of absurd statements that garner
comfortable speaking engagements" is extremely unfair. It is
difficult to deny that Finkelstein’s eternal questioning has led to
the debunking of myths about Israel that may have otherwise
perpetuated indefinitely.
In my opinion, the best assessment of a professor’s scholarship
comes not from the heads of political organizations, but from peers
in academia. Raul Hilberg, the foremost expert on the holocaust, has
this to say about Finkelstein’s much-maligned book:
"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time
of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of
these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the
right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with
the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining
to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually
conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He
is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the
reserch, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results.
I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years,
will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."
update: here's a good response piece in the spectator
Will Bush Eventually Overturn Rowe?
Prochoice republicans in new york I talk to tend to think the abortion issue is just a decoy, and that Bush would never overturn Rowe, simply because of the backlash it would provoke. But the fight seems to have just begun in South Dakota, where a bill is about to pass that bans ALL types of abortion except when the health of the mother is threatened.
This law is obviously in direct contradiction to Rowe v Wade and Parenthood v Casey. What's interesting is that the Gov. Mike Rounds of S.D. vetoed the same bill 2 years ago despite his publically stated interest in overturning Rowe:
"I do think that this court will ultimately take apart Roe v. Wade one step at a time," Rounds said.
It is clear that his decision to veto was purely strategic, because in his view "the best way to approach the elimination of abortion is one step at a time", rather than through a "frontal attack".
But now that Alito and Roberts are on the bench, there are only "5 pro-rowe judges", one of whom (Stevens) is very close to retiring. So by Rounds's political calculus, the supreme court might actually be ripe for a frontal assault on Rowe once this case makes it through the judicial pipeline.
Another oft stated argument is that Rowe won't actually be overturned, just weakened. But as Bush implied in his speech, if Dred Scott was overturned, why not Rowe?
Pro-choice republicans who are oblivious to this threat need to either take their blinders off, or admit that abortion rights simply aren't very important to them.
Update: (link) Looks like Governor Rounds is going through with it.
This law is obviously in direct contradiction to Rowe v Wade and Parenthood v Casey. What's interesting is that the Gov. Mike Rounds of S.D. vetoed the same bill 2 years ago despite his publically stated interest in overturning Rowe:
"I do think that this court will ultimately take apart Roe v. Wade one step at a time," Rounds said.
It is clear that his decision to veto was purely strategic, because in his view "the best way to approach the elimination of abortion is one step at a time", rather than through a "frontal attack".
But now that Alito and Roberts are on the bench, there are only "5 pro-rowe judges", one of whom (Stevens) is very close to retiring. So by Rounds's political calculus, the supreme court might actually be ripe for a frontal assault on Rowe once this case makes it through the judicial pipeline.
Another oft stated argument is that Rowe won't actually be overturned, just weakened. But as Bush implied in his speech, if Dred Scott was overturned, why not Rowe?
Pro-choice republicans who are oblivious to this threat need to either take their blinders off, or admit that abortion rights simply aren't very important to them.
Update: (link) Looks like Governor Rounds is going through with it.
America's Hamas Pickle
Looks like Hamas smashed Fatah in Palestinian parliamentary elections 76 to 43, although Abbas is still president. Does this mean it will be impossible for the U.S. to continue providing aid the Palestinian government without having to arrest itself for "funding terrorists"? By U.S. law, you can be put in jail for providing funds to Hamas. Now the question is whether the same will apply to a Hamas led government. This event dovetails with the "trends" in South America Nathan has been pointing out. Sometimes I wonder whom U.S. policy has isolated more, Bush, or Bin Laden. I was going to title this America and Israel's Hamas pickle, but I'm afraid Israel's hard right government is probably delighted with this opportunity to escalate the conflict, and return to a policy of Israeli expansionism and landgrabbing. It's kind of scary and absurd that the sidelined Sharon just may be the only hope for peace, considering his genocidal history.
US Attacks Pakistan?!
If Pakistan is really an ally country, you'd think the U.S. would at least get permission before launching airstrikes on villages in Pakistan. It's possible they did get permission and Pakistan is denying it to stave off popular opposition, but it doesn't look like it. And riots too! This type of action probably creates many more terrorists than it kills. Sad.
Update: This really sounds like a cover up. (link)
So now, Pakistan and the U.S. have declared that foreign terrorists were indeed killed in this attack even though no foreign bodies have been found and no eye witnesses in the village of Damadola where the attack took place have said that foreigners were present. U.S. and Pakistani officials, who weren't even there, are claiming the bodies of four foreign terrorists were secretly dragged away from the scene of the attack by their compatriots, based on the report of their "joint investigation team". But if they had real forensic evidence of their claim, you'd think they would say so... Who should we believe?
Clearly, the U.S. and Pakistani officials have an interest in claiming foreign terrorists were killed: The U.S. because it justifies their uninvited cross border assault on a defenseless Pakistani village that killed many innocent civilians; the Pakistanis, because the huge riots this attack has sparked have damaged the government's credibility with the people. By claiming terrorists were killed, Pakistan can hope to weaken the argument made increasingly by Pakistani political hardliners that the Musharoff government is a U.S. lapdog, and should be toppled.
To be fair, the residents of Damadola have an interest in claiming no terrorists were present, as they have all claimed, because to do otherwise would make it seem as if they were willingly harboring terrorists. But still, they were clearly the witnesses and deserve a bit more credibility than the "Pakistani provincial authorities" cited in the article. We'll see how this develops.
Update 2: More unverifiable evidence (link)
Final Update: Hey look. I was right. It really was a hoax. The supposedly dead terrorists have just resurfaced. The idiots in the white house who cooked this story up should have known this would happen! (link) I can only imagine what this sort of fiasco does to Pakistani public sentiment. It should be a reality check for our media outlets, who packaged this "terrorists killed" story as a virtual fact, then came back with egg on their face, vindicating Arab media sources that were more doubtful. Our media is constantly trying to perpetuate the view that Arab media sources don't report the truth to the people. When something like this happens, it should make us stop and think whether our media sources are really much more credible than theirs. Of course, I still think they are, but I can't imagine why anyone in Pakistan should after an incident like this. I wonder if this will spark more riots... The sad part is it might take more riots for this story to make the front page of U.S. newspapers, even though the initial false tales of terrorists killed were plastered across newspapers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)