In Whose Times?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec06/Willers15.htm

If one is looking for a publication that upholds a left of center viewpoint, it won't be found these days in In These Times, a 30-year-old periodical founded by James Weinstein in collaboration with such as Herbert Marcuse, Noam Chomsky and Barbara Ehrenreich, ostensibly to "identify and clarify the struggles against corporate power now multiplying in American society."

The December 2006 issue contains an amazingly Fox Network-like piece by Laura Washington, in which she claims to be "salivating at the prospect of the Democrats reclaiming the middle." The "middle," that part of the political road Jim Hightower accurately described as populated with road kill, is where every corporate interest in the country has sought for years to contain Democrats. These interests include the "Republican-lite" Democratic Leadership Council as well as mainstream media pundits, those on Fox included. "Stay in the middle and win" has been a drumbeat applied to keeping views from the left from being heard, and it's a drumbeat that has resulted in a country that correctly sees the Democratic Party as representing nothing in particular.

Washington argues that the Democratic Party has been too far in "the wilderness of the left." With this assertion she is, of course, taking the position that it should move rightward. In These Times is a magazine with a progressive voice?

She then takes on the phenomenon of Barack Obama, the charismatic star who bonded early in his Senate career with Joe Lieberman, sometimes called "Bush's favorite Democrat," and who mirrors Lieberman's politics to the extent that he stumped for him in the race with Ned Lamont. After reporting "grumblings from the Democratic left" regarding Obama's centrism, Washington writes: "Still, I predict that by 2008, the whiners will be vanquished." "Whiners"! -- that favorite descriptor by such as Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity when referencing those on the left trying to find a voice in this world so dominated by the corporate microphone.

On December 8, The Nation, also a high profile "progressive" periodical, published an essay by Christopher Hayes, the senior editor of In These Times, titled "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia," in which the author, troubled that a third of the US population believes in some level of government involvement in the 9/11 attack, disparages the "so-called" 9/11 Truth Movement, which he calls "a rabbit hole of delusion." He first mentions the widely distributed film Loose Change, to which he refers disparagingly as "a low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings," then goes to "more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Two of the scholars he identifies by name: theologian David Ray Griffin and physicist Steven Jones.

Most certainly the scholars, of whom Hayes is so dismissive, are his intellectual equals, but Hayes treads on thin ice with an accusation that "The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous." Within the article's context, which is an attempt to denigrate the 9/11 Truth Movement, he is, in essence, claiming that the Movement itself is characterized by willful lying, and any journalist making such a serious charge should be able to cite evidence, not mere opinion, to back it.

Regarding investigative thoroughness, the two scholars cited, Griffin and Jones, are scrupulous in their investigative methodology. Moreover, James Fetzer, a leading 9/11 skeptic and retired professor of philosophy, has written numerous well-received books on research technique and cognitive inquiry. Hayes' suggestion that the Truth Movement is based on half-baked ideas and lies is simply untrue.

Nor are 9/11 skeptics of note only in academe. Go to www.patriotsquestion911.com (really, go to it) and find an astonishing list of figures who flatly reject the official version of the 9/11 Commission. They include individuals from the U.S. Senate (e.g., Mark Dayton, D-MN), the House (e.g., Curt Weldon, R-PA), the FBI (e.g., Louis Freeh, former director), the CIA (e.g., Raymond McGovern and Bill Christinson), the Departments of Defense (e.g., Morton Goulder, under Nixon, Ford and Carter), Treasury (e.g., Paul Craig Roberts, under Reagan), Labor (e.g., Morgan Reynolds under Bush ll), Justice (e.g., John Loftus, under Carter and Reagan), State (e.g., George Kenny, under Bush l), and the U.S. Military (e.g., Major General Albert Stubblebine). Given that such open expressions are dangerous for one's professional life, it is safe to assume that for each one who comes forward, there are many remaining silent.

Now, add to those the numerous high-level governmental and military voices from around the world (Germany, Egypt, the UK, France, Russia and more), and consider that Lee Hamilton, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, has admitted that the Commission was set up to fail. Then ponder the fact that Bush's appointee to direct the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, whose admitted area of academic expertise is "creation and maintenance of public myths" (see pages 5-7 of the Miller Center Report on Contemporary Political History), had editorial control over the Commission's final report.

Despite all of this, In These Times editor Hayes seems irked that the Truth Movement continues to grow -- even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all," and he makes a flat statement that theories coming out of the Truth Movement are "terrible waste of time."

Citing divisions within the Truth Movement with "some [that] don't even think there were any planes," Hayes is unaware that creating silly, unbelievable scenarios, and inserting them within the larger Truth Movement, is an easy way of sabotaging the Movement itself. This is such an old tactic -- as with the establishment of corporate-backed phony "environmental" groups -- that the savvy should expect them. Hayes reveals a disturbing lack of political "street smarts" that one would think necessary for anyone in his position.

Hayes is alarmed that life in the U.S. "continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers." But given the chilling ramifications of the Patriot Act and the now widely reported experience of American citizen Jose Padilla, it is more likely that paranoia is to be found within the silent masses, not those in the Truth Movement who, driven by anger at injustice and fatigue from endless lies, are willing to express openly their views.

Yes, the Truth Movement "raises questions", and the questions are of vastly greater importance than any theories that might arise from them. It is not necessary -- perhaps not even desirable -- to resort to scenarios that can then be dashed by the belittling label of "conspiracy" which, like the word "paranoia", can be applied to neutralize valid concerns. The questions themselves are so numerous and significant that demands for honest answers are implicit within them.

Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, now living in Madison, Wisconsin. He is editor of Learning to Listen to the Land and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be reached at: willers@charter.net.

 

damn, this is impressive.

damn, this is impressive. going on my favorites list.

it is more likely that paranoia is to be found within the silent masses, not those in the Truth Movement who, driven by anger at injustice and fatigue from endless lies, are willing to express openly their views.

I agree, that statement

I agree, that statement stood out for me too...

Oh so well said!

Thanks! What are the American people doing! HELLO!!!!!!!
I guess they fall into four catogories
#! The brain dead #2 The oh well #3 So what can you do about it's #4 THIS IS BULLSHIT,and i am spreading the truth and do what i can.

I wonder is it also:

I think it was a video of Aaron Russo speaking, one of the audience members stood up and said, "I just want things to return to how they were in the 1990s." I wonder if some people are afraid that a real investigation into 9/11 would lead to a second US Civil War, making things a hell of a lot worse than ever before.

Pentagon Hoax

WARNING: Gruesome Photos

Not to start an off-topic thread, but it might lead somewhere...

Note that these are just two of the FOUR PHOTOS (TOTAL) of bodies or body parts at the Pentagon that were presented at the Moussaoui trial last spring. It IS interesting (if that’s the right word) that the victims’ flesh is burnt beyond recognition, but their clothing is fairly intact. Were chemicals used?

The Moussaoui trial offers a ton of evidence that’s rarely been examined by any mainstream reporter (as far as I know), and yet it’s available for all to see. I tried sifting through it some time ago for a smoking gun, but it’s an overwhelming project. Maybe others with more time and a better eye can take a look (scroll way down the page to “Phase 2”):
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...

A few things worth noting:

1. These exhibits were presented by the PROSECUTION, which had every reason to inflame the jury with gruesome photos of victims.

2. 189 people were killed at the Pentagon that day: 125 inside the building and 64 (allegedly) aboard American Airlines Flight 77, including the "hijackers." The photos here show only 4 victims—who look more like office workers than passengers (no airplane seats, trays, luggage, etc.).

Question: Are these the only photos the judge allowed in, or are these the only photos the prosecution HAD—because there were no other recognizable bodies or body parts… or perhaps NO PASSENGERS?

3. The prosecution introduced 19 photos of the inside of the Pentagon (P200023 to P200041), being careful to label each as “Photograph of the Pentagon AFTER FLIGHT 77 CRASHED INTO THE BUILDING” (emphasis mine). Talk about begging the question.

This is just a start. There are many other “interesting” photos and documents here that can keep you busy for days. If anyone finds anything close to a smoking gun, please post for evaluation and discussion.

If one is looking for a

If one is looking for a publication that upholds a left of center viewpoint, it won't be found these days in In These Times, a 30-year-old periodical founded by James Weinstein in collaboration with such as Herbert Marcuse, Noam Chomsky and Barbara Ehrenreich, ostensibly to "identify and clarify the struggles against corporate power now multiplying in American society."

Maybe those wanting a so-called "left of center" viewpoint ought to read up on Transformational Marxist Herbert Marcuse.

I was hoping to put in here a link to a free online video of

""The Frankfurt School: Marxist Conspirators Destroying the West,"

but amazingly this old excellent video is nowhere to be found on the web.

Alex Jones often refers to the "phony left / right paradigm". "The left" and "the right" are being synthesized or merged right now. They are both elements of the same controlled theatrical play.

They are both and all Kommand and Kontrol. They say that a healthy "middle" is a healthy conflict between "the left" and "the right " keeping everything in balance. But today, all sides are moving toward a total totalitarian and despotic control of all people on earth. Not a pretty picture.

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

left and right

That critique certainly applies to the Dem and Repub parties, and the organizations/groups/media linked to them. But to say that there simply is no left or right at all -even if we accept that these terms are shorthand and of limited use - is absolute nonsense.
What are your politics then? What are you for, and what are you against? As soon as you take a stand in some way, you will show yourself to be "left" or "right."

left rt illusions

"Washington argues that the Democratic Party has been too far in "the wilderness of the left." With this assertion she is, of course, taking the position that it should move rightward. In These Times is a magazine with a progressive voice?"

the "wilderness" that brought us such extroardinarily fascist laws such as
MCA ,Pat Act.,National ID [in 2008}
repeal of Habeas Corpus....

It should say corporat wilderness..
Hallbutton profits since 2001 are over 300 %
Dynocorp Bectel Blackwater thrivin

AJ: Left wing
right wing
2 broken wings of the same FASCIST PARTY

Great article Mr. Willers

I should also add that Obama, besides being nothing more than a crass Uncle Tom, is a Zionist ultra hardliner who believes that Israel's interests trump the black folk livin' the hard life on the South side.

Calling Obama an Uncle Tom

Calling Obama an Uncle Tom is more than a bit of an overstatement. He's a successful polititian doing what successful polititians tend to do--but then I'm not African American/Afro-caribbean so I don't claim to be an expert in "Uncles Tom-ness".

But did you get around to posting on the 911Debunker Guide?

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

Just in case you forgot. They could realy use your help.