This is from Wikipedia

"Kevin James Barrett (born February 1959) is a university lecturer and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.[1] He is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.[2] Barrett became controversial in 2006 when he held a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3]

During the fall semester of 2006, Barrett taught an introductory class on Islam, an undergraduate course in which he had formerly been employed as a teaching assistant. Before the semester began, he announced his plans to spend one or two weeks of the 16-week class teaching about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into his lectures.[4] An internal university probe of his performance as a teaching assistant determined that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom."

This is the heading of one of the search results when I entered the name "Earl Johnson" (there is no reference to him in Wikipedia)

"Earl Johnson, 9/11 Survivor, Speaks out Against Kevin Barrett's "Conspiracy Theory" You're invited: Earl Johnson, a 9/11 Twin Tower survivor, is coming to our campus to speak about his experience of ..."

This is also what I read on campus Monday on a handbill or a flyer or something. I thought it sounded interesting so I made plans to attend. Tonight (Tuesday) at 7:00 p.m. in Grainger Hall. I don't know exactly what Mr. Barrett's theory is but I understand that part of it is that our own government, or people within it anyway, were the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. I always thought that if I had the chance I would hear Mr. Barrett out. That chance has not come to me yet but meanwhile here's this.

Apparently this is something of a hot-button issue on this campus (Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison campus). So there were police there (I noticed, after taking a seat). No searches or anything, just three or four peace officers. Hmmmm... what are they expecting?

Grainger Hall, I should mention, is the main building for the UW School of Business. I thought nothing of this fact, at first.

A young woman (grad student maybe?) took the stage at about one minute after and thanked us all for coming. "It's nice to see so many conservatives, libertarians and seekers of truth" (or something) is what she said next. Again, hmmm... what to make of this? Is this some sort of right wing "event". Or we going to recite the pledge of allegiance? Maybe open with a prayer? (No and no)

She asked everybody to please be courteous and ask our questions after Mr. Johnson's talk, which would last about 45 minutes. Then she gave way to another young lady who introduced Mr. Johnson.

He told us about where he was born, what his education was (a business major, natch) and how he never wanted to live in New York. Why would he when he lived on some island in Puget Sound? Life was good. But... he started up his own tech company in 1998 or thereabouts and wound up going bust and needing a job. Next thing ya know he's working for some investment company (I think) in the north tower of the World Trade Center. I believe he started in the summer of 2001 (or 2000, what he said was the prior summer).

He then told us about his day (on Sept 11th, 2001). Interesting enough story. Then he was done.

What happened to debunking the conspiracy theory? Well I wasn't the only one wondering, the second or third questioner asked him that.

Well, what specifically do you want to know, he asked. Well, specifically, we want to know when are you going to get to the debunking part?

He didn't really have anything planned, it seemed, though he did pull out a copy of Mr. Barrett's book and refer to one allegation in there that was not very helpful to me. something about the "slag heap" that was at the bottom of it all later which is I guess one of the planks of Barrett's conspiracy theory and which he was apparently providing a logical explanation for. I had/have no context for any of that and can't say what it was worth and that was it for debunking.

He did say that he was proud of our soldiers or something (a real risk, that) and in response to the last question (what did he think of the Iraq war now, 4 years on) he asked his own question. Have we caught all of those responsible for the attacks? No? Then why would it be over? Yikes!

I have his e-mail address and I'm going to see if I can straighten him out (doubtful) and I filled out his evaluation/questionnaire and will be sending that along but what a disappointment. And, oh yeah, he got a standing ovation (I stayed sitting) when he was finished. The choir was happily preached to.

I read this on the BBC News website and it got me to thinking:

"US general upbeat on Iraq 'surge'
The US military commander in Iraq says there are grounds for optimism over the latest security drive.
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC that with two out of the five extra brigades now on the ground in Iraq, there had been fewer attacks.

He said he would have an idea of the chance of success once all extra troops were deployed in the coming months.

The new "surge" policy is aimed at curbing sectarian and insurgent violence in Baghdad and Anbar province."

It's got me thinking a number of different things actually.

The first is an obvious one, that being that any apparent success now at bringing order over there could well be temporary, lasting as long as the "surge" and no more. After that, back to "normal".

But let's go past that, past the fact that I give this "surge" plan no chance of bringing stability to the region after we leave, past the idea that maybe we won't accomplish much while we're there even (and then what, more surge?) and let's get on to what if this somehow does "work"?

That will be a good thing, right? We all do want peace over there, right?

The next question is: will that be the first time in 6+ years that the Bushies have actually been right about anything?

I don't think that even they expect this to lead to actual peace over there, they be just trying to create a situation where our interests, whatever those can be defined as, are "winning". This surge is being initiated to secure the area, a very military type of thinking, not to create peace.

Again:

"The new "surge" policy is aimed at curbing sectarian and insurgent violence in Baghdad and Anbar province."

So they'll be right about the surge accomplishing something but will they have achieved their stated goal, which is something like a stable, secure Iraq that can be an ally in the "war on terror".

However you define "right" on this issue, will it be they're first time? I can't think of another time when anything they've predicted has come to pass, about the only thing they've succeeded in doing is getting the presidency for a second term; oh, and redistributing a lot of wealth in a northerly direction, very capitalistic, don't you think?, but they never really came out and said they would do that, at least, not to me. It was sort of understood, I guess.

Probably won't happen anyway.

The number three hitter hits a long one to right center that I run down. Two outs to go. The clean-up hitter belts one to medium deep left. I start over and run hard all the way so I can be in position to back up the left fielder, who makes a routine catch to get us down to one out to go. Now I'm breathing pretty hard and starting to feel some tightness in my legs, especially my quads. So naturally their number five hitter, Jeff Kopp, the eventual camp MVP, pounds one to right center (I'm playing him to pull so a little bit in left center). This is what they pay me to do. I take off and see halfway there that I've got it if my legs don't give out.

Got it! Brewers win! (Actually all the teams are the Brewers). I continue running, slowing slightly, until I'm in the infield, kind of in the middle, between the Pitcher's mound and our (third base) dugout. High fives all around. Handshake line with the other team. I still have the ball (and still have it now) and decide that it should be autographed (later) by my two coaches (Money and Moore) and Dale Sveum who was at the same time the losing manager and the winning pitcher.

Back to the locker room for beers and whatever where we learn that at 2-0 we sit alone atop the standings. Outstanding! But of course, this is baseball and tomorrow's another game (or two).

Viet Nam has been quietly Communist for more than thirty years now, since the fall of Saigon in 1975. What were the chances that they have all been enjoying living in a Communist society ever since? Apparently democracy is sounding her siren call to at least some VietNamese.

One thing about Communism is you can't really have a second party, can you? If there was to be a second party it would have to be in name only, maybe the smallest and most insignificant differences.

We think we have a two party system but really their similarities are much more numerous than their differences. They could easily be called the Democratic-Republicans and the Republican-Democrats.

Our system favors individual freedoms and liberty, their's tends toward emphasizing the State and the individual's responsibility to the State.

We think our way is best and we have gotten ourselves into trouble in the past by trying to "bring it about" in other countries.

But of course Communism is no longer viewed as a threat to the American way of life, not like it was, now it's "terrorism" or "Islamic Radicals" or something along those lines.

Probably this means that no one is going to suggest that we need to help these "freedom fighters" in Viet Nam (how about we just arm them?), plus there is not much in Viet Nam that we want, is there? Not compared to the Middle East, where we're currently involved anyway, to the point that we can't really bite off anymore, right?

Here's the story, from the BBC:


Vietnam dissident priest detained
By Bill Hayton
BBC News, Hanoi

Dissidents in Vietnam say a Catholic priest who has been prominent in the country's small democracy movement has been arrested.
The spokeswoman of the Vietnam Progression Party said that police took away Father Nguyen Van Ly after questioning him in his home for a week.

The arrest seems to be part of a crackdown on the party's activities.

Father Ly has spent 14 years in prison for his opposition to Communist Party rule.

He was released in an amnesty in 2005 and is now a member of the Progression Party.

Founders questioned

The Progression Party says he was taken from his office in the central city of Hue on Saturday afternoon by about 60 police officers.

He had been under questioning there for six days and had reportedly begun a hunger strike.

The Vietnamese authorities have not acknowledged the arrest, but earlier they confirmed his office had been raided and he was being investigated on suspicion of undermining national unity.

The party says its two founders, Nguyen Phong and Nguyen Binh Thanh, who also live in Hue, were also detained by police last week and questioned for several days.

The Vietnamese government has previously accused such dissidents of using the cover of democracy to try to undermine the country.

Vietnam's opposition movement is small and divided, but it has been making efforts to become more effective.

Earlier this week the Progression Party had announced an alliance with another illegal organisation, the "For the People Party".

However, support for both is limited to a core of democracy activists in the country's main cities.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6393975.stm

Published: 2007/02/24 22:02:14 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Tuesday morning begins like every other morning all week, with me feeling like I was just finally ready to get some good sleep but it's time to get up. Amazingly, once up I feel good all day.

Breakfast is in the hotel lobby, the continental kind, lots of carbs and fluids, no meat or eggs or anything protein-rich. But it's something.

In the clubhouse we're informed that there will be no batting practice on the fields but the batting cages are open. I go out and hit some when it's my turn and am reminded how easy it is to get my hands "stung" when hitting with wood.

Stretching is moved back to 9:15 but we still have twenty minutes or so to kill before the start of game 1. We kill it by "taking infield" which includes a couple of ambitious outfielders (yes I'm one). Two fly balls are hit my way, both of which I somewhat misplay so I've got that to dwell on as I wait through the other team's infield practice and finally we start.

Everything is a little slow at first, for one thing we have Mike Keith on the mound and he's one of the best pitchers in camp, but eventually we break the game open and go on to a 6-2 win. I manage to go three for three at the plate and handle the only couple plays I am presented with without incident.

Back in the clubhouse for lunch we touch base with the other guys. Dale's Delinquents, the consensus choice among the campers as the team to beat, won their game, against Gorman's Goons, 14-8. We play them in the afternoon and we can't pitch our ace even if he is ready and willing because the afternoon games are "coach pitch", to allow for the fact that we don't have full pitching staffs.

We bat first in this game, I make an easy out batting against Don Money, (they have us bat against our own coach to guard against the possibility of the coaches getting too competitive) and we go down in order. They score three times in the bottom half and we feel lucky to escape with only that much damage; this is one hard-hitting team.

We go down without scoring again in the second and this time so do they, the bottom of their order isn't quite as tough as their first seven or eight guys (teams are required to bat everybody in the order, thirteen or fourteen on each team).

Eventually we score a run and then another and in the top of the sixth we tie it up 3-3. Somehow we've held them scoreless since the first with some pretty sharp defense and some luck.

In the bottom of the sixth however they start a rally from the bottom of the order. With two on and two out their number two hitter lines one into the gap between the leftfielder and me. I get a good jump going back and to my right and catch it while still running hard to end the rally. I think I like doing that more than getting a big hit. But...

In the top of the seventh we have the bottom of our order up which produces two quick outs, but then our leadoff man singles which brings me up. I'm 0-2 at this point but strangely confident (it is my coach pitching to me after all), somehow I know it's my time. I get a pitch I like, a little bit up and a little bit away and hit a fly ball over the rightfielder's head. It ends up an RBI double and we lead 4-3. Our next hitter singles to left and I'm thrown out at the plate (on a bad call of an extremely close play) and we go out for the last of the seventh (and final) inning with a one run lead to protect.

More to come...