A Reply to John Gravois (and Louis' posting of his article) begins at
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/16149/Mobbing_9_11_Gravois_as_Screech_Owl_P_2
This reviewer doesn't say so, but a friend of mine considers Gravois as
engaging in McCarthyism. Why?
"I was reminded of McCarthyism by the article's firm commitment to
establishment thinking which it counterposes to the "paranoia" of these
threatening, hairy, outrageous people who emote a slang none of us can
understand, likely drawn from hellish depths, in support of some external
Other that these people serve, perhaps without even knowing it. The kind,
self-effacing Professor Jones, is clearly a dupe of this tenebrous
movement, as clearly shown by his evident lack of support from noble
colleagues, who understand science and the ways of the world. It is a
wonder he can keep his job! Although the Communists in McCarthy's vision
were truly devious and dangerous, there was also something ridiculous
about them: their fealty to a cause they themselves could not comprehend.
And it is not even worth considering their ideas and critiques, so clearly
false and tainted. And behind it all is an implicit warning: KEEP YOUR
MOUTH SHUT."
Anyway, the formal reply to Gravois appears below my signature for those
who prefer it to the link above. I consider it to be an intelligent,
well-thought out response.
Paul Z.
***************************************************************
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier, 2006
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm
-- "a benchmark in 9/11 research", reviewer
***************************************************************
Introduction?
In the June 23, 2006 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, staff
writer John Gravois has penned an article entitled, Professors of Paranoia?
(1)
So, I thought it fitting to return the favor and give my short critique of
Gravois a suitably demeaning title.
Some background?
I wanted to be fair to Gravois, and extend the courtesy of researching some
of his other recent writings online, to be sure that he wasnt a loose
cannon, firing off superficial articles like a Gatling gun? and came across
some interesting stuff that he has written about mobbing;
When songbirds perceive some sign of danger ? a roosting owl, a hawk, a
neighborhood cat ? a group of them will often do something bizarre: fly
toward the threat. When they reach the enemy, they will swoop down on it
again and again, jeering and making a racket, which draws still more birds
to the assault. The birds seldom actually touch their target (though
reports from the field have it that some species can defecate or vomit on
the predator with amazing accuracy). The barrage simply continues until
the intruder sulks away. Scientists call this behavior mobbing.
The impulse to mob is so strong in some birds that humans have learned to
use predators as lures. Birders play recordings of screech owls to attract
shy songbirds. In England, an ancient duck-hunting technique involved
stationing a trained dog at the edge of a pond: First the dog got the
ducks attention, and then it fled down the mouth of a giant, narrowing
wickerwork trap, with the mob of waterfowl hot in pursuit all the way.
Birds mob for a couple of reasons. One of them is educational: Youngsters
learn whom to mob, and whom to fear, by watching others do it. But the more
immediate purpose of mobbing is to drive the predator away ? or, in the
words of the eminent Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz, to make the
enemys life a burden? (2)
I want to suggest that perhaps Gravois has been affected by his own
research into mobbing and is unconciously acting as a songbird who has
perceived a threat (or perhaps he is more of a screech owl).
In any case, I should immediately point out that Gravois has a solid sense
of his writing craft, and has the ability to type really good stuff. His
coverage of the case of Sami Al-Arian is a prime example. (3)
However, Gravois really comes into his own reviewing Bollywood softcore;
...When Tanya goes away for a couple of weeks on business, Sapna falls for
a dashing young Indian metrosexual named Rahul (Ashish Choudhary). Upon
Tanyas return, Sapna is overjoyed to tell her best friend that she is in
love ? -an announcement followed by a percussive crash and a sudden
close-up of Tanyas panicked face. Aside from Tanyas forthcoming jealous
fits, the greatest tribulation that Sapna and Rahuls relationship must
withstand is Sapnas confession one day at the beach (where most of the
film seems to take place) that, one night some time ago, she and Tanya got
drunk and ended up in bed. Well, not just in bed ? -they sleep together all
the time, as naturally as Shakespearean bedfellows ? -but doing funny
things in bed. The accompanying love-scene-in-flashback is a biomechanical
marvel: With black satin sheets between them, the two women are depicted
essentially engaged in a long, languorous bout of rubbing against each
other ? - with Tanya, of course, on top. And while theres lots of
eye-rolling and moist lips, the camera doesnt record a single kiss between
the two. (Indian censors dont take kindly to snogging, no matter the
genders involved.) Rahul accepts Sapnas drunken indiscretion as a wild
hair and takes her back into his arms. But the poor guy cant get those
steamy, kinky, anatomically baffling girl-on-girl scenes out of his head.
Which makes for some pretty sultry Tanya-Sapna dream sequences later on ?
-to show how tormented Rahul is, of course.
The movie plugs along like this with all the hormonal melodrama of a
Baywatch episode until its final act, which veers off into the territory
of werewolf and slasher flicks ? - dark and windy nights, with full moons
standing against black skies. Sapna finally figures out that her best
friend is more than just the clingy type when Tanya starts stalking her
around the room, huskily yelping, We dont need men. But the monster
really jumps out of the closet when Tanya confronts Rahul, declaring, Im
a lesbian, as the camera spirals into her deranged face and the orchestra
gives a menacing swell. Moments later, she is panting, with blood streaked
across her face and a knife in her hand, and Rahul is lying unconscious
(but not dead) amid the semi-translucent wreckage of his designer bachelor
pad. The movie finally ends with Tanya charging blindly at the two
frightened heterosexuals, inadvertently disposing of herself by crashing
through a window. In a parting gesture, director Razdan supplies her with a
very, very long fall. At my theater ? - Delhis Regal Cinema, where Nehru
liked to watch movies ? - the house lights came up before Tanya had even
hit the ground? (4)
I mean, Boy Howdy! Makes me think again about getting a Region 5 DVD
player, I tell you what!
Seriously though? well written, informative, clever, thats the stuff.
However, after a bit of searching I found that 9/11 wasnt the first topic
to be mugged by Gravois. Last year he wrote The De Soto Delusion, a Slate
article trouncing Hernando de Sotos ideas. (5)
It didnt slip by the radar of a couple Libertarian pundits who took the
piece to task. First lets examine the commentary by Tom G. Palmer, D.
Phil. in Politics, (Oxford), M.A. in Philosophy, cum laude, (The Catholic
University of America);
John Gravois, a staff reporter at the Chroncile (sic) of Higher Education
(and an editor of SixBillion.org, An Online Magazine of Narrative
Journalism) has now written a quite poorly argued but insolent attack on
de Sotos work in Slate.
Much of Gravoiss case rests on the strategic use of dismissive phrases as
voilà!; if you take the time to think about his critique, however, you
can see what a poor job hes done at undermining de Sotos work.
Lets start with Gravoiss admission that Secure property rights probably
are indeed, as he [de Soto] puts it, the hidden architecture of modern
economies?or something like that, anyway. Well, are they, or are they not?
Lets compare countries with well defined and legally secure property
rights with those without. Want to take the bet, Mr. Gravois?
Then lets go on to his unsourced claim that,
Government studies out of de Sotos native Peru suggest that titles dont
actually increase access to credit much after all. Out of the 200,313 Lima
households awarded land titles in 1998 and 1999, only about 24 percent had
gotten any kind of financing by 2002?and in that group, financing from
private banks was almost nil. In other words, the only capital
infusion?which was itself modest?was coming from the state.
A citation would have helped (but hes only editor of an online magazine of
narrative journalism, so maybe he doesnt know about links and online
sourcing and putting PDF files up and all that). But even so, it sounds
like?maybe 24 percent would be better than, say, 0 percent. Whats the
baseline? The paragraph makes no serious point that I can discern? (6)
Ouch!
Ok, maybe Tom is just a Gloomy Gus. How about someone else then? another
Libertarian, Ivan Osorio, Masters in Latin American History, (University
of Florida), a degree entirely appropriate for the discussion of De Soto;
Stop the presses! Hernando de Soto is harming the poor!
So argues John Gravois, a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education,
in a recent Slate article. Gravois sets out to debunk the man he considers
the patron saint of the global elite. He makes some good points?more on
those later?but his charges against de Soto are off-base.
Gravois accuses de Soto of selling this elite?gathered at powwows like the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland?an economic snake oil panacea
that has been packaged and peddled all over the Third World. That snake
oil is one solution?individual property titles?for all kinds of poor
people in all different kinds of poor places, by which dead assets are
turned?voila!?into live capital.
This is a gross distortion of de Sotos ideas. To say that something is
necessary is not to say that it is also sufficient. Gravois implies that is
what De Soto is doing. Gravois acknowledges that, De Soto is right to
point out the importance of legally sorting out who owns what in the Third
World. But then he goes on to build up titling-is-all-you-need straw man
around De Soto? (7)
So, as we have seen, he kicks off the article with a rude title, then its
straight into dismissive phrases, the unsourced claim, a gross
distortion or two, and that old standby, the straw man.
Ya with me so far?
God, I hate Conspiracy Theorists!
The piece has already been framed somewhat by the title; Professors of
Paranoia? and enhanced by a dubious subtitle; Academics give a scholarly
stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories (8)
See? Dont you get it? Any analysis of the official narrative of 9/11 is
conspiracy theory. By the invocation of this term, the writer is free
from serious criticism of the subject at hand, it deserves none. However,
somebody has to fill up the Faculty column at the Chronicle, and well,
somebody has to churn out a couple thousand words about? something. So the
deed is done.
...And a whole subculture is still stuck at that first morning. (9)
Dismissive Phrase #1. You are part of a subculture, beneath normal
culture, stuck, not moving forward. Clearly, you are beneath the Reality
Based Community, of which the author is a representative.
With 8 points shy of a solid half of those polled recently by Zogby
suspicious of a 9/11 coverup, thats a pretty huge subculture. Sort of like
how women are a subculture. Get out much?
...They are playing and replaying the footage of the disaster, looking for
clues that it was an inside job... (10)
They are obsessed! Ever seen Reefer Madness? Same thing!
Admittedly, some indie 9/11 researchers do just that, review the video
evidence endlessly. Heres his website.
...In recent months, interest in September 11-conspiracy theories has
surged. Since January, traffic to the major conspiracy Web sites has
increased steadily. The number of blogs that mention 9/11 and
conspiracy each day has climbed from a handful to over a hundred? (11)
Oooh, and he goes long with an unsourced claim! Look, I can do it too!
The number of sites has grown steadily, exponentially, (with a minor spike
of late), over the past 4.5 years.
Its easy!
Gravois then claims its all because of Steven E. Jones paper, all this
durn conspiracy talk lately! Thats why the kids wont listen! Thats why
gas costs so much!
Well, maybe thats why he got coverage in the Chronicle, but the recent
boost in 9/11 interest owes a significant tip of the hat to the documentary
Loose Change, notably the 2nd Edition, released late in 2005 and playing on
a hipsters DVD player near you, or on a podcast, or streaming via google,
or downloaded onto your hard drive? who knows how these kids do this stuff.
Then theres that whole Charlie Sheen thing?
Yup. No doubt. Its all Steven E. Jones fault? because he is the enemy
which the songbird has identified. Vomit and poo, away!
...Now he is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest
of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on
their own soil? (12)
Well, if Jones forensically proves that Thermate was used to help bring
down the WTC, history is going to change on the fly. It wont be pretty.
Until then, hes one of the best hopes of a large number of people who were
denied a full investigation of the events of 9/11. The cover-up leads to
speculation.
Part of the speculation is that yes indeed, they MIHOP.
Others speculate that they LIHOP.
Some just want a real investigation.
Although several organizations have endorsed Tarpleys Chicago resolution
which certainly goes the furthest, I am aware of no litmus test for 9/11
official story skeptics which says that you must convince the rest of
America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their
own soil.
Thanks for the the pigeon-hole, songbird, but I suspect that the amount of
9/11 official story skeptics that would be happy just to see some of their
neighbors review some of the evidence which suggests that the official
story is just that, a story, actually outweighs the number who seek an
ideological umbrella so that they can be considered part of a movement
that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government
are guilty of mass murder on their own soil.
After all, there are a few Sioux, Pequot, Lenape, Osage, Kiowa, Tonkawa,
Cree, Cheyenne, Tehachapi, Piegan and Cherokee Indians who could tell you a
thing or two about state-sanctioned genocide, mass murder, etc., so who are
we trying to kid?
How about the Ludlow Massacre?
...When the strike began, the miners were immediately evicted from their
shacks in the mining towns. Aided by the United Mine Workers Union, they
set up tents in the nearby hills and carried on the strike, the picketing,
from these tent colonies. The gunmen hired by the Rockefeller interests?the
Baldwin- Felts Detective Agency?using Gatling guns and rifles, raided the
tent colonies. The death list of miners grew, but they hung on, drove back
an armored train in a gun battle, fought to keep out strikebreakers. With
the miners resisting, refusing to give in, the mines not able to operate,
the Colorado governor (referred to by a Rockefeller mine manager as our
little cowboy governor) called out the National Guard, with the
Rockefellers supplying the Guards wages.
The miners at first thought the Guard was sent to protect them, and greeted
its arrival with flags and cheers. They soon found out the Guard was there
to destroy the strike. The Guard brought strikebreakers in under cover of
night, not telling them there was a strike. Guardsmen beat miners, arrested
them by the hundreds, rode down with their horses parades of women in the
streets of Trinidad, the central town in the area. And still the miners
refused to give in. When they lasted through the cold winter of 1913-1914,
it became clear that extraordinary measures would be needed to break the
strike.
In April 1914, two National Guard companies were stationed in the hills
overlooking the largest tent colony of strikers, the one at Ludlow, housing
a thousand men, women, children. On the morning of April 20, a machine gun
attack began on the tents. The miners fired back. Their leader, ..., was
lured up into the hills to discuss a truce, then shot to death by a company
of National Guardsmen. The women and children dug pits beneath the tents to
escape the gunfire. At dusk, the Guard moved down from the hills with
torches, set fire to the tents, and the families fled into the hills;
thirteen people were killed by gunfire.
The following day, a telephone linesman going through the ruins of the
Ludlow tent colony lifted an iron cot covering a pit in one of the tents
and found the charred, twisted bodies of eleven children and two women.
This became known as the Ludlow Massacre? (13)
Social Distortion
...But even as Mr. Joness title and academic credentials give hope to the
conspiracy theorists, his role in the movement may undermine those same
credentials. What happens when science tries to function in a fringe
crusade? (1)
Uh-uh, no he didnt! Oh, yes he did!
Dismissive Phrase #2. Ill give him a pass on conspiracy theorists this
time, I mean, he cant help it. Fringe crusade on the other hand is a
trifle hasty.
Much in the same vein as the earlier subculture remark, we see again a
tendency to diminish how many people suspect the official 9/11 narrative as
insufficient. Nearly half those polled in New York last year dont buy the
party line, and again, Zogbys latest poll suggests roughly the same
attitude across the country.
Then of course, there are the unofficial polls:
...his role in the movement may undermine those same credentials.
Wishful thinking? Power of suggestion?
See, I can do it too!
...his role in writing a lop-sided hit piece may undermine his writing
credentials.
Its easy!
Imperial Distortion
Gravois also takes a swing at Alex Jones, (wouldnt be boilerplate 9/11
bashing if he didnt, the template has evolved somewhat), singling out his
recitation of PNACs Pearl Harbor statement, which means that;
...To Alex Jones and to those in the audience, this was as good as finding
the plans for September 11 in the neoconservatives desk drawers. (2)
He also asserts that many 9/11 Truthers as they call themselves know the
passage by heart. No. No, they dont.
Lets not single out the poor Neocons for this kind of unwarranted
suspicion anymore, I mean, they only borrow from Brzezinski.
...The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of
American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported
Americas engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor .... (3)
...America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits
the use of Americas power, especially its capacity for military
intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international
supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular
passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the
publics sense of domestic well-being? (4)
...Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it
may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threat ... (5)
He also thought facilitating the mujihadin was a great idea back in the day?
...it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive
for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that
very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that
in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
... What was most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up
Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold
War?... (Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998)
So, really, we can see that the notion of a catastrophic event perpetrated
by a widely perceived threat and then seized upon to enable a radical
imperial agenda is not the isolated domain of the Neocons, in fact,
Brzezinski was Democratic President Jimmy Carters National Security
Adviser.
Is this as good as finding the plans for September 11 in the
neoconservatives desk drawers?
Of course not. Its Straw Man #1.
Occams Razor cuts both ways
After metaphorically poking Alex Jones in the eye a couple of times,
Gravois reveals his general derision for conspiracy theories in three
paragraphs which I urge you struggle through.
Just after the light distortion ending with Louder! start with the
sentence One of the most common intuitive problems people have? straight
through to ...A bridge is out, and paranoia yawns below. (Link.)
One of the most common examples of recidivism by the clear-eyed rational
defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is invoking Occams Razor
to cut through the blather of alternative narratives regarding 9/11.
Blogger Ron Leighton has boiled away the fat on that technique;
One of the favoritest pastimes of nationalist ass-kissers , deaf, dumb and
blind flag-wavers and those who just want a shortcut to looking smart? is
to laugh about? Conspiracy Theories, a category of weirdness far worse, it
is felt, than say liberal, for instance. As for booby prizes, they go to
those, right, left and center, who chuckle the loudest and most-snearingly
(sic) about Conspiracy Theories, while the raspberries are reserved for
those who consider them to one extent of another, no matter how carefully.
Its a sure sign of intellectual pretension to ridicule conspiracy
theories. Rarely is much thought given to distinguish one theory from
another or to evaluate any of them on their merits. For instance, Bill
Clinton being a secret Communist who consorts with bisexual dwarves is put
in the same Conspiracy Theory category as is questions about 9-11?
There are always really wacky or just plain factually challenged theories,
and they never help either (which raises potential questions about the
origins of those ideas). The only thing that matters, though, to the
Conspiracy-mockers is the question: Does the Conspiracy Theory reflect
badly on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people)?
And this is crucial. If so, it is rejected out of hand as mere
anti-Americanism. If the Conspiracy Theory, on the other hand, reflects
well on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people),
it gets the reverse treatment: blind and complete acceptance. Republicans
and others, without seeing the irony, call the science behind the idea of
global warming junk science. Something similar happens with conspiracy
theories. Case in point is the competing theories about 9-11. The Official
Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is
simply unquestionable no matter how many questions and contradictions
remain, no matter how junk science it is. Conversely, any theory, and
there are many, of various quality, that questions the Official Conspiracy
Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is immediately
and completely laughable, by default ? and this is considered obvious, not
challengeable, putting the entire matter in the realm of faith, not reason.
The more sophisticated of the Conspiracy Theory mockers who fancy
themselves debunkers deploy the logical principle known as Occams Razor,
or often merely appear to. Occams Razor is a logical principle attributed
to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham) which states
that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. Of
course, it happens that Occams Razor is often thrown around carelessly and
thoughtlessly, a prop for political theater posing as serious, open-minded
discussion, much like Republicans scream junk science when defending junk
science. Sometimes the Razor-wielder doesnt realize how dripping with
irony it is to ridicule a Conspiracy Theory via Occams Razor while failing
to recognize how deep it might cut into their own preferred,
politically-correct, pro-America theories.
The best recent example I can think of that deploys the logical principle
of Occams Razor in such a way as to discredit conventional theories in
favor of a conspiracy theory is BYU physics Professor Steven E. Jones
paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse. In this paper, which I
invite everyone to read, Jones makes a plain, clear and convincing case
that, from a physical point of view, the controlled-demolition-caused
collapse theory easily trounces the conventional fire/damage-caused
collapse theory. That is, the former accounts for the facts far better than
the latter while making fewer assumptions, in keeping with Occams logical
principle. But do you think this will cause the thoughtless Bin
Laden-haters, Bush-lovers and people who think theyre smart cos they read
Christopher Hitchens (or at least his headlines) to even think twice? It
should, but in too many cases I think it wont. The funny thing is, Jones
paper will likely be cited, without even being read or seriously
considered, as an example of crazy conspiracy theories?
Ill say. I dont think the stuff about nationalism is at play in Gravois
case, though.
A bad ending
A bad beginning makes a bad ending. ? Euripedes.
The balance of the article can be guessed at fairly accurately. Having
exposed a general contempt for alternative 9/11 narratives (say Conspiracy
Theories), the content drifts from asserting common sense over
disinformation campaigns to re-asserting the points of view of experts
who will have no truck with ideas that call into question their own
theories, (even if just means revising them to reflect other physical
realities), to the inferred rabid nature of some of the Chicago conference
attendees.
As the songbird fades away, and the divebombing ceases, and we clear away
the bird-poop and vomit, we see a catalogue of shop-worn techniques
cluttering the ground? from guilt-by-association to assault with Occams
razor to this doozy;
Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Joness hypothesis is more
or less dead on the vine. (6)
Physics and Chemistry are no longer mainstream.
Wow. 9/11 did change everything.
