Former senator kicks off lecture series

I attended the lecture and was disappointed. It was a Kerrey-lite performance with a few personal anecdotes and little substance. It's hard to believe that this reporter actually attended.

Kerrey's published intent was to talk about education, entanglements, and the future. His stated intent during his prologue was to address audience concerns via a question and answer format. However consistent with current Tea Bag fashion the majority of this format was dominated by a small, organized cadre of bigots who believe that Building 7 at the World Trade Center were blown up by someone on the ground or Martians or some secret someone whose activity been covered-up. They were prepared with rambling speeches and a document that they handed to Kerrey.

Kerrey is known as a vietnam hero and was asked requisite war questions.

He's also a controversial president of the New School in NYC. Almost no time was devoted talking about education and the issues at the his university and their relation to education.

The ESRI building and campus showed well. I was struck by the open appearance compared with the recent constructions at the Redlands Unified School District. The auditorium was designed to accommodate education while RUSD has chosen to build football stadiums - sort of a future meets the past moment.

Since this was an inauguration of a venue and a series, I'll give it a pass, but to be honest, the County Museum Lectures have more meat.

I too was in the audience. The 9/11 questions while longwinded were actually the only truly substantive questions asked. They should have pressed him even more about why 6 of his fellow 9/11 commisioners are now on the record as saying a real investigation was blocked by the white house. And to say that he didn't do a thorough job because it was a part time jib? What a joke. This was the crime of the century. People should read up on the latest research at ae911truth.org . So called 9/11 Truthers have legitimate basis on which to demand a real investigation, a real investigation that Kerrey himself admitted never happened. Why?

Questioner wrote:

I too was in the audience. The 9/11 questions while longwinded were actually the only truly substantive questions asked. They should have pressed him even more about why 6 of his fellow 9/11 commisioners are now on the record as saying a real investigation was blocked by the white house. And to say that he didn't do a thorough job because it was a part time jib? What a joke. This was the crime of the century. People should read up on the latest research at ae911truth.org . So called 9/11 Truthers have legitimate basis on which to demand a real investigation, a real investigation that Kerrey himself admitted never happened. Why?

The questions were stupid and illiterate. Anyone interested in the topic had heard these opinions made ad nauseum. But that misses the point. Education is the number one issue facing our country today and this guy is in the midst of an interesting educational controversy. Instead of exploring the present and future, a bunch of bigots tea bagged the time available.

Senator Bob Kerrey was on the 9/11 Commision. He knows full well that 9/11 was an inside job and that makes him technically complicit in treason. As hard as that is to accept, the science behind that claim is now way beyond "opinion". The awful truth of 9/11 is an open secret in Washington and it is gradually becoming an open secret around the globe. And before you go on with your ad hominem attacks, take a look at this list of people who are demanding a new real investigation and ask yourself if they could all be the kind of tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs you're trying to paint them as:

www.patriotsquestion911.com

Jack Dangermond actually thanked ALL the questioners because as awkward as it was to hear, he recognized that an important democratic process took place at his innaugural forum. Way to go, Jack.

OK. Let's take your argument to its conclusion: assume that explosive charges were placed in building 7 and detonated. What now?

It's 2009, eight years later. What difference does it make whether you are correct or not?

The current central issue is the question of the future: Will the US will be able to compete in the world as successfully as it has in the past?

I'm more worried about the state of our educational system. I'm worried about income inequality, and what to do about it. I'm worried about the decline of the middle class. I'm worried about natural resources and sustainability. I'm concerned that my children and grand children may not have the same opportunities I've had.

My understanding is that ESRI was invited to map lower manhattan after 9/11. I'd like to hear about that, why they didn't have maps, and what it all means. I'd like to know why 300 firemen were sent into a building that was considered likely to collapse? What was their mission? There were 30,000 people in that complex. That's the equivalent of 1/2 of Redlands in one small vertical location. Was there a disaster plan? Did it include this Black Swan? What sort of data base had the safety people constructed to plan for disaster?

Stuff like that I can see.

I'll let you and your conspiracy people worry about globs of molten steel. I lost friend in 9/11, and all you talk won't bring them back. I want to plan for the future.

What's ad hominem about that? Perhaps you should retake Latin.(Armas ad virumque cano.)

What difference does it make if I'm correct or not? What an odd question. If I am correct, it means that our government pulled off the most brazen false flag attack in history (that we know of). It means that we are fighting two wars and bankrupting our great grandchildren's economic future based on a lie. Will it bring back your friend? Of course not. But if your friend was murdered and the real perp was never brought to justice wouldn't you be outraged? You should be, too many Americans are asleep, senses dulled by fast food and tv sports and fake news on tv, nobody's outraged and our democracy is paying the price. Ad hominem is when you try to link 9/11 Truth seekers to Martians and discredit the person without addressing the facts of their argument. I agree that education is important, but it's time to stop pretending that 9/11 doesn't matter any more because it was eight years ago. There is no statute of limitations on that crime. If you want to get mad at someone about the poor state of education, why not get mad at Obama, Bush, congress, governator and all the rest who have gutted our treasury and spent the money for schools to pay for war without end. I'm pissed too brother, but I refuse to hide from science and truth no matter where it leads.

Questioner wrote:

What difference does it make if I'm correct or not? What an odd question. If I am correct, it means that our government pulled off the most brazen false flag attack in history (that we know of). It means that we are fighting two wars and bankrupting our great grandchildren's economic future based on a lie. Will it bring back your friend? Of course not. But if your friend was murdered and the real perp was never brought to justice wouldn't you be outraged? You should be, too many Americans are asleep, senses dulled by fast food and tv sports and fake news on tv, nobody's outraged and our democracy is paying the price. Ad hominem is when you try to link 9/11 Truth seekers to Martians and discredit the person without addressing the facts of their argument. I agree that education is important, but it's time to stop pretending that 9/11 doesn't matter any more because it was eight years ago. There is no statute of limitations on that crime. If you want to get mad at someone about the poor state of education, why not get mad at Obama, Bush, congress, governator and all the rest who have gutted our treasury and spent the money for schools to pay for war without end. I'm **** too brother, but I refuse to hide from science and truth no matter where it leads.

No. I'm not outraged. My friends died. They were on the top floor of one of the buildings. Frankly, I don't want to know. I just know that they are gone and I appreciate who they were when they were here.

When you attend an open lecture and then dominate the conversation with long rants and persistent agenda questions, I term you rude at best, a bigot at worst. Democracy is best served by asking questions. Asking the same question over and over is pathologic when question time is limited.

There are many questions in history that remain unanswered. That doesn't mean someone shouldn't try.(Statues of limitations have no meaning in the study of history.) But it also doesn't mean that you stop progress so that you can be satisfied. What you are doing is anti-democratic. You are trying to drown out everyone else.

I oppose and opposed the current wars. However your concept of the relative cost is flawed. Our treasury is not gutted. For the past 30 years this country has piled up debt and spent beyond its means. It's not just wars, it's all kinds of things. On a purely economic basis our GDP can afford the war. Medicare will bankrupt things before the wars will.

On the other hand, what we are doing seems ill-advised and perhaps immoral.

The only way to get a handle on reality is to listen to all comers, not just single issue groups.

You can grind away on 9/11. I prefer to support democracy. I choose to seek a newer world.

Questioner wrote:

Ad hominem is when you try to link 9/11 Truth seekers to Martians and discredit the person without addressing the facts of their argument.

Let me apologize. I didn't realize that you would take the label Martian personally. You have an interesting definition of 'hominem'. Are Martians hominids? I've never seen one, have you?

Are Martians real? Where do they live? Are they here often?

Unfortunately for your understanding, my complaint was related to your behavior, not you as a person. You need to spend some time in Latin class (or even Wikipedia).

I'm going to keep grinding for justice for your friend. If more people were brave enough to stand up against obvious tyranny, we the people might have a chance.

Now I'll say one last thing to you: Based on what you've said here, it's fairly obvious you actually agree that 9/11 was an inside job (or at least a possibility). And you're right about it. So for you to turn your back on the truth is the highest form of cowardice especially as you put on your almighty intellectual airs. So just go back to your classroom and keep feeding lies and pablum to your unsuspecting students.

I am glad we had this exchange. If only one person comes along, follows the links, begins their own honest inquiry, and wakes up to the truth, it was worth it.

Questioner wrote:

I'm going to keep grinding for justice for your friend. If more people were brave enough to stand up against obvious tyranny, we the people might have a chance.
Now I'll say one last thing to you: Based on what you've said here, it's fairly obvious you actually agree that 9/11 was an inside job (or at least a possibility). And you're right about it. So for you to turn your back on the truth is the highest form of cowardice especially as you put on your almighty intellectual airs. So just go back to your classroom and keep feeding lies and pablum to your unsuspecting students.
I am glad we had this exchange. If only one person comes along, follows the links, begins their own honest inquiry, and wakes up to the truth, it was worth it.

You couldn't be more wrong. There's very little evidence of an 'inside job'. I'm willing to go along with your argument merely to show you that it's a fool's journey. You can be that fool if you choose. That's the beauty of America.

I don't know where you get that classroom stuff? I did attend top ten universities. Your willingness to throw around words like 'cowardice' undercuts your argument. I went to you hotlink and read. There's little substance aside from some marginal data and opinions. I'm not sure that any of it is peer reviewed.

What are folks whose brothers' names are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall supposed to do now that they've found out that the Gulf of Tonkin episode was a fraud? There are alot more of them, than 9/11 victims. None of it is right. You learn from the past, but not obsess about what might have been.

It's interesting that you say "So just go back to your classroom and keep feeding lies and pablum to your unsuspecting students." I don't teach. I do fund scholarships, but their only requirement is that the students have need. I encourage kids to follow their dreams where ever they may lead.

My friends from 9/11 would despise the way you are pursuing your activity. They were high-achievers with a broad Ivy League background. They would want their families and us to morn them, but move forward. You're not justice, you're a footnote.

My friends from 9/11 would despise the way you are pursuing your activity. They were high-achievers with a broad Ivy League background. They would want their families and us to morn them, but move forward.

I am trying to honor them and mourn them. I do not believe they would despise the 9/11 Truth movement. They were blown to bits with explosives, they damn well would want people, especially their friends, to pursue their murderers. By the way, there is a huge contingent of 9/11 family members doing exactly what I am doing and they're not going away nor will they stand down because people like you find it distateful. All we wantsos a real investigation (which commisioner Kerrey told us never happened) Is that asking too much of this so-called democracy? You are right about name-calling undermining my case though. Live and learn.

Questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
I am trying to honor them and mourn them. I do not believe they would despise the 9/11 Truth movement. They were blown to bits with explosives, they damn well would want people, especially their friends, to pursue their murderers. By the way, there is a huge contingent of 9/11 family members doing exactly what I am doing and they're not going away nor will they stand down because people like you find it distateful. All we wantsos a real investigation (which commisioner Kerrey told us never happened) Is that asking too much of this so-called democracy? You are right about name-calling undermining my case though. Live and learn.

Good. I think we come to a resolution: you and your group continue to pursue the investigation. That really isn't something to which I could or should object. My objection as stated at the beginning was the domination of limited audience time with Kerrey by long=winded, wandering questions about 9/11. I think that a short, tight question about the event and/or the investigation commission would have been appropriate. I thought that the way the questions were framed was rude an inappropriate. I wanted to hear Bob Kerrey the prominent Democrat talk about war, peace, and policy. I wanted to hear Bob Kerrey the University President talk about education. I wantd to hear Bob Kerrey the embattled University President state his case for reorganizing and renaming the New School. I wanted to hear about the New School to see if it were the sort of model institution that could provide new directions for a national educational system that is said to need overhaul.

So enough of the argument. I think that we can meet amicably in the middle.

Ciao.

It's too bad that Bob Kerrey didn't really come prepared to seriously address those issues (or 9/11). I only wish he had the courage to demand a permanent 9/11 commision and not just throw it out as an aside. he seems poised to re-enter politics. Unfortunately our poiticians of today cannot afford to take any heat by taking controversial stands, so we're left with Kerrey-lite as so so aptly described him. Sorry for the rancor and may truth and science and education someday restore our nation from these dark times.