My Photo


Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Charles Pierce on Obama in Wisconsin | Main | Zilber's Gift: It Is More Than The Money »

May 12, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Henry Hyde

Kevin Barret does not make national or international policy, so why should you have to defend him? He is just teaching a particular point of view. If you disagree with him or Churchill, don't purchase their books or attend their lectures, but they are entitled to their point of view, as you are to yours, and because they do not agree with your liberal perspective you condemned them. I am sure that people said the same things about you when you ran for mayor - a radical member of the bomb throwing SDS like your colleague Ayers in Chicago who is now being condemned by the right.

henry dubb

Exactly, I have never understood this fetish among liberals. Like when Gen. Petrayus was called Betray us by move on. Congress had to make some proclamation that they did not agree with the comment. As if Moveon had any legitimacy, there last and only victory was ten years ago with Clinton's impeachment trial.

While I disagree with his theory - Bush couldn't of pulled it off if he tried - I would support him. A vote for any third party is better than the duopoly.

jim guilfoil

I prefer Scapegoat to poor Billy...Some of what Barrett published made sense, some didn't!
But he proved a useful tool for those who used him to further their ideologies.
The game of scapegoating will bring the chickens home to roost, and give the pols an excuse to witchhunt for votes and popularity.
Ward Churchill, Jeremiah Wright, Kevin Barrett...pretty good bunch of goats.


Your repudiation of Churchill wasn't much of a repudiation. In fact, you based on it nothing.
But that's okay because there is no basis for repudiating him.

Just to note for the commenters, Barrett hasn't taught at UW since his one-semester contract expired a year and a half ago--funny, no one wants to hire him anymore! He probably decided to run for Congress because his occasional zany, anti-Semitic, One World Government letters to Isthmus weren't getting him any more street cred.

It seems to have worked, too, now that John Nichols is fawning all over him again.

James Wigderson

"I am sure that people said the same things about you when you ran for mayor - a radical member of the bomb throwing SDS like your colleague Ayers in Chicago who is now being condemned by the right."

Actually, we still say those things about Paul.

Rolf Lindgren

No wonder the anti-war can't gain much traction, they always fight among themselves and attack those doing the most good work.

Fact is, as long as half the country still believes Bush's BS about 9/11, the war on terror will continue.

There might even be another "event" in time for McCain to get elected.

Brian Good

At the time the article above was written, Barrett had recently gotten himself banned at the popular 911blogger forum after making an easily-debunked claim that no Israelis had died on 9/11.

Since then he has only gotten more erratic. Last summer (2009) he told the audience on 50,000 watt KDKA AM radio that the holocaust (which he characterized as "toasting six million Jews") was a less serious crime than was the invasion of Poland.

He then began blogging frequently at and truthjihadradio on Jews-did-9/11 and Jews-run-the-media themes, often showing laughable scholarship (such as wrongly spelling the names of Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone as he attacked them).

In the last several months he has called for armed insurrection against the Obama government, threatened to burn Governor Schwarzenegger's house down, and called for 500,000 zionists to be imprisoned in concentration camps.

Despite such behavior he continues to enjoy the support of prominent Greens such as Sander Hicks and Carol Brouillet. What are they thinking?

The comments to this entry are closed.