It is not uncommon for university professors to share their views on the curriculum of public schools. At least, that may have been the view of Jay Bergman, a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, when he wrote to the state’s superintendents to criticize the inclusion of “1619 Project curriculum” in schools. Fellow professors have now asked for Bergman to be disciplined and even fired for expressing his views of the project, which is most associated with former New York Times writer and now Howard University Professor Nikole Hannah-Smith.
As have previously discussed the 1619 Project which has been heavily criticized by historians and others for some of its sweeping historical claims over slavery being a motivation for the American Revolution and labeling figures like Abraham Lincoln as racists.
According to The Atlantic , Princeton historian Sean Wilentz criticized that work and some of Hannah-Jones’s other work in a letter signed by scholars James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. They raised “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’” They objected that the work represented “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” The Atlantic noted that “given the stature of the historians involved, the letter is a serious challenge to the credibility of the 1619 Project, which has drawn its share not just of admirers but also critics.” Researchers claimed the New York Times ignored them in raising the errors.
The New York Times was criticized later for a “clarification” that undermined a main premise of her writing. In March 2020, the New York Times wrote “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.” None of that appeared to concern the Pulitzer Committee anymore than University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media.
Many still support the Project, including historians. For her part, Hannah-Smith has acknowledged errors but insisted that they do not change the thrust of the research. It is the type of academic debate that should be welcomed with people of good-faith on both sides.
That is not exactly the response that Bergman encountered after he lashed out at the inclusion of the project for K-12 level students. Bergman declared that the curriculum “presents America’s history as driven, nearly exclusively, by white racism” and insisted that “nearly everything else in the 1619 Project, is entirely false, mostly false, or misleading.” The letter contains over-heated rhetoric (like calling Hannah-Smith an “anti-White bigot”) as well as characterizations of supporters that are insulting and gratuitous. However, this is not about agreement with these arguments or the language but the response to them that is so concerning from a free speech perspective.
The local NBC affiliate and the conservative site College Fix have reported that Bergman has been attacked by his colleagues for voicing his opinion.
The campaign against Bergman began when Putnam Superintendent Daniel Sullivan chose not to simply respond to Bergman but wrote the university president and provost to object to his voicing his criticism. (One site claims that it was Sullivan who went to the media to trigger a public backlash against Bergman).
In the letter below, Sullivan admits that there are errors in the 1619 Project but objects to “…Professor Bergman’s utter disregard for the centuries long struggles of minority communities.” That may be a fair criticism but what is the point of writing to his superiors if Sullivan was not seeking to get the school to pressure or take action against Bergman for voicing his opinion? Sullivan claims that a professor writing to object to curriculum is “a blatant effort to force his ideology” on the school. Were those academics writing in support of the curriculum are not advancing their “ideology”? All academics should ideally take an issue in K-12 curriculum and share their views on the merits of such material. Indeed, most universities ask faculty in annual reviews to detail how they have engaged with the wider community to contribute to different causes and efforts.
The most concerning element in the controversy was the response of Bergman’s colleagues at the university. A letter signed by six members of the history department denounced Bergman’s views. The letter was, in my view, an appropriate response to the merits his arguments, though it did not delve into specifics on his criticism of the 1619 project. The one aspect that struck me as odd was the ending that stated “[Bergman’s] opinions about the schools’ curriculum, if he wanted to express them, should have been delivered as a citizen, not as a professor of history opining in an area in which he lacks expertise.” They then however proceed to sign their names with their titles as professors of history. It is entirely common for professors to use their titles (or for others to note their titles) when speaking publicly on controversies. Professors are also encouraged to contribute to their communities and contribute to national and local debates.
Even more chilling was the response of Professor Kristine Larson in the astronomy and geological sciences departments. According to a site supporting Bergman, Larson wrote the following on May 5th a letter posted to a university listserv (and copied to the university president) :
Once again the good name of our University has been dragged through the mud through the actions of one of our own: https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/investigations/strong-words-on-slavery-concerns-raised-after-email-blast-by-ct-professor/2479664/
Dr. Bergman has been publicly spouting his offensive personal politics for years, always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.
Enough.
This time he crossed the line, by:
Using his CCSU email to distribute his latest diatribe, and 2) Signing said email as “Professor of History / Central Connecticut State University.”
He is clearly intending for the recipient to believe he is acting in his role as a Professor of History employed by CCSU (he lists his role on the Board of the NAS second to his CCSU affiliation).
While I understand that the CSU and CCSU administrations might have their hands tied in this matter (and I heartily thank them both for their response letters to the Putnam School Superintendent), we faculty do not.
I am therefore formally requesting that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee craft an article of Censure (or its equivalent based on its bylaws) against Professor Bergman. At the very least, I ask that as individuals we vociferously and unequivocally condemn his actions.
He does not speak for us – he should stop misleading others into believing that he does.
While I cannot deny that he remains an employee of this institution, from this moment forward, I personally will stop considering him to be a colleague. He has abused that privilege for far too long.
So Larson wants to censure a professor for voicing his opposing view on this controversial project? There is no a hint of concern for free speech or academic freedom — let alone specific responses to the points that he raises in the letter. She just insists that “He does not speak for us – he should stop misleading others into believing that he does.”
Bergman never said that he was speaking for the university. It is Larson who wants the university to speak officially to condemn his viewpoints. Moreover, it is very common for academics to use their emails for personal use. Indeed, these email was expressing Bergman’s view of an academic work and its historical foundations. Just as the other professors used their titles (and presumably their emails) in responding to Bergman, there is nothing untoward in the use of such an email for faculty to discuss such controversies.
I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. However, professors and students are routinely investigated, suspended, and sanctioned for countervailing views. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the merits or the tenor of Bergman’s letter. I am as supportive of this colleagues voicing their objections to his letter as I am Bergman’s right to voice his original opinion. What I oppose are efforts to have the school formally censure or take other actions against an academic for espousing dissenting views. Larson’s letter does not even suggest a hint of concern over free speech. She does not want to respond to Bergman. She only wants to silence or punish him.
The most telling line in her letter was objecting to how Bergman has been “publicly spouting his offensive personal politics for years, always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.” We have seen a growing movement in universities in treating free speech as a danger rather than the defining right of our country. This growing intolerance for free speech has even reached law schools, as discussed in a column this week. Larson captures that anti-free speech movement by denouncing those who are “always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.” Free speech does not allow people to “hide.” It does the exact opposite. The act of free speech is to allow people to stand publicly and openly behind their convictions. Larson simply declares Bergman’s “personal politics” as “offensive” and calls for university action against him. Larson would eliminate the free speech protections to get at those who hold, what she views, as “offensive” thoughts. Then there will be hiding as professors withdraw further into the shadows — avoiding those like Larson who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints.
As I have maintained at my own university for years, professors can individually or as groups voice their views on such controversies. However, some faculty want to use their institutions to denounce dissenting views despite professors or students who may hold opposing views. These faculty members know that it is hard for other professors to speak out against such institutional statements when they could then be accused of the same “abusive” viewpoints. Many faculty likely do not support Bergman’s arguments but support his right to voice his opinions. Yet, the whole point of forcing institutional statements is to convey that such viewpoints are unacceptable. It is less effective in convincing than coercing others.
NBC originally acquired the letters below.
Proponents of the 1619 Project and of CRT claim that their goal is to expose us to important facts about America’s history with slavery. That claim is false, but let’s run with the premise that we are ignorant about that history.
How many Americans do you think know about this history?
— In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson signed into law a bill approved by the Congress: An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 1808 Transatlantic Slave Trade Act) and made it unlawful to import or bring into the United States or territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such. . .as a slave, or to be held to service or labour. (Yes, that Thomas Jefferson.) (https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ183/PLAW-110publ183.htm)
— Congress then passed the 1820 Piracy Law. Included under “piracy” was this provision: attempting to confine, deliver, or sell a negro or mulatto (similarly qualified as not held to service, etc.) was also declared piracy punishable by death.
— As a result of Jefferson’s and Congressional efforts to eradicate slavey: from 1819-1861, the U.S. Navy patrolled the coast of Africa (and elsewhere). The Navy captured some 100 slave ships, punished their captains, and freed the would-be slaves. The Navy’s African Slave Trade Patrol ceased when it was redeployed to fight in the Civil War. Here is the Saratoga’s captain describing one such effort:
For some time the American ship Nightingale of Boston, Francis Bowen, master, has been watched on this coast under the suspicion of being engaged in the slave trade. Several times we have fallen in with her and although fully assured that she was about to engage in this illicit trade she has had the benefit of the doubt. A few days ago observing her at Kabenda, I came in and boarded her and was then induced to believe she was then preparing to receive slaves. Under this impression the ship was got under way and went some distance away but with the intention of returning under cover of the night; which was done and at 10 P.M. we anchored and sent two boats under Lieut. Guthrie to surprise her and it was found that she had 961 slaves on board and was expecting more. Lieut. Guthrie took possession of her as a prize and I have directed him to take her to New York. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol)
Name one other country in history that has expended 1/10 of the effort — that has spent anything close to the lives, wealth, moral capital — to eradicate slavery.
Biting the hand that feeds you seems an inadequate epithet for those 1619/CRT race hucksters.
NB: The first two bullet points contain a number of quotes and quotes within quotes. The captain’s report is also a quote. I don’t think WordPress liked the number of quotation marks in my original attempts to post this. So I removed them.
Fire every liberal
Hello Darren,
I can’t get a comment to post. (Tried three times.) It has two links in it. Is that too many? Have I been sent to the principal’s office?
Sorry for taking up space here, but I couldn’t figure out how to contact you privately.
1619/CRT proponents claim that the goal is to expose us to important facts about America’s history with slavery. That claim is false, but let’s run with the premise that we are ignorant about that history.
How many Americans do you think know about this history? That:
— In 1807, “President Thomas Jefferson signed into law a bill approved by the Congress `’An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States” (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the`’1808 Transatlantic Slave Trade Act”) and made it unlawful `’to import or bring into the United States or territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such. . .as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.”’ (Yes, *that* Thomas Jefferson.) (https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ183/PLAW-110publ183.htm)
— Congress then passed the “1820 Piracy Law.” Included under “piracy” was this provision: “attempting to confine, deliver, or sell a negro or mulatto (similarly qualified as “not held to service”, etc.) was also declared piracy punishable by death.”
— As a result of Jefferson’s and Congressional efforts to eradicate slavey: from 1819-1861, the U.S. Navy patrolled the coast of Africa (and elsewhere). The Navy captured some 100 slave ships, punished their captains, and freed the would-be slaves. The Navy’s “African Slave Trade Patrol” ceased when it was redeployed to fight in the Civil War. Here is the Saratoga’s captain describing one such effort:
“For some time the American ship Nightingale of Boston, Francis Bowen, master, has been watched on this coast under the suspicion of being engaged in the slave trade. Several times we have fallen in with her and although fully assured that she was about to engage in this illicit trade she has had the benefit of the doubt. A few days ago observing her at Kabenda, I came in and boarded her and was then induced to believe she was then preparing to receive slaves. Under this impression the ship was got under way and went some distance away but with the intention of returning under cover of the night; which was done and at 10 P.M. we anchored and sent two boats under Lieut. Guthrie to surprise her and it was found that she had 961 slaves on board and was expecting more. Lieut. Guthrie took possession of her as a prize and I have directed him to take her to New York.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol)
Name one other country in history that has expended 1/10 of the effort — that has spent anything close to the lives, wealth, moral capital — to eradicate slavery.
“Biting the hand that feeds you” seems an inadequate epithet for those race hucksters.
The 1619 project is part of the tendentious narrative that says blacks today are victims because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, and because of the continued institutional racism of this country. Inconvenient for this narrative is that, for example, when you control for factors such as age, region, years of education (without even taking into account quality of education) and test scores, the income gap between blacks and whites is substantially eliminated. Blacks on average are younger, live more in the south (where income is lower), have fewer yeas of education and perform worse on tests than whites. The differences in education and test scores are a consequence of family breakdown, less pre-school exposure to books and other learning-enhancing experiences and poor schools. The poor schools are due to inadequate teaching and poor discipline, both a consequence of leftist ideology and the power of teachers unions. Family breakdown is not a legacy of slavery or Jim Crow.
The black family was much stronger in 1960 than it is today. For example, in 1960, at most 30% of black children were being raised in a home without two parents; today it is 70%. Studies of the black family in the years after slavery have shown that it was much stronger than it is today, and stronger than a number of immigrant whites groups at the time. Nor are today’s schools a legacy of slavery or Jim Crow. Funding per student in traditional public schools does not break down on racial lines, and, as Thomas Sowell has shown, the success of a number of NY charter schools with disadvantaged black students demonstrates that these students can achieve exceptional results, if appropriate discipline and teaching methods are applied.
The 1619 project and the dogma of institutional racism, ad well as other tendentious notions derived from critical race theory and intersectionality, are part of what Glenn Loury calls the bias narrative compared to the development narrative. The bias narrative has become virtually impossible to maintain after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the widespread adoption of reverse discrimination in higher education and employment a few years thereafter. Hence the recourse to legacy and institutional racism as hidden explanatory forces. What is needed instead is a focus on development. But development is hard, and not something readily amenable to government policy, except perhaps ideas such as expanded charter schools and school vouchers. It is the unglamorous work of community leaders like Bob Woodson, urban school teachers and struggling black parents, rather than the propaganda of race hucksters such as Nicole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo and their fans in the media.
OT: This is too strange not to post. It shows the lack of consideration our leaders have for the individual taxpayer. It shows how our taxpayer monies is used to keep politicians in power whether it costs millions or billions.
—–
Federal “Infrastructure” Subsidies for the Bigger Boats Costs Taxpayers $14 Million
Adam Andrzejewski
What better way to enjoy a warm summer day than on your boat with your family and friends, catching some fish and some sun, feeling the light breeze against your face.
Oh, you don’t have a boat?
Well, that’s too bad because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is giving $14 million to states to spiff up their infrastructure for recreational boaters.
But your boat must be 26-feet, or bigger.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/07/07/federal_infrastructure_subsidies_for_the_bigger_boats_costs_taxpayers_14_million_783868.html
The Psychology Behind 1619 and CRT
Some people are motivated by a desire to destroy anything good, beautiful, virtuous. For them, 1619/CRT are handy tools of destruction.
Others have a pathological need to see themselves as perpetual victims. That gives them unearned attention, and an excuse for their own failings. There, again, 1619/CRT are handy tools.
The final group seeks unearned fame, power, and wealth. 1619/CRT are a means to those ignoble desires.
If you are a professor under fire: shoot first. Ask questions later.
Olly exclaims:
“Looking forward to getting Mark Levin’s new book, American Marxism next week.”
I have little doubt you and your fellow American Nazis will enjoy the book. There, I said it, and I will keep saying it if I’m to be known as an “American Marxist.” I am NOT calling you a genocidal “German Nazi,” mind you. Not at all. Instead, you are an *Americanized Nazi*. You and your kind don’t hate Jews; rather, you despise Liberals and Leftists as does Mark Levin who has fashioned himself as a modern day Judge Roland Freisler. Freisler is remembered for his screaming tirades at defendants in the German People’s Court whereas Levin is well known for his unhinged rage on talk radio calling Democrats explicitly “the enemy.”
Levin and Turley are Fox colleagues, don’t you know, though Turley to his credit has neither referred to Levin by name nor ever appeared on his radio or TV program for good reason- he would die of shame.
Fun fact: students at Central Connecticut managed to hack into one of the first episodes of Sports Center on ESPN and post five minutes of porn. CCSU represent!
Also, for those of you not familiar with the logistics of Connecticut, Putnam is an old mill town in NE Ct that is comprised of a healthy slice of people who work on the main campus of UConn at Storrs. At the same time, it’s surrounded by farm land where it the KKK has been known to rally and gather. In other words, it’s a perfect place for an attention seeking prof. to try to stir culture wars for self promotion. The demographics of the place lend themselves well to a good argument.
And hats off to the Putnam rep who blew the whistle on the Central Ct. professor. Here’s the breakdown: Local professor known for being obnioxious manages to make himself obnoxious statewide, his cohorts at work call him out for it, alt right media hooks on to the story to fan the culture wars with a first amendment rant.
Step away from the trappings of the academy and the same dynamic exists in, like, an argument that goes loud and violent on an airline flight. Or at a coffee shop or restaurant.
Of course the CCSU professor is hiding behind the 1st amendment. His critique of Nikole Hannah-Jones is completely irrelevant.
eb
I support both “sides” right to express their opinions. What do you mean by “hiding behind the first amendment. Do believe he had no 1st Amendment right to spread opinions that you do not like? Do you consider it “hiding” when someone asserts a 4th 5th or 6th amendment right. The attitude of using your constitutional rights is somehow “hiding” is dangerously disturbing. Your statement is equivalent of saying a person of color is hiding behind affirmative action to get into college. No that person is not hiding behind anything. He or she are asserting or using the law to legally and rightly under the law and Constitutional rights that exist.
I mean he got caught being obnoxious outside his institution (where he’s apparently been obnoxious for quite awhile). And he was called out for it by fellow employees used to his behavior, as well as from the school district that he targeted with his opinion.
Of course he’s hiding behind the first amendment. Familiar with the concept of true scoundrels being willing to wrap themselves in the flag as a vehicle to get a sketchy message across? The first amendment has been used in a similar manner by those bargaining in bad faith…
Not that i don’t see the danger in turning a harsh eye to people who use the first amendment for sketchy reasons…, but that’s also why it’s such an effective disguise. It’s going to be hard to navigate this one because it requires all sides to be bargaining with good intent to make this system work and right now, that’s not the case. In this Ct. example, the good professor spread his opinion to where he thought it would have the most bang for the buck demographically. The reason you know he limited his message to a targeted area is that he didn’t push it in Ct’s more urban districts, who all would’ve freaked out at the content. I laugh out loud at the response this would’ve garnered in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Waterbury, New Britain, New London, etc.
eb
“hiding behind the first amendment
That warped logic is akin to congress critters wailing about evil corporations using “loop holes” to pay no more taxes than congress has levied. Congress creates the “loop holes” for their biggest donors, then complain when they are utilized.
Or people whine about Cosby “getting of on a technicality” When rule of law demands he should have never been tried.
The nation is in real need of remedial civics education
Speaking of education, its time to get back to it. Stop with the propaganda indoctrination of the 1619 project. We should be teaching civics every year K-12.
Quite simply 1619 Lie is Marxism tailored to the American market pitting one group against the other and perverting history to do it. It ought to be resisted as the enemy to democracy it so clearly is. The professor gets it right and hits the Marxists right between the eyes. He ought to be applauded. Write that Superintendent and explain they are fooling no one by subverting our country.
Looking forward to getting Mark Levin’s new book, American Marxism next week.
Nah. The Project *is* history.
Might be a little short on venturing into the true impact of Bay Colony vs. local indigenous wars and the causative effect they added to what eventually blew up into British vs.colonists. Or maybe its focus dove into the effects of imported slavery while going light on the effects of homegrown enslavement of local tribes, either selling them into slavery in the Caribbean or chopping one of a slaves feet off so they’d still be able to work the fields but not find it so easy to run back to ancestral homelands right down the road — a truly forgotten part of American history for the most part…
But yeah, the 1619 Project exposes a history that has obviously touched a nerve with you guys now that alt right media has chosen it as a vehicle to fan the flames of culture war. I guess you’re playing your part by so gullibly swallowing the rhetoric the Murdochs are hammering you with, so maybe pat yourself on the back for being such a useful drone?
eb
Eb,
As Adam Serwer wrote in his The Atlantic article quoting W. E. B. Du Bois:
“We shall never have a science of history until we have in our colleges men who regard the truth as more important than the defense of the white race,” Du Bois wrote, “and who will not deliberately encourage students to gather thesis material in order to support a prejudice or buttress a lie.”
The problem, as Du Bois argued, is that much of American history has been written by scholars offering ideological claims in place of rigorous historical analysis. But which claims are ideological, and which ones are objective, is not always easy to discern.”
While that problem would apply to both white and black historians, there have been many more white than black which pretty much sums it all up.
Totally agreed, Jeff!!
eb
I don’t know about you, eb, but I confess Trumpists don’t reside where I live. I don’t think I have ever met one face to face. By virtue of this blog, however, I have gotten my fill, thankfully, at a safe distance! I’m grateful that I have been exposed to raw unadulterated Trumpism because I have become enlightened as to how they tick.
I am tempted to say something so utterly offensive in public as to be censored in violation of my First Amendment rights so I could call upon Turley and offer to pay him a $25,000 retainer to hire him as my attorney just so he would have to take my calls and answer my questions!
My first question would be: Does not your heartfelt advocacy of the benefits of more speech ring hollow when you completely ignore the speech and particularly the questions posed to you by your followers when you yourself have invited their contributions to your blog?
My second question would be: What do you make of the fact that Res Ipsa Loquitur has become a watering hole and a breeding ground almost exclusively for Trumpists despite the fact that you are decidedly not one?
My third question would be: Since presumably you have no idea whatsoever of the kind of opinions your platform is hosting, may I familiarize you with some of the vile commentary so that you can judge for yourself whether you are gratified that Res Ipsa Loquitur bears your name?
You gotta questions I can add?
I’d love to know about his censorship policy in depth. I find it to be quite the mystery given his supposed first amendment raison d’etre! I understand the foul language bit, and the threats of violence, etc. But I’d love to hear his thoughts on why the NYT 1/6 documentary links (from youtube!) get the hook from the site. Ditto why people we are acquainted with here on the blog are able to repeatedly violate the civility policy here on the blog. But those are just the small concerns…
Agreed on this place being a great lens to see how trumpism manifests and works! it’s fascinating that way…
And I have agree with wondering how Turley is okay having he and his blog be associated with some of the vile things put forth here. I have to think he’s in a state of full on denial around it, but maybe not. Maybe that hit count is all important to him such that he’s willing to risk the reputational fall out? I’d hope that wasn’t the case, but you never know? I’ve more than a few times wondered whether interns post content under his name.
I get the sense this can’t be a proud moment for Turley but i don’t know the specifics of what goes on in his life that make doing the sketchy thing more acceptable…, chronic pain of some sort can, and will, turn any of us into reptilian levels of existence. But honestly Turley, are you okay with letting the multiple Inspector Gadget types that lurk here effectively speak for you???
eb
Eb, If I may interject. I’ve noticed when Turley does mention his blog he shows a giddiness to the growing number of people using it, similar to youtube creators focusing on their growing subscribers. How do you get a lot of subscribers? By posting to the must gullible audience. Turley has succeeded and now has bragging rights to a “growing audience” a la trump.
Svelaz,
It’s a shame that a scholar such as Turley would just count heads and rely upon the number of hits of his blog instead of perusing the content. There is no indication that he shows any interest in his followers’ contributions. Given the level of discourse, I can’t blame him for not wanting to engage with laymen. And yet he always prefaces his articles with “we have been discussing” as if there is a real dialogue between himself and his contributors. He should begin his commentary with “you have been discussing” to be honest about it.
I have not followed this blog for very long, but I am wondering why are there no credentialed academics on this blog or lawyers? At least those willing to contribute without doing so anonymously. Maybe there were some or many at this blog’s inception years ago and were driven off when it degenerated into the name-calling which is too prevalent today.
Be that as it may, this blog can’t be what Turley had in mind and hoped it would turn into. No wonder he trumpets the numbers and ignores the embarrassing content.
Svelaz,
My opinion about the fascination with hits and audience size is that Turley monetizes it somehow. Two possible ways of doing that would be in scaling his rates up by audience size for pushing talking points put out by some entity like ALEC. Or a collection of right leaning think tanks.
Another way would be having a similar arrangement with Fox News, renting out access to his list for the purposes of pushing talking points and/or having some sort of arrangement to do the sort of internal market research they’d be interested in. Probably a hybrid deal since Fox could just set their interns to prowling the blog for base reactions to the type of academic ‘tyranny of the left!’ stories that Turley posts that probably get hammered in the next day or two on Fox programming.
Yet another way would be in the clandestine renting out of his email list to marketers of things like overpriced financial information. Or to publishers of other rightist monthly charge newsletters.
I have to think the thing that makes his operation here palatable to him when he looks at himself in the mirror in the morning is some variation of sizable financial arrangement.
eb
Eb,
I hope Turley is profiting because then I can understand his continuing this cesspool of a blog. Otherwise, were I in his shoes, I would shut it down in disgrace. It was a noble effort but did not attract the sort of intellectuals and scholars which Turley no doubt had expected to draw by virtue of his academic standing. Instead, look at this place…..
Eb,
Sadly, Turley will be able to escape facing our pointed questions. I wonder if he shares his views on these matters in private. Do his students confront him or his colleagues? He does not garner much attention on Twitter. I don’t follow him there since I don’t bother with twitter. When he comes out with his book and begins his book tour, perhaps there will be a window of opportunity to confront him with questions.
I saw in the news a book has been published called “Hatched Man,” about Bill Barr which calls him a liar for disingenuously endorsing Trump’s claim that the election was fraught with potential fraud when he had absolutely no basis on which to make such an accusation. When challenged on what basis he made that charge, all he could muster was “my common sense.” And the author of the book rejects Barr’s attempt to resuscitate his tattered reputation by now insisting that the voter fraud claims were “bs.”
Poor Turley. He has his work cut out for him to defend his buddy against the onslaught of books and articles sure to follow criticizing Barr’s tenure as the head of DOJ. More than likely, Turley simply will ignore reporting the publishing of such books. As more bad information makes the news, however, Turley may be forced to distance himself from Barr not unlike how Barr is vainly trying to distance himself from Trumpism. Unfortunately, you can’t wash off Trumpism; it’s an indelible stain.
i think you’re right, Jeff. He’ll try the dance Barr is doing now. i actually don’t know why he didn’t start when Barr got fired/bailed to run from what was going to happen on 1/6. Hadn’t thought about the book tour Q&A’s…might be the only place Turley won’t face a totally biased audience nowadays, but i can’t help but think some of his bolder students don’t reference some of the honors level work done on this blog from time to time. Lol.
eb
Eb,
Please provide us with the Cliff Notes of “Hatchet Man” when you’re finished. I never buy these tell-all books because I feel like I am being had. The authors get contributing gigs on cable TV to raise their profile and then capitalize on the free advertising when they plug their book in future appearances.
So much of these books are trash just to exploit the culture war. It is galling to hear shysters like Mark Levin hocking his book non-stop on his radio show pronouncing that only his book will be able to rescue the country from the edge of the Leftist abyss if only you will pay him to tell you how!
Some patriot!
Word, Jeff!
eb
“Sadly, Turley will be able to escape facing our pointed questions”
Jeff, Turley faces pointed questions from Congress and other attorneys. Your opinion of your own abilities and questions is laughable. If Turley makes an indefensible error there are plenty of intelligent attorney’s available to criticize him. You are not one of them.
SM
“The problem, as Du Bois argued, is that much of American history has been written by scholars offering ideological claims in place of rigorous historical analysis. But which claims are ideological, and which ones are objective, is not always easy to discern.””
The ideological left predominantly controls academia, the media and book publishers, so when one thinks of what Du Bois says they should take such leftist domination into account.
However, when facts and evidence are compared the left is weak and the right is stronger.
But yeah, the 1619 Project exposes a history that has obviously touched a nerve with you guys now that alt right media has chosen it as a vehicle to fan the flames of culture war
The 1619 project starts with the lie the United State started in 1619. That you are so clueless as to believe that, rather than the truth. 1776. That a few colonists had slaves, 5 generations before the Nation formed, is a footnote in history, not a core organizing principle. Yes slavery existed. No it was not the cause of the revolutionary war. At least according to historical documents, The Declaration of Independence. de
The Articles of Confederacy mentions Canada, but not slavery.
The larger issue? Slavery was real, eliminated by the people of the United States, costing the blood and treasure of the people of the these United States. Now 150 years later, after electing a Black President…Twice. The culture of the United States is not racist.
Being forced to go back 4 centuries to push a race war, while ignoring what happened 12 years ago. exposes the entire, multi $billion race hustling industry as the scam its always been.
“The 1619 project starts with the lie the United State started in 1619. That you are so clueless as to believe that, rather than the truth. 1776. ”
a) No, the 1619 Project organizes around the introduction of chattel slavery that was imported, not when the United States “began” as you maintain, falsely, that I said. And…
b) Why would you believe I said that without you being able to quote me saying that? Furthermore, since such a statement is a blatantly obvious straw man tactic, why would you make such a ridiculously idiotic statement and expose to everyone here that you’re willing to stoop to that level of disingenuousness?
And, you’d do yourself a favor by familiarizing yourself with the history of the wars between colonists and the indigenous (which actually began before 1619). And this of course, functionally marks the beginnings of the colonists acting together as a nation against the indigenous residents with which they’d later go on to commit mass genocide on. Yes, 1776 was a formal declaration of statehood, but it was really the result of a process more than a beginning of one. A forgotten cause of British static with the colonists was as a direct result of the fall out from King Phillip’s War and how touch and go it got for the colonists (before they were able to commit mass slaughter and contain the uprising). The British, in that lovely British way, were like: how come you guys can’t control your subjects? And if you can’t we’ll just have to step on over and control you if you can’t handle it.
Look it up. Or continue believing the amazingly sanitized and myopic text material you’ve obviously been relying on. Your choice.
eb
Bug, you discover relationships between unrelated facts and mistruths because all of the words used contain the letters A-Z. That is not logic. That is your backward way of thinking.
SM
Allan, I won’t take the necessary crazy pills required to ascertain this last comment for any number of reasons. My guess is people in your immediate vicinity are really concerned about your mental well being.
eb
That is OK Bug, most recognize you don’t have the ability to understand or respond correctly/
Do those voices come to you in the waking state or just when you’re sleeping, Allan?
eb
Eb,
You have a perverse sense of humor to constantly engage S.Meyer. While I can fancy indulging in a few ripostes with a not so witty adversary, you are a glutton for punishment. Oscar Wilde said it best:
“I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about it’s use. It is hitting below the intellect.”
If that doesn’t describe S.Meyer!
Jeff, I love listening to you justifying your existence on an intellectual forum. You can’t seem to back up what you say, and you run away from serious discussion. That is because you are a lightweight that would disappear into space if you weren’t weighted down.
By the way we are all eagerly awaiting your reply to Paul.
SM
And this of course, functionally marks the beginnings of the colonists acting together as a nation against the indigenous residents with which they’d later go on to commit mass genocide on
You need that to be true, but there are 150 years between the clash of natives and colonists, and the thought of a Nation.
To make the claim that colonies joining to achieve a common goal is the impetus to the formation of the United States is ludicrous. I can claim all the neighbors showing up at great grandads farm with the steam thrasher, was the start of Cargill.
And while you tried to prove slavery is organizing principle of the United States, you mentioned slavery once and were forced to move into indian wars, because you lack facts to support the ‘slavery is King hog’ wash.
The United States is not racist. Its culture is no racist. There exists no systemic racism. 1865 killied and buried slavery. Since then we have elected a black man twice a President. Maybe you can list other nations that have made such huge cultural adaptations is such a short period of time, but I cant.
“And while you tried to prove slavery is organizing principle of the United States, you mentioned slavery once and were forced to move into indian wars, because you lack facts to support the ‘slavery is King hog’ wash.”
Didn’t claim that. But have fun with the fever dream.
eb
The left has gone crazy. They censor everything they don’t want to hear even if that censorship can cause harm to children. The left can’t even accept data from major medical publications.
—
Facebook warns JAMA study on children’s COVID masks ‘false news,’ sharers will be punished
Pages, websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see “overall distribution reduced and be restricted’ in other ways,” says warning.
Facebook is warning users against sharing a study that found dangerously high carbon-dioxide intake in masked schoolchildren, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/facebook-threatens-users-sharing-journal-american-medical-association?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
S. Meyer, it seems to me that FB, Twitter, etc now view their role as facilitating the implementation of the dictates of US public health authorities, and perhaps of the US permanent government authorities in general, so long as they are controlled by people with whom they are in ideological sympathy. Since those authorities have dogmatically enforced the masking of children, any study that calls the wisdom of that into question cannot be allowed to stand. The pattern was similar regarding the lab-leak hypothesis, which was dismissed by Collins, Fauci and the merry band of virologists they funded (most likely to deflect attention from the GOF research being done at the WIV which they supported), and squelched by social and other media, until keeping the lid on that hypothesis became a practical impossibility. The Fauci emails revealed a very cozy relationship between Zuckerberg, Fauci and other public health bureaucrats, who aimed at controlling the narrative, and important parts of the correspondence remain redacted. It is a sad state of affairs that medical research, published in major journals, is censored to eliminate challenges to public health bureaucrats. In his recently filed claim, Trump says that FB has become an arm of the State, and though I think it unlikely he will prevail as a legal matter, there is much truth in this argument.
Daniel, we have significant agreement. We are unable to trust any of them.
“The Fauci emails revealed a very cozy relationship between Zuckerberg, Fauci and other public health bureaucrats, who aimed at controlling the narrative . . .”
Now *that* is censorship!
And it’s no surprise that it comes from Fauci. He’s an incompetent, preening, power-lusting megalomaniac. He’s precisely the type of scum that oozes to the top, whenever there is not a complete separation between science and government.
Maybe we shouldn’t have broken away from England. We’d be much better off today. The British would have certainly put our interest first.
Maybe not. Their funny bone is broken, too. Can’t tell silly jokes about pugs being Nazis without getting some jail time.
Speaking of communism, here’s a little tidbit of what you youngsters out there can expect from your best friends in the Democratic Party. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/mandatory-national-service/. Think about this idea when you go to the polls.
Thing is, TIT, when I do think of the McCarthyism trope the alt right media is utilizing against the Dems right now, all I can think of is that it has always come back to bite the ass of its purveyors…
McCarthy himself died an alcoholic death while miserably alone after he self destructed in Washington. Roy Cohn, trump’s mentor, was disbarred and died an equally awful death. And trump himself lost his second popular vote in as many elections and is on the way to being indicted at the state level, as well as likely on the federal level. I’m sensing a pattern.
I will give trump some audacity points though for presiding over a revamping of ‘better dead than red’ tropes while being an actual Russian asset while in office. That takes some gall.
eb
Biden allowed the Russian pipeline to be built. A strategical disadvantage for the US and an advantage for Russia.
Biden stopped the American pipeline, a strategic disadvantage for the US and an advantage for Russia.
The Biden Family Syndicate took a lot of money from Russia.
Anonymous,
“Biden stopped the American pipeline, a strategic disadvantage for the US and an advantage for Russia.”
The XL pipeline is not American. It’s Canadian. Its only purpose is to transport CANADIAN tar sands oil to Houston for export. How is that a strategic advantage?
It is an American pipeline doofus. If someone constructs something on American soil that remains as part of our infrastructure it is American.
You have no understanding of world politics. Oil is what feeds the Russian military. Anything that enhances America’s ability to positively aid America’s oil production or transportation is a negative for the Russian military interests. We had a pipeline shutdown recently and that demonstrates the need for the X-L pipeline for American needs.
The Russian economy is driven by limited resource. They’re an oil driven beast they export from the Caspian Sea through a pipeline into Pakistan.
eb
“ It is an American pipeline doofus. If someone constructs something on American soil that remains as part of our infrastructure it is American.”
Nope. It’s owned by a Canadian company. The only reason they are building it ACROSS our country is do they can export CANADIAN tar sands oil to international markets by way of Houston which is a hub for petrochemical exports.
“ We had a pipeline shutdown recently and that demonstrates the need for the X-L pipeline for American needs.”
That was a gasoline pipeline feeding parts of the south east. The XL pipeline originates in Canada. The heavy tar sands bitumen is not easily refined by Houston facilities. They don’t transport gasoline.
“The only reason they are building it ACROSS our country is do they can export CANADIAN tar sands oil to international markets . . .”
It’s good to have a cause. Not sure, though, that that cause should be pathological dishonesty.
Svelaz, the pipeline is a transport mechanism. Block the pipeline and it is no longer a functional pipeline. Once it is on American soil it is an American pipeline. When we transport bananas to the US they are owned by America though produced in South America. The Canadians have control only of what they send through the pipeline.
All this that you speak of is a diversion from the fact that Biden permitted the promotion of Russian and Russian military interests while at the same time prevented the pipeline in America. Biden has received money from the Russians, Ukranian, Chinese and elsewhere. He is severely compromised as a political leader as well as being intellectually compromised because he is getting more senile.
Biden obviously favors his personal interests along with those of the Russians and the Chinese rather than American interests based on his actions.
AS far as what the pipeline can or cannot do, I think those that put up the money for it know a lot more than you. That you are wrong on most things severely discounts any knowledge you have about what the pipeline can do or not do.
The XL pipeline’s “only purpose is to transport CANADIAN tar sands oil . . .”
You keep selling that lie. I suppose it’s an attempt to rationalize the economic destruction caused by Biden and his environmentalists.
That pipeline was, in fact, also intended to transport light crude from, for example, North Dakota and Montana. And transport it to refineries and holding tanks in many states, and not just for export.
TC Energy, the former pipeline’s owner, awarded six contracts to *American,* union companies — to the tune of $1.6 billion. Poof — wiped out by environmentalist destroyers. They also destroyed untold 100’s of millions in secondary and tertiary contracts. Along with other statist energy policies, they plunged US energy production into chaos. The result? — gas prices skyrocketed some 50%, utilities prices going through the roof, along with the prices for anything that relies on energy for its production — which is, of course: Everything!
You’re like the Black Knight in Monty Python: “It’s just a flesh wound” — as blood gushes from his severed arms.