Many of us who lived through September 11th terrorist attacks have used today to share the painful memories of that day. In addition to losing a friend on one of the flights, the Pentagon plane hit just after I passed next to the impact side of the Pentagon in my car on the way to work. I ended up being cut off by another car and blowing my front tire and fixing it as the huge plume rose over the Pentagon. For others, the anniversary carries a different meaning from religious extremists murdering thousands in the name of Allah. For Syracuse University political science professor and Washington Post contributor Jenn M. Jackson, the attacks were really about destroying the “heteropatriarchal capitalistic systems” supporting the United States and Western powers. Would that make Osama Bin Laden a champion in intersectional homotransnationalism?
Jackson wrote
She added that “White Americans might not have really felt true fear before 9/11 because they never felt what it meant to be accessible, vulnerable, and on the receiving side of military violence at home. But, white Americans’ experiences are not a stand-in for ‘America.’”
What is curious about Jackson, who teaches gender and African American studies, is that she ignores the attacks of Al Qaeda in other countries, including other Muslim countries. Likewise, ISIS has brutally repressed other Muslims and religious minorities in its own reign of terror. These groups openly work for the creation of Islamic rule and the establishment of a Caliphate. They seek to establish theocratic authoritarian regimes.
In those regimes, Professor Jackson may find that Al Qaeda is only intersectional to the extent that its religious values overlap with homicidal inclinations.
Syracuse University’s Response
The University will *not* “condemn the professor’s comments.”
And, yet, when a chemistry professor called Covid the “CCP virus,” the University *did* condemn him. And it suspended him from teaching.
So the message from Syracuse: You can condemn America with impunity. But don’t touch China.
“the University *did* condemn him. And it suspended him from teaching.”
On his syllabus, in the section on “Special notices related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Prof. Jon Zubieta wrote “Wuhan Flu or Chinese Communist Party Virus.” Here’s what the administration said in response:
https://news.syr.edu/blog/2020/08/25/joint-statement-from-karin-ruhlandt-dean-of-the-college-of-arts-and-sciences-and-john-liu-interim-vice-chancellor-and-provost/
They later reinstated him and hopefully learned their lesson.
“So the message from Syracuse: You can condemn America with impunity. But don’t touch China.”
That’s the message you inferred. It’s not a message they stated, and there are a variety of messages one could reasonably infer from all of the facts, including that they realized they’d acted wrongly and are now going to stand more forcefully for academic freedom.
It’s too bad that Turley chose not to update his column with the University’s response, especially since he’d presumably agree with it:
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:
This weekend marked the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It was a time to reflect on the senseless loss of life, the heroism of many and how that event shaped our country and the world.
Recently, one of our professors shared thoughts on 9/11 on social media. These comments have been the subject of much scrutiny and vehement disagreement by critics. That is their right, just as our professor has the right to free speech, however uncomfortable it may make anyone feel. What cannot be tolerated are the harassment and violent threats that we have seen in response that have been directed at this professor. Our Department of Public Safety is in contact with the professor and has engaged the support of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
Some have asked the University to condemn the professor’s comments and others have demanded the professor’s dismissal. Neither of those actions will happen. As the home of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, free speech for all people across the political spectrum, within the limits of the law and the University’s anti-harassment policy, is one of our key values. Speech can be offensive, hurtful or provocative. Still, Syracuse University will stand by the principles of free speech and by our commitment to keeping our community safe in the face of threats and harassment.
Sincerely,
Kent Syverud
Chancellor and President
David Van Slyke
Dean, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
https://news.syr.edu/blog/2021/09/13/message-from-chancellor-kent-syverud-and-dean-david-van-slyke/
Anonymous says:
“It’s too bad that Turley chose not to update his column with the University’s response, especially since he’d presumably agree with it.”
He would agree, naturally, with the University not firing the professor. Instead, Turley was providing an example of his mantra- “good speech is the only remedy for bad speech.” He was rightly censuring her comments and vainly trying to teach his Trumpist followers that he disapproves of censoring her despite their gut reaction to cancel her.
Islam by its nature is, and always has been, an inherently violent ideology. Of the world’s three great religions, it is the most virulently anti-reason. And it, alone, never had a Renaissance or Enlightenment infusion of reason and individualism. When you reject reason, logic, and civilized debate, you are left with only one means of settling disputes: Blind, rage-filled violence.
The greatest international threat to the West is a tie: The dictatorship in China, and the Islamic totalitarism in Iran.
Right after 9/11, the most revolting responses were spouted by our own academics: America asked for it. That is more repulsive than blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. (Jackson is just another in a long-line of that ilk.)
A civilization cannot survive when its own intellectuals, who are supposed to be its guardians, are its own worst enemies.
Jonathan: Now you would think that on this 20th anniversary of 9/11 you would want to talk about how 19 Middle Eastern guys, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, entered the US, lived here for several years while taking flight training, with financial support from Saudi princes, and then carried out an audacious attack on the Pentagon and the twin towers. All under the noses of the FBI. The surviving families of those killed on 9/11 are still demanding answers. No, you want to critique a Black queer woman and professor at Syracuse University, Jenn M. Jackson, who thinks the 9/11 attacks were about “heteropatriarchal capitalistic systems”. For you that is a bridge too far. Black people understand how system of discourse works. Either keep your mouth shut or engage in acceptable scholarly language about “discrimination” or “unfairness”. But never, never blame the capitalist system for racial oppression. That’s taking the discussion way beyond acceptable. So white “heteropatriarchal” scholars, like you, circle the wagons and attack anyone willing to call a a spade a spade. So you attack a Black queer woman who is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom that 9/11 was only about Al Qaeda, ISIS and other groups where, you say, “religious values overlap with homicidal inclinations”. Your simplistic interpretation of 9/11 overlaps with the standard view that the 9/11 attackers simply don’t understand and appreciate our love for “freedom and democracy”. That myth is what got us to 9/11. As the saying goes, if we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
Dennis- Naughty! You said “anyone willing to call a a spade a spade” Isn’t that forbidden ‘wrong speak’? Who is it you want to call a spade? Is this your ‘Guam flipping’ moment?
Dennis:
In what way was the US racially oppressing wealthy Saudis?
Do you think thousands of people deserved to die at the hands of Islamic terrorism?
Why do you think Islamic terrorists want to destroy the US? Does it have anything to do with the global caliphate? You do know that Muslim extremists are quite literally heteropatriachal, right? You do know that homosexuality is a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, as it is in any Muslim nation, right? All the terrorists were cis gendered.
The one aspect with which we both agree is that Saudi Arabia skated from responsibility for funding terrorist attacks. We have always been loathe to denounce our fair-weather ally in the Kingdom.
Karen asks Dennis:
“Do you think thousands of people deserved to die at the hands of Islamic terrorism?”
I would not blame you Dennis for not responding to Karen’s despicable question. Have you no shame? Let’s ask Karen a similar bad faith question:
Do you, Karen, applaud Trump for grabbing women by their vaginas? Well, do you?
There is no point in denying that the universities are filling with lunatics of the type featured in this post by Professor Turley. We see their competition for notice in one outrageous headline after another.
How they got there and how they became such a strong and malignant force is a question. The answer is largely by federal money and encouragement for universities to adopt aggressive affirmative action programs. With them came many students more able as activists than scholars. With that came ‘studies’ programs that, along with the affirmative action programs, created a powerful lobby in universities that sought more power, more money, more corrupt programs and, ultimately, the destruction of the very idea of a university.
Where public higher education is concerned the remedy might lie with state legislatures. They have to pull some funding from universities or make it contingent on mucking out the stables so that these corrosive agents are no longer present and universities can return to being universities.
Young,
Where, pray tell, did you attend University? Why were you not brainwashed?
Jeff: “Where, pray tell, did you attend University? Why were you not brainwashed?”
***
Maybe I have a mind covered with saran wrap.
I was hoping someone would be skeptical about my statement. The information comes from “A Dubious Expediency” edited by Gail Heriot. The first chapter by John Ellis, “Starting Down The Slippery Slope” recounts his experience as dean at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the late Seventies. He was one of the first to grab the golden ring offered by the federal government and he thought it was a wonderful benefit to his university. Then as it unfolded he was horrified to see the ugly consequences. The expression I used of the program’s creating a powerful lobby came from his chapter and is his term. On my own I would have chosen Coven rather than lobby.
Given his position in the University of California system he probably is [or was] as liberal as you. He may still be in most respects; I don’t know. But in this one instance he has been gobsmacked by reality and some of the brainwashing residue flaked off.
It’s a very good book and I think you would enjoy it even if you did not agree with much of it. I once read a book I was sure was wrong and when I finished my mind was completely flipped; the book was true–it was Origin of Species.
How do you know I attended a university? Perhaps I am an autodidact. Aren’t we all for the most part?
Young asks:
“How do you know I attended a university? Perhaps I am an autodidact. Aren’t we all for the most part?”
Based upon our conversations about science, your education was apparent. I presumed you had been formally educated. I would not look down upon anyone who has not attended college. After all, there are many Trumpists who went to college for all the good that it did for them!
At least you are amusing. But you are right. It did a lot of good for Trumpists to go to college. They became masters at filtering out b.s. and thus recognized that Biden was a brain-damaged dud when the Left and the media were practically telling us he would walk on water. Now pretty much everyone realizes that Biden would have trouble finding the water if he were eating an ice cream cone on the beach, never mind walking on the water.
I am reading that White House staff are muting their sets when Biden is on screen talking. It’s just too painful to endure. Often he sounds like someone just coming out of anesthesia, odd bits and pieces tossed together. What was that bit about Robert E. Lee winning in Afghanistan? Doesn’t he know he isn’t supposed to admire Robert E. Lee anymore? Assuming that that is what he meant of course.
I don’t know how familiar you are with The Wars of the Roses, but now we have our own Henry VI and that is not good for any country.
Ecclesiastes 10:16. “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!”
to which I would add this amendment:
Ecclesiastes 10:16. “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is an idiot, and thy princes eat in the morning!”
Young,
If you are going to throw quotes at me, here is one for you by H.L. Mencken:
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.”
TRUMP.
I’ll admit that Biden has lost a screw or 2 if and only if you will concede that Trump is a serial liar.
My offer still stands for any Trumpist prepared to accept my quid pro quo.
Jeff,
I don’t need to trade. Biden outruns everyone. He just claimed his first job offer was from an Idaho lumber company. The company says no. Then there was the synagogue he claims he went to but didn’t.
The terrible question for the whole country is whether he knows he is making clumsy, easily unmasked lies or does he really believe this crap at the time. Either possibility is a big problem for all of us.
Clinton, by a comparison was a smooth, likeable liar. Biden is a grouchy ‘get off my lawn’ and ‘my IQ is higher than yours’ liar. I don’t think he can go 4 years. He is the incredible shrinking scammer.
The thing is, we have real enemies in the world and I don’t think the headless chicken in the WH worries any of them. He should worry us, though; we are in trouble.
Young,
When are you Trumpists going to get it through your thick heads that we on the Left are utterly insensitive to your accusations of lying by Biden- or anyone else for that matter- until you acknowledge- as has Turley- that Trump is a liar.
Trump will NEVER stop lying:
“Does anybody really believe that the California Recall Election isn’t rigged? Millions and millions of mail-in ballots will make this just another giant scam, no different, but less blatant, than the 2020 Presidential election scam.”
So, please, save your breadth. I mean it. I could not care less what you think about honesty until YOU can be honest with yourself. Until then, I have no respect for your integrity.
None.
Jeff,
The way you and Natasha go on and on about President Trump convinces me that even out of office he still scares the crap out of you and that is simply delicious.
Have you heard what is being chanted about Biden at sports events? Something about F Biden I believe. It is becoming a viral meme.
Young,
I’m not afraid of Trump. I’m afraid of Trumpists who would rather die than admit that they were wrong about Trump, Or more likely, physically silence those who won’t shut up about it. Because we will never.
Are you going to go to your grave denying that Trump is a serial liar? Really?
Jeff:
Did you realize that mail in voting is internationally recognized as ripe for fraud? Hence why there are so many restrictions in so many countries for mail in voting?
This declaration that concerns with mail in voting is some sort of lie is not based on any evidence.
I personally received voting materials for people who used to own this house over a decade ago, one of whom is dead. I also got materials for a neighbor. It’s easy to commit voter fraud by mail. I would never do it, but a conscience is not an impediment to politically poisoned activists. My husband’s cousin found out someone voted in her name.
Republican poll watchers were thrown out while poll workers frantically counted ballots during the night. Millions of original ballots were thrown away or went missing. Every attempt at auditing the voter rolls to remove the dead (who remain politically active for over a century in some districts), the duplicates, those who moved, and those not legal to vote is blocked by Democrats.
The list of malfeasance goes on and on.
We are never going to know the extent of voter fraud in 2020 because too many ballots are simply gone. They aren’t contacting voters to ask if they really cast that ballot. The ballot harvesting and fraud in old age homes continues. I do think that sending mail in ballots to everyone led to some who would never have spent 5 minutes driving to a polling center to vote for addled and racist Joe Biden would be willing to check a box and put it in the outgoing mail. We’ll never know the contribution that fraud had to the election.
There is also the point that the media and Big Tech operating like a massive Democrat propaganda machine gave Biden an enormous push. Many people polled had no idea that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a real story. By preventing voters from getting accurate information critical of Joe Biden, and pushing propaganda, often proven false, against Donald Trump, the media and Big Tech had their thumb, their entire fist, their other hand, and both feet on the scales.
So I don’t think Joe Biden’s win was entirely due to voter fraud. It absolutely occured, as it does every election, but due to the destruction of evidence and failure to investigate the extent of mail in fraud, we’ll never know the percent it contributed.
You shouldn’t call someone a liar just because you disagree with them.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/potential-fraud-why-mail-elections-should-be-dead-letter
Judicial Watch achieved a settlement with Los Angeles to remove 1.5 million people from the rolls because they were not eligible to vote.
Another example of voter fraud – the 2018 election in North Carolina was overturned because ballot harvesters were found to have forged absentee (i.e. mail in) ballots.
Another problem with mail in voting:
“Rose conducted a survey of one county, Washington County, outside Portland. Five percent of registered voters admitted that other people marked their ballots, and 2.4% said someone else signed their ballots.” Yet those forged signatures had no problem passing the so-called signature verification process.
This is what the Supreme Court said in 2008 when it upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law:
“flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists [including] Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor … demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
You have been asked repeatedly to give examples of Trump’s obsessive lying. All you have ever referred to is your belief that election fraud is a lie. That’s not true. Instead of calling you a chronic and habitual liar, though, I will say you are sincerely mistaken.
All you have to do is investigate voter fraud, without using Google’s usual algorithm, and miraculously, you’ll find myriad court cases, SCOTUS opinions, settlements, and other evidence of election fraud throughout our nation’s history.
The people who want you to believe that voter fraud is impossible want to cheat. They want people like you advocating for their efforts to remove impediments to cheating. Please refrain from dutifully bleating that election fraud isn’t a problem, so as to give the wolves free access.
“Republican poll watchers were thrown out while poll workers frantically counted ballots during the night.”
If you provide evidence, let’s check your claim and see if it’s true. (I’ve certainly heard people claim this before, but all of the cases I’ve checked have turned out not to be true.)
“the 2018 election in North Carolina was overturned because ballot harvesters were found to have forged absentee (i.e. mail in) ballots. ”
So the system worked. Some people engaged in voter fraud, and they were caught.
Same thing with the guy in PA who requested an absentee ballot in his dead mother’s name and attempted to vote with it: he was caught and charged.
The question isn’t “does voter fraud sometimes occur?,” because we know the answer to that: yes, it sometimes occurs. The real questions are things like “is there any evidence that voter fraud is widespread and goes uncaught?”
Karen,
You really believe this “crap”? That was the exact word Chris Wallace used to describe the Big Lie. Didn’t you see my earlier post?
“Since we’re on the topic of free speech, and the question of Turley’s concern for Little Brother depriving Conservatives of a platform to give their “opinions,” I present the following statement by Chris Wallace of Fox News explaining why he will not permit LIARS to appear on his program:
“The Republicans who’ve egged on these claims have chosen to “say something they know is not true” to avoid losing out on the Trump voter base, Wallace told Colbert. And watching Americans latch on to these ideas during the Capitol riot was horrendous, Wallace said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-wallace-lawmakers-voter-fraud-wont-appear-on-fox-show-2021-9
“I have purposefully not had them on, frankly, because I don’t want to hear their crap,” Wallace said.
How many here think that the hypocrite Turley will NOT criticize his Fox colleague for *banning* Trumpists from spewing their crap to his audience?
Raise your hand high!
Let’s see… I can see Svelaz, Eb, Natacha, Paul?, Oky (I think), Karen S (is that your hand?)… who else?”
—————-
I was patiently awaiting your reaction to Turley’s ignoring his colleague’s banning Trumpist liars. Mind you, Wallace is not on the Opinion side of Fox. He is in the *News* division so there is absolutely no excuse for Turley not to deplore Wallace for his “advocacy journalism” except that that Turley NEVER criticizes his own network for the faults he points out in the MSM.
Is there any remaining doubt of Turley’s hypocrisy?
Jeff,
Mencken had something funny to say about modern generals and their stacks of fruit salad compared to General Grant. Milley would have been savaged by Mencken.
We understand were this women is coming from. The attacks were on heteropatriarchal capitalistic systems. Just like the attacks on Pearl Harbor were attacks on heteropatriarchal capitalistic systems. She should give attribution for her statement to the leaders of Japan at the start of the Second World War. Just another leftist employing plagiarism to further the Marxist cause.
Indeed, and I feel similarly about how America has politicized covid among other things, as compared to multitudes of other nations that actually still seek solutions. The American Liberal echo chamber looks an awful lot more like privileged bubble than a political party in the 21st century.
The Professor is not wrong: a great many of us have become mindless androids capable only of knee-jerk reactions followed by ingrained and meaningless talking points. Please don’t distract me from my latte/phone/pot consumption.
I think a better argument is that it was an attack on woke ideology promulgated by woke progressives, e.g., women’s rights, pride marches, etc. Radical Moslems have contempt those movements. In Iran, homosexuals can be executed.
I was under the impression Wallace could choose whoever he wanted to interview as well as those he wished to exclude. It’s his show, and he features the content he wants. I don’t see anything to criticize about that, and I expect Prof. Turley feels likewise.
Someone says:
“I was under the impression Wallace could choose whoever he wanted to interview as well as those he wished to exclude. It’s his show, and he features the content he wants. I don’t see anything to criticize about that, and I expect Prof. Turley feels likewise.”
You are joking, right? Turley’s main complaint about the media is *advocacy journalism* resulting in 2 opposing and siloed echo chambers. Turley constantly criticizes viewpoints or stories, e.g., Hunter Biden, being ignored by his network’s cable competitors! Turley is still reminding us of his harsh criticism of the NYT for claiming it was an editorial mistake- not to be repeated- of publishing Senator Cotton’s opinion about calling out the troops to quash riots. Turley believes that no private university or media company should censor ANY Conservative opinion- he calls it the “Little Brother” problem.
That is exactly what Wallace is doing- banning anyone who dares to claim the election was stolen. How dare he call such claims “crap!”
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURNING A BOOK AS TRASH OR LABELLING A VIEWPOINT AS “FAKE” – BOTH ARE CRAP!
I tend to think Jackson was on to something but may not have placed her observation as accurately as could be. I also agree with Turley’s observation about Al Queda not being shy about other countries, even Muslim countries.
Writ large, Jackson’s assessment about the U.S. was pretty on the money, but where it really came into play was in its response to 9/11 rather than being the primary cause of 9/11, at least in regard to Turley’s point. What Jackson was getting at explains the conditions in which the U.S. was so adrift in its not being able to truly read what was going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s flawed military approaches based on American thinking rather than being able to truly see through the contextual lens of the Iraqis and Afghans themselves. In other words, America’s toxic need to make others always jump through its hoop, and the following ‘oh my god how could this happen???’ confusion when things don’t react to its money and military force from the perspective of an American ideal.
Not sure we’ll ever be able to see our way through that conundrum. It’s certainly not the most efficient way to navigate through the world and its problems.
eb
Since we’re on the topic of free speech, and the question of Turley’s concern for Little Brother depriving Conservatives of a platform to give their “opinions,” I present the following statement by Chris Wallace of Fox News explaining why he will not permit LIARS to appear on his program:
“The Republicans who’ve egged on these claims have chosen to “say something they know is not true” to avoid losing out on the Trump voter base, Wallace told Colbert. And watching Americans latch on to these ideas during the Capitol riot was horrendous, Wallace said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-wallace-lawmakers-voter-fraud-wont-appear-on-fox-show-2021-9
“I have purposefully not had them on, frankly, because I don’t want to hear their crap,” Wallace said.
How many here think that the hypocrite Turley will NOT criticize his Fox colleague for *banning* Trumpists from spewing their crap to his audience?
Raise your hand high!
Let’s see… I can see Svelaz, Eb, Natacha, Paul?, Oky (I think), Karen S (is that your hand?)… who else?
He’s welcome to move to another country. What’s wrong with these people?