Dan Kalb, an Oakland City Council member, is an ardent environmentalist and liberal politician. He was considered ideal to speak at the University of California, Berkeley, on the environment . . . until students found out that Kalb is also a supporter of Israel. Kalb was reportedly disinvited this month by Natural Resources Professor Kurt Spreyer after students objected and threatened a protest.
More than 30 students signed a letter, which was shared on X that is a model of the Orwellian logic long used on campuses to silence conservatives and libertarians.
The students call Israel a “colonial and imperialist project” that “thrive[s] on the oppression and exploitation” of the Palestinians. After saying that they will not tolerate Kalb being heard on campus due to his support for Israel, they add that “it is not our intention to stifle diverse voices, but rather to ensure that the voices we engage with are grounded in a sincere commitment to knowledge and truth.”
The students wrote to Kalb: “Considering your active role in retweeting and spreading pro-Israeli propaganda . . . on social media, questions arise regarding the validity, legitimacy, and authenticity of your views in regard to the advocation of our community.”
It is not hard to see where these students have learned this absurd understanding of free speech. It is the same logic used for years by professors to rationalize the echo chamber on faculties and campuses. In “The Indispensable Right,” I discuss how academics are now leading an anti-free speech movement on campuses that challenges the centrality (or even the necessity) of free speech protections in higher education. Students have been taught to be leery of free speech arguments. Free speech is often portrayed as harmful or some views as inimical to higher education.
Recently, we discussed an article titled “Dear Administrators: Enough with the Free Speech Rhetoric! It Concedes Too Much to the Right-Wing Agenda” by two Arizona State University professors — Richard Amesbury and Catherine O’Donnell. The authors wrote that free speech concerns yield too much to the “right wing” and that free speech should not be given the protection currently afforded by universities and colleges. Indeed, they argue that free speech may be harming higher education by fostering “unworthy” ideas.
In fairness, to the two professors, they do not reject the overall value of free speech and refer to free speech as among the important values to be balanced in the academic setting. While referring to free speech as “essential,” we clearly differ on what that means. They are less supportive of intellectual diversity in my view.
While many of us expressed disgust at the treatment of a federal judge shouted down by Stanford law students, Professor Jennifer Ruth wrote a column in the Chronicle of Higher Education heralding their actions. It is an extension of her book It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom (with Penn State Music Professor Michael Bérubé) declaring certain views as advancing “theories of white supremacy” and thus having “no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever.” Once declared as harmful, it is no longer free speech and therefore worthy of censorship or cancellation. It is that easy.
Most recently, over 70 faculty members at the University of Utah signed a petition demanding that the university reinstate funding for a radical student group that disrupted events to prevent conservative and pro-Israel views from being heard on campus. The letter called for the “immediate reinstatement” of funding for Mecha de U of U.
The professors were not concerned with the group preventing others from being heard and instead objected that there is “a deeply troubling contradiction: the free speech of transphobic ideologues is protected by the university, while the free speech of students standing against the genocide of Palestinians is not.”
While Kalb reportedly said that Professor Spreyer did not agree with the students, he feared that his presence would be disruptive. The result is precisely what these students had hoped to achieve in getting the event cancelled due to the chilling effect of threatened protests. Rather than warning that any disruption of a class would be treated as a violation of the school code, the speaker was simply disinvited. Problem solved.
There is an irony for many in the free speech community to see the sudden concern over free speech by some on our campuses who have remained silent for years as conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty were attacked, cancelled, and fired.
For many, this is a monster of their own creation either due to their action or acquiescence in past years as a political orthodoxy took hold of higher education.
NB: After posting the column, I ran a link to one of the cited articles and an added paragraph on the views of Professors Amesbury and O’Donnell. As noted in an earlier column, they maintain that they are supportive of free speech.
As a graduate of the school of natural resources I would set fire to money before giving it to that Maoist institution BTW progressive Jews like Kalb are learning the lesson of being mugged by reality
Berkeley? There once was a university in that town, wasn’t there?
And it was at the forefront of the 1960s free speech movement.
Sage wordcraft on a bathroom wall:
“Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out!”
– Anonymous
That’s similar to an old Marine Corps maxim:
“It’s not our job to judge our enemies; that’s God’s job.
Our job is to arrange the meeting.”
And, BTW, I am not a member of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children but those of us in the Senior Service recognize wisdom when we see it.
Oorah!
S Meyer – thanks. I once had to choose between working for AT&T or IBM. I chose AT&T, although at the time I knew nothing of any involvement by any company in Germany (I was only 21 at the time and didn’t know much of anything about anything). I now feel better about that choice.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Oldman, I asked Edwin Black if he ever lectured to employees of IBM. He did. I think it is important for people to understand this type of history in advance , so when they see it happening they recognize it.
I can definitely understand why they would have him in to give a lecture.
Dennis mcintyre is an unconvicted pedophile.
The Cherokee County, TX district attorney knows that Dennis has been cornholing his 11 year old nephew for 3 years, but refuses to prosecute because he is a Soros plant.
Jonathan: The controversy surrounding Dan Kalb is perhaps an opportunity to discuss the situation in Gaza. What do we know?
Since Oct 7 the IDF has conducted a blitkrieg military campaign in Gaza–to make the innocent Palestinians pay for the acts of a few. Over 23,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed–mostly women and children. 79 journalists have been killed–intentionally targeted by IDF forces. Hospitals have been also targeted for bombing, a violation of international humanitarian law–and even though there is no credible evidence the hospitals were used as command centers. The IDF is using its largest and most destructive bombs against Gaza–dropping 6,000 bombs a week in the first two weeks alone since Oct. 7. Gaza is now virtually uninhabitable. The videos of Gaza show destruction only seen in Dresden in WW11. Many in the international community are calling Israel’s campaign “genocide”.
Apparently South Africa agrees. It has filed a formal complaint against Israel with the International Criminal Court in the Hague and hearings were held this week. South Africa alleges Israel is in violation of the Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Both parties are signatories to the Convention. Article 2 defines “genocide” as “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;…”. The overwhelming evidence so far supports South Africa’s claim. South Africa has asked the ICC to order Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza.
Now I wonder what Dan Kalb would say about South Africa’s position? That’s why I think Kalb should be allowed to address the Cal students. Maybe a student could get up and ask Kalb this Q: “If the ICC finds against Israel, and since there is no enforcement mechanism for a Court order, would you support international sanctions against Israel?” Now that would make an interesting dialogue!
Sieg heil, Dennis.
Well, if s. africa agrees…
Hamas is sacrificing its own people in a global PR effort, plain and simple. They had no other goal in their attack than the get massively retaliated against.
Israel is defending its people and hamas is creating involuntary martyrs out of their people, from sweet qatari hotels. hamas and the arabist movement is pure garbage. israel is no prize, but hamas can F right off.
“[T]he situation in Gaza. What do we know?”
That its government, Hamas (a terrorist, Iranian proxy), invaded Israel, kidnapped and butchered hundreds of Israeli citizens.
The only moral response to such barbarism is the total annihilation of Hamas (then of their masters in Tehran).
If your concern is for “innocent Palestinians,” then the solution is easy: Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Until then, Israel has every moral right to defend itself with any means necessary.
“Since Oct 7 the IDF has conducted a blitkrieg military campaign in Gaza–to make the innocent Palestinians pay for the acts of a few. Over 23,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed–mostly women and children.”
Dennis gets his numbers from the Hamas terrorist organization, but let us assume 23,000 is correct. The population of Dresden is around 500,000 today (probably less during WW2), while Gaza is around 2,000,0000.
~25,000 is the best estimate of deaths in Dresden, which some say could have been in the 100,000 range. These deaths occurred in under one week.
Let’s compare that to ~100 days of Israeli bombings in Gaza with a much greater population, ~2,000,000 people. If we ran the numbers, we would see the death rate by Israelis as 25% of what was seen in Dresden.
Looking at the numbers, one can say Israel is doing a fantastic job trying to prevent civilian deaths. Thank you, Dennis, for pointing that out and showing how low the death rate is in Gaza. You should be commended for making a complete a$$ of yourself, which you do regularly.
There is more to the story. Dresden wasn’t a military installation, while the places being blown up in Gaza are. Therefore, many more Hamas soldiers are being killed than German soldiers in Dresden. The numbers calculated by Hamas terrorists are hard to trust because Hamas shows pictures of the dead with sheets over everybody. But others are there to film after the count only to see all the bodies rise and walk away. How can we trust Hamas? How can we trust Dennis, who cannot think?
Yet Dennis goes further and adds his extraordinary mind-reading capacity. An empty brain leaves a lot of room for crazy thoughts to arise. He talks about intentions, but Dennis can neither speak Hebrew nor Arabic.
The big kicker is that a large percentage of the Hamas rockets fired toward Israel don’t take flight and blow up on the heads of Hamas soldiers who launched them or the civilian population. Films are showing this. When you take all of this into account, the Israelis are doing the best possible job of saving lives one can expect.
Thank you, Dennis, again. Your empty head eventually brings the truth into focus.
“Hospitals have been also targeted for bombing, a violation of international humanitarian law–and even though there is no credible evidence the hospitals were used as command centers. ”
I read more of Dennis’ nonsense. It is hard to believe an adult has so little accurate knowledge. Does he bother to look at the videos of the bombing? Maybe Dennis is blind. He isn’t, but his ideology seems to blind him to the truth.
Earlier, we heard Dennis complaining about the bombing of a hospital and a large number of people killed. That was one of those misfires by Hamas rocket experts that generally kill Hamas civilians or themselves, but this time, they were lucky. The rockets reached the parking lot, and the hospital remained standing.
Only a fool and Dennis can mistake a parking lot for a hospital. But beneath the hospitals are command centers and weaponry. When that weaponry explodes, it makes the bomb blast look tremendous, almost like Dennis’s head when he tries to think, and his head blows up.
Dealing with Dennis’s intellect is problematic because it is barely detectable.
“alleges Israel is in violation of the Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. ”
Israel isn’t violating anything since, in active combat, civilians get killed, and that is noted when one reads the actual laws and rules. Hamas is a terrorist organization using babies and women as shields. That isn’t permitted anywhere, but Dennis doesn’t mention that. Dennis is part of the Culture of Death that likes to kill living creatures and blame others for their deaths. His writing sounds like the writing of a maniac, but we all love Dennis. Daily, he shows us the stupidity of the left.
Dennis McIntyre (Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats’ version of Baghdad Bob assigned here) confirms the obvious about himself with this:
Since Oct 7 the IDF has conducted a blitkrieg military campaign in Gaza–to make the innocent Palestinians pay for the acts of a few.
Dennis/Baghdad Bob runs true to the roots of the beginnings of the original version of the Soviet Democrats when the Kluxxers were the Democratic Party: an enthusiastic anti-Semitic, racist, neo-Nazi.
No different in his allegations against Jews than Josef Goebbels was making 90 years ago. No different than Goebbels in not only the lies, but also his demands for what be done to Jews to fix the “Jew problem”. Dennis McIntyre now channels Josef Goebbels as well as Baghdad Bob while serving as the apparatchik assigned here by Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats.
Dennis is both a police state fascist Soviet Democrat and a proud neo-Nazi (as someone once said ‘but I repeat myself’). Let’s explore some of Dennis/Baghdad Bob/Josef’s lies, shall we? The obvious challenges to his lies and allegations?
Over 23,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed–mostly women and children.
Any cite for where you got any of your numbers like that Dennis/Bob/Josef? From the leader of the Soviet Democrats’ Anti-Semitic Soviet Socialist Sisterhood – Rashid Tlaib?
Does that number include the 500+ that the genocidal Arab terrorists said were killed when they claimed Israel demolished a hospital in the early days of Israel striking back at the Hajji terrorists? Any explanation of how the Hajjis miraculously dug 500+ bodies from the rubble of a building within hours of it being supposedly demolished so they could be counted? Any explanation of how the bodies of the dead were sorted to be counted as either Hamas’ hajjis – or women and children?
How about this: any explanation of why footage shows that hospital still very much standing a day later after Hamas told their western versions of Josef Goebbels to screech that an Israeli bomb had destroyed the hospital and 500 bodies had been recovered from the ruins. Got an answer Dennis/Baghdad Bob/Joseph Goebbels?
Hospitals have been also targeted for bombing, a violation of international humanitarian law–and even though there is no credible evidence the hospitals were used as command centers.
This is another one of those “Don’t believe your lying eyes” segments that serve as the framework of Dennis/Baghdad Bob/Josef’s arguments. The Arab Muslim terrorists of Hamas were so proud of their command centers under hospitals that they gave selected journalists TOURS of those command centers, allowing them to shoot video of selected parts of those facilities. And of course, the IDF has now – expecting the genocidal neo-Nazis like Dennis would claim ‘nothing to see here’ – taken international journalists into those tunnels under those hospitals to film what is in those tunnels.
Final note, hospitals are NOT places that international law guarantees terrorists they can use as a Home Safe base for terrorism when they use those hospitals as their chosen critical terrorism infrastructure to conduct terrorism as they did on October 7th. I don’t know where one can read the text of the “international humanitarian law” Dennis/Bob/Josef is referring to, but if it exists it might have a thing or two to say about how inhuman the October 7th genocide/torture/rape targeting Israeli citizens was. Ditto the same hajji terrorists deliberately building terrorist infrastructure and hiding terrorist commanders under hospitals and similar buildings.
South Africa alleges Israel is in violation of the Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Both parties are signatories to the Convention.
Bribery Biden’s owners and master in Communist China are also signatories to that Convention, Dennis/Baghdad Bob/Josef Goebbels. Any reason your fellow Nazi Marxists in South Africa haven’t charged their fellow members in Communist China for their decades long genocide of the Ugher Muslim population? Intersectionality is the excuse?
Reminder to neo-Nazi genocidal Soviet Democrat Dennis McIntyre: Hamas explicitly says in their charter that their singular purpose for existence is to complete the total genocide of every Jew on earth. Kinda sounds like a 30 year long campaign of genocide to normal human beings by your fellow Nazis, Dennis.
Question: why didn’t South Africa charge the genocidal hajji Arab terrorists under that same Article 2 of that Convention right after October 7th? Or for ANY of the Hamas terrorism since Israel voluntarily turned Gaza over to the Arabs in Gaza in 2005? They’ve had 18 years to do that – just a reminder.
Any explanation of why you and your fellow racist Marxist Nazis in South Africa haven’t been squealing about charging the Gaza genocidal Arab terrorists for attempting genocide, Dennis/Bob/Josef?
Any explanation for why Israel hunting down your fellow sub-human genocidal Nazis in Hamas after October 7th isn’t EXACTLY what that same Convention calls for in Article III and IV?
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
And: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” Looks to normal people that Israel hunting down and killing your fellow Nazis that are the genocidal hajji butchers of Hamas is exactly what that Convention calls for.
The overwhelming evidence so far supports South Africa’s claim.
You previously said the overwhelming evidence so far supported the claim Bribery Biden knew nothing about his son’s influence selling genocidal Communist China customers. You said the overwhelming evidence supported the claim that the Biden laptop was nothing but Russian election disinformation, etc.
You’re a devoted genocidal police state fascist Soviet Democrat Nazi, Dennis McIntyre, but your postings here are about as believable as the lies spewed by The Big Guy on a daily basis and those of his White House Spokes Liar, Cringe Jean-Pierre.
Dennis McIntyre:
You say:”What do we know?”
Actually ‘we’ know only what Hamas tells us, the same organization that claimed that 600 civilians were killed when Israel bombed a hospital. That claim disappeared when it became evident from tracking of the missile that it was an errant Hamas rocket that landed in the unoccupied parking lot and that there was some injuries mostly to cars.
Also “Over 23,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed–mostly women and children.” And again, how do you know this? and specifically how do you include ‘mostly’?
You are contradicting Hamas which claims both universal support and claims that the rape was committed by angry Gazans who followed Hamas fighters in and contradicting the polls that show that Gazans support the massacre
You are a keyboard warrior who seems particularly focussed on the Hamas-Israel conflict yet ignores the hundreds of thousands who died in the two wars in the Sudan, the continuing hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria, the deaths of the Rohingya in Myanmar – each of which dwarfs any death toll in Gaza.
And, since you know so much, how do you suggest that Israel should have responded to Hamas, particularly when Hamas held hostages and promised to repeat the massacre ad infinitum?
“I’m an historian, and I have an obligation to decide whether, for example, some arguments are “
Historians should have a better grasp of the language they speak.
“I’m a idiot”—-Catherine
Another instance of the patients running the insane asylum.
ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS
Environmental wackos deserve no heed. Environmental wackos believe they have the power to control planets. That is the very definition of wacko. What environmental wackos do have is the power to collectivize weak-minded, milquetoast populations under the fear-mongering and fraud of phantom “global warming” and “climate change.” There are ancient cities 100 feet under the surface of the ocean that experienced climate change millennia ago. Contemporaneous inhabitants of the earth did not change the climate. The universe, galaxy, planetary system, and earth changed the climate. 4.5 billion years ago, there was no earth, and there was no climate. That changed. Human beings had and have no power to initiate or terminate climate change. Human beings have an inordinate capacity to seek approval and social acceptance—to join a cause for the sake of joining a cause—and, ultimately, to stave off the accelerating decompensation of their psychological faculty to assess and discriminate rationally.
Environmental wackos et al. must never be allowed to vote. The American Founders implemented voting restrictions through State legislatures per the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton described those who were denied the vote as “persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own,” “persons of indigent fortunes,” “[persons] such as are under the immediate dominion of others,” and “[persons] who are suspected to have no will of their own.”
Currently, the poverty income threshold for a family of four is $30,000, and many environmental wackos are students and others of “indigent fortunes.” Most, if not all, environmental wackos may be “suspected to have no will of their own” and “are under the immediate dominion of others,” such as Greta Thunberg, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, Al Gore, John “Haughty” Kerry et al.
At length, the most daunting and dangerous consideration regarding environmental wackos is that they are national wackos who threaten freedom, free enterprise, free markets, coherent self-governance, and America.
Before America is gone, Americans must restrict the vote.
______________________________________________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
Hello, Professor Turley. The last time you mischaracterized the argument Richard and I made, I replied at some length, pointing out that we’d called free speech “essential” while also offering evidence that some of the rhetoric of free speech – and the money behind some of that rhetoric — risks tempting universities to set aside their obligations to students and scholarship. Although I was unhappy at the vitriol flowing our way because of your post (which you did in fact edit after my reply), I assumed that was unintentional. Surely an exchange of ideas, not performative rage, is the goal. But here we are again, so I may have erred. If you ever do wish to discuss the relationship between academic freedom and free speech, or to converse about the obligations of scholars — which, as you know perfectly well, necessarily involve making choices about the relative “worth” and importance of readings and arguments — I’m happy to do so. Best wishes for 2024.
Why don’t you discuss this with some of us, so that all could read/see the exchange and correlative arguments? I expect that some of us commenters are as credentialed and published as you may be….(maybe more?)
I have no doubt many commenters are more credentialed and have published more widely than I. That you point to expertise is useful. The obligation of faculty to use our expertise as we make decisions about our scholarship and teaching, lay at the heart of our essay. If professors are to do our jobs — and it’s the public’s decision, not professors’, whether our jobs matter — we need to use our training. Using our training means using our professional judgment, and it means we will sometimes say no, or not quite, or that’s not good enough. I’m an historian, and I have an obligation to decide whether, for example, some arguments are well-sourced and crafted enough to be worth assigning to students. If I submit a manuscript to a press and it’s rejected, I can’t simply claim my free speech rights are violated; I accept that the press has deemed it, in its current form, unworthy of publication.
If you’re thinking that all of that seems so unobjectionable as to be almost banal, I understand! Professor Turley’s repeatedly expressed indignation that scholars would judge the worth of scholarship and curriculum, is hard to understand. We have one job, not a particularly important one, and we should be expected to do it. However, there is a fad for pretending that serving as free speech forums is the ONLY role universities play. Were that to be the case, universities would be simply very expensive street corners. I think there are genuine, persuasive reasons people worry about free speech in universities. But “free speech” can also be a cover for the substitution of donor or legislative influence and money for scholarly expertise. I will regretfully note that Professor Turley has now twice demonstrated how easy it is to wave the bloody shirt of free speech, and wave away useful, nuanced discussion of scholarly obligations and responsibilities.
Thanks for your query.
Another steaming turd ^^^^
I assume you are Catherine O’Donnell. There is one simple test for your commitment to free speech. Do you support the right of speakers who do share your views to speak on campus? In February 2022, Dennis Prager, one of the most mild and reasonable of conservative radio hosts, was scheduled to speak at ASU at an event sponsored apparently by the Barrett Honors Faculty (I may have the name wrong). Members of that group and perhaps other faculty members signed a petition to denounce the Barrett Faculty for inviting Prager and others. Did you sign the petition? Did you speak up for the right of Prager to speak,?
correction – “do NOT share your views”.
“. . . nuanced discussion . . .”
That is academic code for: How dare you state our ideas clearly.
Obscurity is one of the low points of modern academics. Then when an honest scholar names their ideas forthrightly, they complain: But we didn’t mean that.
And yet you did.
“Thanks for your query.”
Really?
Looks like Chat.Whatever to me . . . .
I actually am a/n historian, and the word salad above is nonsense, if for no other reason than that manuscripts are often rejected for spurious reasons or simply because the reviewer disagrees with its thesis or interpretation or selection of evidence or conclusions or . . . [fill in the blank].
Most reviews are anonymous, so the process is not one of open debate between or among experts; the identity of both author and reviewer are hidden, a rather peculiar practice in disciplines like history, the social sciences, and the humanities, whose members regularly disagree with one another. For example, one of the books on my shelf is Tom Butler-Bowdon’s “50 Psychology Classics,” It is not a monograph, but it is both a useful reference work and a testament to the lack of disagreement among psychologists and psychoanalysts.
As for history, since the “linguistic turn” more than thirty years ago, the profession seems to be as concerned with ‘narratives,’ which are essentially historical opinion pieces, propaganda or fantasies, as it is with serious attempts to understand the past.
The question of who should get to speak on campus has always been a ‘contested’ one, but ideally it should be anyone who will prompt students (and faculty) to think seriously about important questions rather than simply parrot what a given expert, no matter how fashionable, claims to be true.
“As for history, since the ‘linguistic turn’ . . .”
Excellent points. Expressed clearly. (Imagine that.)
Their turn to “narrative” (over important historical facts and events) is a return to pre-history, when “history” was a mishmash of local lore, myth, and accurate accounts. Those ancients had an excuse. The modern destroyers of history do not.
What is your website and credentials?
Hi Catherine. Which would you say is a better place to retire: Ann Arbor, or Tempe?
Ann Arbor in summer and Tempe at other times? Although we might consider the football season as an important variable, too.
Jonathan: On to other news this week. Some on this blog think DJT is the “teflon man”, i.e., he’s impervious to being held legally accountable. Think again.
A judge in NT this week ordered DJT to pay nearly $400,000 to cover the NY Times’ legal fees from a now dismissed SLAPP lawsuit DJT filed against the Times. In 2021 DJT accused the Times of conspiring with his estranged niece, Mary Trump, to obtain and publish his tax records. Judge Reed ruled they were protected under the 1st Amendment. And who represented DJT in the SLAPP lawsuit? You get a gold star if you said Alina Habba. The same Alina Habba who was on DJT’s legal team that represented him in the NT civil fraud case that just concluded. And we know that is going to be another really big loser for the Trumpster.
Next week starts the second E Jean Carroll defamation trial before Judge Kaplan in NY. And who is representing DJT? You got it right again–Alina Habba. For those not keeping tract, in the first trial DJT was found liable for sexual assault and defamation of Carroll. So the issue of liability is off the table. The only issue for the new jury is the amount of punitive damages. But now Alina Habba is bizarrely telling Judge Kaplan she wants to re-try the issue of liability and put on witnesses and other evidence. Judge Kaplan has yet to rule but he will no doubt school Alina on the law. Once liability has been established it cannot be re-tried.
Poor Alina. She has no place in a courtroom. So far she has a losing record. If she were a pitcher she would have been farmed out long ago. So why does DJT continue to have her represent him and pay her millions in legal fees? I’ll leave that Q for the gossip columnists.
The World is drifting further and further from sanity and more particularly the United States has reached a level of true imbecilic notions tilting further and further left. The Earth rotates at 1,037 mph, travels around the Sun at 66.6 thousand mph, is wobbling some Seven inches east off its axis, and is causing the feeble minded leftist to be confused about what is right side up! They no longer know the meaning of words, understand laws, can define what is Male or Female or believe in the sanctity of individual worth. They are destroying this great country one small step at a time believing the State is supreme.
God help us ALL!
AND IT ALL STARTED…
In 1860, the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit secession, reserving it to the States as fully constitutional. “Crazy Abe” fantasized that the State was supreme. Lincoln trained Americans to ignore the law and value the supremacy of the State. Lincoln’s war and the termination of American constitutional freedom must have never happened. Reprehensible slavery was created through legal processes, and it must have been abrogated through legal processes and the loss of economic viability. Lincoln was a pro-labor fellow traveler of Karl Marx, and Lincoln participated in Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
– Karl Marx’s Letter of Congratulation and Commendation to Abraham Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE TOTALITY OF LINCOLN MUST BE RESCINDED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
While Kalb reportedly said that Professor Spreyer did not agree with the students, he feared that his presence would be disruptive. The result is precisely what these students had hoped to achieve in getting the event cancelled due to the chilling effect of threatened protests. Rather than warning that any disruption of a class would be treated as a violation of the school code, the speaker was simply disinvited.
Violence is the one instrument what Democrats wield like a knife to slice and dice voters into their pockets. Washington DC has collapsed.
Why No One Goes Out to Eat in D.C. Anymore
– WSJ
In a December social-media post announcing the closing of Pursuit, a 10-year-old wine bar and restaurant, owner Adam Kelinsky said doing business in the city “is no longer sustainable.” Aaron McGovern and Arturas Vorobjovas shuttered both Washington locations of their seafood restaurant Brine in November, saying that the combined effects of the pandemic, the sputtering economy and “the spike in violent crime” had made it “impossible to survive.” Others focus on the second-order consequences of crime: With homicides in Washington up 35% in 2023 and car thefts up 82%, restaurant operators report that people are choosing to eat elsewhere.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-no-one-goes-out-to-eat-in-d-c-anymore-fd01e31e
Biden’s handlers repeat the lie that crime is down in America. Cherry picking data does that.
Per DOJ data: National Crime Victimization Survey vs National Incident-Based Reporting System
https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/ncvsnibrscpc22.pdf
NCVS data reflects violent crime has increased while NCIBRS says the opposite
They lie. Manipulate. Obfuscate. Power by any means necessary, violence welcome
The Federal Gov is demanding remote employees return to their offices – mainly because 1) the city is not getting revenue from parking tickets and 2) restaurants that cater to the lunch crowd are dying.
Estovir,
It is not just DC.
Been reading about other cities like Portland OR, Seattle WA, of course San Fran where crime is out of control. City centers that were once major attractions for not only the local residents but tourists are hollowed out. Stores and restaurants closed and boarded up.
Seems they are determined to destroy their cities.
@Upstate
This was happening in the (very blue) town we left – businesses had perpetual help wanted signs three years after the lockdown, no one wanted to work; restaurants were closing and those that remained open were closing more days of the week due to understaffing and inflation/supply chain related expenses, and quality had dropped so much it wasn’t worth going, anyway; shoplifting was off the charts, groceries closing for health violations, stores not restocking many things, smash and grabs, vandalism, homelessness/public addiction spinning out of control (with formerly open door businesses locking their doors during business hours, requiring knocking, because of the aforementioned walking in and causing problems), regular shootings/assaults, and an already overextended police force not being permitted to do anything about it (and indeed while showing our house, WE had a burglary at our home – took our tv, my wife’s computer, my guitar, my camera equipment, and the police couldn’t do a thing). On top of it all the city was absolutely trashed all the time, and yes, that includes human waste/needles etc. in public places; I found a damn needle in front of our mailbox once. I saw people using the bathroom on the sidewalk more times than any person should.
Basic functional life was becoming impossible, and throw in inflation that increased our cost of living $16,000+/year in a very short time without us changing a thing – we just couldn’t do it anymore. Anyone claiming these are not prevalent problems in blue cities is either very wealthy and thus insulated, very sheltered, or very dishonest. I have no reason to exaggerate, we were not looking to move a year prior, but the town never recovered from the lockdown, no, the entropy only continued, and we had to move on just to have the basics in order and available, forget upward mobility. This same fate is in store for all of these places that have abandoned reason if they don’t change course; we will never go back to even visit. They lost the circulation of our incomes, our tax dollars, our participation, and we were not alone in leaving (in fact, our favorite neighbors had left a year prior, it’s part of what inspired us to follow suit). Detroit was an object lesson that no one heeded.
Many Richmond restaurants went out of business during COVID and BLM ANTIFA violence, and downtown Richmond remains a neglected, run down area. Plus crime here is higher than ever.
We are planning a trip to New Orleans for Mardi Gras but that is now questionable. Increase in violent crime there is once again the concern, and this from a college friend of over 40 years who is a Catholic priest pastor of 2 parishes in NO. He has a place for us in a parish rectory, and as it is Catholic parishes in New Orleans are quite beautiful with wrought iron façades. As it is, we were planning driving along leisurely on the Gulf Coast, starting Pensacola, and stopping in Mobile where Mardi Gras originally began, then Biloxi, then New Orleans. We dont party, we arent drinkers, we are in bed by 8 pm, and I rise at 3 am for the gym or to do research work. So Im not sure if visiting NO will put us in harms way given our largely sedate existence. Still, the crime in NO needs to be considered. Life in America has changed for the worst since paganism was adopted by its citizens with an “anything goes, you only live once, truth to power” dogmas.
“. . . since paganism was adopted . . .”
Says the ideology that spawned 10 centuries of criminals who, throughout the Dark/Middle Ages, kept man ignorant, impoverished, petrified, and in thrall to a combined power of church and state.
Those who evade history are doomed to repeat it.
(You are now free to deflect from that barbarous history with the gem of an “argument:” At least we didn’t murder as many as did the communists did in the 20th century.)
Etovir—great comment!
The mentally disturbed Left eat their own.
Hope it’s a banquet!
mespo——Oh, yes, mon ami! Better than Golden Corral! And self-serving, which is what they do best!
….Golden Corral! And self-serving….
Well played 😉 Clever, mon ami.
I hope your ♥️ is doing well.
Estovir….oh, thank you for the kindness. I’m staying on track, so far, and hoping there’ll not be a derailment,
and channeling “The Little Engine That Could”.LOL..Or, as Elizabeth Warren would say, “The Little Injun That Could!” 🙂
it is not only just the academic intellectuals that have gone hard left and opposed free speech, it is also the DEI laden administration that does not protect speakers. Universities are so invested in the DEI crap that some DEI bureaucracies are costing in A SINGLE universities $50 million a year
This is not a “Hard left” position – it is a totalitarian position.
It is increasingly in accurate to call these people “left”.
Musolini defined fascism as
Everyithing inside the state.
Nothing outside the state
Nothing against the state.
These people are fascists.
Sen. Joe MacCarthy and a prior era’s censorship and blacklists was brought down by liberals.
Protests and demonstrations on Campuses in the 60’s were by liberal students like Berkeley Free Speech movement leader Mario Savio.
These people are fascists.
While they claim and we label them as “left” they are really on the far far far right.
Hamas (terrorist group that attacked Israel) publicly stated that’s it’s goal is to destroy Israel – not coexist peacefully.
Israel actually offered Yasser Arafat a very generous peace deal (2-state solution) decades ago and the Palestinians rejected that generous deal from Israel. Arafat was less extreme than Hamas is today.
In the nuclear weapon age, how does Israel coexist with neighbors NOT seeking peace and neighbors that rejected a 2-state solution under Yasser Arafat?
Support Israel even if you oppose Netanyahu!
Jonathan: I would have preferred that Dan Kalb be allowed to address CAL students about environmental issues. Instead of acting unilaterally, instructor Kurt Spreyer should have shared the protest letter with the CAL administration so cooler heads could prevail–allowing Kalb to go ahead with his speech with a clear understanding he probably would be faced with protests and peppered with Qs about his support for Israel’s war in Gaza. That would allow Kalb to make the ultimate decision–knowing his address on environmental issues might well be lost in the controversy over his support for Israel’s policies. That way “free speech” would be protected on both sides. Kalb has taken a firm public position on his support for Israel so I would think he would welcome a dialogue with the students. Perhaps, Kalb should be re-invited back to address the students under these clear guidelines.
But instead of urging a rationale resolution to the Kalb controversy you use the opportunity to renew your usual complaints about the stifling of “free speech” on campuses. All you can say is that CAL has created a “monster of their own creation”. That’s not exactly the way to solve the problem.
It has been my observation that if a “student” refuses to discuss or analyze information, even that contrary to his own understanding, then he is no longer a “student” but has become an acolyte of a religious belief – be that islam, atheism, or even humanitarianism. Hw is now restricting his understanding of the world by passing all information through the filter of his ideology and rejecting anything that contradicts that BELIEF SYSTEM. This is absolute proof that we no longer have institutions of higher learning but have, instead, agenda-driven indoctrination centers no less pernicious than any islamic madrassa. Why are our state and federal governments funding such propaganda centers?
Dear Prof Turley,
I may not always agree with you . .. but I’m still willing to hear you out.
The slippery slope of speech is often contingent upon a common understanding of the problem/issues: just how ‘pro Israel’ is councilman Kalb?
Dan Kalb Nov. 28. “Oakland’s City Council on Monday passed a carefully crafted resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war after hours of hearing impassioned rhetoric about the deaths of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
The council in the California Bay Area city voted 8-0 in favor of a motion supporting a congressional resolution for a permanent ceasefire, along with the unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza and a restoration of basic services, as well as “respect for international law” and the release of all hostages.
Before the vote, the council voted 6-2 to reject proposed amendments by member Dan Kalb that specifically condemned killings and hostage-taking by Hamas, whose Oct. 7 attacks in Israel prompted the war that has devastated Gaza.”
Sounds fair and reasonable to me.
*as a general observation, in the past I think one would be hard-pressed to much ‘pro Israel’ censorship or ‘pro Palestine’ sentiment in U.S. academic circles, the media . .. or the soft/hard ‘surrogates; of government power.
dgsnowden,
Fair and reasonable, yes.
But we are not dealing with fair and reasonable people, i.e. the students.
As one travels from the center along a spoke, one gets farther not only from the center, but from neighboring spokes. The students could not tolerate a fellow traveler who was on a different spoke.
Here is a saying that is trustworthy and true: the Left’s instincts are always totalitarian.