Another Moonbat University

Clarity Defficient Liberals and 9/11

By Kevin McCullough

Sunday, October 1, 2006

Evidently Vanderbilt University's idea of a fair and balanced remembrance of September 11 is to invite nine liberal socialists to bash America for two hours and send everybody home holding their head in shame at being in fact - Americans.

That's how VU marked the fifth commemoration of September 11, 2006. Seducing students to a meeting titled, "After 9/11: A Time for Reflection."

Evidently the idea of even allowing one mildly right-of-center thinker was too intimidating for the slanted, biased, anti-American carnival barkers that lined up for two hours and told the gathered students why 9/11 was America's fault. Everything from global warming to the treatment of Native Americans was thrown into the mix. Slavery and racism were especially big reasons as stated by one of the weak leftist thinkers.

Yes, Middle Eastern jihadists attacked America because of slavery and race issues. I guess we are to understand that they recognize the race issue in America so well is in large part because the fact that they have been systematically hoping, planning, and attempting the annihilation of the Jewish bloodline since the days of Isaac and Ishmael.

What the nine liberals on the panel truly demonstrated was some of the most twisted logic that philosophy, psychology, divinity, history, and anthropology professors have ever spoken.

Some examples lifted out of the full video presentation viewable here:

"Many fear that 9/11, which was promised to be a turning point, has degenerated into a dark period of American history. The tragedy there has brought unnecessary death and destruction to tens of thousands of people... Should we be engaged in a war on terror?" David Wood, Professor of Philosophy

“It’s also very difficult to talk about causes when you are not sure what actually happened. Have we been told the truth? Have the questions been answered? Do we have all the information that we need? I don’t think we do!” Beth Conklin, Professor of Anthropology

"I think it is very salutary to realize that is also the ideology for example that animated us in WWII. We were under attack. We were in great peril. And we were going to fight back in self defense, and we were willing to sacrifice innocents, large numbers, as long as we felt it was in self defense of the greater cause. What that does then is it establishes a common moral ground, a disturbing one, between the extremist who attacked us, because we have also engaged in that kind of logic. We just haven’t been willing to do it with the kind of threshold we call extremist in this case." Michael Bess, Professor of History

"The attack on Islam has been misplaced. The most violent religion in the world for the past 500 years at least has been Christianity. We, the baptized people in the name of Jesus, have done more violence—systemic, and personal, and social and warlike—than any other religious group."

"But simply because our President and others pretend that not facing up to global warming is an option, doesn’t eradicate the fact that the 900 plus studies around the world have the scientific community in sizable consensus that there is a reality that can be called global warming."

"I came to the conclusion that the United States was the number one enemy of justice and peace in the world. I contend that USA character; psychic, social character has been badly deranged. We have been deformed and misinformed because, for too long in our history, we denied some of the realities that we ourselves have perpetrated." James Lawson, Professor of Divinity

This event was sponsored and encouraged by the highest administration officials within Vanderbilt University; the Chancellor even sent a prepared statement that is read very close to the top of the proceedings. And all of it happened without even the opportunity for the students to hear an opposing view to their collective nuttiness.

Christopher Donnelly a lone student at Vanderbilt took the risk to make the video of the gathering public - he should be recognized for his courage. Young America's Foundation worked hand in hand with Donnelly to break the tapes to the media. But now comes the time for collective action.

The professors listed above each need to hear from what real Americans have to say about their ability to seduce under the guise of 9/11 remembrance their twisted, contorted logic. Everyday people like you should have the right to demand that the university give equal time to nine panelists who don't all sing to the liberal - hate America - choir.

And along those lines I have a standing invitation. On October 20 or November 3 - which ever works best for the panelists involved - I invite each of the nine panelists to return to that same room, and face me one on one. Sure, its not equal odds. In that the panelists should take a certain degree of security that they won't be too embarrassed by the event. We will invite the media at large, and my radio audience specifically to also be in attendance. And we will re-engage on the issue of After 9/11 - A Time of Reflection.

The professors involved will each receive a personal invitation from me, The MuscleHead Revolution radio show, and the students of Vanderbilt University, the ground rules will be fair and the timing will be commensurate to the original event.

If Vanderbilt is a university that cares even the least bit about intellectual integrity in its educational process then surely a rematch 1 on 9 is something that would be in the interest for the long term welfare of its worthy reputation.

And so the clock is ticking...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2006/10/01/clarity_defficient_liberals_and_911

 

COLUMN: 9/11 panel poses important questions
Submitted by zimmertj on 10-02-06, 11:40 am

In response to a faculty panel held to reflect on the significance and meaning of Sept. 11, Vanderbilt student Chris Donnelly felt that the forum was so biased and hostile to meaningful dialogue that he complained to the conservative organization Young Americas Foundation. As a result, yesterday Donnelly found himself on “Hannity and Colmes” where he voiced his disapproval of the “liberal bias” and “anti-American” sentiment of the panel.
Like Donnelly, I attended the Sept. 11 panel; however, our experiences of the event were drastically different.

The most valuable thing I took from the conference was a host of unanswered questions that I hadn’t considered before. The most pressing, in my opinion, was the obvious but nonetheless extremely difficult question “Why did they attack us?” If you are in the business of recycling rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration then you already have a simple, easy-to-swallow answer. That is, something to the effect of, “They hate freedom,” “They’re evil men who hate our way of life,” or perhaps, “They’re crazy fanatics that hate our Judeo-Christian tradition.” I find all of these answers unconvincing.

In fact, there are far more complex reasons why Sept. 11 happened, and this was emphasized by most all of the panelists. Their main contention was that we need to critically scrutinize the rhetoric our leaders offer to us, rather than happily gulping it down without another thought as Mr. Donnelly and many pundits have done. All too often, Bush administration officials and pundits offer oversimplified answers to profoundly difficult issues and dismiss any further inquiry as “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.” In many cases, their rebuke for critics of American foreign policy is premised on the dogmatic view that “America can do no wrong in foreign affairs.”

However, if someone were to ask me why Sept. 11 happened, I would speculate about its causes, but to be honest, I’m not confident that I fully understand why it happened. The fact that many Americans feel this way is a problem that we should examine more closely. Although many panelists speculated about possible causes, the message I took from the talk was that rather than passively accept politicians’ rhetoric, we as a nation ought to examine the issue more critically. Despite Hannity’s view and Donnelly’s sneering at the thought of “putting ourselves in al-Qaida’s shoes,” this is precisely what we ought to do if we want to begin to understand why we were attacked.

I watched Donnelly’s interview with Sean Hannity, and in it he complained that “the professor pretty much shot me down” when he argued that the United States is fighting a war on “Islamo-fascism.” If by “shot me down” Donnelly meant that the professor offered arguments and asked questions that exposed the inconsistencies of his reasoning (that is, he refuted him), then on this Donnelly and I can agree. But I am surprised to find someone interested in open debate to be so uncomfortable being in a dialogue with someone he disagrees. Donnelly was given a chance to speak but could not reasonably explain what he meant by employing the term “Islamo-fascism.”

After Donnelly’s comment, the professor’s first remark was something to the effect, “this has got to be the wrong way to think about this,” by which he meant that the term “fascist” (which refers to a statist ideology, not a non-state network of cells) could not reasonably be applied to what the United States is fighting. The term is propagandistic and has no meaning beyond establishing a connection in the public mind between Iraq and World War II in order to bolster support for Bush’s foreign policy.

This story line posits terrorism as the “new fascism” and likens anyone who advocates changing the course in Iraq to those who “appeased Hitler.” This exact line of reasoning has been offered on Fox for the last several weeks by such figures as Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. “Islamo-fascism” is political rhetoric that is a direct response to eroding public support for the Iraq war as well as waning support for the president and the Republican Party.

The difference between what transpired at the panel discussion and what happened on “Hannity and Colmes” epitomizes everything that is wrong with political debate in this country. The juxtaposition is painfully ironic considering Donnelly is the one who purports to be in favor of meaningful, open debate.

On the one hand, you have a two-hour forum (where Donnelly was given the floor) trying to make sense out of very complex issues, and on the other you hear a superficial two-minute conversation interspersed with short sound bites which has no hope of ever transcending rhetoric and getting at the heart of the profound problems that we are truly facing.

Tyler Zimmer is a junior in the College of Arts and Science.

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/1009

 

COLUMN: Donnelly underestimates importance of civil liberties
Submitted by Kevin McNish on 10-01-06, 8:17 pm | Updated on 10-02-06, 11:19 am

As a student of art history, I often find my eyes drawn to small details that help expand upon the meaning of a particular visual text. In the issue of The Hustler that hit racks Sept. 27, 2006, I noticed a most curious juxtaposition in the Opinion section. Immediately next to the text of the First Amendment, I found the headline to Chris Donnelly’s column: “Wartime calls for limits on civil liberties.”

That very amendment to the United States Constitution, however, is what allows Donnelly to write newspaper columns that suggest that abridging constitutional freedoms in wartime is acceptable policy. That very amendment is what allows Donnelly to indicate his implicit support for the use of torture against terrorism suspects, and that very amendment is what allows Donnelly to put his fear-mongering into print.

Fortunately, that very amendment also allows me to return fire in the war of ideas, so to speak.

Donnelly opens and closes his column by showing his belief that the possible threat of a future terrorist attack justifies the use of torture. Writing of the dispute over the use of torture, he states, “There is a reasonable argument to be made for both sides, but I believe that right now, we are fighting a war against ruthless Islamo-fascists who want nothing more than to attack the United States again.” Don’t get me wrong; I support our troops, and I support a safe and free United States. However, if the United States is fighting the war in Iraq in the name of human rights, it should remember to respect them at home first. As Nietzsche writes, “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.”

Perhaps the most egregious portion of Donnelly’s article, however, lies in his third paragraph, which opens with an extremely cursory treatment of the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. He trivializes the various atrocities committed against the Constitution by selectively ignoring the most heinous deeds of Wilson, who imposed brutal restrictions on speech and print during World War I, and Roosevelt, the mastermind behind America’s own World War II concentration camps for over 110,000 Japanese-Americans, thousands of whom were American citizens. I suspect that knowing that these three men were “viewed by many not just in the United States, but around the world” as great presidents was of scant comfort to those interned during the Second World War due to Executive Order 9066.

Not one to settle for even these offenses, however, Donnelly manages to top himself later in the same paragraph, sailing into a veritable Scylla of rhetorical fallacies as he manages at once to bungle both form and reason. Of the presidents he mentioned previously, Donnelly writes, “During their respective wars, they took some measures that limited the civil liberties of individuals, but they both won those wars for the United States.” To declare the suspension of civil freedoms as requisite to these particular military successes is to stumble into the fallacious trap of correlation implying causation. To declare that all heads of state must limit civil freedoms in all wars as a condition of victory—the fallacy of composition—is patently irresponsible and downright silly, and gives far too little credit to the people that actually fight in wars. The Napoleonic Code, for example, was a surprisingly progressive document for its time, especially with its emphasis on the due process of law and the right to counsel. I suspect that nobody would attribute Napoleon’s success to his previous dissolution of the bloated and ineffective French Directory and his concentration of power in the executive.

A few pages before I stumbled upon Donnelly’s reactionary column, I noticed that The Hustler ran a story detailing his appearance on Fox News, an appearance in which he condemned the comments of several Vanderbilt faculty members as “anti-American.” I would like to remind Donnelly that America is comprised of Americans, and to encourage and support the wholesale theft of their most precious freedoms and rights at the hands of a wartime government is to betray the ideals of liberty and justice for which this country stands.

In my mind, there is no difference between being “anti-Americans” and being “anti-American.”

Kevin McNish is a junior in the College of Arts and Science and is the secretary of Vanderbilt College Libertarians

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/1002

 

Its always a good laugh when some self proclaimed intellectual tries to link things like slavery, global warming, and the treatment of native american indians to the Sept 11th terrorism, what a bunch of assholes . . .

 

Does it really matter why they attacked us? Could there be any possible justification? Looking for justification for terrorism is only a way of trying to avoid the necessity to respond.

Only a fool could examine contemporary events and not see that we are fighting radical islam. Linking fascism and islam makes perfect sense. Islam does not draw distinctions between government and religion, rather it melds them. Accordingly, the term fascism accurately describes the theocratic nationalism that invigorates islamic terrorism.

 

As usual, AAA nails it.

Good job.

 

Nearly convinced but not really sure...

It matters why if knowing would enable a devastating response against the enemy. It matters more, who attacked us doesn't it?. Unless lashing out at the larger group they blend with is more appealing.

Something called radical islam is not who. What would you respond with? Radical christianity?

We are fighting terrorism and terrorists. Were it catholic terrorism we were fighting in N. Ireland, does it help to have protestant terrorism fighting the radical catholic religion. With religion fighting religion don't you just end up with more and more of god's justification for terrorism. Or would it be better to marginalize the ones who use their religion as an excuse to murder innocents, so they can be dealt with ingloriously.

That way religion is no excuse for terrorism and fighting religion will not cause vulnerable followers to become the easy pickings recruiting ground for the extremists.

Agreed, the term fascism precisely describes the theocratic nationalism which is islam as aaa mentions and it's that which invigorates terrorism. But I think it also invigorates terrorism as a means of response.

 

Actually the dictionary definition of Facism is the linking of Government and CORPORATIONS, which we have now.

I dare ya, just try and audit those electronic voting machines, or speak out aginst the war profit machine. You will be swiftboated/dixiechicked so fast...


We are fighting people who are resisting our economic domination of their resources, and their "freedom" to work for walmart wages. We only fight countries who have resources. End of story. And the war profiteers love it. HAL would be broke due to asbestos lawsuits if it were not for the war/invasion.


We were sold the same BS back in the 70's- that the "communist" bogeyman would take away our freedom, from 1000s' of miles away in South Asia to boot! As if they could swim across and topple the Western Military-Industrial machine. Same BS is spewed today.

 

good post... finally. LOL LOL @ "dixiechicked" ........ better than being "wellstoned"