I take it you use Likudnik like Bush uses Al Qaeada. A term designed to frighten and skew the debate without meaning anything. Muzzlewatch's piece only the review's author's piece being reviewed by the Tuft's editors and one outside editor. Their objection was that Professor Roy's review was so unbalanced that people did not read it to the end. It was not just its onesidedness but the lack of need to fully r ead it that led it to be rejected. Where is Likud involved is this?

Is your new possible that once an anti-Israel group is defended it makes it inherently good and thus above criticism by anyone? Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish your views from those who want to murder Israelis.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Wow is all I can say, all the way round including with regard to the comment by Daniel Greenbaum. Having commented once or twice before on this issue on this forum I do have the sense that the issue simply cannot be discussed, not just that it cannot be discussed with civility.

MJ, your courage and patience are awesome.

As to the journal, the editor should have either offered to run two or three reviews including the original in some kind of review forum, or resigned.

global citizen

Oh come on, get with the joke. Daniel Greenbaum is engaging in a very deliberate bit of self satire.

Sure, he's got a political viewpoint. But his post carries that beyond any sane or rational point. He's engaging in a sly bit of self parody. No one could possibly be that much of a hypocritical unself-conscious, lunatic. He's just having us on.

My compliments to Daniel.

Enough of the fake outrage. Have you or the rest of the ultra-leftists on this board ever complained about radical leftists on campus silencing pro-Israel and conservative voices? That is an all too common practice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL

Mob Rule on College Campuses

Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Cinnamon Stillwell
Archive

America's college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon.

While academia has its own crimes to atone for, it's the students who have become the bullies as of late. A disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to disrupting speeches to attacks on speakers has become commonplace.

Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.

The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, "He has no right to speak!" was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints. In any other setting this would be called exactly what it is -- totalitarianism. But in the untouchable Ivy League world of Columbia, it was chalked up to student activism gone awry. While condemning the incident, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has yet to apologize to Gilchrist or to conclude the supposed investigation into the affair. In other words, mob rule won the day.

Bay Area PC Intolerance

Such behavior is certainly not limited to East Coast universities. Last February at San Francisco State University, former liberal activist-author turned conservative activist-author David Horowitz had his entire speech shouted down by a group of protesters. Composed primarily of students and other members of the Spartacus Youth Club, a Trotskyist organization, the group stood in the back of the room shouting slogans and comments at every turn.

Even this was not enough to warrant their removal, so Horowitz and his audience, which included me, simply had to suffer through the experience. Horowitz, whose speech centered on his Academic Bill of Rights, took on his critics and attempted to engage them in dialogue, with varying degrees of success. But those who actually came to hear him speak, whether out of sympathy for his views or out of a desire to tackle them intellectually, were unable to do so fully because of the actions of a few bullies.

It is not only conservative speakers who are at risk of having their free speech rights trampled upon on American college campuses. Those who dare criticize radical Islam in any way, shape or form tend to suffer the same fate.

In 2004, UC Berkeley became the locus for bullying behavior during a speech by Islam scholar Daniel Pipes. I was witness to the spectacle, one I'll never forget. Members of the Muslim Student Association and other protesters formed a disruptive group in the audience, shouting, jeering and chanting continually. They booed loudly throughout and called Pipes everything from "racist" and "Zionist" (which in their minds is an insult) to "racist Jew" -- all because Pipes had the audacity to propose that moderate Muslims distance themselves from extremist elements in their midst; that in tackling terrorism authorities take into account the preponderance of Muslim perpetrators and that Israel has a right to exist peacefully among its neighbors.

This was hardly the first time that UC Berkeley students had espoused hostility toward speakers with "unpopular" views or those hailing from "unpopular" countries such as Israel. Nonetheless, it was a wake-up call for many in the audience who had not yet experienced first-hand the intimidation of the mob.

Arab Reformers Silenced

Recently, reformers from within the Arab world itself have been on the receiving end of such treatment. Whether it be the work of student groups or faculty, insurmountable security restrictions and last-minute cancellations have a strange way of arising whenever such figures are invited to speak on college campuses.

Arab American activist and author Nonie Darwish was to speak at Brown University earlier this month, when the event was canceled because her views were deemed "too controversial" by members of the Muslim Students' Association. Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror," such claims are hardly unpredictable. Like most Arab reformers, Darwish must overcome the resistance within her own community, aided and abetted by misguided liberal sympathizers, in order to get her message across.

Darwish was born and raised a Muslim in Egypt and later lived in Gaza. It was during this time that she had several experiences that led her to reject the anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism with which she was indoctrinated as a child. She eventually converted to Christianity and emigrated to the United States. She has since dedicated her life to exposing the ways that hatred and intolerance are crippling the Muslim world and leading to violence against non-Muslims.

Her pro-Israel views led to an invitation from the campus Jewish group Hillel to speak at Brown University. Unfortunately, the very same organization later backed out, fearing that their relationship with the Muslim Students' Association would be harmed by the experience. But if such a relationship is based on mutually assured censorship, then it's hardly worth preserving. In the end, all of Brown's students missed out on what would undoubtedly have been a thought-provoking experience.

Word has it that Brown University has re-invited Darwish to speak, no doubt in response to the furor, so perhaps students will have that opportunity after all.

Terrorists Recant

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist turned Christian convert and outspoken anti-jihadist, fared slightly better at Columbia University in October. Shoebat is the author of "Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam." He was invited to speak by the Columbia College Republicans, along with former Lebanese terrorist Zachariah Anani and former Nazi Hitler Youth member and German soldier, Hilmar von Campe. All three have renounced their former anti-Semitic views and dedicated themselves to exposing radical Islam in a no-holds-barred fashion.

They managed to give their presentation, but the turnout was greatly impacted by last-minute changes to security policies implemented in the wake of the Jim Gilchrist debacle. As a result, 75 to 120 people who had RSVP'd for the event were turned away at the door because only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to attend. An e-mail sent out 3 hours before the event was the only forewarning, and as one would expect, most of those planning to attend didn't receive it in time. The event had been widely advertised in the blogosphere, and those denied entry were not only greatly inconvenienced but also greatly disappointed.

Members of student groups who had boycotted the event were much cheerier at the prospect of a low turnout. A post at the blog for the Blue and White, Columbia's undergraduate magazine, expressed eagerness for "pretty pictures of empty chairs." Unfortunately, they got their wish, to the detriment of open discourse at Columbia.

Illiberal Mob Rule

It's a sad state of affairs indeed when the figures of moderation and reform that many who call themselves liberal or progressive should in theory support are instead shunned in the name of political correctness. For how can one expect to promote progress while helping to stifle the voices at its heart?

People such as Shoebat and Darwish, who literally risk their lives to call attention to a grave threat to all our rights, are the true freedom fighters of our day. But far too many accord that label to those who choose to effect political change by blowing themselves up in a crowd of civilians or by randomly lobbing rockets into homes and schools or by promoting hatred of other religions. By excusing such behavior and simultaneously helping to suppress reformers, liberal student groups are in fact aiding the very totalitarian forces they claim to oppose. They have in effect become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It would be nice if we could look to our colleges and universities as the bearers of progress, but at this rate it seems an unlikely prospect. If we are to truly promote an atmosphere of intellectual openness, respectful political debate and the free flow of ideas on campus, then we must stem the tide of thuggery, bullying and intolerance that threatens to subsume future generations.

Otherwise, we cede the day to mob rule.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. Read her blog at cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com/.

You're kidding, right?

David Horowitz does this on purpose. That's his shtick. He goes to college campuses, riles some people up and then acts like he is being oppressed. It's an act and it works because moronic lefties play right into it.

The rest of it sounds similar. College Republicans also do this on purpose. I saw David Horowitz speak at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society at a law school. It's become an industry of right wing speakers who appeal to right wing college groups so that they can go to the campus, and pretend to be oppressed.

They do it because it helps them establish the argument that our colleges and universities are "dens of liberal snakes" and that their insane right wing views aren't getting a fair shake in the academy. That argument then helps them legitimize crazy policies by ensuring that any criticism can be discounted as partisan and purely political. The big picture, though, is that it fits the long running right wing meme that "liberal elites" are keeping the conservative American public from realizing their goals.

And you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Don't post crap like this again, please.

I take issue with anyone who calls Daniel G. a crackpot.

Do I agree with him most of the time?

No.

Is he a valued commenter here and somebody who you can have a friendly debate with? Certainly.

He has his opinions, he expressed them well and if you PM the guy, you'll get a nice reply. He's exactly the type who should be here, whether or not you agree with him.

I apologize if this is "concern trolling," but I've been reading the guy for awhile and fighting with him most of the time and he is no crackpot.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If they wanted balance, all they had to do was add a second review with a different perspective.

Daniel Greenbaum wrote the following about MJ Rosenberg. "Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish his views from those who want to murder Israelis."
He is likening MJ to those who would murder Israelis."
If Andrew G is reading this, ban this guy. He is a hater and a debaser of conversations here.

You are acting like a concern troll. Your "valued commenter" said that it was very hard to distinguish MJ's opinions from those who want to kill Jews. Sounds like a crackpot to me, but perhaps to you that was a well-expressed opinion from someone you can have a friendly debate with, and exactly the type who should be here.

LEL,

College students have shouted down nutcase speakers for the last 300 years.  It isn't anti-free speech, it is PART of free speech.  If you bring a crackpot to campus, you are either naive or intending to generate a circus.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with peer reviewed journals.

The article is well written and is the sort of book review that any scholar would be proud to write.  As with most academic articles, only a narrow group of specialists (including the original editor?) can know its factual basis.  That is why scholars rely on peer review.  The flaws cited in the original book (assume the accuracy of the article, which I do not doubt because of appropriate publication practices) are quite troublesome.

The book review is not "one sided."  It is an assessment that provides advice about purchasing and reading the book and provides commentary should the article reader choose to read the book.  The commentary suggests careful attention to the basis of the book's assertions and provides reasons for this warning.

"One sided" is a weasel phrase similar to the assertion that "every one is entitled to his opinion."  Well reasoned, carefully explained opinions ARE better as are well reasoned, carefully explained "one sided" assessments.

Daniel G. occasionally used to make some sense, but it's been quite a while. Most of his posts are now barely intelligible.

That's my take too. All of us have had our passionate moments and times and a lot of us who have been here awhile would take back or ammend some of our comments, I bet.

I doubt Daniel G. is really going for name-calling. Or, more to my point, even if he has gone there, it shouldn't detract from the substance he's so often brought here. 90% of the time, I think he's wrong. But I've interacted with him both in comments and in private messages and am 100% convinced that he's a good guy who's interested in ideas and willing to debate them.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Duncan C. Kinder
http://www.billingsgatereport.net

Enough of the fake outrage. Have you or the rest of the ultra-leftists on this board ever complained about radical leftists on campus

This is a standard straw man. Even if all of use were, in fact, unprincipled hypocrites, that would not justify this censorship.

And allow me not only to state that I often have complained about radical leftists on campus, but have actually been targeted by them.

None of which makes a fig of difference in the present controversy. No matter how bad they may be, that does nothing - nothing - to justify this cencorship. Nor do any problems they may have strengthen your position by so much as a jot.

Both you and the campus left have had a grand time, pointing your fingers at each other - thereby concealing the faults each respectively have. A plague on both your houses.

Frankly, I detest ALMOST everything Greenberg ever posts.  On rare occasion he surprises me.  Likewise, I disagree with destor in this instance.

BUT, by your criterion, anyone who speaks up for anyone is a "concern troll."  In that case half of us are banned.  Give it a break.

If the opinions expressed in Roy's book review are sound, then, there was never any reason to review Levitt's book in The Fletcher Forum. Levitt has no known expertise in the field of study which is the subject of his book, and an academic publication has no business spending time on (marketing?) such a popularization.

Ergo: Jonathan L. K. Reiber should not have assigned the task of reviewing Levitt's book to Professor Roy or to anyone else. Pulling Roy's review merely corrected his initial error of judgment.

As academics well know, many non-academic books influence the general public, the policy public and even other academics.  Even in "quality" schools it is not unusual for undergraduates to be assigned "trade" texts as part of their curriculum.  I recall reading David Broder's The Party's Over at one of the top 20 universities in the country.  If I had known then, what I know now, I would have simply saved my money.

The point, then, is that academics are NOT free to ignore works by journalists and pundits who horn in on their business.  It is critical to identify their shortcomings so that, at minimum, other academics are do not feel free to trash work as if it is legitimate. 

Seems to be that one of the purposes of the academia is that they use the time they spend really getting to know the issues in order to critique the presentation of those issues in the popular culture. The result is usually mixed. Somestimes the academics score points and sometimes the academia realizes that observers and thinkers who work within the popular culture have figured things out. Either way, both worlds are meant to engage one another.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

They aren't liberals, they're utopians or zealots if you prefer. Utopians come in many flavors obsessively devoted to ideology or religion and they tend to cause everyone else a great deal of trouble when crossed or when their utopia inevitably turns out to be a goal beyond any rational means.

;>

correction

"...do not feel free to USE trash work as if it is legitimate."

Wow.  That must be the longest discussion of a member's intentions I've ever seen.  (Well, I know I contributed.)  Now back to our regularly scheduled Middle East debate?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Sorry Destro. We don't actually no each other as people and have no personal relationship. What we are is two roving collections of written opinions that occasionally intersect and occasionally collide. I acknowledge that I'm a particularly jagged and caustic set of opinions.

The best we can do is achieve some recognition of consistency of voice within the opinions, and form a subliminal impression of the person who might be writing them. I'd prefer to leave it at that.

I mean, does it really help you to know that I'm five feet tall, hunchbacked, club-footed and with an inappropriate sexual attraction to deep sea sports fish? Probably not. Would it alter your views of my opinion to know that I type with my left hand, which is a hook, except for a stuffed index finger appendage, and that I've lost an eye and suffered other injuries through inappropriate masturbation accidents? Doubtful.

What about Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? Those are two world leaders who could have been brought into the fold of the US had they been engaged in a constructive way, rather than as enemies.

Entirely possible that they could have been brought into the fold. But consider that the choices they were offered was surrender or overthrow? There was no effort at reasonable engagement with either one of these.

Instead, the conversation with them was begun by the Daniel Greenbaum's. They faced a United States of black and white opinions which viewed them as indistinguishable from Stalin and Osama Bin... much as our friend Daniel views Mr. Rosenberg as indistinguishable from a Hamas suicide bomber.

And what would be the fate of a Chavez or Castro who attempted or continued to attempt a dialogue with parties whose opening statement was 'fuck you.' Well, history tells us: Pinochet and Arbenz. Overthrow and death. Maybe abject surrender would have worked. But the effort to pursue their own needs while continuing a dialogue with an America which hand taken extremist positions killed them dead.

Pinochet's and Arbenz' efforts to work with America, to dialogue with America, to reason with America was seen by the CIA and extreme elements within America as a weakness. It invited further attacks and escalation of attacks.

Now, I'm not saying that Daniel Greenbaum will, as his contempt for his opponents and as his fanaticism grows, will eventually determine to act on his words.

But you know what? That sort of thing has and does happen. There was that Doctor in Israel who decided to waste a whole bunch of Palestinians. That's where the process ends up.

Assume that Daniel wasn't making a joke. Assume that he really was arguing and really does believe that M.J. Rosenberg is ideologically indistinguishable from a Hamas suicide bomber...

Then what is Daniel's next step? And the next step after that? Where does it lead?

Maybe Daniel will never go there, maybe he'll be too balanced, or too cowardly ever to follow through on the logical consequences of his words.

But out there, there are a lot of people. And some of them, inevitably, do.

Treating such behaviour, such attitudes as acceptable, as tolerable, legitimizes them. If you have a debate with a man who reserves the right to demonize your character and equate you morally and intellectually as equivalent to a Hamas Suicide Bomber, then in a very real way, you are surrendering to his dynamic in even talking to him. You legitimize his opinion of you by continuing the conversation. We all legitimize his opinion by defending him.

I will not have that. I will not accept it. I will not cater to or tolerate it.

There is persuasion and there is persuasion. But if you have the faintest idea that you can persuade someone of anything while they are spitting on you, then you do not appreciate the dynamics of the debate.

I've become somewhat concerned that Daniel Greenbaum has not acknowledged that his comments were intentionally efforts to be funny. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But if these are his real sentiments, he's certainly invited to come clean and acknowledge them as such.

This is even low quality straw. No doubt, ultra-leftist should complain that the radical leftists are merely radical. The two groups at at loggerheads as to which one more faithfully follows the Protocols of the Elders of the Worldwide Left Conspiracy.

It is still there at the other end of this series of threads...

But the entire post has been hijacked into a debate over Greenbaum.

Hmmm. When I say things I regret, I just fess up and admit that I was being an ass.

Everyone knows it anyway, but it helps to acknowledge we're all on the same page.

Why did the 9/11 Neocons wait until 9/11 to come 'out of the closet'? When George Dubya leaves office, will they disappear back to the caves they emerged from on 9/11?

Silly me, I thought being one sided was integral to being two-faced.

You shouldn't do that MJ. You can't erase history. People read what you write.

If you regret it, apologize and move on. We all make mistakes.

Growth comes from acknowledging them, not burying them.

On July 7, 2007 - 12:01pm Reece said:

They do it because it helps them establish the argument that our colleges and universities are "dens of liberal snakes" and that their insane right wing views aren't getting a fair shake in the academy.

Liberal college professors permeating academia is one of the right wing's staples along with "Clinton did it."

I wonder how Horowitz and the rest of the wingnuts would explain how so many escape college with conservative/right wing views. Isn't The Heritage Fnd loaded up with college grads? How about The Federalist Society? AEI? The Bush gang?

Are you implying that Daniel Greenbaum is no better than a Nazi? That is beneath comment

Since when is it an Enlightenment value to insist that one Jewish state in the region is too many while 22 Arab states are not enough?

How is it liberal to advocate for an Arab monopoly on national rights, manifest in the 22 member-nation League of Arab States, while opposing one Jewish state in the region? 

Yitzhak Rabin was correct when he said that the Middle East conflict is no longer a conflict between Jews and Arabs, but between warmongers and those who desire peace.  Only warmongers insist that Jewish and Arab national rights in former Mandatory Palestine are mutually exclusive.

Tell that to the hundreds of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate who agree wit me and not you about Israel's right to defend itself from terror.

I'd like to read Greenberg's dumbass things though.

JohnW1141

Oh don't mind me. I'm being mischievous and perhaps a bit rude and unkind. My comment may well have been inappropriate, and perhaps I should apologize for it.

I didn't actually read Bar Kochba's post. I assume it was a rant consisting of a stream of emotionally loaded adjectives on the subject of Arabs or their governments being subhuman scum? There might have been a personal attack on MJ Rosenberg thrown in there for spicing? The whole thing superheated to near incoherence?

I've read Bar Kochba's posts in the past and there's a depressing sameness to them. Pretty much any issue brings out the same response from him:

"Bar Kochba, what do you think of this fluffy kitten?"

"I think that those traitors in league with backstabbing muslim governments who oppress their own people and would dearly love to have Israel blotted from the earth with nuclear weapons blah blah blah..." It goes on for a while, and the kitten never actually enters the conversation.

At some point, I told Bar Kochba what I thought of him. Or more accurately, what I thought of the character so nakedly revealed by his writing. He didn't have a response to that.

But he shows up from time to time, so I say hello just to be polite. But I swear, it just gets more and more tedious to read his stuff.

Still, I suppose I should make the effort.

Or someone should.

I find the use of code language by the partisans of Israeli quite amusing:

"Right to Exist" = Right to deny Palestinian's their right to exist.

"Right to defend against terror" = Right to terrorize others.

Valdron,

so what you're saying is reading his posts is like being Bill Murry in Groundhog Day?

That gag rocked.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Sort of, its like being attacked by the Groundhog in Bill Murry's Groundhog day. Lots of ineffective nattering and thrashing, rodentlike teeth going for the bite, and a small furry body wriggling and squirming. In the end you find the skin isn't broken, but it's defecated on your pants.

I suspect that John did it by accident, but its one of those delightful ironies. I'm glad you followed through when he deleted.

We are all quite aware that our politicians can be bought and that they are deathly afraid of offending the well heeled Jewish financiers of NYC.  This does not amount to good public policy, it amounts to cowardly politicians... but why should I call politicians cowardly, that is redundant.

And before you assert that this statement is anti-semitic, examine the number of times that proponents of Israel on this list serve have extolled the power of wealthy supporters of Israel.

The issue is not terrorism, the issue is apartheid.  When Israel gives up apartheid, everyone here will welcome it into the brotherhood of nations.

Meanwhile, forget the bullshit about all the other nations that discriminate against this minority or that minority.  (1) We are not, as the USA, distorting both international and national public policy to support those other nations. (2) For the most part, those other nations are not engaged in prolonged wars with their own citizens. (3) Most of those other nations do not have official non-citizens within their borders. (4) Those other nations are not entirely dependent on the US for their existence. (5) The people of the US don't approve of those other practices either, but they are not specifically enabled by the US.

You probably have a low enough karma average from others' ratings of your own comments that is making comments rated lower than one invisible to you. Thats how the rating system works. Either that or you have comment viewing set to not show low-rated comments.

Others have given Daniel's comment at least 5 zeroes, this will no doubt put him in the same karma boat as you-he will not be able to see comments rated lower than one (except those authored by him) until he gets a lot of high ratings.

An important note to all of you that rated Daniel G's comment zero:

when you did that, you censored it; all lurkers that are not logged in cannot see it, as well as people without a good average karma. So your comments about Daniel's comment may seem nonsensical to readers who are not logged in.

The use of zero rating is a troll-control measure, it's main purpose: that other people are not tempted to a long debate with an inflammatory commenter, the method: make the comment invisible and do not react to it.

Good ol' Bar Kochba, you can set your watch by him.

I dunno. Are you prepared to make reading Bar Kochba a regular thing, just in case he some day says something sensible? It's a lot to ask, and it might be a thankless job. But it could be a worthy public service.

I wouldn't ask that of anyone. But if it works for you...

Does Daniel's single comment to MJ differ that much "having fun cutting" Reed Hundt "to ribbons" in multiple, lengthy comments? You got lots of 5's for hyperbole ridiculing Hundt as a warmonger on that thread, deconstructing each word Hundt wrote and guessing meaning and intent, when Hundt's original short post actually says very little beyond wanting to hear something on foreign policy on "Asia" from candidates. You read all kinds of evil intent into Hundt's admittedly simple unponderous post, talking about "people like Reed" just like Southerners used to talk about "those blacks." Seems to me that Daniel's comment is imitating your methods. How come he doesn't get high 5's for doing it like you do?

Not that I like it as a reader; I'd prefer if a lot more zeroes were given out. Some call it vigorous debate, I call it a once good discussion board sadly falling into useless personal attack nonsense while the grown-ups are all busy with other summer activities. Some of the discussions here lately are not even worth rating and I forsee lots more contributors going on "vacation" until fall.

Um, "cutting to ribbons" is a metaphor while saying someone wants to kills Jews ascribes an actual mental state to that person.

Quite a bit different. For one thing, I took my time and did it properly. I made my case.

That's the way you do it. You take what someone says and you look at it. You deconstruct it. You take what he says and you think about it. You examine the logical consequences of those ideas and then you take them apart.

You can take pity on Reed, but frankly, he did it to himself.

You can complain about my references to 'Reed's class of people' but frankly, I'm not frightened by your 'class warfare' charge, we've seen six years of class warfare by the rich upon the poor. And truthfully, I ain't the one that opened up that can of whup-ass. You'll recall Reed's condescending comments about the ignorance of the Blogosphere and dismissively telling the readership to go watch Bravo (television). If Reed's going to open doors like that, why can't we walk through them?

You got lots of 5's for hyperbole ridiculing Hundt

Oh you wound me. There wasn't just hyperbole there.

There was sarcasm, and irony, wit, cultural and literary allusions, I used metaphors and similes. I used the whole bag of tricks. Even worse, I used facts, and history, and logic. And I used it in a lighthearted mocking manner, taking Reed's own words, holding them up to the light so every one could see how empty they were, and then skewering them.

I didn't get those fives for ridiculing Hundt. Any asshole can take a cheap shot. It don't automatically get you fives.

I got Fives because I was right, and because I was right in an entertaining way. I got them because I lined up my argument, hit it, told the truth and tied it up with a pretty little bow.

Poor Reed Hundt, calling him out just because he thinks its important to be ready to bomb and invade other countries. Poor Reed, there he was reasonably expressing his contempt for international law and defending power ubber alles, and I skewered him. Bad me. What was I thinking?

And meanwhile, on the basis of a short but sour little post:

Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish your views from those who want to murder Israelis.

Greenbaum collects a bunch of zero's.

Isn't life unfair.

But let me ask you something: Are you going to defend Mr. Greenbaum's words or not?

But isn't there something missing here? Where is Greenbaum? I stood my ground and punched away. Greenbaum made his hit and snuck off like a thief in the night.

Where's the case? Where's the breakdown of facts and logic, the quotes, the analysis, the history? What work did Greenbaum put into it? What truths did he reveal? Plays almost like a cheap shot, don't it?

Oh, and where's the entertainment? The irony, the wit, the hyperbole, the allusions, the analogyies, the metaphor. Where's the style, the flair, the panache. What do we have but sullen mean spiritedness. The words of a pouty, not too bright boy, resentful of being caught stuffing a firecracker up a cats ass.

We both know that Greenbaum earned his zeroes.

Y'know what? I think your problem is that you're just pining away for the days when Conservatives could just go "You Libruls SUCK! Heh, heh, heh" and that would win the debate.

Well, ol' pal, I weren't never one of those kind of 'libruls', and to tell you the truth, those days are just about done. Your 'grownups' are never coming back, and even if they do, no one is listening to them because we've wised up.

Now, I do believe I have answered your question.

Have a nice day.

Yes MJ, but when you do that you automatically remove all of the comments that are attached to that post. Some of those comments might be very short, but in other cases the authors may have put a substantial amount of their valuable time and mental effort into composing their comments. It is not fair to erase other people's work like that, just because you are personally embarrassed about something you have written.

I have been writing things on blogs for three or four years now, and now have various dumbass comments scattered all over the internets. They make me cringe every time I see them, but it's something you just have to live with.

I challenge you to name one U.S. politician who agrees with you that Israel practices apartheid but is too afraid of people like me to say so. Rosenberg has never been able to name one for over a year, despite my repeated requests. Maybe you can.

Absolutely right and if you ever asked one of the hundreds of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in Congress who support Israel just as much as I do--like Senator Barbara Mikulsky, Senator Robert Menendez, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Dick Durbin, Rep. Nita Lowey, Rep.Charlie Rangel, and Senator Chris Dodd--why they do that in service to their U.S. constituents, every one of them would tell you that it is in the U.S. strategic interest that Israel be strong and secure and a vital ally in preventing terrorism.

The United Nations was wrong in 1948 to authorize colonial theft of the native land of Palestine for the benefit of refugees from Europe.

Funny man.  US interest would be to eliminate dual citizenship and get rid of Israel's drag on American image, foreign and domestic policy, and position in the world.  Israel represents moral rot.

On July 8, 2007 - 9:26am bar_kochba132 said:

I have always wondered how people can call themselves "liberal" and yet support the fascist/chauvinistic Palestinians who daily carry out aggression like indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns like Sederot, whose state-controlled media extolls genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass-murder of Jews, denies the Holocaust, supports mass terror like 9/11.

Bar, what liberals support those charges?
Lets try this; Can you name a liberal who denies the Holocaust?

Either that, or he's being eaten alive by Ann Coulter!  Quick!  and exorcism!

Jan

Code words: "Defending itself against thugs" = continuing to illegally occupy Palestinian lands.

Congressman Paul Findley and Sen. Fulbright all expressed their views - and the pro-Israeli lobby went after them like a pack of wild dogs.

Nah, MJ, do what you want. I've taken down my own comments on this site, and I use the edit option liberally, though I'll stop editing if someone replies. I don't think you're under any obligation to leave comments up.

Hmmm. Seems to be a typical Bar Kochba post. Is he ranting about MJ yet? I think that's all he missed from his last one. Or is he just repeating himself?

And I also agree that Israel has a right to be "strong and secure". In fact, Israel would, at this time, be strong and secure without any help whatsoever from the United States. I mean, it has nuclear weapons, right? Who can really put it out of existence, or push it into the ocean, however Israel and its "friends" whine about the possibility?

What I and others object to is the mindlessly uncritical attitude toward Israel that Daniel G and Dershowitz and Lieberman always display. It's always Israel right-or-wrong for them.

And Israel absolutely is wrong -- brutally, shamefully wrong -- in how it treats the Palestinians.

And of course you have to point to politicians for "liberal democrats" who support Israel as mindlessly as do Daniel G and Dershowitz and Lieberman. Why? Because, of course, the Israel lobby can and will work on politicians like crazy behind the scenes to support every thuggish right wing scheme in Israel that further undermines the Palestinians.

But here's what you WON'T you be able to find: a legitimate "liberal democrat" who ISN'T a politician, and can't be muscled by the Israel lobby into perfect compliance.

Why won't you find such a beast? Because the principles of liberalism don't make exceptions for a country to whom one has chosen to have a wholly uncritical attitude. Liberalism is about equality and justice for ALL human beings, not just for those who happen to be in national groups one deems worthy of concern.

All your invocation of the "liberal democrats" in the House and Senate really establishes is the bizarre and shameless power the Israel lobby exerts over our politics. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the "liberalism" of Daniel G, or Lieberman, or Dershowitz.

Doing the right thing is always a choice.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Yes, doing the right thing requires volition, but there can be an obligation even if one chooses not to comply with it. Not to get too far into this, but it seems the dispute is this:

I am saying there is no rule requiring action X.

You are saying that X is still the right thing to do.

I respond by saying that if X is the right thing to do, there is an implied rule that one ought to do X.

Discussion forums like this are probably the only place where free time can be put to such pitiful use.

In any case, MJ will do as he pleases, which apparently means he will not be deleting future posts.

I think you're wrong. I can see Daniel G's comment now. Again I think it was removed, and (now) put back up.

No.  Nobody but you thinks it was deleted.  I had a computer crash and it was still there when I brought my system back to life. We are all pretty sure it has to do with your local system.  I actually did have a comment deleted once -- it appears that one should not characterize practitioners of misandry with common vulgarisms (I haven't noticed a prohibition on other vulgarisms around here).  The point is, the comment was deleted, but traces were left (an empty comment with the word "deleted" in brackets).  Time to give up on the deleted theory.

seth. Go back to Daniel's post and click on "see individual ratings". That will bring up the list of raters and the "scores" they awarded. Remember that there were 12 ratings earlier and now there are 13.

It's not your system or any deletion. It's your karma score that doesn't allow you to view any post rated under a "1".

Well, if one is doubly correct, XX is that girly. Do two rights make a wrong?

How about about triple X? XXX? Can we be so correct its scandalously obscene?

It's late, I'm silly. X's leap like sheep.

Too much of the debate is reduced to "pro Israel" or anti-Israel". Its the right wing mentality writ large' 'yer either wid us or agin us'. Those who type "pro Israel" or anti-Israel" should be banned unless their comment is followed by what it means to be either pro or anti.

I'm actually pro/anti Israel.

On July 9, 2007 - 12:22am Valdron said:

If one does other than X is that sexy?

No,"other than X" is NOT sexy, Sophia Loren is sexy. If you ever saw her in my hot tub you would know the difference.

Replying to myself seems a bit bizarre, but after going to bed last night I thought that a bit more needs to be said about this.  The real problem, MHO, is not what what happens to senior scholars like Juan Cole or indeed Sara Roy, the subject of the original commentary by M.J. Rosenberg.  The problem is what happens to junior scholars without tenure and aspiring scholars in graduate school.  This kind of thing is absolutely chilling to them. 

For those who don't know how the tenure system works in most institutions, The American Association of University Professors Statement on Tenure (1940) is a good place to start.  One might also read an interpretation of the value of Tenure as protection against internal politics at Universities (what? universities are political?) as well as external pressures.

In brief, following a probationary period during which one works on a short term contract, the institution makes an either/or decision:  the faculty member is denied tenure and given a one year terminal contract, or granted tenure, after which the faculty member is protected against firing for arbitrary or capricious reasons.  Peer review, internal and external, largely determines who gets granted tenure when the system works as it should.

Tenured professors do get fired:  numbers get fired every year, but the burden of proof falls on the institution.  Prior to the granting of tenure, at many institutions faculty can be let go for any reason or no stated reason. 

As one can imagine, year six is a horrendous cause of anxiety.  It takes a brave young scholar to flaunt conventional wisdom in those first six years.  Denial of tenure can lead to an exit from the Academy altogether.  Prospective employers can't help but wonder, "why wasn't he/she granted tenure at University X?"

When outside forces intervene in the process the situation is immeasurably worse.  In the 1950s and 1960s, it wasn't McCarthy who exercised chilling influences on Academic Freedom--it was organizations like the John Birch Society...even the American Legion occasionally tried to keep certain views from being expressed on the campus.

Currently, there are a number of external pressures on higher education in the United States.  Among them, Campus Watch.  Campus Watch's Mission Statement seems innocuous enough:

CAMPUS WATCH, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.

Indeed, I would find nothing about which to complain in this statement, if it stood by itself and the organization was independent.  However, in the context of the Mission Statement of the Middle East Forum, the words take on a different meaning entirely.

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.

Given the defined objectives of the Middle East Forum, can I expect Campus Watch to exercise impartiality and really protect "alternative views?" <rhetorical question mode> Would it defend a scholar like Juan Cole?  Is Bill O'Reilly "fair and balanced"? </rhetorical question mode>.

I trust this as much as I trust David Horowitz' Students for Academic Freedom.  Check out the Complaint list to see the kinds of pressures under which we academics operate. 

aMike