More about Amitai Etzioni??
I'm blown away by the fact that scores of people took the time to comment on the "silliness of Amitai Etzioni" here. In Iran they are shooting protestors; in Iraq people are killing each other because they hold different interpretations of Islam; in many countries millions of people are thrown out of their jobs and homes--and you want to waste your key strokes on me? I mean not my ideas, they may deserve to be taken apart, but on my persona? How trivial can you get?
Yes, I do agree that under some conditions hiding one's identity behind an alias is justified. Often, though, it is merely a sign that the person wants to rant and rave but not take responsibility for what they are saying. After all, no one is going to lose their job because they call me names; they may even get a promotion. The trouble is not an absence of blog space for those who hide behind false names, after all they own 98% of the territory. The problem is that there is next to no place for those people who are willing--voluntarily--to show their faces and have a serious dialogue. I wish TPM would set aside forum for us. If not, Arianna, where are you when we need you?
As long as we are going to discuss me--a subject I promise to return to as little as possible--I have a confession to make. I do try to give legs to ideas I care about. I hence try to get them air time and space, in as many places as possible. I do not get paid; I am typically cussed out; this is about my only reward. Once in a while, when least expected, among the stream of abusive comments, there is someone who digs it and supports policies and measures that are close to my heart. Thanks much. You make my day. The fact that I am still here, is all your doing. (Now you better duck.)
Josh Marshall is a great guy. He uses his real name, although as a result he has to take all kinds of guff for allowing people like me to express themselves, even though he surely often disagrees with us.
Finally, in a previous posting, anonymous comments tried to dismiss what I had to say on the basis of my affiliations (a McCarthy specialty). It was said that I was "previous member of the Council on Foreign Relations." Actually, I am a card-carrying, current member. However, this organization has not hurt a fly and I doubt very much that it could if it tried to. It was also stated that I was an "Israeli commander" some sixty years ago. Actually, I was an Israeli commando. Having been at both ends of a gun has made me strongly averse to violence of all kinds and active in the anti-war movement. Anyhow, if previous affiliations are relevant, surely we cannot tell those if people hide their true identities.
==
I will respond to comments from those who reveal their true identity--as long as they discuss something more important than me.
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at The George Washington University and author of The New Golden Rule. For more information, visit his website: http://dspace.wrlc.org/handle/1961/137 or email him at icps@gwu.edu.
Hi there. I have to confess that I haven't read your work before now. It caught my eye because of the brouhaha to which you refer. And you might be right that it was a trivial thing to discuss. I myself don't generally enjoy the meta-posts especially.
But your "there are more important things going in the world right now" argument makes me feel like I'm sitting at the dinner table with my parents, listening to them lecture me about all the starving children in China.
My name isn't really Orlando. But that is my dog. He's cute, no?
June 26, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my name is C'Ville. C'Ville Dem. Nice to meet you.
June 26, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have been trying to engage you in "serious dialogue" around here for ages.
June 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect Etzioni or any of the by-liners to respond to readers' comments or posts. In my opinion it is typical of any hierarchy in any organization/community/journalistic endeavor that the lesser beings are treated with disdain and contempt. I've also learned over many, many years that most people do not want criticism or correction and those in academics are particularly averse to disagreement from those not considered their peers. That is how it works in academics and that is why it takes so many years and decades to change/improve the entrenched academic theories and philosophies. They achieve a certain level of comfortableness with their subject of interest and lose that passion for embracing in debate and challenging the established theories and philosophies.
The very reason why so many of us take such interest in each others' posts and the by-liners' posts is because we do have that passion for learning and informing our opinions, theories and philosophies. That is why we're here.
Not so long ago, I read an article by Dana Milbank of the WaPo, in which he said that he and his fellow journalists at the paper don't read the comments generated by their work. I believe him. For the most part no one wants to read critical comments of their work, they don't like to be corrected or challenged and they really, really don't want their feelings hurt. They're afraid of those things and of course, it's always easier to phone it in, rather than think it out and perhaps have to reconsider their opinions and biases.
Etzioni comments that his only "reward" for publishing in this kind of venue that encourages readers' participation and opinions is that he has to read a stream of guff and abuse and just once in awhile he finds in the comments a remark that they agree with him - that's what makes posting here truly rewarding for him. I can understand that, having someone "dig" your policies, ideas and philosophies is rewarding - who wouldn't want everyone to agree with him? The problem with this, is that if everyone agrees with you and no one bothers to point out the flaws in the theories, then how can you ever learn and expand your knowledge and ability to think anew everyday? To me, that is the reward - the ability to look at something I've seen in the same way for years and learn something unexpected that changes my thinking and challenges me to see something in an entirely different way and then grow and change from that new view.
Claiming that he doesn't want to engage in dialogue (or take guff) with another human being because he doesn't know his "identity" is an excuse that academics have been using for decades now to stop debate and challenge to them. They don't seem to remember the debates, arguments, fights, challenges and exchange of thoughts that have guided some of the most vexing questions of humanity - and all done anonymously - one example which rings loudly in political debate is the exchange of views published in newspapers and pamphlets at the beginning of the great discourse on the purpose and responsiblity of a new form of government - the United States. One reason why the debate was so effective done anonymously, is that it eliminated personalities and familiarity with and between the writers and the readers. That is why it was so effective in bringing about genuine political discourse.
This nation, especially in earlier times had a history of fostering exchange and debate anonymously, it seems few people remember that or appreciate it.
June 26, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post!
June 26, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henry Kissinger said it best:
June 26, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good quote. It doesn't apply across the board, obviously. And I'm not sure Etzioni fits into the category. While the "stakes" may not be as great, neither is the security unless there's tenure. But even that security pales compared to the sovereign immunity or plenary power in foreign policy when one's wrong (a Kissinger's for example) becomes actionable.
Etzioni's tone has been professional over time. I cannot say the same for many who bait him to converse with them. Respect is usually a precondition of discussion and debate, and there's precedent here for all kinds of irrelevant personal abuse destroying what otherwise might be good discussion or debate.
June 27, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, and yes.
June 29, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kissinger, like Greenspan of course, is an avid acolytes of Ayan Rand, that great fountain of wisdom for the selfish
June 27, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow BevD, right on. Wish I'd said it.
June 26, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, BevD.
Some of what discourages people from engaging is the snark and name-calling that takes place.
Course, calumny was a staple of political discourse way back when as well, as I'm sure you'll point out.
Anonymity does free people, but it often frees them simply to be nasty, much in the way driving in a car frees folks to let their aggression out.
I'd say there's also an argument for people being willing to stand openly behind their words...
June 26, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
An argument can be made for anonymity and public exposure. I am pointing out that anonymity has its place in our political discourse and always has. It's had its place in the history of ideas published and discussed over centuries.
No one is demanding that Etzioni respond to snark/guff/ridicule/abuse. He doesn't have to respond to anyone.
June 26, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But no, people ARE arguing that, Bev.
In fact, it would appear that they're very angry at him for his long history of not responding to comments.
That's the whole point of this thread, in fact. And It's a constant theme and has been for at least a year or so. Etzioni doesn't respond and he won't respond unless we agree to give up our fig leaves.
Course, half the people claim they're going to lose their jobs if they give their real names, and the other half joke that even if they used their real names, how would poor Etzioni know?
Clearly, for this second group, it doesn't matter whether they use their real names or not--because no one will know anyway--and yet they hold onto their fig leaves because they're afraid they're going to lose their jobs or something. Etzioni won't be able to tell if "John Smith" is the person's real name, but his employer will! Hahaha!
'Course, in my case, well, Tintin is such a common name, I have no fear of retribution. They're a zillion of us out there.
I started off using my real name thinking the Internet was all about discussion, debate, learning--but early on some asshole in the comments section of a "progressive" blog Googled my name and, amazingly, found someone else in the world with my name. Said person had a blog where he said things this asshole found offensive and proceeded to "make the case" that we were one and the same person. It was shocking.
So now I use pen names and change them every 3,000 miles just to keep the rust off...
June 26, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I said no one is asking him to respond to abuse. That people are asking him to respond to other comments is evidentiary.
No, he certainly can choose not to respond to any comments.
June 27, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why are folks so angry about it?
It's almost as if they feel they have a right to an answer if they ask a question.
Might be nice if he gave answers, but he's under no obligation to.
I agree, in this sort of interactive setting, why write here if you're not expecting and desirous of "feedback."
But that's his business. Maybe he has a hard time dealing with so many angry protestors outside his gate. I can understand that.
...especially given that the protestors DO know who he is and where he lives, so to speak and he can't "see" them.
Often, these bloggers have to take a lot of abuse from commenters. A lot. Think of the idiots who assaulted MJ for years. The names. The calumny. I can see how tiresome and even scary that could be.
To be sure, there are a lot of civil commenters (you come to mind), but there are many, many who aren't.
June 29, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You also forget that unarmed protesters are routinely beaten by the Iaraelis. Did you forget to watch the video linked to the article by Mr. Horowitz?
Should I be surprised that was omitted from your list. No. But then I don't consider you a serious intellectual.
June 26, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The combination of politics and the internet, can produce a very real phenomenon commonly referred to as 'stalking'. That can take the form of cyber-stalking or real world stalking. There are footprints left here and everywhere we tread on the internet that can be followed back to a source that will identify the ISP one is using, and your general location. Couple that with the use of a real name, and such a stalker could with relative ease turn up on your front doorstep. For this reason, I think your insistence that respondents to your blogs use real names is not appropriate, or wise.
June 26, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I could tell you at this point that my name is Michael Waters, and I suppose you might respond to my comment, but you would be wrong in your assumption that I am in fact telling you my real name. So, my question is, how do you expect to take advantage of the interactive nature of this medium under the conditions you specify, when those conditions are meaningless as to your intent in advancing them in the first place?
June 26, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't saying anything Destor hasn't already articulated very aptly. IMO Bev nailed it upthread.
June 26, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Etzioni provided a mistaken link to the "silliness" post. Here it is:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/destor23/2009/06/the-silliness-of-amitai-etzion.php
June 26, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My real name is Dan Kervick. I use that name to post comments on every other site I visit except this one.
At TPM Cafe, I chose the user name Dan K when I first signed up many years ago. The sole reason for that choice was that typing "Dan K" was easier than typing "Dan Kervick". I have held onto the user name "Dan K" since then because people here know me under that name, and I didn't want to create any confusion about my identity by switching to the full name that I use elsewhere.
However, I think discourse in this country would probably be improved tremendously if there was even more anonymity, not less. If two disputants are known only as "Reader X" and "Reader Y", then the judgments people make about what they say are based only on the intrinsic qualities of what they write, rather than on associations extrinsic to the writing.
June 26, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Look at all the hoo-hah over Barack Hussain Obama! If his name were a conventional American one, would this "birther" stuff have legs? I really doubt it. I also think people make an assumption about where you're coming from if you have a Jewish, Asian, Arabic, or other identifiable-looking name, and it gets in the way of the discussion.
June 26, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Etzioni addressed this issue of anonymity in a 2007 post, but seemed more willing then to entertain that there were sometimes good reasons for anonymity and did not seem to be such a prig about the "true identity" issue. So what has changed? Why does he think it is important?
http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2007/03/why_you_are_usi.html
June 26, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ten bucks and two creeping charlies says you don't get a response even though you revealed your name Dan.
June 26, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use a consistent anonymous handle for two reasons.
One is that I work for a prominent organization and I do not want anything I write to have any negative consequences for my employer. What I write reflects my own views only. My employer doesn't deserve any potential blowback on account of anything I write.
The other reason is that, because I don't have to be concerned with any consequences of what I write affecting my employer when using an anonymous handle, I feel free to write what I think. I don't write anything I would not stand by publicly if this were not a factor.
I always use the same handle and I try hard to avoid incivility.
So personally I think that you're painting too broad a brush. But heck, I mean it's your decision.
As for folks who switch handles in order to avoid even such accountability for what they write as comes with use of a consistent anon handle, or who write things they would not say to a person's face, or who write things their mother would rightly be ashamed to hear them say...different story IMO. I don't respect that type of behavior. My two pennies.
June 26, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes regret using my real name because I worry that the open attachment of my name and my opinions, which can now be googled all over the internet, will interfere with my ability to do my job well.
Having worked for many years as an academic before moving to the business world, I am often now struck by the unrealistic attitudes many academics have about the reality and nature of freedom in our society. In the business world, your "identity" effectively belongs to someone else. You can be fired for almost any reason at any time, including the failure to cultivate and maintain an identity that advances your firm's interests.
June 26, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the run-up to the 2004 election I wrote a couple of letters to the editor of my local paper. I was required to use my real name and didn't mind doing so. My son worked 80 miles away. His boss called him up and asked him what my problem was.
June 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I read "After all, no one is going to lose their job because they call me names; they may even get a promotion;" I knew I was dealing with someone who does not have a good lock on what it is like for many employees. Maybe it was a bad attempt at humor, but really, is there anyone at out there who has been or ever will be promoted for what he or she writes on sites like this.
June 26, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.workrights.org/issue_lifestyle/ldlegaltimes.pdf
June 26, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get some perspective about being an employee. The discussion should move into the First Amendment rights of employees to express themselves without repercussions outside of the workplace. No one ought to be able to squelch another's freedom in the public forum using his or her livelihood as leverage, since the capacity in which one speaks out here is not as the employee unless it is represented to be in or outside work. One's name does not belong to his or her employer.
Here we are in the middle of unprecedented institutional corruption leading to unemployment and waste and we ought to be talking about bringing artificial person employers beneath natural persons in a hierarchy of rights.
June 27, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike7Woodson, that may be a better world. But for many of us it isn't the way this world works for us now, at least.
You're a very smart person--I've seen what you've written here over the years. You know that just because some contemplated course of action is legally protected (if indeed it is; I don't know in this case) doesn't make it, necessarily, any of these:
*worth the potential negative consequences we anticipate or have concerns about
*appropriate for the context
*wise
*right
The point to me seems to be that different people are in different situations and that there are accordingly different conclusions, all quite reasonable, they might reasonably arrive at regarding the handle they use to post.
The choice I have a problem with--although I fully recognize that it is a choice that is and should be available to anyone and everyone--is the choice to be an asshole on the internet, whether posting with one's real name or anon.
Enough people make that choice so as to degrade the quality of what goes on IMO, and to lower the levels of trust and safety that might well leave many more who have wonderful things to contribute choosing to do that, posting anon or with their real names.
June 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The choice I have a problem with--although I fully recognize that it is a choice that is and should be available to anyone and everyone--is the choice to be an asshole on the internet, whether posting with one's real name or anon.
Enough people make that choice so as to degrade the quality of what goes on IMO, and to lower the levels of trust and safety that might well leave many more who have wonderful things to contribute choosing to do that, posting anon or with their real names."
Yes.
June 29, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind it may not be such a high and mighty first amendment issue with many people, rather, more along the lines where your employer, friends or family think you should be spending less time on politics or news if politics or news is not your line of work or your main responsibility. If you are applying for a job as an engineer, and you tell the interviewer that you live and breathe engineering, and he looks you up on the net, and all he finds is blog postings about abortion, and lots of them, he is going to think that maybe you can't possibly have two passions at one time and that you haven't posted much on engineering and that maybe you should go into lobbying on abortion.
June 27, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I believe that was the case with several of the big political bloggers, no? They started out with pseudonyms like Atrios or Kos or Instanpundit and were giving their blogs a ton of time to the detriment of their responsiblities elsewhere. Once they were doing well enough at it to do as a job, they came out with their real names. It is not so much fear of reprisal about opinions, but about spending so much time and passion on opinions, about not keeping your hobby in perspective, as it were. People who love golfing but are not professional golfers get the same shit, it's a little harder to hide behind a pseudonym there, though.
June 27, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should a prospective employer look me up on the internet to see if I have been posting too much on politics, and I'd told her or him that I lived and breathed engineering, if asked, I'd tell the person that the political postings were my steam valve during my previous period of unemployment, and that I carried the courage of my convictions in the public square without fear of criticism by fair minded fellow Americans.
June 28, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, though, people attack via your pen name and attempt to belittle and marginalize you. Then I think it's perfectly okay to switch pen names.
I mean, if what we're judging is the CONTENT of a post--the merit of the ideas expressed in it--who cares if the screen name is the same one the person used two posts ago?
The identity we perceive in a poster doesn't come from the name, but from the character of the posts. Using the same screen name is just an easy way to say, "I'm the same same person who made all those other posts."
I've changed screen names frequently--but my posts are mostly the same. In some cases, I've changed my views--one reason I come here is to figure out what I think and test it--and a new name allows me to present those views without so-and-so calling me a liar or a hypocrite or a flip-floppers or any of the other ridiculous charges leveled at people on these threads.
So, if it really is the CONTENT we're concerned with, then screen names, real or unreal, are irrelevant.
Now...
If I created a swarm of name-bots, each holding the same or differing ideas, with a view to creating mayhem in a discussion (agreement or disagreement among "many" when no such thing exists) then, yes, I'd agree with you.
June 29, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, I do agree that under some conditions hiding one's identity behind an alias is justified. Often, though, it is merely a sign that the person wants to rant and rave but not take responsibility for what they are saying." A. Etzioni.
So, should we have separate accounts with names that sound believable? Would he believe them and respond? My word processor doesn't believe Amitai Etzioni is authentic.
I am sure that Mr. Etzioni has credibility in his field among his peers but when he is hard headed about changing his position on a simple thing which is of little importance except as an excuse and when that position has been shown to be silly and unsupportable then I make a judgment about him based on that.
June 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Etzioni,
While it is true that many comments are made to your postings on the basis of your affiliations or are just abusive rants, there have also been many comments that disagree with you in a respectful and thoughtful manner. For the latter sort of reader and writer (and I consider myself among them), the lack of engagement with any of those criticisms comes off as a lack of interest in defending your ideas.
I suppose I could say my real name out loud but in the context of this forum, I have a recognizable voice as moat. In the context of this forum, it is more "real" than my real name. Like many others here, I am not hiding by a shield but trying to only say what I can defend.
So I wouldn't take destor's challenge as an attack upon your character but an invitation to join us.
June 26, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That bears repeating.
June 26, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni's point is an excuse.
If anonymity can be abused as ranting, then respond to the intelligent comments, whether anonymous or not, and not to the rants, whether anonymous or not. It's not as if people using real names never say vituperative and stupid.
Consider M.J. Rosenberg, for example.
June 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni's point is an excuse.
If anonymity can be abused as ranting, then respond to the intelligent comments, whether anonymous or not, and not to the rants, whether anonymous or not. It's not as if people using real names never say vituperative and stupid things.
Consider M.J. Rosenberg, for example.
June 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this hypocrisy? Etzioni is opposed to things getting personal, yet he wants my real name, a very personal piece of information. If I had the luxury of being self-supporting without relying on the generosity of my employers, I would provide my real name, but with the internet and my need to seek employment from others, I abstain. After the interview, the employers often check the web to see what else they can find out. They may object to my stand on singe payer healthcare, or organized labor, and decide I am not the right candidate, but I do not bring these things into work.
Frankly, knowing life from both sides of the gun is certainly no justification for running from a debate because you don't know who you are up against. It's not personal. It's about ideas. Either they are relevant or they are not.
Please address my thoughts and do not take it so peronally. Either your thoughts stand up or they don't. I don't care if you call yourself Donald Duck.
June 26, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Often, though, it is merely a sign that the person wants to rant and rave but not take responsibility for what they are saying.
I think that's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that the person just wants to express their opinions without putting others in a position to hold them responsible for what they are saying.
Frustration with this form of popular empowerment comes from those who, implicitly or explicitly, take the position that those with power of any kind ought to be able to identify the authors of opinions, so that they will be in a better position to exercise their power on those authors, whether in the form of positive sanction or negative sanction.
June 26, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, this kind of discussion is anything but trivial, since places like TPM are a new kind of public square (or, hmmm, kind of neighborhood coffeeshop), a new place for a community of people to gather and discuss issues. Because it is new, people are trying to work out the protocols and mores of what constitute a good community member. Going through this non-trivial discourse (with the understanding that particular posts may in and of themselves immaturely done) will lead to a better community, one in which the ideas and perspectives are more thoroughly engaged. And this leads to more "enlightened" citizens, something this country could use more of.
If you (and others) want to see TPMCafe as a site to post lectures, then I believe you have erroneously interpreted the purpose of places TPMCafe and other sites like it.
June 26, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fundamental basis of your assertion is that people need to "show their faces" in order to "have a serious dialogue." Why? The person expressing an idea is irrelevant to the validity of the idea.
You even complain about how people try "to dismiss what I had to say on the basis of my affiliations." Which says to me: who I am affiliated with has nothing to do with whether the idea is valid.
Sometimes a person's personal experience might be make an assertion more credible, but it never gives the assertion the stamp of absolute truth. I would definitely listen to what you had to say about Israeli commandos, but you having been one doesn't mean what you say about Israeli commandos is true. In fact, your bias might lead you to be blind to the truth.
June 26, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Amitai Etzioni. I guess if this person wants to drop off lectures but doesn't care to interact with some extraordinarily bright anonymous posters here, that's his right.
Not everyone comes here with the desire to learn. There's also the fact that some who profess resist being taught.
I don't know.
For me, the value of TPM is in the exchange of ideas, the interactivity, and the potential of a post to flourish with real-time collective input--I relish the expansive possibilities of a singular thought.
Isn't that what open source intelligence is all about?
June 26, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never in all the years of blogging, responding or commenting on posts of others did it occur to me that I needed to know someone's true identity. What this medium does is allow us to respond to ideas, opinions and information. If it upsets people to read snark, etc, then they shouldn't be using this as a medium of communication.
If you're posting anonymously and some anonymous poster insults you, how can you take that personally? You don't know who it is and he doesn't know who you are, so how much weight can be given to someone's opinion of you?
June 26, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh but they DO, Bev, they do give it TREMENDOUS weight.
June 27, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if it shakes them that much, then they should think about another outlet for communication.
June 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My fundamental difference with Etzioni has nothing to do with his political affiliations - until today I had no idea what they are or any details whatsoever about his background.
I don't agree with him that the first duty and responsibility of this nation is to provide security for its citizens. It is his basic misunderstanding of American exceptionalism and American experience and history that I find so troubling about his philosophy and beliefs of what government should be and can be to its citizens.
American exceptionalism is our founding a nation without the constraints of established institutions. We had no hereditary class, no church, no burden of tradition and custom and were free to take great risks in freedom and assigning authority to the people. Our philosophy of government is risk - we constantly risk tyranny and oppression and physical safety to maintain our form of government of maximum freedom for our society.
Mr. Etzioni's experience of government is profoundly different - the state of Israel exists to provide safety and security for its citizens. There really is no other reason why Israel as a religious state needs to exist. The burden of the Israeli government is to make safe the Jewish religion and eliminate risks to its society.
In the last eight years, we as a nation, have become so fearful that we have willingly given up our rights. We are so fearful that we now believe that our existence as a nation is dependent on eliminating any risk at all and any perceived risk must be eliminated with extreme prejudice. We're "nation building" because we're afraid that any government which isn't ours, is our enemy and a risk to us as a nation. If anything is going to destroy us it is this constant unrelenting fear that we will not be "safe". We've forgotten that we will never be safe, that we are a nation of risk and it is that willingness to risk our safety that keeps us free and ultimately safe.
June 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read Michael Lind's The American Way of Strategy? If so, what do you think of it.
I find your description of America's origins a bit, how to say? hagiographic. Sure, the founders built in those freedoms, but they were also built on a solid foundation of homogeneity. There was no one church...but how much religious diversity was there in fact?
It's easy to be open to the existence of various religions when, in fact, there's basically only one religion and you have endless space in which people can do their own thing.
America was blessed with geography as much as with anything else.
June 26, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that you should ask that...I'm currently reading "The American Way of War, A History of the United States Military Strategy and Policy" by Russell Weigley.
I wouldn't say my "description of America's origins...is a bit hagiographic", the venue in which I presented my opinion is limited in what can be written and posted in a reasonable amount of time. Of course I'm aware of the contentious and complicated history of the founding of the United States but the point remains the same - without the constraints of state religions and other institutions, we were free to risk it all in pursuit of freedom for all and that is the path we chose to take. We were free of established religion in a way that France was not - that is the meaning of American exceptionalism - we had no establishment. That France had an establishment doomed its revolution, it had to accomodate or destroy its establishment.
June 26, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic, then, that France takes a stronger stand against mixing religion and the state than we do. Every fourth American feels the need to wear his religion on his sleeve; wants religious values taught, even if it's only a moment of silence; and a president just has to have faith to get elected.
And, Bev, think of the time it took us to live out our ideals of freedom. What? Four centuries or so? Give Israel that much time--just to use the example that's often cited, by her critics at least, as the OPPOSITE of the American ideal--and I wager she'll be able to iron out the kinks.
Sure, we have some documents and some ideas floating around that support this goal. And I won't say they aren't important. But at the same time, we were able to vanquish our enemies pretty early on and had a lot of room in which to stretch out.
I guess, for example, if Israel/Palestine were larger, the conflict could be settled more easily with land enough for everyone. And perhaps if Jefferson and friends were the remnants of a decimated people, they might put more emphasis on security, too. Size matters and the lack of natural predators matters.
June 26, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not criticizing Israel nor I am making moral judgements about any nation. The point, isn't the moral superiority of any nation, it is the burden that the governments have as priorities. For Etzioni, his experience of government is that the nation first secure the safety of the Jews. It is a single purpose entity.
For Americans, the experience is quite different, our purpose of government is to provide maximum freedom to its citizens.
When Etzioni tells us what we should be doing, I don't believe that he grasps the difference.
June 27, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ.
The first duty of any government is to provide security for the individual.
You say we are exceptional in that we strive for maximum freedom of the individual. That sounds great in a libertarian sort of way. But, security comes before liberty in all cases and that's the bottom line. Liberal atomists just don't get that point for some reason.
Perhaps the best formulation would be "maximum freedom for the individual that provides adequate security against the negative impingement of that individual on other individuals and their own legitimate quest for freedom"
June 27, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I did not say that we strove for maximum freedom for the individual. I said nothing remotely like that. What I said is that American exceptionalism gave us the opportunity to have a government whose purpose was to provide maximum freedom for its citizens. Those are two very different concepts.
The first duty of government according to Locke is to protect the national territory, the second is to preserve the peace within the borders and the third the means for every citizen to have a place to live and the way to make a living.
The preamble to the constitution makes it clear that the purpose of the government is to first make a more perfect union, secondly insure domestic tranquility and thirdly provide for the common defense and do these while securing liberty for all. Not safety, liberty.
June 27, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we could also have anonymous bloggers, as we have on the readers' blogs. Mr. Etzioni could post under pseudonym. How would people feel about that?
Or do we feel the need to know Mr. Etzioni's background? Do we use his background to critique his ideas, or do we take them as disembodied Cartesian thoughts to be judged solely on their own merits?
Seems to me--though I'm only guessing--that all the folks who like to remain anonymous ALSO like to know as much as possible about the guest bloggers, their backgrounds, their credentials, their sex and on and on.
June 26, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer that he did.
June 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look Peter. I don't want to know about your sex (life) or Mr. Etzionis. (Ick)
=D
(Heh, kidding)
I am anonymous simply because as a single mom with a kid, I'd be stupid to be more forthcoming. That's my reason, but there are many others, some of us have rabid republican bosses that would make trouble.
You know, theater and literary critics and such used to ALWAYS be annoymous. The reason being that it was thought that annonymous critics were more honest and forthcoming. I mean, look at old Ben Franklin, he wrote a lot of great stuff as a "psuede."
Maybe there is something approaching truth there. Pity (to me) that some of my esteemed fellow posters of advanced, er, years, don't seem to even consider the possibility...
June 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not make everyone anonymous?
Authors, journalists, politicians, pundits...
What I don't get is why SOME people in the discussion should be named and others find virtue in anonymity.
I met my wife online, and I think the anonymity helped us in the beginning. So I see its virtues. I never look at wine labels before I've tasted the wine a few times. I don't read reviews before I see a movie.
But here's the irony: I'd have to say 75% of the critique that appears on these threads is rooted (rightly or wrongly) in who the person is; what he or she has done; who he's been associated with. And the person's words are credited or discredited on that basis.
I mean, you think anyone cares that Etzioni fought with the Palmach? You think that affects how they judge his words?
Is this a bit the New Criticism vs the Deconstructionists?
June 26, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go...
Read k-town below...
"He" says..."How fatuous of Etzioni, a career academic with no history of serious political engagement..."
Clearly who Etzioni is and what he's done in the past is important to this person's argument.
But what do we know of k-town? And how are we to judge his words? Maybe he's a white supremacists who just doesn't like Jewish intellectuals. Maybe he's Kevin B Macdonald.
June 26, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you have a good point.
I suppose for context, we depend upon some degree of honesty. Some folks are, others aren't. I tend to take it for granted that they are, which is why I get angry if I find they aren't. I guess the difference is, those with names can be verified.
So it's all about 'trust, but verify'
Good advice, but human interactions necessarily don't necessarily depend on it. Which is overall, a good thing. At least I think so.
=D
My brother met his wife online. I met my best friend there, too. The latter amazing surely, as I am, anonymous. Why did you take it up? The anonymity, I mean. I do love the adventures of Tintin, but it was not always so that you were that interesting globetrotting character with the awesome dog.
June 27, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all Bwakat, I want to THANK you for calling me to task on a few occasions when you thought I wasn't living up to who I am (or who you think I am -:) You did it in an honest and constructive way, at least for me. As to what you wrote...
OK, you have a good point.
T: How many times do you hear those words on these threads? Sure, there's a lot of high-fiving amongst the choir, but between folks who started off disagreeing?
I suppose for context, we depend upon some degree of honesty. Some folks are, others aren't. I tend to take it for granted that they are, which is why I get angry if I find they aren't. I guess the difference is, those with names can be verified.
T: Those with names can be Googled.
So it's all about 'trust, but verify'
T: True, but with anonymity, there is no way to verify.
Good advice, but human interactions necessarily don't necessarily depend on it. Which is overall, a good thing. At least I think so.
=D
My brother met his wife online. I met my best friend there, too. The latter amazing surely, as I am, anonymous. Why did you take it up? The anonymity, I mean. I do love the adventures of Tintin, but it was not always so that you were that interesting globetrotting character with the awesome dog.
T: I took it up because a friend offered to write a personals ad for me and I agreed. I thought the ad was very good and I would test it online where there were no costs. And that was that. I used to use my real name here only because I couldn't figure out how to create a pen name. When Josh re-did the format here, I changed to a pseudonym only because it's fun to pick one's name. As a kid, I LOVED Tintin, and Tintin In The New World is a great read for any lovers of the intrepid lad. I'm somewhat chagrined by the racism and imperialist stance implicit in the books--so they are a guilty pleasure.
I have no fear of job retribution because a) though my name isn't common common, there are many people with my name, including some who are famous, so how would anyone know it was "me"? b) I don't express views here I'd be unwilling to express in person, if more tactfully on occasion.
June 27, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what of k-town...
Well, besides the fact that I am off to bed, I might as well finish off your theories on my person, as well as my utilization of Etzioni's background.
For starters I would judge my written words on their merits. There is nothing anti-semetic about pointing out that ethnic blinders (be they jewish, black, christian etc)can effect one's opinions and it is quite common. In fact, your supposition is a coward's craft of weak argument - not an interest of mine - and I'll leave the conclusions to the perversity of your own mind. Again, if you are interested in me, you can read what I have written in the past, just as I have examined Etzioni's work - and suggest you do as well.
Meanwhile, the substance of my point (which you so generously cherry-picked) was about the author's disingenuous writings on the birth of Israel - a subject I am quite familiar with (trust me!) But to your point about the centrality of Etzioni's identity; it was merely an honest rendering of academia. As Adolph Reed, Jr. cogently says of the academy, "We have relatively soft jobs by the standard of most people in the country, and the one thing we are supposed to do to justify it." That is all.
But to my identity: Yes, I do not use my real name and nor should I need to. Unlike public intellectuals and tenured professors, my writing can very well endanger my employment. But to disabuse you of some of your more radical thoughts, yes, I work in the political realm - and at the mercy of many.
June 27, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what of k-town...
Well, besides the fact that I am off to bed, I might as well finish off your theories on my person, as well as my utilization of Etzioni's background.
T: I have no thoughts on your person. You could be anyone.
For starters I would judge my written words on their merits. There is nothing anti-semetic about pointing out that ethnic blinders (be they jewish, black, christian etc)can effect one's opinions and it is quite common.
T: But since we don't know anything about you, we don't know what your blinders are. I wouldn't presume to know, except that we can be fairly certain that you, like everyone else, has them.
In fact, your supposition is a coward's craft of weak argument - not an interest of mine - and I'll leave the conclusions to the perversity of your own mind.
T: Huh? I've made no suppositions, just thrown out possibilities. But I agree, the field is wide open--for all we know, you could be Barak Obama. How would I know? That's the point of a pseudonym.
Again, if you are interested in me, you can read what I have written in the past, just as I have examined Etzioni's work - and suggest you do as well.
Meanwhile, the substance of my point (which you so generously cherry-picked) was about the author's disingenuous writings on the birth of Israel - a subject I am quite familiar with (trust me!)
T: At this point, we'll have to trust you on the whole thing.
But to your point about the centrality of Etzioni's identity; it was merely an honest rendering of academia. As Adolph Reed, Jr. cogently says of the academy, "We have relatively soft jobs by the standard of most people in the country, and the one thing we are supposed to do to justify it." That is all.
T: But the point of this thread is...does knowing who the person is, what he does, what his past has been properly factor into our views about the person's writing. You're admitting that here, whether your rendering is "honest" or not.
That said, I don't know how many academics or political operatives who have been commandos. "No history of serious political engagement"? Putting one's life on the line to help create a new country would seem to qualify as "serious political engagement" in most people's book--even if they don't like the country that was created, as I surmise you don't.
But to my identity: Yes, I do not use my real name and nor should I need to. Unlike public intellectuals and tenured professors, my writing can very well endanger my employment. But to disabuse you of some of your more radical thoughts, yes, I work in the political realm - and at the mercy of many.
T: Again, I don't have any thoughts about who you are, but a pen name leaves the field wide open. Your comments do make me wonder, however, whether you're working for an agenda that's contrary to the views you express here.
June 27, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably a bad guess, tintin. After all, we do have a featured poster here (or had one) who used the name CA Rotwang. Though I confess to being curious as to poster's identity it didn't interfere with my enjoying the posts.
June 28, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know it was a pen name?
Have you spotted any other?
I think most people reading articles or books want to know a lot about--or get a bead on--the author. You know, the person's background, his expertise on the subject matter.
We anonymous ones get to pontificate without any of that drag weight. We travel light.
But what if Josh fielded a whole bunch bloggers who were simply called "Expert I"..."Expert II"...and so on. Wouldn't one of the FIRST questions be to each of them..."What makes YOU an expert? Give us your credentials. Give us your experience. Why should we listen to you?"
June 29, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being sadly deficient in pop culture awareness, I had to look it up myself Tintin, but CA Rotwang is apparently a character from a science fiction movie and the TPMCafe Rotwang's photos of himself were apparently clips from the movie. I agree with Destor that Rotwang (whoever he really is) is one of the more interesting writers on this blog. And I'm not sure his anonymity makes much difference. His words speak for themselves--and while I may have some mild curiosity about who he really is, I don't feel any great need to learn of his credentials. The same goes for us commentators. I have no idea who you really are Tintin or who Destor really is, but I recognize you both as interesting and thoughtful commentators on this site. In my mind, you are the characters you've created for yourselves: Tintin and Destor, and since you've commented enough to give me a strong sense of your ideas and even of your personalities, I feel like I know Tintin and Destor at least as well as I know say Maureen Dowd. In fact, while I may know a tad more about Dowd's background, I've never engaged in a dialogue with her, so in some ways I feel I know Destor and Tintin much better than I know Dowd.
June 29, 2009 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting stuff...
To add my two cents:
I stopped reading and responding to Amitai long ago when I noticed that his ethnic blinders interfered with his facts. While it is trite by now to expound on his evident failings, I can recall one time reading his "work" at the huffington post about the 1948 Arab/Israeli. His rendering of what transpired was, shall we say, entirely a hoax; it was the old "Exodus" narrative. Because so few of the respondents seemed sufficiently versed and bought in
to Etzioni's nonsense, I felt compelled to respond there and elsewhere that his account was fictional. Going line by line, I pointed out (via the requisite scholarship: Morris, Hirst, Walid Khalidi etc.) that he was disturbingly errant with his "history."
Suffice to say, my post never received a response and Etzioni has continued to spew his fact free ethnocentric bile. Frankly, I think the man is a joke and no longer feel the need to demonstrate it; but apparently others, too, see him in a similar light.
PS: How fatuous of Etzioni, a career academic with no history of serious political engagement, to disparage respondents (writing, much as he does) with self-righteous indignation about Iraq and Iran and so forth.
June 26, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else see the amazing irony of the existence of this post (responding to anonymous criticism) juxtaposed against Etzoini's refusal to engage in debate on the substance of his actual work?
What a petty little man.
June 26, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! This was supposed to be a stand-alone comment. Curses!
June 26, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
foiled again!
June 26, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, kgb. I was about to post the same observation but I see you got to it first. It is highly ironic that after all these years of people trying to engage Etzioni about his ideas it is Destor's "trivial" attack on Etzioni's "persona" that actually gets Etzioni to respond. Etzioni says he's interested in debating ideas. But, other than a very rare response in a comment thread, he's never done that. Instead, the first time he seriously engages the TPM readership is to call it trivial for attacking his persona. By doing so, I'm afraid he confirms the readership's suspicion that Etzioni's ego is a lot larger than his ideas.
The fact is Etzioni's posts on TPMCafe (mostly about security and the failings of the Arab world) generally have a high-handed, lecturing tone. He rarely responds to comments. At times he has turned off the commenting function. And he has begun to append every post with his petulant line about not responding to the unnamed hoi polloi. Even worse, he appends every post with an advertisement for one of his books. All of this projects a great deal of pomposity. I don't know Etzioni personally--maybe he's a delightful and humble human being over coffee--maybe he truly is a gentleman alarmed by the coarsening of discourse on the Web--but somehow he comes over as just an ass.
Etzioni's latest disclaimer reads:
I will respond to comments from those who reveal their true identity--as long as they discuss something more important than me.
I was going to say (sarcastically) that by limiting the dialogue to subjects "more important than me" Etzioni probably prevents us from discussing anything but God.
But then I see the advertisement for Etzioni's book:
Amitai Etzioni is . . . author of The New Golden Rule.
So apparently Etzioni has taken it upon himself to improve even on God's own word.
God said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Etzioni says: Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy to live a full life.
You be the judge.
June 27, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That New Golden Rule sounds considerably less helpful than the original. To me, anyway. It raises far more questions than it answers, and not ones which seem meant for ordinary people to be able to resolve fairly readily, even those so inclined to try to do so.
But perhaps his suggestion was not intended mainly for ordinary people. It could give those philosophers who would be interested in doing so (bless their hearts; I was a college philosophy major) plenty to talk and write about, I suppose.
June 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more oddity since, as they say about Ric Flair, "I'm causin' all this..."
Very strange that Etzioni is so angry that he's criticized for his past associations, especially with the IDF, and then he calls on Arianna Huffington, of all people, to provide a forum for his views. Arianna Huffington! Sheesh. The one who helped to fund the witch hunt against Bill Clinton. It's comical.
June 27, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amitai Etzioni apparently hates when people make intellectual debates personal. But he's willing to personalize anything when it suits him. He lambasted and misrepresented Caryl Churchill when she wrote a play that offended him. He accused her of being a longtime foe of Israel even, implying that such sentiments defined her career, which he must not be familiar with.
The truth is that Churchill is a hero of the theatre, feminism and liberalism and her career can't be reduced to Israel/Palestine conflicts. She's a great artist who Etzioni denies the proper deference and appreciation.
June 27, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
His take on this whole issue alone has led me to have the impression that he is either not the sharpest tool in the shed. If what you say about his take on Churchill is correct, then I he is definitely someone I'll just avoid in the future, another blinded by ego, ideological agendas, etc.
That is not to say he would never make a good point here and there on this or that issue, but chances are these insights would be of the blind squirrel eventually finding a nut variety.
June 27, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone noticed that Amitai just dropped another one on us, asking for feedback, and has not deigned to return one word of his deep thoughts?
He doesn't hate it when people make intellectual debates personal; I won't pretend to know what his problem is. He did, after all, in a very hurt way, bring this whole issue up. This one is particularly intellectually dishonest. It is what I call "drive-by blogging."
I think this has gone on long enough. Anyone else feel the same?
June 27, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing that he will respond to some of the comments in a separate post, not here in the comments section.
June 27, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is interesting that he wrote the post at all. Its appearance certainly stands at odds with his statement:
The issue is bigger than what Mr. Etzioni does or does not engage in. The matter of credentials and the ownership of ideas has been a consistent issue in the way established academics interact with this sort of forum. I remember the way the old "America Abroad" format crashed and burned in a blaze of acrimony and bad feeling all around. It would be interesting if an academic like Etzioni, who receives so much criticism here, were to be an agent of change in the conversation.
I guess that is a long winded way to say:
No, it has not gone on long enough.
June 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks Prof Etzioni doth protest overmuch.
I have made numerous substantive comments NOT about his no-response policy, and never gotten any response (nor expected much -- none of the other byliners or regular columnists here have EVER responded to my posts, except for Gitlin long ago to attack my approach (not substance) as unworthy, and also to troll-rate my posts that otherS (in the plural) had rated 5 out of 5 (back in the early days of TPM Cafe). And "Cloudy", around here quite secularly, is hardly an anonymous name anyway. (I explained before about the nic, and how it is no less personal in my usage than a name, which one poster noted could be entirely fictional. I am tempted to make up an entirely fictional name, open up a new TPM Cafe account specifically for Amitai Etzioni, and see if he responds to my subject matter comments.
As for his column, there is something disineguous about his logic, bolstered as it is by citing all the WORST rather than best examples of computer nic (treated as anonymous) criticism. Here we get to the nub:
the trouble is not an absence of blog space for those who hide behind false names, after all they own 98% of the territory.
This is a revealing comment. He recognizes that the OVERWHELMING majority (a figurative "98%") of commentors use a computer nic (which is invited at this site) and he is complaining that when he says he will ONLY respond to the comments of those who give their "real" names, he gets an overwhelming response. Now Amitai Etzioni is not an unintelligent individual. Surely logic must suggest that, while people routinely respond to his columns in significant numbers without any reference to the issue of computer nics, and at least in the case of most comments and (I hope) MOST (but unfortunately, as he notes, far from all) refrain from specifically personal attack, when he makes a statement that suggests his disdain for that 98% as unworthy of response, he has no epistemological reason to be surprised that this sparks a wide response.
It is a little like my recollection of Ying Lee Kelley, a brilliant activist and top aide to the Cong. Ron Dellums, returning from the 1984 Democratic Convention in SF, and complaining at at a general membership meeting of Berkeley Citizens' Action (BCA) the left-progressive electoral coalition that dominated the City in the 80s, how nauseated she felt at the sight of thousands of people engaged in flag waving. The complaint was not the usual one about the nonspontaneity of it, but about how she saw the flag as a symbol of imperialism and oppression around the world. Similarly, a priest who goes to Stiletto's and returns complaining about the lewd way naked women there waved their breasts in the customer's faces, accepting money in ways he considers unspeakable, needs to think about context. Some listserves and fora (like Democratic Left, which I mentioned before) require that you post under your 'real' name, while others have mainly computer nics, for whatever reasons. To come to a latter kind of forum and trash the people (those who are abusive and hide behind screen nics AND the MAJORITY who aren't), is disingenuous reasoning, and invites a massive, and from the less self-controlled, personally insulting response.
This is not to justify those who insist on criticizing him based on his background in the Israeli airforce, for not being a vegetarian, for having sped through the UC Sociology Dept (where I got my MA) in a few years to get his PhD, or any number of other ad hominem irrelevancies. Similarly, it oddly plays into the hands of Amitai Etzioni's argument to describe him as arrogant or pompous for adhering to this policy, which after all is not unique to him. But, again, when you describe (and treat) people as "hiding" behind "false" names, you invite a chorus of negative response. That's something a sociologist should have no trouble understanding.
I will add that I have not found the noxious tendencies in Prof Etzioni's character here at TPM that some of my other colleagues freely express -- though I HAVE discerned noxious traits on the part of others who will remain nameless.
I will add that veiling one's noxiousness is considered routine (our culture is rife with communication taboos that let people get away literally with murder, provided that the means are in the realm of the non-explicit, and those
committing the act(s) are not disfavored by the system, while their victims are not those favored by the system. But oddly, it is precisely those who want to observe the alleged "civility" of discourse using full names (regardless of whether those not using full names are civil or vicious), who are the least inclined to (especially openly) challenge the use "civility" (or rather SERVility) of the mandatory maintenance of communication taboos, regardless of the political repression (and I might add, terrorism) that is completely protected thereby. (But folk like me are NOT protected at all from eggplanting, engineered hypersensitivity, excommunication from effective association with real friends and allies, etc -- so the protection is one-sided).
As for the notion that those who do not want to identify themselves are eager to know all about the personal lives of others (such as Etzioni), I am not a glutton at the feast table of such hypocrisy. Even though figures like Amitai Etzioni or MJ Rosenberg or Todd Gitlin are public figures, (certainly in this context), I have never evinced, nor do I evince, any desire to be a 'fly on the wall' (or hidden camera) on their personal lives. I am here and have always been here to discuss issues of importance to the community, as I see it. I MAY (MY choice) reveal personal details about myself, particularly if I FEEL (rightly) that they are of significant political relevance, but I neither demand nor urge that of others.
I suppose that in the future, if I want a substantive response from Prof Etzioni (I will note that I've gotten none, eg, from Prof Reich, despite REPEATEDLY urging him to respond to my call for a collective response from progressive economists in drawing up an alternative platform to Geithneromics), I will email him privately with the name on my driver's license (although the name "Cloudy" is in my signature, as it is on my checks, credit card slips, etc), and request that he respond publicly without publicizing that name.
I still maintain that I am in fact FULLY accountable and held so for my public statements in venues like this (not to mention unaccountable 'accountability' for other things that are really nobody's business)
Solidarity, Love, Authenticity and Peace
Cloudy
June 27, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
bravo/brava(?)
June 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Professor posts here as The Professor.
Most of the rest of us do not post here in our professional capacity but as private citizens.
If the Professor was in the Israeli Air Force, I cannot believe that he does not understand the difference.
June 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at this thread, Mr. Etzioni, and tell me you're not flattered by the number of people who want to discuss issues with you.
You're missing out on an experience that few, if any academics ever have and that's the enthusiasm of your correspondents who want a freewheeling, open and truthful exchange of ideas with you without the fear that they'll affect their grade average. If that isn't the sincerest form of flattery, I don't know what is. I wish my life's work would inspire that kind of enthusiasm and feedback.
June 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true, Bev, too true.
June 27, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opportunity, destor, opportunity. Sometimes people just don't see it.
June 27, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink