As regular readers know, I’ve been highly critical of Professor Stephen Walt for his shoddy coauthored “Israel Lobby” book.
One response of my critics has been along the lines of “how dare an ignoramus like you criticize a great foreign policy expert like Stephen Walt.”
Call me an ignoramus if you will, but at least I didn’t accept funding– assumedly, directly or indirectly, from the Libyan government–for a trip to speak to Libya’s Economic Development Board, and then write a puff piece about my visit. (It’s not clear whether Walt simply accepted travel funding, which is in itself not objectionable if you, like Michael Moynihan, then refrain from writing a puff piece, or if Walt, like some prominent academic invitees to Libya, accepted a large “consulting fee”.)
One fun irony: Walt, after fulminating about the American domestic “Israel Lobby”, becoming, perhaps unwittingly, a part of the “Libya Lobby” sponsored by the Libyan government.
Added irony bonus: Walt, a leading critic of the friendship between the U.S. and Israel, concludes his piece with the hope “that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship.” Because, you know, Israel is so much nastier than Qaddafi’s Libya.
Instapundit » Blog Archive » DAVID BERNSTEIN MOCKS Khaddafy-sellout Stephen Walt. In Walt’ defense, lots of academics were appar… says:
[...] BERNSTEIN MOCKS Khaddafy-sellout Stephen Walt. In Walt’ defense, lots of academics were apparently taking money from [...]
March 6, 2011, 11:47 pmcatchy says:
Perhaps you could quote the portions of the article you cite that identify it as a “puff piece”.
The following seems pretty representative to me:
“It is also a crime to criticize Qaddafihimself, the government’s past human rights record is disturbing at best, and the press in Libya is almost entirely government-controlled. Nonetheless, Libya appears to be more open than contemporary Iran or China and the overall atmosphere seemed far less oppressive than most places I visited in the old Warsaw Pact.
That’s a “puff piece”?
[insult deleted]
March 7, 2011, 12:16 amHm. says:
Nobody seriously invested in IR theory should be considering Walt “a great foreign policy expert.” What is so great about a theory of perpetual war and conflict?
March 7, 2011, 12:18 amFat Man says:
At least Beyonce got a good price.
March 7, 2011, 12:21 amBrian Macker says:
“Nonetheless, Libya appears to be more open than contemporary Iran or China and the overall atmosphere seemed far less oppressive than most places I visited in the old Warsaw Pact.”
Sounds like a puff piece to me.
March 7, 2011, 12:22 amMartinsen says:
It is unpleasant when unexpected events pull one’s pants down in public with the accompanying uproarious laughter of the company of those pointing out the always presumed but now nakedly confirmed availability at a price of one’s intellectual and moral, er, equipment. Yikes! Not a pleasant experience, Mr. Walt, eh?
March 7, 2011, 12:25 amDavid Bernstein says:
Not to mention his call for closer U.S.-Libya ties, which seems to have been the point of all the Libyan p.r. offensive. And all based on a total of at most 31 hours in the country, including sleeping, getting to and from the airport, etc.
March 7, 2011, 12:29 amOdysseus says:
Except that Walt sees himself as a virgin; because, it wasn’t real sex.
March 7, 2011, 12:29 amGary Rosen says:
Walt is just one more in a long line of Western hypocrites who make a living demonizing Israel while winking at her enemies which are mostly bloody human rights hellholes. He and his ilk have been hugely responsible for enabling the repression that infects the region.
Walt lied, people died.
March 7, 2011, 12:42 amShould probably choose a username says:
I’m no fan of Bernstein’s AT ALL, but my god does he ever have Stephen Walt dead-to-rights on this. The article is exactly as he has described it: a shameful puff piece that mouths a few oh-he-IS-a-dictator-I-suppose pieties whilst engaging in an overall whitewash.
Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to be different from when people like the Webbs went to Russia, were led on chaperoned tours through Potemkin villages staffed by NKVD agents, and returned to the West to pronounce upon the virtues of the USSR? Because as far as I can see, it’s a pretty fair analogy, and with far less excuse.
I thought The Israel Lobby was a better book than someone like Bernstein will ever give it credit for, but this…this is disgraceful. I’ll never, ever be able to look at Walt’s commentary quite the same way again. He should know better. In fact, I have the deep and abiding suspicion that he DOES know better — how, in this day and age, could someone as educated and worldly as him NOT? — which is why I’m actually genuinely disturbed.
For what is likely the first and last time I’ll ever write this: I agree with David Bernstein’s position 100%.
March 7, 2011, 1:04 amDaniel says:
Saddam Hussein was big on subsidizing people who supported him. It is said that he gave a Mercedes to every reporter in the Arab world, and strangely enough was never criticized in that press.
March 7, 2011, 1:08 amHe did this with money he got from administrating the UN oil for food program, which money he generously shared with UN officials and Western politicians and professors. Again for some unknowable reason these people strongly condemned our efforts against his regime.
Did Walt or Harvard accept more than travel money from Gaddafi? Of course even if they did we could not accuse high minded people like Walt of being corrupt. He would have taken the money for the good of mankind, since otherwise Gaddafi might have spent it on some kind of evil.
In a similar way supporting anyone who is evil by taking his or her money is only done for the same high purpose, not for the money, unless of course the taker is a Republican.
anon says:
Did he really write that after spending only 36 hours there and only a few hours touring the country?
(I think my dad and nine of his best friends (?) were in Tripoli longer than that (B17, 1945, after the war had ended).)
(I still can’t believe my dad, MY DAD, was in Tripoli at the age of 23.)
March 7, 2011, 1:11 amJoey33 says:
This is a pretty legit burn. Though gloating is usually not in good taste it seems entirely appropriate here.
Not sure what the Saddam nonsense above has to do with this. Yes other dictators, including Saddam, tried to do what Qaddafi did, but most don’t succeed because folks see through it. Saddam actually offered a fellow I know – a theologian – a mint to come speak, but my friend refused, though he badly needed the money, because he knew his visit would be used for propaganda. Maybe Qaddafi’s methods were more subtle or folks thought Libya was open for business because of our rapprochement – Professor Walt is not alone in this debacle. But, there was certainly no such confusion with Saddam.
March 7, 2011, 1:21 amneurodoc says:
Are you being entirely fair to Walt? Afterall, Libya isn’t Israel, and until now even the United Nations Human Rights Council, which surely knows something of human rights given the subject matter expertise of their members (Syria, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia et al.), earnestly believed that Libya under Qaddafi was a light unto the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06libya.html
March 7, 2011, 1:41 amPaul says:
Bernstein FTW
March 7, 2011, 1:50 amElbabe says:
I wouldn’t mind seeing a critical post breaking down and refuting Mr. Walt’s arguments, but this is essentially a slam post. What’s the point?
March 7, 2011, 2:00 ampmorem says:
The point is that Walt is perfectly willing to say what he’s being paid to say, even if it’s by a brutal thug.
It’s about knowing a person by the company they choose to keep. Walt is perfectly happy to keep company with Ghaddafi.
If you hadn’t noticed, Ghaddafi is a bad man, and has been known as a bad man for a long time.
March 7, 2011, 2:06 amDilan Esper says:
It isn’t as though Walt was the only one pursuing better relations with Lyvia before the current crisis. That was the Bush Administration policy too.
March 7, 2011, 2:06 amElbabe says:
I’m not saying Bernstein is wrong, I really have very little interest in the Israel-Palestine who’s-siding-with-who nonsense.
March 7, 2011, 2:12 amGhaddafi is clearly an awful person, and I hope he’s overthrown. But a short sarcastic blog post, in my opinion, does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the issue at hand.
neurodoc says:
Walt was pursuing better relations with Libya before the current crisis in the same way that Louis Farrakhan and his buddy Reverend Wright were doing? (Farrakhan has made clear he still approves of Qaddafi just as much as ever; Reverend Wright hasn’t been been heard from lately, and though Rahm Emmanuel is occupied back in Chicago these days, David Axelrod, Obama’s other Jewish consiglieri, is still in DC and probably continuing to deny Wright access to his former parishoner Obama.)
March 7, 2011, 2:29 ampmorem says:
That depends on what you consider to be the issue at hand.
It’s not really relevant to Israel, for example.
It is perhaps relevant to Walt.
It’s likely relevant to overall understanding of Public Relations efforts by authoritarian regimes.
It seems to me that subject has been rather neglected since Hayakawa wrote his book on the subject.
March 7, 2011, 2:29 amneurodoc says:
So, in your opinion, this sort of thing in no way subtracts from Walt’s credibility or Walt’s credibility is of no consequence?
March 7, 2011, 2:34 amRicardo says:
There is a legitimate side-issue though: namely, Libya’s attempt to engage various high-profile western academics as highly-paid “advisers” and “consultants” (Benjamin Barber was engaged with one of Ghaddafi’s foundations while Ghaddafi tried to court Robert Putnam as well), its use of various “academic” and charitable foundations as vehicles for spreading a pro-Libya message, and the degree to which this may have influenced elite opinion on the subject of Libya.
I’m sure whatever applies to Libya probably applies to China ten-fold. Still, this is the kind of issue that Walt should be interested in. Perhaps he will do a mea culpa and study the ways in which Libya tried to court and influence people like him. Or perhaps not.
March 7, 2011, 2:46 amanonymous says:
A more realistic account of Libya, from someone who wasn’t taking regime money:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/08/in-the-land-of.php
March 7, 2011, 3:09 amneurodoc says:
Since Elbabe didn’t say what he thought was “the issue at hand,” it’s not clear that yours is a “side-issue.” And do you intend with “though” that Professor Bernstein’s point, which neurodoc takes to be the question of Walt’s credibility, was other than “legitimate”?
As for, “Perhaps he will do a mea culpa and study the ways in which Libya tried to court and influence people like him. Or perhaps not.” Would you care to bet on it?
[And what about those in the US and UK governments who had the Libya portfolio, then left government and went to work currying favor with Qaddafi for pecuniary gain. (Would have used $$$s, if had the symbol for pounds to use too.)]
March 7, 2011, 3:11 amShelby says:
Beyonce provided commensurate value.
March 7, 2011, 3:22 amRicardo says:
Neurodoc, I would respond in more detail to all of this but can I save some time by saying that it is not clear to me that you and I disagree at all and call it a day? I didn’t dispute Bernstein’s point and think Walt has a case to answer for here.
March 7, 2011, 3:40 amsgi says:
It’s interesting that while some American and Canadian entertainers have been pressured to divest themselves of their engagement fees for entertaining members of the Ghaddafi family, and as far as I know every one of them have, there have been no similar calls from the academic community to their colleagues to return their fees. Entertainers can at least excuse themselves for being naive as Mariah Carey said today, and of course that is no doubt true; but how can privileged academics excuse themselves? Nelly Furtado may be naive, but she is smart enough to do the right thing when given a compelling reason to do so.
But academics in their cloistered campuses suffer from no such damage to their reputations because of course they more than most of us must have their freedom of thought and association protected from such silly things as performance reviews, as if freedom of thought meant that they loved the truth more than anything else.
March 7, 2011, 3:45 amKazinski says:
Bush’s policy was based on more tangible goals. He got all of Qaddafi’s uranium and most other WMD components:
Better read the whole thing, it will be a long time again before the NY Times prints anything praising Bush adminstration policy. Bush was not able to lead Qaddafi to the light, but he did remove a lot of his teeth, it would be hard not to consider that a huge success.
March 7, 2011, 6:48 ammelk says:
“And all based on a total of at most 31 hours in the country, including sleeping, getting to and from the airport, etc.”
Reminds one of John Kenneth Galbraith’s favorable take on the Soviet economy, just before the collapse. Not to mention Friedman in China. Seems like staying at the local Hilton with no knowledge of the language (or who exactly is pulling your strings) gets you the NY Times expert op ed. And let’s not get started on Cuba. Or Barbara Walters, poor dear. Gaddafi was rather cute, though, in those old days.
March 7, 2011, 7:11 amRH says:
From the Walt piece
And then there’s this from Bernstein
A complete logical nonstarter, and I’m sort of embarrassed for you by this.
Has Walt ever called for bad relations with Israel? One can desire peace and friendship with all the countries of the world while thinking that the supporters of one country are having a pernicious effect on foreign policy.
March 7, 2011, 7:17 amAngus says:
Perhaps Walt should start posting links to some of the ridiculous things Bernstein has claimed. You know, without actually showing things that were wrong in them.
March 7, 2011, 7:28 amnadadhimmi says:
Let’s get something straight. Israeli money is BAD, Jews are BAD. Libyan money and moslems are GOOD. MY fuel use is BAD, Michael Kennedy and Al Gore’s fuel use is GOOD. The Koch brothers millions are BAD, but they are part of our “National Treasure”, Michael Moore’s millions are GOOD, and they belong to the disgusting, Jabba the Hutt looking slug exclusively. Mercury in Thermometers is BAD, Mercury in CFL bulbs is GOOD….. SHUT UP AND THINK WHAT WE DAMN WELL TELL YOU TO THINK! Any questions pilgrim?
March 7, 2011, 7:30 amAngus says:
I look forward to your publication in which you show that Walt is in fact wrong, and that the culture in Libya was less open than Iran, China, or the Warsaw Pact. From what else I have read, that does in fact appear to be the case: Libya had put far fewer restrictions on outside media and ideas than those named nations.
Look, I’ve never even heard of Walt before today, but given Bernstein’s track record, I’m not just going to take him at his word that Walt is way inaccurate with that piece.
March 7, 2011, 7:32 amDavid Bernstein says:
Does calling for a military confrontation with Israel count?
March 7, 2011, 7:41 amDavid Bernstein says:
No! He said his plane arrived 5 hours late, so he was only there 31 hours. Which, by the way, is a good part of what makes his article a puff piece. Spending 31 hours in a country as a VIP, staying in hotels that cater to rich foreigners, and being shuttled around by government minders doesn’t put you in a position to discern much of anything about a country. I’m also pretty sure that Walt doesn’t understand the local language, which doesn’t help.
March 7, 2011, 7:45 amHere come the Judge: says:
Others have commented on the way K. Daffy managed to create a market for people willing to burnish his image. At least pop stars did not come back and write articles about him. I recently wrote this about the pop stars. It applies equally to the academics who sold out.
Qaddafi (like Hosni Mubarak) only recently became a villain.
Commenting on the decision of a few pop music stars to give back the money they received from K. Daffy for personal appearances, Ed Driscoll references “the Great Celebrity Implosion of the 21st-century.”
Most of the pop stars are like Nelly Furtado.
Nelly Furtado is a garden-variety Gen Y arts community fashionable liberal from Vancouver. It’s probably a mistake to make too much of her politics. A deep thinker she likely ain’t. She went from being a high school candy raver, to a hip hop chick, to a neo- folkie-singer/songwriter-hippie chick, to a glamorous pop star (and symbol of young single female sexual “empowerment”). Her biggest hit song was about being “Promiscuous,” bit in its verses, she still managed to give shout outs to Amnesty International and Steve Nash.
Ms. Furtado’s politics have always appeared to be those of the kind of trendy liberal who thinks that taking the positions of the fashionably reflexive Left equates to being socially conscious and doing the right thing. In giving the $ million back to Mr. al-Qaddafi, she’s most likely doing what she thinks (or her PR people think) is the right thing to do.
So why is she – and some of the others like her – giving the money back (or to charity)? Have they realized that K. Daffy was a bad man? Well, not at the time.
“In terms of pop culture relevancy, Anti-American Muslim dictators from North Africa were thought to be pretty freakin’ cool when Bush was president. After all, those guys were standing up to the oppressor and raising a fist in the air and speaking truth to power and showing solidarity and trying to change the world and all of that. So until the recent Libyan uprising, it made all the sense in the world for American entertainers to perform for Qaddafi … Plus, for the old-timers, Qaddafi’s animus toward and defiance of Ronald Reagan earned him big props, though that hasn’t been much of a factor for a while — 1986 was way before most young fashionable liberals’ time (Ms. Furtado included).”
What changed? Obama …The Lightworker
But now that President Obama has decided that it’s time to officially condemn Qaddafi, the message has been sent like the Bat Signal to everyday fashionable Gen X, Gen Y and Millennial liberals — hipsters, SWPL, single city girls, college students, Bikhram yoga instructors, NYT readers, AOLHuffington Post readers, DJ’s, bartenders, news reporters, advertising executives, entertainment professionals, etc. — that Quaddafi is a BAD GUY. If President Obama says you’re bad, then you’re bad. And now that the President has decided it’s time to call Qaddafi bad, everybody knows that Qaddafi is indeed bad. You know, like Mubarak and the Governor of Wisconsin.
March 7, 2011, 7:47 amSo it’s a little harsh to rake Nelly Furtado over the coals for being a hypocrite. She’s probably very sincerely trying to do the right thing. She just lives in a world in which Left Wing and low-information liberal narratives are the rule. And in that world, al-Qaddafi (like Hosni Mubarak) only recently became a villain.
RH says:
Fair enough.
Still, there’s nothing logically inconsistent about Walt’s positions: supporting better relations with Libya and distancing ourselves from Israel.
I might think America is too close to Britain but too tough on Iran. So I would want comparatively “worse” relations with the UK and “better” relations with the Iranians. It doesn’t logically follow that I somehow believe Britain is worse than Iran.
March 7, 2011, 7:56 amSDN says:
The Bush administration policy, which worked BTW, was to establish better relations by saying “You know, unless your nuclear weapons program goes away, you might share the same fate as Saddam.”
Amazing how much better that works than O!’s “speak softly and show a limp d*ck” routine.
March 7, 2011, 7:57 amAndy Beresford says:
Nice try jew! Every American should read Walt’s book, “The Israel Lobby”.
March 7, 2011, 8:40 amYou would be outraged to learn how jewish interests, (Like David Bernstein) have taken our Foreign policy and ran it into the ground because they have a foreign allegiance to “The Jewish State”.
We have great discussions about this subject on Facebook if anyone including David want to find me.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374531501/thevolocons0d-20/
neurodoc says:
We don’t disagree, but neurodo thought you might be willing to wager $$$ on the likelihood of any mea culpas by Walt, neurodoc betting against it no matter the odds you would give .
(Truth be told, neurodoc doesn’t think this one nearly as damning of Walt as some other appearances he has made at Arab/Muslim functions. Does sound a bit stupid with his superficial impressions based on his day there.)
March 7, 2011, 9:15 amneurodoc says:
Didn’t the US go into Somalia with a large military force for humanitarian purposes; see its servicemen die in the effort, all for naught; and pull out much to the satisfaction of Al Qaeda, which gained the most from it. But maybe someone can offer neurodoc counter-expamples in which aid to Muslim populations in need of it has redounded to the US’s lasting benefit. Pakistan?
Walt must not remember Somalia, or he think it inapposite, or his foreign policy advice is just another reflection of his anti-Israel biases.
Walt should be less cryptic and say what he imagines to be the answer to his “why.”
March 7, 2011, 9:38 amTGGP says:
As someone appreciative of the realist view, I’ve often been disappointed by the low quality of Walt’s blogging (not that there isn’t high quality mixed in there), with neurodoc’s criticism of his Somalia/Bosnia amnesia being a good example. But this criticism was pretty lame. His focus wasn’t Quadaffi: good or bad dude?, but the shift in U.S relations from bombing each other to cooperation on WMDs and terrorism. Applauding that change (which again, occurred under a president he doesn’t like giving credit to) is an entirely different thing from saying overall Libya is better than some liberal democracy. I’m sure David realizes this, but writes stuff like the above because he just doesn’t care.
March 7, 2011, 9:46 amloki13 says:
I have a quick thought on this:
1. I think that what Professor Stephen Walt (and others) did with respect to Libya is despicable. I also think that Prof. Bernstein is correct to point this out ,and I look forward to seeing more exposes on those who were burnishing the image of that dictator.
2. That said, perhaps Prof. Bernstein might reconsider how he chooses to present his information. The level of personal animus and score-settling shines through. Just a thought.
March 7, 2011, 9:47 amneurodoc says:
Perhaps it’s because you are coming very late to the party, but the case against Walt does not rest on internal inconsistencies in logic, it is primarily about his biases against the American Jewish community and Israel, which he has convincingly proven up many times.
Are you know embarrassed for yourself?
March 7, 2011, 9:49 amMarcus says:
Just one: what are you talking about?
March 7, 2011, 9:50 amBob from Ohio says:
Slightly off topic but related:
Remember Marc Garlasco at Human Rights Watch who had to resign after his hobby of collecting Nazi memorabilia was discovered:
“According to his LinkedIn profile, Garlasco is now a ‘Senior Human Rights Officer’ at the United Nations.”
March 7, 2011, 9:59 amcraig says:
This is just more proof that Khadafy is an idiot. Everyone else already knew Stephen Walt would gladly slander Israel for free.
March 7, 2011, 10:04 amLitigator London says:
Libya is a country with very few people and an awful lot of oil. See this US Energy Information Administration page Libya
The country has the largest reserves in the whole of Africa – presently amounting to 46.4 billion barrels. Moreover, it is “sweet” low sulphur crude – easy to refine and which is cheap to extract – as low as US$1 per barrel in some fields. And a very large part of the country is as yet unexplored and its a fairly safe bet that there’s lots more to be found. Libya is near to Europe. Just 3% of Libyan production goes to the USA – but 83% goes to Europe. In the huge European market which is heavily regulated every penny which can be saved on production, refining and transport goes straight to the bottom line. So a company which can ship Libyan crude into Europe has a huge commercial advantage.
Libya had been an Italian colony under the Fascists until Italian forces were driven out by the Allies in 1943. On 21 November 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that Libya should become independent before 1 January 1952. Libya became a constitutional and a hereditary monarchy in 1951. It had some slight problems: There were just 16 college graduates in the country and just 3 lawyers. There was not a single Libyan physician, engineer, surveyor or pharmacist in the Kingdom. Only 250,000 Libyans were literate. So the new Libyan kingdom was hardly equipped to negotiate with the oil majors and get the best deal. It was primarily US and UK oil companies which were involved, notably Occidental and BP. As time went on they were coining money, because the stuff was so easy to extract.
But then came the Revolution. The oil in the ground was nationalised. This provoked an attempt by the oil majors to hang on to the concessions giving them ownership of the oil in the ground. I was involved in the international litigation in which the oil majors tried to arrest cargoes of crude at arrival ports claiming that it was “their” crude which had been shipped. The attempts failed, and in the event the majors had to do a deal.
I remember some of the negotiations. The majors sought to argue that they should be compensated on the basis of the valuation of the reserves in the fields to which they had concessions but unfortunately, their books showed that the reserves had been given a very low book value for accounting purposes. They were hoist with their own book-keeping. Deals were struck and they were back in on a profit sharing basis. They were still coining it.
Qaddafi went on his merry lunatic way using his oil wealth to subsidise every other lunatic he could find – including the IRA – and in his attempt to procure nuclear weapons. That lead to the 2008 sanctions after Lockerbie. But the sanctions were carefully moderated. There was no ban on oil exports; instead there was a ban on the import of oilfield production equipment as a result of which production stagnated.
But the oil companies wanted to get back in – there were still fabulous profits to be made by developing Libyan production. So under Bush/Blair we were fed this marvellous fairytale:
Libya wll give up WMD and be a good little dictator – all will be forgiven – it will be in our interests and everyone will live happy ever after. And so, dear children, Oxy, and BP and Exxon and all the other Gaderene swine went back into Libya and everyone lived happy, ever after.
See this page on the Oxy site: Libya:
“Libya is one of the few regions in the world with large potential oil and gas reserves not yet exploited. Oxy is playing a key role in the ongoing U.S. effort to promote commerce and trade with Libya. Oxy was the first American company to resume oil operations in Libya when U.S. sanctions were lifted in 2005. Oxy reentered its original producing areas after a 19-year absence and is applying advanced technologies to enhance production. In 2008, Oxy reached new 30-year agreements with Libya to redevelop and explore in its most prolific producing area, the Sirte Basin.”
That’s pretty terse – but see this WSJ report Occidental Petroleum wins major oil deal with Libya which gives more details.
Obviously, there had to be a PR effort to make all this plausible and acceptable to the great uninitiated multitudes in the democracies who are naive enough to think that human rights ought to influence foreign policy. So yes, there were journalists and pundits, and Presidents and Prime Ministers (notably Blair) talking up the Qaddafi régime and the benefits of the deals.
Small details like Lockerbie, or the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher 1984: Libyan embassy shots kill policewoman, or the assassination in London of a Libyan friend of mine (an exile working for the BBC) as he entered the Mosque for Friday prayer, all these things were swept under the carpet in the name of black gold for big oil. Just like what would have happened with Saddam Hussein if he had not been so foolish as to invade Kuwait.
So I think it’s more than a little unfair of Professor Bernstein to criticise poor Stephen Walt just because he was caught up in another example of US support for dictators when it is judged to be in the interests of US business to do so. Hasn’t that been a hallmark of US foreign policy on the political right since the days of the Banana Republics?
March 7, 2011, 10:11 amluagha says:
Just to add some mention; Britain and the US (mostly Britain) were negotiating with Libya over their uranium/chemical weapons/technology and so forth for some time before the invasion of Iraq. It is hard to say if the negotiations were ‘stalled’ or anything, but it is stated that the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam and so forth are what caused the clear breakthrough from ‘negotiation’ to ‘here you go, take it all away so you don’t think I’m next on the list.’
March 7, 2011, 10:12 amDebrah says:
Walt is a disingenuous, duplicitous, and hypocritical hack.
Here we have an example of him pushing his wares on the “Israel Lobby”.
March 7, 2011, 10:21 amSteve says:
This comes closest to my opinion. I can’t find the “puff piece” or the whitewashing of Khadafi that others seem to perceive. Nor do I find anything inappropriate in his closing suggestion: “One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there.” It’s not as though he was encouraging the U.S. to reopen ties with a mortal enemy; given that our policy over the last decade has been to cautiously re-engage the Libyan regime, there is nothing wrong with hoping the process continues in a positive way.
In context there just isn’t much to complain about in this blog post.
March 7, 2011, 10:28 amSarcastro says:
Why is John Wayne such a fascist?
March 7, 2011, 10:32 amSteve says:
Ron Suskind paints a fairly compelling case that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with it, but that portraying it as such was an important piece of PR in terms of defusing the objections of those within the Bush Administration who didn’t want to deal with Libya under any circumstances.
The empirical evidence that the invasion of Iraq led to a new climate of fear and respect towards the U.S. is regrettably lacking. Heck, we invaded and occupied not one but two of Iran’s neighbors, and this hardly induced them to give up their nuclear ambitions. In that light, the idea that Libya (much farther from Iraq) was suddenly scared straight after years as a rogue state does start to sound a little too pat.
March 7, 2011, 10:36 amBob from Ohio says:
That is quite rich coming from someone in the UK.
Who released the Lockerbie bomber again? Who signed a new oil deal? Not us.
If the UK traded principles for oil, it doesn’t mean we did.
March 7, 2011, 10:47 amDebrah says:
That’s precisely what gives David’s coverage and commentary an edge.
There’s really nothing so insipid as blog authors putting on an endless show of objectivity (they hope) to appear collegial…..
……when they ultimately are always advocates for their own ideology in one way or another.
Whether by collegial commission or always-insidious omission.
David’s got “tiger blood”!
(With apologies to Gaddafi impersonator Charlie Sheen.)
March 7, 2011, 10:47 amloki13 says:
That’s wonderful for convincing those people that already agree with you. It’s not nearly as effective at convincing people that are undecided are disagree with you. There’s a difference between having strongly held opinions that you believe to be correct and asserting them and being a jerk.
Or, as my mother put it, you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Makes me question either the quality of mothers or flies around here. :)
March 7, 2011, 10:54 amDebrah says:
David comes across as difficult sometimes and he doesn’t suffer fools; however, I don’t think he’s really “a jerk” at all.
I think he’s a scholarly kitten deep down. :>)
Yes, I’d give up on that “can attract more flies with honey than vinegar” advice around here.
Besides, even though lots of people far and wide allude to that one, it reminds me too much of “steel magnolia” that’s often assigned to Southern belles.
Behind that “honey” veneer is a bulldozing maniac with horns. LOL!
Life is short and it’s a gift not wasting other people’s time.
Just go ahead and tell them what you think!
March 7, 2011, 11:04 amDilan Esper says:
I never said it wasn’t. Rather, I noted that there is no scandal here– the desiire for better relations with Lybia was bipartisan policy and Walt’s views were in the mainstream.
March 7, 2011, 11:09 amDilan Esper says:
You are completely full of it. The Bush policy included no threat of invasion (impossible anyway because of the Iraq clusterfuck) and plenty of carrots for Gadafi.
March 7, 2011, 11:12 amneurodoc says:
OK, in precis form…
Litigator London being Litigator London, causing eyes to glaze over as he bloviates about that which is of little or no immediate relevance, but always staying true to his memes, key among them that whatever is good in the Islamic world flows from Islam itself, whatever is bad in the Islamic world or projections of the Islamic world that affect the rest of us are all the work of inauthentic or misguided Muslims. Though they may be done by those professing to be devout Muslims, Litigator London defines away suicide-bombings along with all other terrorist crimes and barbarities perpetrated in the name of Islam as incompatible with “true” Islamic as he understands the religion. And if you are honest and informed as to the background facts, which may require you to go back centuries or hear out Litigator London‘s digressive narratives, he believes you must conclude that in the end it is really about the pernicious influence of the West on the Islamic world be it Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, or wherever you want, most especially the pernicious influence of the United States. And don’t bother to point out that:
- it is Europe not the United States that depends so greatly on “sweet” oil from Libya for its refineries;
- European oil companies have been many times more involved in Libya than American ones, including Occidental, and at one time German companies were helping Qaddafi develop chemical weapons;
- while the level of antagonism between Libya and the United States have been reduced since Libya gave up on WMD and paid blood money for the Pan Am bombing, relations between Libya and the UK have been better for a longer time, to say nothing of relations between Libya and Italy.
- the US did not release from prison someone responsible for the deaths of 270 innocents in order to gain favor with Qaddafi, it was the UK (or a part thereof) which did that.
- the United States did nothing to install Qaddafi more than 40 years ago or to protect him from those who would have gladly overthrown him before now;
- it was the United States that Qaddafi meant to punish with that attack on the disco in Berlin and the more murderous one later on Pan Am 103, and the US under Ronald Reagan sent planes to take out Qaddafi. (Qaddafi did support the IRA in its war of terror on the UK, but for no particular reason other than his general sympathies for terrorists worldwide.);
- it was the United States which caused Qaddafi to give up on WMD, which he could have managed with the help of his Muslim brothers in Pakistan;
…and we could go on in the same vein. What neurodoc was looking for, though, but doesn’t see this time in Litigator London‘s explication is how he imagines corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish doctors figure in. Indeed, Litigator London never explained it the last time he went off on them, but maybe he will one of these times so we can put it alongside his other explanations of how our notions of fault are fundamentally wrong, because it is always somehow about the Dar al-Harb, never Dar al-Islam, and most especially about the US and Jews in the US or Israel.
(It’s risible to hear a Brit chiding the US about Banana Republics when it is England that reigned for so long as the world’s greatest colonial power with its far-flung empire. Or maybe Litigator London was alluding to the American clothing chain.)
March 7, 2011, 11:12 amDan says:
“The Obama Misery Index and the Rise of Obamavilles” is the best blog post I’ve read in a long time. This is why President Obama will be a one-term president! http://t.co/hhFr73z
I can’t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo we’ll need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.
March 7, 2011, 11:13 amloki13 says:
Debrah,
I never called Prof. Bernstein a jerk (I don’t know him personally, so I cannot comment, but I presume he’s not). It was a more general observation. I would say that Prof. Bernstein’s style often gets in the way of his substance.
And I’m never afraid of telling people what I think. But in the analysis and construction of arguments, it is often acknowledged that the way you present something is an important factor in how the argument is perceived by the audience; if you don’t care about your audience (no wish to persuade), then don’t worry about your style. Not to mention the use of negative space- what goes unsaid is often more important than what is unsaid. Or, to put it in terms of lawyerin’- the best objections in a jury trial are often the ones you don’t make. To analogize- I think that some of my best comments on this blog are the ones I didn’t post. And some of my worst are the ones I did.
Make of that what you will.
March 7, 2011, 11:17 amneurodoc says:
That’s a remarkably literal understanding of, “You know, unless your nuclear weapons program goes away, you might share the same fate as Saddam.” Indeed so literal it might be seen as a “concrete.” (Tip: If in the course of an exam, a neurologist or psychiatrist should ask you what it means to say that “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” don’t respond by telling them it is a correct observation that a thrown stone can break glass.”)
March 7, 2011, 11:30 amDebrah says:
LOL!
Great one, neurodoc.
March 7, 2011, 11:32 amBryan Simpson says:
The Quaddafi regime would have moved along with or without the list of American academics who came to Libya to lecture. The list: Frank Fukuyama, Bernard Lewis, Joseph Nye, Robert Putnam, Anne-Marie Slaughter,Richard Perle, Benjamin Barber and Stephen Walt. Remember Quaddafi fooled many into believing he was reforming Libya, his son Saef’s writings and charity pushing for democracy now seem like a smoke screen. In defense of some of these academics, and it’s the harder argument, they were lied to about Quaddafi’s dedication to reform and hoped to have the ear of a world leader promising reform. Robert Putnam was the smartest of this group, he came once, saw he was being used in a publicity stunt and refused a second invitation. Is he wrong for the one visit?
Walt’s FP article is hardly damning of him, comparison is frequently a torcherous thing (Libya to former Eastern Block), but calling this puff isn’t accurate, Walt doesn’t claim Libya as anything close to a democracy. Read Benjamin Barber’s love note to Quaddafi to see what a true puff piece looks like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401328.html
March 7, 2011, 11:33 amneurodoc says:
Heck yeah, that’s awesome counter-proof – NOT!
March 7, 2011, 11:33 amlgm says:
DB offers no argument that Walt’s article was inaccurate or misleading in any way. Previous commenters seem better able to read it than DB. Walt’s supposed puff piece states that Libya is (was) more open than Iran or China. That seems to be a true statement, given how rebellion has gone in those three countries.
Presumably Walt, like almost all academics I know, has been paid to visit Israel. Does DB detect the corrupting influence of Israeli money on Walt’s writing?
Again, Walt’s judgment is better than DB’s. Breaking the Israeli blockade of Gaza would have been a human rights mitzvah.
March 7, 2011, 11:36 amDebrah says:
Well, a lecture!
However, you have the finesse to include yourself in the commentary so that mitigates somewhat.
It’s sometimes a tough call, “loki”.
Some people really do need to be shown with fervor that their schtick of feigning “nice” isn’t working.
People with an agenda that is comprised of elements that are personally dear to them will burst hell wide open pushing it.
People like David are refreshing, at least to me. He fights the phonies.
In your leisure, listen to some of that YouTube of Walt that I linked above. He’s really quite nauseating……yet so collegial and nice with his treacherous methods.
March 7, 2011, 11:44 amneurodoc says:
neurodoc was going to say that he agreed with you about many of the who objections to Professor Bernstein’s posts, including “stylistic” ones. (Nothing need be said of the claque who regularly show up to demand that the VC disavow their co-conspirator and spare them the pain he inflicts on their psyches.) But neurodoc thought better of it, lest a certain PITA lunatic show up here to claim (falsely) that not only does neurodoc maintain that 5.1% is greater than 7%, he and Debra and neurodoc are of one-mind on everything of any consequence, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. (But do know that neurodoc appreciates many of your “non-conformist” perspectives, even if he doesn’t always jump up to say so.)
March 7, 2011, 11:46 amneurodoc says:
neurodoc sees that one of that claque has just shown up. While to no surprise that poster has expressed complete disagreement with Professor Bernstein, this time he has done it like a guest at a dinner party in one of the VCers’ homes, that is without the usual ugliness. Hopefully, he’ll make a habit of it.
March 7, 2011, 11:54 amloki13 says:
If it works for his intended audience(s), then it’s effective communication.
Being hostile and being a jerk can be effective communication as well, but it’s not very effective at convincing people that don’t agree with you. It can even have the unexpected side-effect of polarizing (turning off) those that agree with you- while some will identify and agree with you more strongly, those that might be inclined to agree with you will react negatively.
Take the OP. You find Prof. Bernstein “refreshing.” OTOH, I had learned about paid puff pieces by academics for Libya over the weekend. I was horrified. So I would be someone who would be in Prof. Bernstein’s wheelhouse. However, the way he presented his argument actually caused me to re-consider my a priori assumptions, and I came out feeling less sure than I had previously. Not because of general animus toward Prof. Bernstein (on those rare occasions when he blogs about, say, Daubert, I can read his opinions on the merits), but because of his style.
Being nice shouldn’t be a shtick. It’s how we normally interact with each other when we aren’t commenting anonymously. Something to remember. But something else to remember is that if you really are interested in arguing, then the point of argumentation is how to most effectively communicate your ideas to your audience. If you audience is people that agree with you, and your purpose is to get those that most strongly agree with you to identify with you even more strongly, then “acting like a jerk” can be effective communication.
March 7, 2011, 11:58 amDebrah says:
That’s so sweet from such a cerebral one as neurodoc.
I love you…..with a shower of diva kisses!
March 7, 2011, 12:09 pmneurodoc says:
Debrah, please! neurodoc is old school and doesn’t go with public displays of affection, which can spook the horses, if any are around.
March 7, 2011, 12:16 pmAnderson says:
causing eyes to glaze over as he bloviates about that which is of little or no immediate relevance
Riiight, wouldn’t want any “history” muddling up the ideological party.
… Nice try jew!
OMG. If I were Jewish, that would become an instant family catchphrase.
We have great discussions about this subject on Facebook if anyone including David want to find me.
Oh goody. Now stay there, please.
March 7, 2011, 12:25 pmneurodoc says:
loki13, if Professor Bernstein’s sole or principal purpose were to persuade those who didn’t already believe that Walt is clearly biased, if not a bigot, everything you say would be meaningful here. But it is doubtful that DB intended anything like argument to a judge or jury, who are presumed to have no knowledge of the matter or pre-formed opinions. And if his “style” would cause you to wind up in a different place than you would otherwise wind up, then you can’t be too focused on the “argument/evidence.” (neurodoc sees the OP here as “weak” argument/evidence for the proposition that Walt lacks credibility when taken by itself, but more meaningful as such when taken together with so much more argument/evidence in favor of that conclusion.)
Now, neurodoc will offer what he thinks is a most excellent example in support of your case for “collegial and nice” being more likely to win over those whose minds are not already made up than “hostile,” “snarky,” or the like – PAT BUCHANAN. There is a truly execrable person who does exceedingly well with the affable persona, when he should be shunned by decent people.
March 7, 2011, 12:28 pmDebrah says:
As you know, some of those points are ones on which we perhaps will always disagree.
I understand what you’re saying and what is required for you to appreciate someone’s commentary.
For me, David’s style, both in professor mode with his posts or when he interacts with detractors on a thread, is one I can appreciate.
A few other bloggers at VC (who shall remain nameless) push for civility, but with that smarmy facade they direct the way debating goes by taking sides and actually using the name of commenters and berating people (or attempting) to win points with readers. This comes off looking like a clan and a mob. Consequently, no one without a steel set of balls will openly disagree and argue with people while inside such a tendentious milieu.
How effective and honest is that method? (!)
That, to me, is what should be criticized.
Not David Bernstein’s style. He’s always up front with his views and doesn’t stifle debate in favor of his chosen position on any given culture war topic.
We just disagree, “loki”……which is OK.
March 7, 2011, 12:33 pmDebrah says:
LOL!
March 7, 2011, 12:35 pmLN says:
Gotta love Bernstein. In one post he lashes at his political opponents for being immoral paid lackeys of evil rich people, and in the next post he laments the demonization of people who receive money from wealthy sponsors. It’s this flexibility of thought that makes him such an unpredictable and surprising writer!
March 7, 2011, 12:38 pmneurodoc says:
Tell us if you can, how that “historic” bloviation, which is so characteristic of Litigator London‘s expansions on all things related to Arabs or Muslims, somehow contributes here. In particular, tell us if you will, how it sets up and proves Litigator London grand blame-it-on-the West,-most-especially-the-US summation:
(Poor Stephen Walt?!)
March 7, 2011, 12:40 pmneurodoc says:
Gee, what does it take for a guy to get a “ROFLMAO” from the Diva?
March 7, 2011, 12:43 pmloki13 says:
1. I came into this knowing about the puff pieces (as I described). I didn’t know about Prof. Walt, since I tend to skip the various Israel posts as generating far more heat than light.
2. I didn’t end up in a different place; however, I became more skeptical (as I also described)- that is the danger of polarizing rhetoric; I am sure that people that agreed with Prof. Bernstein’s opinions ahead of time wrt. Prof. Walt and/or Israel are now even more shocked and scandalized and those that disagreed with him are reflexively finding ways to discredit it. OTOH, I was interested in the Libya angle. As my first post explained, I still agree with him (based on my independent review of the evidence). But I actually had to think about it, since his post undermined, instead of supported, my agreement with him.
March 7, 2011, 12:44 pmloki13 says:
It depends. I’ve never seen anyone banned or berated for the content of their argument; just the way they have chosen to express it (usually at the expense of others). Given that the internet is a very large place, and there are innumerable places where loki13 can be loki13 and debrah can be debrah to like-minded folks, I find it refreshing that someone has taken on the thankless unpaid task of trying to keep a (somewhat) civil dialogue going that attracts people from all sides. Cf. some other conspirators, who simply avoid any feedback whatsoever.
Besides, here in the wild west, I think it’s… nice… to be reminded to rein ourselves in occasionally. You’re not the only one, debrah. :)
March 7, 2011, 12:54 pmDebrah says:
But I don’t use that one, neurodoc.
I use the Diva originals I devised in 2000 on the NY Times op-ed fora and other bloggers/commenters started using them as well. I should have had them copyrighted!
Here’s my list…..FYI:
~~~~~~~~~
LIS = laughing inside
GIS = giggling inside
GOL = giggling out loud
ROTFLM-T’s-O = rolling on the floor laughing my tits off
~~~~~~~~~
You know you couldn’t have lived without this information, don’t you? :>)
March 7, 2011, 1:01 pmDebrah says:
I was referring to a few other people — whose over-the-top views I disagreed with, by the way, as it pertained to ultra-religiosity — who were alluded to by fora name in a sneering and mocking way.
Very declasse, IMO.
OK, “loki”…….good points made by all!
March 7, 2011, 1:07 pmSammy Finkelman says:
You know, I read that someplace in a newspaper in the last month.
It must have been the Wall Street Journal. Here it is, I think, online:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162442710880396.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
And when I read that, I said to myself, of course that’s right. That’s why this so far semi-successful revolt happened in Libya and not in Iran or China and why it didn’t happen in the Warsaw Pact most of the time.
Reading this – those very words you quoted above – only re-inforced what I had thought was going on in Libya.
You see what was going on there was that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi or Quadaffi or Khaddafi – Quaddafi’s oldest son from his second marriage – was trying to convert Libya into a Gulf State.
The Gulf state rulers seem to be sort of acceptable to the United States. And the ruler and the ruler’s family could travel abroad easily, spend money and were generally treated with respect.
Being something closer to a Gulf state – it was less tyrannical than before, because that was what that model was, but the tenure of the rulers was as great or greater than any other kind of dictatorship.
So “why not?” Saif probably said to himself. Things would be so much better.
Saif, of course, had no intention of making Libya into anything resembling a democracy – just into something resembling Saudi Arabia, or the United Arab Emirates Dhabi or Qatar but he needed to use that kind of talk as part of the transition to a Gulf State type monarchy.
Besides whatever sense it made for Libya and Mohammer el Quaddafi, it made a lot of sense for Saif himself -he could get to be king and there was no better way to try to ensure his own eventual succession (By the way in all the Gulf States the oldest son does not always or even usually become king – it is someone in his family picked by the current king.) Perhaps he even had in mind to actually declare himself king some day.
I wouldn’t guess that he spoke too much to his father about his actual eventual plans because he might not like some of that.
March 7, 2011, 1:17 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Of course it was a pro-Quaddafi piece. The idea was not, however, “LIBYA GOOD” but “LIBYA NOT SO BAD.”
Maybe you wouldn’t call that a puff piece. But a puff piece wouldn’t have suited Libya’s purposes. The idea was to change attitudes, and you can’t do that by starting out as if people have no previous knowledge of Libya at all. That might work for college students, but the target audience was older.
What counted was the bottom line – which is that we should treat Libya more like a normal country. And something that was completely a puff piece wouldn’t work for that. It had to concede faults – at least the kind of faults that a casual traveler would discover.
It left out a lot of things. It wasn’t that so much of what he said was actually untrue – it was all the rest of things that were true that were important that he left out.
March 7, 2011, 1:18 pmLitigator London says:
Try reading my post again.
Occidental Petroleum and Exxon both signed deals as well as BP. Unless I am much mistaken, both Oxy and Exxon are US corporations. The Oxy deal was to treble its production. And the ending of the embargo on equipment supplies won’t have been bad for oilfield services companies either – such as Halliburton.
March 7, 2011, 1:37 pmSammy Finkelman says:
The editing does not work on all computers.
Here’s more from the pro-Quaddafi article (that was not however a puff piece):
“Libya has also been a valuable ally in the “war on terror” (having had its own problems with Islamic radicals), and Ghaddafi’s son Saif reportedly played a key role in persuading a Libyan-based al Qaeda affiliate to renounce terrorism and to denounce Osama bin Laden last year.”
[!!!? He's just repeating what he was told here]
“Overall, the remarkable improvement in U.S.-Libyan relations reminds us that deep political conflicts can sometimes be resolved without recourse to preventive war or “regime change.” One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there. (I wouldn’t mind seeing more dramatic political reform — of a different sort — here too). The United States could use a few more friends in that part of the world.”
March 7, 2011, 1:42 pmrpt says:
Who knew Michael Moore had as many millions as David Koch KB (now Scott Brown’s on camera BBF)?
March 7, 2011, 1:46 pmN says:
Above in the comments thread someone posted a link to Walt’s book on the Israel lobby. Very interesting that Amazon asked if I was interested in the following as a discounted bundle which is “frequently bought together”:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer Paperback $9.09
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe Paperback $9.63
The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition 2nd Edition by Norman G. Finkelstein
March 7, 2011, 2:04 pmBob from Ohio says:
I read it. You are accusing the US Government of supporting a dictator for oil.
Not US corporations. Of course an oil corporation will make a deal with Satan himself to get oil at a profit.
Where is the US government support of Libya?* (Mere diplomatic recognition does not equal support.) We removed them as a terrorist state as part of the WMD deal. The release of a mass murderer for oil is solely an UK affair.
*Oh right, Halliburton! (I am surprised Koch Industries! didnt make your comment.)
March 7, 2011, 2:18 pmyankev says:
You wouldn’t know a mitzvah if it bit you in your orlah.
March 7, 2011, 2:26 pmjosh says:
Just wanted to repost that one.
March 7, 2011, 2:56 pmAnderson says:
In particular, tell us if you will, how it sets up and proves Litigator London grand blame-it-on-the West,-most-especially-the-US summation
I’m sorry; you seem to have mistaken LL’s comment for one fitting your own preconceptions about what people disagreeing with you are likely to say.
Slogans about “blaming the West” are useful for making sure it’s impossible to understand anything where any element of “the West” – and that’s a pretty long list – is involved.
For those with ears to hear, LL was providing some facts behind the U.S.’s PR campaign in favor of the notion that we had somehow tamed Libya.
March 7, 2011, 3:02 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I never quite said any of this, but, regardless, I know the difference between taking money from “wealthy sponsors” in general and taking money from a brutal dictatorship in particular. If the Koch brothers were brutal dictators, it would, in fact, be quite proper to demonize them and their lackeys. Somehow, in my book “billionaire libertarians” doesn’t equate to “evil rich people”, much less to the likes Qadaffi.
March 7, 2011, 3:34 pmLitigator London says:
It was a lot too pat. I think Sammy Finkleman has a very good point about Saif and others wanting to be seen as more respectable. After all the USA has been doing business with Saudi Arabia since the 1930′s and there is no nonsense about democracy in that country.
So Libya wanted off the sanctions list. And the oil majors wanted back into Libya with access to all that lovely crude oil.
There is a huge difference between the profits to be made upstream and the profits to be made downstream. Once the oil passes the meter at the loading point its price is the market posted price and the profits thereafter are pretty ordinary. The real money comes from upstream operations. So the aim of a major is to get a deal with the producer which gives it a share of the upstream profits.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq there was advocacy for the doing of deals for such upstream profit sharing while Iraq was occupied. That did not work out. Principally because the invasion troops were not greeted as liberators as Feith and Rumsfeld had wrongly assumed they would be. There were also complications connected with the law of belligerent occupation.
I think it is fairly clear the the Bush/Cheney people were solicitous of the welfare of the US oil majors just as Blair was solicitous of the welfare of BP. Control of oil production has been a matter of high government attention since warships stooped being fueled by coal.
There was a PR effort – in both the USA and the UK. I personally have little doubt that there was advice given about what steps were to be taken, whom to invite and how to stage manage the whole thing.
A commentator with more invective than insight observed: “And don’t bother to point out that:
- it is Europe not the United States that depends so greatly on “sweet” oil from Libya for its refineries;
- European oil companies have been many times more involved in Libya than American ones, including Occidental, and at one time German companies were helping Qaddafi develop chemical weapons;
Just for the record.
1. The UK disputes with Libya go back to 1971. BP’s operations were nationalised and overnight Libya withdrew funds amounting to approximately US$550 million invested in British banks and left large quantities of UK frozen food rotting on the quaysides in Tripoli. Occidental won exploration rights in Libya in 1965 and operated there until all activities were suspended in 1986 after the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya.
2. Oil is much like gold. It is a traded commodity. If the supply from any producer anywhere breaks down, the price rises world wide. So if Libyan oil were not shipped to Europe, Europe would buy elsewhere and the world price would rise – affecting the price the US motorist pays just as much as in Europe. US oil companies sell their products wherever they can. There are Exxon, Texaco etc filling stations all over Europe.
March 7, 2011, 4:18 pmLN says:
DB, you write in your post that “assumedly” Walt received funding “directly or indirectly” from the Libyan government, which I have to admit is pretty damning, the equivalent of Walt publishing Quadaffi’s own writing under his name.
But please, continue to spend half your posts talking about how scholars should not be easily dismissed simply because the receive funding from one source or another, and how stoopid liberals should stop demonizing their opponents, and spend the other half demonizing your opponents and pointing out the sinister sources of their funding. This makes you look like a very credible and trustworthy commentator.
March 7, 2011, 4:19 pmneurodoc says:
If you find any Litigator Londonistan posts, indeed any post of his, in which at the end of one of his long, digressive bloviations he concludes that Islam and/or its faithful are in some significant way responsible for what is not right among them, that it is not largely or all explained by pernicious Western influences, especially those of the United States, do point us to them.
Yes, it’s nigh unto impossible to find any place in the world that there is no “element of ‘the West’ – and that’s a pretty long list – is involved,” if only for the reason that so little that is “modern” is not from the West or the non-Islamic world. So Western influence is truly ubiquitous. Can you point to any boons of modernity (e.g., computers, aviation, pharmaceuticals, electronics, basic science understanding, etc.) that has come from the Islamic world? Since emigres from the Muslim world have made such contributions, some even winning Nobel Prizes, it can’t be a genetic or congenital infirmity that explains the lack of such coming from Islamic countries, so what then, the West has kept all residing in predominantly Islamic countries in effect barefoot and pregnant?
So sanctions and other “sticks” had nothing to do with Qaddafi seeing the light, it was a sua sponte thing on his part?
Oh, and since Litigator Londonistan seems unwilling to do it himself and you have stepped forward to speak on his behalf, can you explain what we are to make of his out-of-nowhere rant about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish doctors, something of which he claims to have inside knowledge he can’t share with us? That would be helpful to us in understanding the interfaith dialoguing LL.
March 7, 2011, 5:38 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I can’t recall a single post on that specific topic, but fwiw I didn’t say Walt should be “easily dismissed” for receiving funding from Libya, I criticized him for taking such funding and then writing an ill-informed puff piece, for being a hypocrite re “lobbies”, and for being more publicly sympathetic to Libya than to Israel.
March 7, 2011, 5:46 pmyankev says:
Obviously, the West injected alien Jews into the Islamic Middle East so that the rightful Muslim inhabitants would be so perpetually apoplectic and obsessed with conspiracy theories as to be unable to focus on anything else.
March 7, 2011, 5:51 pmQED
neurodoc says:
Oil put in pipelines and loaded onto tankers is is closer to a usable commodity, but there are these very costly to build and operate things known as oil refineries and they are not all equally well-equipped to refine oil from different sources. They can be adapted to do so, but it takes time and money to do that, which means it is far preferrable to stick with the crude product you are set up for. So, are you denying that European refineries differ from US refineries in the type of oil they are best prepared to handle, or that the oil they are best prepared to handle is the “sweet” oil Libya is the leading source of, or that Europe is many times more dependent than is the United States oil from Libya? (Indeed, those were facts Litigator Londonistan recited himself earlier.)
Perturbations in oil supply from any major oil producer will reflect in the price at which oil trades on commodity markets, and so effect all customers for oil, but the United States for the reasons stated above has been less immediately and directly dependent on Libyan oil than Europe has been.
March 7, 2011, 6:07 pmt1 says:
Ahhh, yes, the dream vacation of 36 hours in Libya. Who wouldn’t say anything to get a prize like that?
March 7, 2011, 6:12 pmneurodoc says:
That’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as explaining the devilishness. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/06/zionist-pigs-return.html And even that just barely scratches the surface of the nefariousness by which the Jews torment the Arabs and keep them so backward. http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/20/the-top-13-zionist-animal-conspiracy-theories/3/
[neurodoc needs to learn how to do the link thing so that the whole URL doesn't show. In the past, he tried to use the link function above the dialogue box, but that wasn't fully successful for him. And he didn't pay close enough attention when someone here told him how to accomplish this wizardry.]
March 7, 2011, 6:23 pmneurodoc says:
Thanks, that’s certainly telling
neurodoc doesn’t know the details, in particular much of a tourist infrastructure they have, and not going to go investigate at this time, but he expects they have some great beaches there, some antiquities, and maybe some remnants of Italian charm. When Saif is less distracted, maybe he will show off some of those places to those he wishes to impress. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805283.html
March 7, 2011, 6:41 pmleo marvin says:
If you’re using Windows (don’t know about Mac or Linux), you can print “£” from Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Character Map. That’s in XP. May be slightly different in other versions of Windows, but the general idea is you just have to find the Character Map.
March 7, 2011, 7:01 pmElbabe says:
I see I have inspired some counter arguments. I guess if you’re interested in detracting from Stephen Walt’s credibility (instead of his arguments) this is the post for you. Even people with no credibility can make a good argument. When a post is inspiring comments like “FTW” and “nice burn” it seems like this blog is moving away from thoughtful analysis and towards academic slamfests.
March 7, 2011, 7:04 pmyankev says:
Yankev has been known to refer to himself as Zaidy when talking to his grandkids zollen gezunt and shtark zein, but otherwise — as much as he enjoys Neurodoc’s posts — finds it off-putting when people refer to themselves in the third person.
March 7, 2011, 7:13 pmDilan Esper says:
Neuro:
The Bush Administration had no credible threat of force against Gadafi. Rather, we offered him concrete benefits in terms of a warming of relations in return for his concessions.
It was classic diplomacy. I’m sorry if right-wingers can’t concede that sometimes diplomacy not backed by force works, but it did here.
March 7, 2011, 7:17 pmyankev says:
Possible because his arguments about the
March 7, 2011, 7:17 pmJewZionistIsrael Lobby have been Fisked to death at VC and so many other sites that it is assumed rightly or otherwise that no intelligent and informed person of good faith can take Walt seriously. The destruction of his arguments is out there and has been for quite some time for anyone who cares to look, such that few posting here feel much obligation to link to them any longer.leo marvin says:
There are two issues here. The first is the moral implication of the sources of one’s funding. In that regard you’re right, there’s no comparison between Qadaffi and Koch. The other is how one’s objectivity and credibility are compromised by accepting money from anyone with an agenda, be it Koch, Qadaffi or Soros. That’s the relevant comparison you don’t seem to address.
March 7, 2011, 7:17 pmMDT says:
neurodoc needs the following formula:
Type . Then whatever short phrase you want in place of the whole link (e.g., “this”); then (closing up the spaces).
The result is something like this link to this thread.
March 7, 2011, 7:21 pmLisa says:
Well…Qadaffi runs (or ran) a country. The Koch Bros. and their — uh — ilk don’t quite run a country. They just throw money around to make sure they get their way. Okay — there’s a tiny bit of a difference.
March 7, 2011, 7:31 pmMDT says:
neurodoc,
Well, that was pretty useless. The site software automatically interpreted my instructions as HTML, which is why the comment above is unintelligible. I went in hastily and edited, and got “You do not have permission to edit this comment.” Oooookay.
edit: DAMN. It did it again, not in the preview but in the actual publication.
Neurodoc, I’m at michelledulak@aol.com. E-mail me your own address and I’ll give you the roadmap.
March 7, 2011, 7:34 pmLisa says:
And it’s real frustrating that Professor Bernstein and his — uh — ilk can be so on target on Qadaffi and so annoyingly off-base on the realities of economics.
March 7, 2011, 7:35 pmpot meet kettle says:
Many, many moons ago, I remember “necroduck” being very offended when I mangled its handle while it made some silly comments. I did apologize later, because I was not respectful, even though my mangling was obviously not slanderous.
I see that neurodoc does not feel the need for the same sensitivity to others, or maybe it thinks that such decency does not apply when it comes to flinging Islamophobic smears.
March 7, 2011, 7:42 pmJJ says:
Walt, apparently.
March 7, 2011, 7:43 pmDavid Bernstein says:
The reality is that one liberal foundation, the Ford Foundation, spends 40 times as much a year on causes as do the Kochs, and one liberal billionaire, George Soros, spends 10X as much. A given liberal-dominated department at any major university spends more per year than the Kochs. All of which makes the idea that the Kochs are somehow wildly distorting American political/intellectual life laughable. But Obamaphiles need someone to blame for their recent troubles, and I suppose it’s better the Kochs than the Bush era left-wing bogeyman, “Likudniks.”
March 7, 2011, 7:54 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Koch and Soros give money to people who already agree with them, to try to magnify their influence. Nothing wrong with that. My objection, e.g., to Soros giving money to Human Rights Watch is not that he’s buying HRW, but that (a) I don’t like HRW, so I don’t want it to get more money; and (b) it’s further evidence that HRW not only isn’t an objective human rights group, it doesn’t even make the pretense of having no ideological agenda.
The problem with the focus on the Kochs is that (a) the $13 million or so they spend every year on political/intellectual causes is so tiny in the vast scheme of American politics that it’s objectively ridiculous to focus on them; and (b) the infantile assertion that if liberals give money for politics they do so out of selfless desire to help the community, but if libertarians like the Kochs do it, it’s in pursuit of self-interest. I see why that would be comforting for some people on the left to believe, but it’s obviously something that’s not simply wrong, but highly insulting to libertarians.
March 7, 2011, 8:01 pmyankev says:
So on the major issues — cult of personality; arresting, torturing and executing people who disagree with them; sponsoring international terrorism; assassination; preventing free elections; blowing up airliners in mid-air; preventing economic development so as to force people to live in misery – you seem them as pretty much the same?
How morally inverted and morally obtuse. How positively sad.
And how frightening that you can vote (though not nearly as frightening as depriving you of your vote would be.)
March 7, 2011, 8:19 pmTGGP says:
Ask MDC.
lgm, regardless of whatever it’s a “mitvah”, it is an example of him advocating confrontation and a worse relationship with Israel.
I think it is a good point that murderous dictators are quite different from the Koch brothers, but the “taking money” bit seems more tenuous, I believe Milton Friedman’s visits to China or Yugoslavia were also paid for by those governments. Hopefully we’ll find out more details later of just who took what from Qaddaffi.
In response to yankev above, I don’t think there is any “right” to vote on libertarian terms. Our votes function as a claim on others. It would be disturbing if a political faction tried to deny certain people the vote in order to cement power, but just as we have expanded the franchise before we could shrink it. I favor doing so, perhaps requiring sufficient civic literacy.
March 7, 2011, 10:09 pmneurodoc says:
You’ll have to remind neurodoc of the particulars because he doesn’t recall them and doubts that he ever took serious offense at “necroduck” or anything of the sort.
“Islamophobic” is in neurodoc‘s considered opinion an utterly bogus notion, so “Islamophobic smear” has no meaning for him. As for “Londonistan,” feel free to agree or disagree, but there are reasons to so caricature the city, and Melanie Philips among others has set them forth. LL has said he believes the late Abba Eban, who he sees as an admirable person apart from his personal dedication to Zionism, would have been delighted to see the way London is today, with a mayor like “Red” Ken Livingston, an MP like George Galloway, houses of worship like the Finchley mosque led by clergy like Abu Hamza al-Masri, and many other expressions of “diversity;” neurodoc thinks that while Eban would surely have been pleased to see the decline of English fascism of the Mosley brown shirts type, which took place a rather long time ago now, he would have been dismayed at what has succeeded it as a threat to his religious community.
And neurodoc doesn’t feel obliged to show sensitivity to those who engage in antisemitic rants, like Litigator Londonistan‘s out-of-nowhere one not long ago about about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians.
March 7, 2011, 10:33 pmpot meet kettle says:
Here you go. You can scroll to the bottom.
I find it risible that you claim Islamophobic is an utterly bogus notion on the same comment where you again, without evidence, accuse Litigator London of anti-semitism. I reserve for you the same level of respect that I reserve for people who use words like Hymietown.
March 7, 2011, 10:54 pmneurodoc says:
Wow, so much for those “right-wingers (who) can’t concede that sometimes diplomacy not backed by force works.” Now, that you have so impressively disposed of that strawman, are you capable of a less “concrete” understanding of SDN‘s imagined intimation to Qaddafi, “You know, unless your nuclear weapons program goes away, you might share the same fate as Saddam”? You don’t think, do you, that can only be understood as an explicit threat that we will invade your country and see you hang like Mussolini, though with a bit more ceremony; that it can’t mean you will be subjected to increasingly stringent sanctions and otherwise undermined so as to set you up for an undoing like that of Saddam, who also aspired to possess WMD and was stupid enough to twice doubt our resolve? And you don’t imagine the concurrent use of sticks and carrots, it’s an either-or? (Who was that guy who famously said war was a continuation of diplomacy by other means?) We could not have managed to send a few jets over Tripoli to accomplish what just missed happening not too many years before, or better yet arrange for others to accomplish it when the opportunity was there?
(BTW, why do you think it is said that people who live in glass houses ought not throw stones, because the glass might break? Anything of more general applicability?)
March 7, 2011, 11:10 pmneurodoc says:
OK, if you want to play defense counsel for Litigator Londonistan, explain to the jury why they should not see any taint of antisemitism in his musings about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians here: http://volokh.com/2011/01/16/bbc-objectivity/
And as for your “necroduck,” neurodoc was so “very offended” by that one that he mistakenly read it as “neuroduck” and dismissed it out of hand as “silliness.”
March 7, 2011, 11:36 pmpot meet kettle says:
I have no interest in playing defense counsel for Litigator London, nor am I interested in trying to get somewhere through your link, which does not work. In any case, if your claim is that what you perceive as anti-semitism justifies Islamophobia on your part with words of the equivalent of “Hymietown”, then you are more like your perception of Litigator London than you would like.
As for my characaterization, you were apparently so dismissive of it that you mentioned how dismissive you were about it not once but twice. And it moved the always decent Leo Marvin to respond to it on the thread. Of course, my comments on that thread were also about your bizarrely crying wolf – claiming that the fact that not one person had said things in anger on Prof. Bernstein’s thread as some sort of evidence that commenters who were critical of Prof. Bernstein were motivated by personal animus or hate of Israel or whatever other demons were bothering you.
March 7, 2011, 11:52 pmneurodoc says:
If two high school teachers had written The Israel Lobby, exact same words, same evidence, same arguments, how likely would they have been to attract the attention that M&W did and their book to have the same impact? Damn unlikely because of the “credibility” factor, they lacking the name recognition and credentials, including academic prestige of professorships at prenier universities (Chicago and Harvard).
If you sit through a trial, you will see that when the opportunity presents itself, there is a good chance that counsel for one side will in addition to, and sometimes instead of, engaging with the other side’s evidence and arguments as such, will seek to undermine the “credibility” of the other side’s witness(es). It’s called “impeachment” and is allowable to the extent the judge doesn’t see it as irrelevant to the question which must be decided (someone who has deserted their family may not be a nice person, but it is unlikely that questioning about those personal affairs will be allowed if they are on the stand to testify as an expert on structural engineering matters) or otherwise impermissible on account of certain codified rules of evidence.
Yes, “Even people with no credibility can make a good argument.” But the fact that people with no credibility can make what sound like “good” arguments, does not mean that there is no reason to be unconcerned about dishonesty and bias. It is only when one would ignore the merits (and demerits) of evidence and argument in support a conclusion and go with a personal attack on the individual making the case that they can be said to be relying on the fallacy of of ad hominem. And as yankev noted above, the deficiencies in M&W’s case have been
March 8, 2011, 12:07 ampointed out many times in the course of Professor Bernstein’s threats and by others.
neurodoc says:
You jump in to charge neurodoc with a libel, saying he has no evidence to support the accusation of antisemitism on Litigator Londonistan‘s part (“(Y)ou again, without evidence, accuse Litigator London of anti-semitism”), but then you decline to serve as his “counsel” (it seems he won’t answer for himself) and won’t engage with the evidence which you said didn’t exist, or at least hadn’t been presented, when it is proffered. [The link seems to be working just fine, but if it doesn't for you for whatever reason, it is easy enough to go back to David Bernstein's 1/16/11 thread on the BBC's objectivity. There you can see for yourself, if you care to, how out of nowhere Litigator Londonistan start ranting about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians, claiming inside knowledge of these matters that he was professionally barred from disclosing.]
How can I claim that X justifies Y, if I don’t believe in the existence of Y?
You rationalize “Hymietown” for neurodoc and he will rationalize “Londonistan” for you. Then all may see which is pure bigotry and which has substance to it.
Your “if” failed, so no “then.”
Sorry, but neurodoc lost you in that thicket of words. If you wish to believe that he was “very offended” by you calling him “necroduck,” which it seems he misread as “neurocduck,” believe it, he will not dispute you. And he invites you to address him henceforth as “necroduck,”
March 8, 2011, 12:38 am“neurocduck,” or whatever you want, so long as he is allowed to mock the silliness of it.
pot meet kettle says:
Well then. You can have the last word. I don’t want to tax your neurons any further with the clear evidence of the paranoia you evidenced in my above link, and which you now evade. And do continue bolstering your credibility even further by using smears of the same ilk as Hymietown, and protesting ever so loudly that you are not a Islamophobe.
March 8, 2011, 12:48 amneurodoc says:
Ought it be noted that the UK’s last PM (actually their next to last) is an adviser to the governments of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which have some oil to sell; and Prince Andrew does his part on behalf of UK interests, personally relating to Saif Qaddafi, the “enlightened” one in that family?
March 8, 2011, 12:58 amleo marvin says:
Just as it’s wrong and insulting to liberals when conservatives and libertarians make the infantile assertion that when wealthy liberals support higher taxes they aren’t advocating against their own financial interest to help the community, but conspiring to enslave everyone else to the Leviathon they aim to control. But that’s a little beside my point, which was simply that if accepting money from Qadaffi calls Walt’s objectivity into question — and it does — so is the objectivity of anyone who accepts money, gifts, travel or hospitality from anyone else with an agenda, e.g., Koch and Soros, similarly compromised.
March 8, 2011, 1:34 am1040 says:
Oh no! The perspicacious Prof. Bernstein has pointed out here, he would never accuse left wingers of such. He knows their true motives.
I remember that his original comment had the words “right wing neocons” but it looks like he changed those to Likudniks at some point.
March 8, 2011, 1:52 amGary Rosen says:
“there’s a tiny bit of a difference. Lisa(Quote)”
Yes, the Kochs don’t have an army at their disposal to murder their enemies into submission. A *very* tiny difference, I guess Lisa needs an electron microscope to see it.
March 8, 2011, 4:02 amGary Rosen says:
“It doesn’t logically follow that I somehow believe Britain is worse than Iran. RH(Quote)”
Do you have a shred of evidence to support your insinuation that Walt is more favorably inclined towards Israel than he is towards Libya (at least until the last few days in which he may, or may not, be furiously backpedaling)?
March 8, 2011, 4:08 amLitigator London says:
In contrast to that point of view see this: Jewish and Muslim leaders vow to fight growing racism in Europe
“Prominent Muslim and Jewish leaders expressed Monday deep concern regarding the rise of far-right xenophobic and racist parties in Europe and pledged to work together to put an end to the extremist phenomenon threatening “ethnic and religious minorities.” Members of the Coordinating Committee of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States, announced plans for a series of public events on Europe Day, which takes place in May.
“Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racism must never be allowed to become respectable,” the leaders said in a joint statement. ““We will not allow ourselves to be separated, but will stand together to fight bigotry against Muslims, Jews and other minorities. An attack on any of us is an attack on all of us,” the statement added.
Citing studies which show that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both growing rapidly in Europe, the communal leaders affirmed that “Jews and Muslims are equal stakeholders in Europe, not expendable guests, and must therefore enjoy the same rights as everybody else. Appeasing those that sow the seeds of hatred and division is not only morally wrong, but will have disastrous consequences for Europe if allowed to continue.”
I suspect that “Poodle” Blair, like so many ex-politicians will advise and lobby for just about anybody who will pay him a fee for so doing. I have no time for the man and I am waiting with interest to see what the Iraq Inquiry may have to say about his conduct in relation to an invasion without a 2nd UN Resolution. They may well fudge it, but I live in hope.
In relation to Kuwait and the UAE it is worth observing that these states were formerly British protectorates. Their ruling families still maintain close relations with the UK and many of them do their military training at Sandhurst.
I know that they are encouraged to make progress towards introducing democratic constitutions and all of them have taken steps along that path. Very possibly insufficient steps so far, but contact with our royals may well serve to persuade them that “evolution is better than revolution” and there are any number of ex-Kings around to help make that point. They have all made significantly more progress towards democracy than Saudi Arabia where the interested power is the USA.
HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, serves as the UK Trade Envoy at the behest of the UK Government. His father did the same before him and the efforts of both are much appreciated by British industrialists. There is no doubt that a Royal does help to open doors for trade missions. He goes where the responsible UK Ministers ask him to go.
I certainly agree with that proposition. But if you do not believe the influence the oil majors have had (and still have) on US foreign policy, I suggest you spend a little time in the appropriate archives. You can start with the 1929 Red line Agreement, then take a tour through the factors leading up to the Presidential finding that the defence of Saudi Arabia was a vital US national security interest (WW2), the CIA interference in Iran, Iraq, Egypt – and lots, lots more.
Other governments were and are just as involved, particularly the UK in the interests of BP (formerly Anglo Iranian and Iraq Petroleum Company – and their archives are fascinating and inspectable), and the French in the interests of CFP.
A good test in this case is to consider who stood to gain from the lifting of sanctions against Libya. The Libyans and the oil majors and the oilfield equipment and supply industries certainly. Was it more generally in the Western interest to re-admit Quadaffi and his crew to the international community without real further reforms – I doubt it very much.
I have no evidence (yet), but operating on the principle that the proposed rapprochement was orchestrated at inter-government level, I have every reason to believe that the PR campaign too was managed at the same level. Leopards do not change their spots.
March 8, 2011, 4:54 amloki13 says:
neurodoc-
Quick comment. I have found in my past that carrying on vendettas against other commenters and/or deliberately misspelling their names to insult them isn’t such a great idea. Reflects poorly on me.
I don’t always agree with Litigator London. But he’s usually fairly thoughtful, as are you. Perhaps it would be a good idea to assume that whatever comment(s) he made in January was either misconstrued, in poor taste, or is not reflective of his beliefs (even if this is not the case) instead of hanging on to it. I know I wouldn’t want to be judged on my worst moments here- would you? After all, I have five years of inconsistent positions, vendettas, and ill considered remarks (some after a beer!), so I’d rather be judged at my best, or at least judged for what I’m saying now. :)
March 8, 2011, 7:51 amDebrah says:
“loki”–
Perhaps it’s best to allow Neurodoc and Litigator London to have their argument and vent the way they need to.
Neurodoc is certainly not an unreasonable man and it is clear that some members of the commentariat are decidedly anti-Israel and very pro-Muslim.
Litigator London and I often disagree; however, we’ve never exchanged harsh words so in my experience he’s a man who can argue with reason.
It’s best for them to air their grievances and engage in the throes of debate. Otherwise, there will never be a feeling of resolution with regard to this exchange.
And that will more likely keep ill feelings in play.
Not open debate.
As a side bar to you: Check out something on a few of the recent threads. I’ve been amused by the glaring hypocrisy of many with regard to the gay agenda (which was gratuitously brought into play as a debating tool on a prior thread).
And so…..checking the VC threads this morning, I see that the gay agenda/gay issues…..have been brought up several times by a few when the subject had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The open thread as well as Ilya’s post on bears are two prime examples.
And yet the bold LIE that this subject matter isn’t discussed at VC all the time by many people!
The only instances when the “club” here objects are when the topics aren’t being given the kid glove treatment.
And on Ilya’s bear post, some nut even gratuitously used it to slam David Bernstein — just out of the blue!
What the hell does Bernstein have to do with that subject matter?
“loki”, some of these people need to be illuminated for their gross hypocrisy and how they try to “club” everything and insidiously intimidate to stifle honest discussion on delicate — yet, significant — topics of the day.
Someone brought up Andrew Sullivan under Ilya’s post (presumably because of his beard and body hair he’d be considered a “bear” in the gay world) and they were wondering how he’d stack up on the bear scale. A reply to that comment was that he’d be “on top”….or something like that.
I started to correct them because it’s widely known that Sullivan is a “bottom” barebacker; however, that bit of reality might have been too much for them and might have engendered a fora démarche in defense of the barebackers. LOL!!!
Forget that the subject matter was brought to the thread by them. It would not have mattered. We’d have had a little disgruntled schoolmarm type on the scene pronto. LOL!
Wasn’t worth the aggravation on such a sunny morning.
Lastly, if some people continue to single out Bernstein because they don’t agree with his views and think he’s too strident for them, then let’s highlight someone like Dale Carpenter (whom I do not know and certainly do not dislike at all) for showing up INVARIABLY with just one topic in tow.
That gets boring and begs the question: Does he have any other topic in his life that interests him?
But we will have to gloss over it all. Such opinions cannot be voiced……because, well, there are certain “special” topics and certain “special” groups.
How quaint. Ha!
March 8, 2011, 9:11 amloki13 says:
*shrug* Everything you said is correct, and they can do as they want. I was just trying to point out to neurodoc that however righteous he might feel in his cause, his current way of pursuing it reflects badly on him (IMO). I can appreciate that I get a little overheated on some subjects, and don’t mind having that pointed out to me. Neurodoc can decide if my assessment is correct, and if so, whether it matters. :)
March 8, 2011, 9:26 amyankev says:
It’s always charming to see non-Jews, “as-a-Jews”, those who welcome the murder of Jews or those who deny the right of national self-determination to Jews using or (or misusing) Jewish religious terms to bash Jews or the Jewish state. lgm is saying that it would be obeying G-d’s commands to give the Gazans greater ability to murder Israelis. Anyone who can say that has not the slightest idea what the word mitzvah means. When it comes to mitzvos, I will take the Rambam’s opinion over lgm’s ignorance any day. It would be a mitzvah to destroy Hamas’ ability to wage war the next time Hamas fires a missile into Israel.
March 8, 2011, 9:32 amyankev says:
Reminds me of the scene in Unforgiven where Gene Hackman’s character misreads the title of the book-in-progress “The Duke of Death” as “The Duck of Death.”
March 8, 2011, 9:38 amneurodoc says:
The bird-brained impersonator of neurodoc, that is neuroduck, saw only the “duke/duck” approximate likeness to “doc/duck” in your post. But then neurodoc himself (third person reflexive) gave it another look and saw how truly apposite is “duke/doc” when coupled with “death/necro-.” Gee, this isn’t simple, straightforward silliness it appeared to be at theim, it is layered, nuanced silliness.
[loki13, you deserve a more serious response, and you shall have it, but it will have to wait until later in the day.]
March 8, 2011, 10:01 amyankev says:
Exactly – necroduck = Duck/duke of death.
March 8, 2011, 10:38 amLisa says:
Professor Bernstein, I haven’t looked up the exact contribution levels of Ford Foundation, Soros, the Kochs. Will take you word on that, for now at least. I have no use for any of them, and when it comes to Ford and Soros (and the likes of HRW), I agree with you, for sure. But what don’t you get about the damage that the Kochs and others with their politics are doing to the middle class and the poor in this country? They’re union-busting thugs, and their support for the Walkers, Scotts, et. al., is a net negative for the non-rich and for social cohesion.
My problem is with the ability of any source with that kind of money to overcome the ability of the rest of us to have an impact on political decisions. I don’t care whether they’re left or right .
March 8, 2011, 12:18 pmLisa says:
Yankev, Gary Rosen — okay — my attempt at sarcasm failed…Obviously the Kochs don’t have an army and aren’t literally shooting anyone. But their impact on the average non-rich people here in the U.S. is deeply damaging. It’s nice of them, and the likes of my miserable excuse for a mayor here in NY to give money to the arts and to charitable groups. But these “gifts” are just ways of buying influence.
Which is how things work. But let’s recognize it for what it is.
March 8, 2011, 12:26 pmMoosebreath says:
Lisa,
“They’re union-busting thugs, and their support for the Walkers, Scotts, et. al., is a net negative for the non-rich and for social cohesion.”
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
March 8, 2011, 1:04 pmyankev says:
Care to back that up? There has certainly been anti-union thuggery in the US at times. Is there any today? If so, please give even one example of thuggery by the Kochs. Have they beaten strikers? Firebombed the homes of union organizers? Driven autos through picket lines? Shot anyone? Paid someone else to do so?
March 8, 2011, 1:48 pmyankev says:
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. In my opinion, their impact is not nearly as damaging as the impact of the Democratic party, the unions (particularly the public employee unions), legions of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats, schools that do not teach basic skills and history, and a culture that glorifies self-indulgence in all its forms and disparages the virtues of thrift, industry, self-reliance, generosity, respect, and self-control.
March 8, 2011, 1:54 pmLisa says:
And you, Yankev, are entitled to your opinion. I’m more inclined to blame the greed in the financial sector generally for much of our current mess. You’re essentially saying that it’s okay for industry to have its trade organizations, but not okay for individuals to organize in unions for the purpose of negotiating better working conditions. No, we haven’t seen physical actions against workers — civilization has advanced that much. But take away collective bargaining rights, weaken the unions further, and we’ll just see a re-play of the organizing movements of the past century — likely without the violence, but re-playing the same issues. And you may know the concept of countervailing power — if the unions are weak, what does that say about the strength of private industry and of our government structures?
March 8, 2011, 2:43 pmyankev says:
Then it might behoove us not use terms that accuse people of using violence. Like thug. Most of the thugs I’m aware of wear SEIU shirts.
It has also advanced to the point of wage and hour regulations, safey regulations, worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, making unions less important as a safeguard against the abuse of employees.
No one is talking about taking them away, except from public employees, who never should have had them in the first place, for a host of reasons.
Except that public employee unions function as an extension of government, or at least one party. How many private sector unions are able to funnel their dues to selecting their bosses?
March 8, 2011, 3:30 pmyankev says:
Where have I said that (other than my last post, which was written AFTER your comment, and which is limited to public employees)? Or is saying that the Koch brothers are not tanatmount to Gaddafi and are not thugs the same thing as saying that individuals in the private sector should not be able to organize for negotiating better working conditions?
You do seem to be drawing conclusions from things that are not analogous.
March 8, 2011, 3:33 pmLisa says:
And which of these safeguards would we have if not for unions? Destroy them now, and as I’ve said, we’ll just have to replay the last 150 years or so, with or without the violece, depending on how things play out. Surely you don’t think employers granted all that good stuff out of the goodness of their hearts, do you?
There’s a logic here: why would employers want to just up and cut into their profits, if they weren’t forced to by union organizing and demands?
March 8, 2011, 3:49 pm1040 says:
I agree. Just like the low number of crimes and murders has made police less important as a safeguard against bad elements.
March 8, 2011, 4:00 pmyankev says:
Saying that people can work without joining a union = destroying unions?
Saying that unions must win a majority of employees in a fair election by secret ballot in order to be certified as the bargaining agent = destroying unions?
Saying public employees cannot unionize (as they could not when all of these reforms were won), or can join unions but cannot strike = destroying unions?
Sorry, I find that about as convincing as saying that anyone who is not a union organizer is not only a thug but is on the same level as a dictatorial mass murderer.
March 8, 2011, 5:32 pmyankev says:
I’m not sure whether you are saying that unions enforce these laws, and that without unions the laws will go unenforced, or whether you are saying that without unions, public sentiment will turn against these laws and the laws will be repealed. Either way I am much less impressed by your witty and self-evident analogy than you are.
March 8, 2011, 5:35 pmDavid Bernstein says:
You must be glued to the comments, because I changed it about 90 seconds after I posted it.
March 8, 2011, 5:53 pmLisa says:
Yankev — I’m genuinely interested: what have you read or studied about the history of unions in the U.S. and, say, Europe? What do you know about working conditions before and after the formation of the unions? Maybe start with the Triangle fire — the 100th year anniversay is March 25th — and the years just before and after it. And please study up on analogies while you’re at it — re your misquoting me on my very rough and very obvious comment re Qadaffi and the way the rich folks here throw their money around to get what they want.
March 8, 2011, 6:09 pmneurodoc says:
When Pot meet Kettle said that I “again, without evidence, accuse Litigator London of anti-semitism,” I proffered evidence, providing a link to the 1/16/11 thread in which Litigator London let go with that out-of-nowhere rant about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians. But PmK then made clear that in truth he didn’t really care about evidence, least of all that which would rebut him, and he switched from “accuse Litigator London” to “if…what you (neurodoc) perceive as anti-semitism…, then…” That and more shows what a fool PmK is, and I have no patience with fools, especially of his type. Serious people are answered seriously, fools are dismissed.
Now, let me ask, did you, loki13, consider the evidence in support of the antisemitism charge? If you did, then I would be happy to discuss it with you, and tell you why I disagree with your well-meaning, but I think very wrong-headed, suggestion that it might “be a good idea to assume that whatever comment(s) he made in January was either misconstrued, in poor taste, or is not reflective of his beliefs (even if this is not the case) instead of hanging on to it.” And I will tell you that I disagree all the more with your suggestion because to my knowledge LL has never undertaken to explain that ugly rant nor retract or recant, let alone apologize for it. If you didn’t consider the evidence, then I don’t see how we can talk meaningfully about anything here.
And if you would like to discuss my Litigator Londonistan crack, I’d be happy to do that too Again, though, I would ask you to first take the couple of minutes to look at the thread which lead up to it, so we could put it all in context. http://volokh.com/2011/01/06/support-in-pakistan-for-murderer-of-the-pakistani-governor-who-had-opposed-blasphemy-punishment/ (To really put it all in context, it would be necessary to consider a good number of exchanges over the course of months between LL and me. That would be a time-consuming business, though, and I don’t think it worth the effort for these purposes.)
I do agree that civility has much to recommend it in general, and there can’t be too much of it here. You and Leo Marvin serve as good examples for the rest of us in this regard. (Note if you will, that I applauded someone who regularly jumps into any DB thread that touches on the I-P conflict and the ME to direct vitriol at DB, but in this thread said something reasonably temperate, though absolutely wrong in my view.) But like Debrah, I don’t intend to trim my sails for the sake of comity if it means not saying what I think should be said. And antisemitism doesn’t get a pass from me.
(If you would like me to explain/justify my rejection of “Islamophobia” as a meaningful concept, I’d be glad to do that too, but most of it has been said by me or others in previous threads related to that subject. What PmK‘s posts do show is the manner in which this bogus concept is used to manipulate conversations, and I am not going to be manipulated in any such fashion. I harbor no prejudice where Muslims like M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Forum for Democracy are concerned, I am very antipathetical where it is Muslims of the Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR ilk, to say nothing of those without home we wouldn’t have created the Department of Homeland Security.)
March 8, 2011, 6:26 pmLitigator London says:
I did indeed say that I like to think the late Abba Eban would have approved of the state of community relations as they are in London today. The rest of the phrase are not my words because, as Neurodoc ought to know:-
(i) The present Mayor of London is Boris Johnson who happens to be a Conservative. (Eton -Oxford – Journalism – Parliament – Mayor). He can be described as a “one Nation” Tory.
(ii) George Galloway is no longer a Member of Parliament;
(iii) Abu Hamza had no connection with the Finchley Mosque, he did have a connection with the Finsbury Park Mosque, but the Trustees expelled him. He is presently in custody. On 7 February 2006 he was found guilty on six charges of soliciting to murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; guilty of three charges related to “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred” under the Public Order Act 1986; guilty of a charge of owning recordings related to “stirring up racial hatred”; and guilty of a charge of possessing a publication under the Terrorism Act 2000 for which he is serving a sentence of 7 years. He is also pending extradition to the USA but that is held up by an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights which is concerned about the conditions in which he might be held in custody in the USA.
This 2011 Attitude Survey conducted by Globescan for the BBC World Service in 27 countries has just been released. See the Poll Results here:.
58% of respondents around the world had mainly positive attitudes towards the UK (3rd place behind Germany and Canada and 1 place ahead of the European Union). There has also been a continued improvement in attitudes to the USA with 49% reporting positive attitudes.
Only 21% of respondents report positive attitudes towards Israel with 49% negative. That is, however, a little better than the results for Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
So I am reasonably unconcerned about any negative views of London which Neurodoc may have. It’s a “motes and beams” argument so far as I am concerned.
March 8, 2011, 6:49 pmLitigator London says:
I have to thank you and others for your patient forbearance.
March 8, 2011, 7:43 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, wrong verb tense where “Red” Ken and George Galloway are concerned. But the point was, and is, that it must say something about “modern” London that constituencies there would choose the likes of them to represent them? (Or have things improved in London since, so that a Livingston or Galloway would not be elected?)
As for al-Masri, yes, he has finally been brought low, but not before he did his thing for Islamofascism there in full view of everyone for a considerable period of time. And neurodoc did make the egregious mistake of confounding the Finchley street mosque with the notorious Finsbury Park mosque which drew to it Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who would have brought down that American Airlines flight and all aboard if things had gone as planned; Zacharias Moussaoui, the guy who was to be the 20th 9/11 conspirator; Kamel Rabat Bouralha, Osman Larussi, and Yaccine Benalia, who were principles in the Beslan school massacre that killed over 300 innocents; all of these individuals who did there thing in the name of Islam.
And there is more in support of “Londonistan,” and “Litigator Londonistan,” but that’s still more tangential here. (Abba Eban experienced London when Oswald Mosley’s brown shirts were marching through the city’s streets, so it isn’t hard to imagine that Eban would be happy to see them gone. But that antisemitism is more of left “internationalist/anticolonial” than right fascist thing in Britain these days is no reason to celebrate the state of affairs there.)
Now, what we are supposed to conclude from the poll, and why Litigator London brings it up here is lost on neurodoc. That Israel is down there in the trenches of negativity with Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea says a great deal about how reliable an indicator of reality opinions can be, that is about as reliable as the views on human rights of the member states of the UN Human Rights Council. And it says something too about the person who would make a case based on such “evidence.” (For what it matters, does Litigator London think view Israel nearly as negatively as those two Islamic beacons of light unto the world, Pakistan and Iran?)
What is most telling is that Litigator London still has not tried to deny that that was an antisemitic rant he delivered apropos of nothing not long ago, let alone retracted, recanted, or apologized for it. What does that say about this person who charges neurodoc with bigotry? (If he will state clearly his case in support of that charge, bringing forward whatever evidence he can marshall, neurodoc will engage with it.)
March 8, 2011, 9:28 pmneurodoc says:
Debrah, what do you think of Litigator London‘s 1/16/11 out-of-nowhere riff on corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians? No antisemitism there? Should be overlooked, says nothing about this so erudite person?
And what do you think of the polling data that Litigator London sees as somehow relevant to this conversation? That he brings it forward says nothing about this apologist for all things Islamic?
Debrah, tell us, are you or are you not an “Islamophobe”? Or like neurodoc, do you think it a bogus concept meant to cut short any discussion of the real threats to the rest of us that emanate from the Islamic world?
March 8, 2011, 9:39 pmpot meet kettle says:
Do you by any chance live in Hymietown, Jewboy? I ask because you hate Londonistan and mosques so much.
I guess I could throw in a gratuitous reference to my idol
March 8, 2011, 9:52 pmAbba EbanRabbi Shmuel to show that I am indeed a reasonable man.pot meet kettle says:
But why let a few major misstatements get in the way of a good smear? The late, great Abba Eban would not have it any other way.
March 8, 2011, 10:02 pmneurodoc says:
You’re doing great! Please, keep going.
March 8, 2011, 10:35 pmneurodoc says:
Wow, you’re smokin’ hot. You’ve got the jury’s rapt attention, so don’t let up. (And forget that evidence stuff, or engaging with arguments, can’t persuade with that.)
March 8, 2011, 10:39 pmpot meet kettle says:
Every bigot thinks he is justified in the crude smears and abuses he uses, and dismisses the very notion that he is one. Your self approval of yourself isn’t worth anything.
March 8, 2011, 10:41 pmpot meet kettle says:
And I don’t think calling New York Hymietown is a smear or nasty at all. After all, it does have a prominent Jewish presence, and it seems perfectly reasonable to bring that to prominence. As for calling you Jewboy, again, that is perfectly reasonable, since I think you have mentioned in the past that you are one.
See, it is perfectly reasonable to use terms which right thinking people would consider slurs, and be perfectly convinced that it is right. It is especially right because you are clearly a bigot yourself, so I should be free to use any vile term I want, just like you have assumed with Litigator London.
March 8, 2011, 10:45 pmDebrah says:
I was about to respond to Neurodoc; however, your little prepubescent jack-off display got in the way.
To describe this literary flourish of yours as crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.
March 8, 2011, 10:53 pmneurodoc says:
http://volokh.com/2011/01/16/bbc-objectivity/
Please be explicit, you are charging that neurodoc is a bigot on exactly what basis, “Londonistan” and/or his refusal to accept the tendentious concept of “Islamophobia”?
And don’t argue your case to the “defendant” here, neurodoc, argue it to the jury, since it is them you want to persuade.
March 8, 2011, 10:58 pmneurodoc says:
Debrah, please ignore the boy for the moment, and do say what you would say to neurodoc. He is interested in what you will say, especially if it pertains to Litigator London‘s comments on corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians. If you want to say something about “Londonistan,” especially in light of LL‘s musings on what the Zionist Abba Eban would say about the place now if he were alive; Livingston, Galloway, and the Islamofascists as representatives of London today; the polling results LL brought forward; etc.
[Were you really surprised by PmK's latest "contributions"?]
March 8, 2011, 11:07 pmpot meet kettle says:
Don’t change the topic, dear neurodoc. I still don’t understand how whether or not LL is an anti-semite has anything to do with your casual use of a slur like Londonistan. A slur apparently based, among other things, on a deliberate or accidental misstatement of political leaders, and description of good mosques as nests of terror.
Debrah, I’m deeply sorry you don’t feel compelled to engage with me. Although I’m even sorrier that you didn’t choose to itali
March 8, 2011, 11:12 pmcizethe word “excremental” too in your traditionally stupendous manner. xoxo and muah to you.Debrah says:
Like many who come to VC, Litigator London’s sympathies are with Islam.
However, he isn’t in the same category as someone like Andrew Sullivan who has spent countless days over at his dishy blog posting anti-Israel rants and egregiously distorted analyses.
Think of LL as someone whose natural sensibilities align with everything opposed to Israel. His views cannot be altered as yours will not be.
The polling data was irrelevant to the debate the two of you are having. Rather than telling you that everyone on the planet hates Israel and Jews, he simply used that data as a proxy for his own feelings.
A passive way of justifying why he said those things to you in the previous posts.
Perhaps LL has had some negative personal experiences with Jewish people……
…..or perhaps he’s like many Europeans who embrace the same unquestioning idea of multiculturalism that’s been such a complete failure…..
…..or perhaps he cannot admit “that 32 percent of British Muslims believe that ‘Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end’.”
No, I’m not an “Islamophobe”, but I do think Muslims, in general, will have to work harder, much harder, to distinguish themselves from the terrorists.
Yes, all words ending in “phobe” with regard to the culture wars are specifically designed to thwart free expression of the negative aspects of the so-called “victims” du jour.
March 8, 2011, 11:42 pmneurodoc says:
So that’s your case, all of it, “Londonistan”?
Melanie Phillips, a former news editor of the Guardian, wrote the bestseller by that name , Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within. If you don’t eschew all contrary evidence, you might want to read it. Or will you just out of hand pronounce Phillips a bigot for styling London “Londonistan”?
Any “Hymietown” book you would recommend, or does it all come down to Jesse Jackson’s thinking on NYC?
(“description of good mosques as nests of terror” – the Finsbury mosque where Al Hamza Mazri preached his impressively hateful version of Islam and those faithful worshipped before they went off on their murderous jihadi missions?! You’re kidding, right?)
March 8, 2011, 11:47 pmneurodoc says:
Debrah, I appreciate your response, though would still like to know what you make of that 1/16/11 rant. No antisemitism there?
“Perhaps LL has had some negative personal experiences with Jewish people……” No, no. He will tell you that some of his best friends are Jews, and he participates in interfaith dialogues!
“No, I’m not an ‘Islamophobe,’…” You accept the concept of “Islamophobia”? I don’t. Undeniably Muslims are the targets of bigotry, but that is not irrational fear of the religion. (Judeophobia?) A bogus concept used as an offensive response to those who would call attention to the real threat posed by “political,” “supremicist” Islam which expresses itself in the barbarous ways it has around the world. Daniel Pipes is an “Islamophobe”? Bernard Lewis? Steve Emerson? (Yeah, all Jews, but how about the very non-Jewish, indeed frankly antisemitic Michael Scheuer, and many others?) Representative King’s hearings are all about “Islamophobia”?
(“Homophobia” is another tendentious coinage. Arguably, though, it has something to it. The abreaction that some have to homosexuality is clearly a product of the conflict they have with their own sexual identity and urges. Senator Larry Craig is but one among many examples of strident opponents of the so-called “homosexual agenda” who cannot admit to themselves their strong homosexual “tendencies,” even after there is incontrovertible proof of them. It would be helpful if there were a word for straight up prejudice against homosexuals qua homosexuals without the added implications of “homophobia,” but there really is a phobia there, that is an irrational fear. So sounds like “Islamophobia,” and is used to tendentious ends at times, but not a bogus concept like “Islamophobia.”)
March 9, 2011, 12:12 ampot meet kettle says:
Yes, all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. This is why no such thing as Islamophobia exists. It is amazing how one finds out that one’s conclusion is justified when one begins by assuming it. And the fact that you have to prove your case that Londonistan is a-ok by citing Melanie Philips is damning. This is the woman who calls England lemming-land because they allow protesters carrying placards saying “we are all hezbollah” now instead of “being arrested as a self-proclaimed army of holy warriors whose explicit aim was to murder untold numbers of innocents, destroy Britain, America and the free world and subjugate them to the dictatorship of the ayatollahs.” And that is just one random sample of her bilious spouting. She, of course, is also a member of that other supposedly tenuous club, the homophobes. You are certainly in good company.
March 9, 2011, 12:29 amleo marvin says:
I think you may misunderstand the meaning of “Islamophobia.” It’s broader than just “irrational fear of the religion,” the “phobia” bit notwithstanding. It refers more generically to all manner of prejudice against Muslims. To put it simply, Islamophobia is to Muslims, and by the way, homophobia is to gays and lesbians, as antisemitism is to Jews. Since you acknowledge that “[u]ndeniably Muslims are the targets of bigotry,” you do accept the concept of Islamophobia. That says nothing about how widespread or troublesome you think it is, but that’s a different question.
March 9, 2011, 2:33 amneurodoc says:
“…the ‘phobia’ bit notwithstanding”?! No, “the phobia bit” can’t be ignored, finessed, or denied, as you would. It is part and parcel of the neologism, there to serve a tendentious purpose. That tendentious purpose is not unlike the respective opposing tendentious purposes of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” those not explicable etymologically, but “politically” as terms chosen by each side in the debate over abortion to advantage themselves and disadvantage the other rhetorically.
Perhaps someone with access to Nexus or some other database source will tell us when the term was first used and by whom. More than a decade ago, two at the most? It isn’t likely that a naive listener would ever have found it hard to understand what a speaker meant by “anti-Muslim” or “Muslim-hatred,” whether they had experience of such bias or not. But they almost surely would have been flummoxed by the faux psychiatric diagnosis of “Islamophobia,” and perhaps wondered when the one was added to the DSM-IV and what the criteria were for its diagnosis. One has to be “educated” (indoctrinated?) to its assigned meaning.
We know exactly how, when, and where “antisemitism” came to be coined as a more scientific sounding label for hatred of Jews than Judenhass against a background of pseudoscientific theorizing about “Semites” and “Aryans.” And we know that the term was particular to hatred of Jews and never encompassed speakers of other Semitic languages, so when it is claimed that Arabs cannot by definition be antisemitic because the term pertains to them too, the person making the claim is either ignorant or disingenuous. Furthermore, the term was readily embraced and adapted by those who unhesitantingly and unapologetically identified themselves as antisemites, like Wilhelm Marr. No manipulative purposes or uses anywhere in site there, unlike the manipulative purposes and uses served by “Islamophobia.” This neologism s much more an accusation, usually baseless, than a meaningful descriptor, and used in a schema of victimology, not unlike the now the once meaningful but now seriously debased term is used by the left.
In another VC thread going on now about involuntary sterilization of the mentally retarded, someone proposed that the understanding of “eugenics” be extended to encompass personal decisions not to reproduce because of concern of passing along a hereditary disease. Well, there is nothing to stop that person from using “eugenics” to cover such an uncoerced personal choice like that, but it isn’t what the founding father of eugenics, Galton, and his acolytes (e.g., Davenport, McLaughlin, et al.) had in mind. So, such usage would be inconsistent with a great deal of very consequential 20th century history. And as George Orwell so well understood, words should serve the purpose of conveying meaning, not distorting meaning to serve “political” purposes through ambiguity, obfuscation, confounding, pseudoscientific (“phobia”) insinuation, etc.
Again, I do NOT accept the concept that there is a special phenomenon of irrational fear of Islam. What I accept as undeniable is that there is prejudice against Muslims, as there is against other groups for various reasons. And that the term “Islamophobia” has been employed to mean hatred of Muslims, and that hatred may be irrational, does not give credence to the concept of Islamophobia, used to protest and stop or impede scrutiny of political, supremacist Islamism and efforts to combat it.
Now, Leo, while we are discussing hatred against religous groups, care to say what you think of the “riff” by Litigator London back on 1/16/11 in the course of that DB thread on the BBC’s objectivity, or lack thereof? An expression of antisemitism? Or are you going to take a pass on that one in order to stay focused on “Islamophobia”? And do you think “Londonistan,” especially in the context in which it was used in that other thread with the channeling of the late Abba Eban, “Islamophobia” per se, as asserted by Pot meet Kettle? (Well, PmK may not really know what exactly he means to say, but let’s put him to some use, like Galileo did his Simplicitus.)
[OK, the reflux has subsided, so maybe can get some sleep now. See you tomorrow, that is if you return. I do hope you will.]
March 9, 2011, 4:23 amneurodoc says:
A good advocate can anticipate the other side’s arguments and would be able to make their case almost as well as they can; a great advocate can go further with it and would be able to make the other side’s case as well as they can or do a still better job of it than they can. So let me give this a shot…
The DoD report co-authored by Togo West on the Ft. Hood massacre, which mentioned Islam not a single time notwithstanding the undisputed explanation for what Nidal Hassan (aka “SoA”) did, proves up the existance of something that can fairly be seen as “Islamophobia.” (Or does it not qualify as such because some would maintain the fear is not an irrational one and speaking certain truths might bring about more jihadis? In the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson and Richard Cohen argued something like that yesterday apropos the hearings Representative King is to hold on the threat of Islamic terrorism.)
March 9, 2011, 5:53 amLitigator London says:
Debrah: Thank you for trying. Firstly, it is not a question of “my sympathies being with Islam”. Islam is my religion. As part of that religion, I am commanded to, and do, believe that Jews and Christians are “Umm al Kitab” [people of the Book] whose revelation is as valid for them as mine is valid for me. But Zionism is not a necessary incident of Judaism.
My sense of justice and international law is that it is wrong to take land away from one people to provide a nation state for others. I have said elsewhere and I repeat that the two great Britsh foreign policy mistakes of the postwar were the surrender of the Mandate and the Partition of India. I remain of that view.
I accept the terms of the Balfour Declaration and of the Palestine Mandate and I believe the idea of slowly creating a state in which Jews Christian and Muslims would have a single citizenship, equal rights and equal protection for their religions was a worthy objective. I consider that the UK as the administering authority for Mandate Palestine achieved much. If you look at the Report of the Anglo American Committee on Palestine which is reproduced on the Mid-East Web here you will find at paragraph Chapter IV of paragraph 4 the fact that during the period 1922-1944:-
“the population of Palestine grew from 750,000 at the census of 1922 to 1,765,000 at the end of 1944. In this period the Jewish part of the population rose from 84,000 to 554,000, and from 13 to 31 percent of the whole. Three-fourths of this expansion of the Jewish community was accounted for by immigration.”
Would that US immigration policy in the inter-war years had done the same instead of actively discriminating against Jewish immigration. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Mandate Authorities were asked by the USA to admit an immediate quota of 100,000 displaced persons (ie Holocaust Survivors). The Mandate Authorities felt, I think rightly, that do do so would be to make Palestine ungovernable. But I think we should be quite clear about this: that US demand was not so much motivated by any humanitarian instinct but by the anti-antisemitism of the then WASP US political establishment.
They wanted to make the issue of refugees someone else’s problem – out of that same mentality that at the time denied membership of country clubs to US blacks and Jews and which had set US immigration policy to discriminate against Jews throughout the inter-war years.
No wonder that we find many of the same people today proclaiming that that “multiculturism has been a failure”. I am sorry to see that you have sucked up that particular myth.
Multiculturalism has most emphatically not been a failure in the UK – except in the minds of those who in their heart of hearts want England to remain White, Anglosaxon, and Protestant (preferably C of E) along with “No Popery”, “No Blacks”, “No Wogs” and “No Wops” and and, of course “No Jews” and “No Muslims” – all of whom are not “People Like Us”.
True, in some instances insensitivity to the feelings of the prejudiced – excessive zeal or positive discrimination if you will – has had negative impacts actually working against the objective but there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I have no quarrel with the data that suggests that 32% of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral. I think a substantial number of people of other religious persuasions might feel the same. Muslims are more active in the practice of religion. Despite the fact that we are a smallish minority, more UK Muslims attend a mosque on at least a weekly basis than members of the Church of England attend a Church. In reality, the UK generally is a far more secular society than the USA – largely because the vast majority of those who are C of E only go through the doors of a church to be baptised, to enter their first marriage, to be buried, or to attend others performing the same rites of passage.
Now to Terrorism. I must try to reduce what I have to say to the essentials. I consider terrorism, whether by the state or by individuals, to be a crime. Therefore it is the function of the state to repress it. But at the same time it is necessary for the state to analyse the causative factors which lead people to engage in terrorism and take steps to ensure that these are remedied.
I speak here from my own experiences. In Northern Ireland there was historic injustice. Roman Catholics were historically discriminated against in employment, in housing and in myriad other ways. IRA terrorism grew out of that and it had the passive support of the minority population because the terrorists were seen by them as freedom fighters”. The reaction to IRA terrorism was brutal repression and Protestant terrorism. With a great deal of time, effort, loss of life (some of people who served there with me) and political reform, a peaceful settlement has been achieved. It appears to be working. The same has been true of ETA terrorism in the Basque Country. So for me, the answer to terrorism is never repression alone. It has to be mirrored by elimination of the causes.
One of the longstanding grievances of the Arab world was western support for corrupt and repressive regimes. Those who preached terrorism played on that – as they did on the historic injustice done to the Palestinian people. For their own ends, not those of the people they claimed to represent. One can be very sure that if the were to succeed one repressive régime would be replaced by another equally so. That is why reform is needed to detach the ideologues from the those who give passive support.
There was a telling report from Cairo on the BBC yesterday Egyptians demand secret police give up torture secrets. Read it and weep for man’s inhumanity to man. This was the régime the USA has supported for years in the supposed interests of stability and of Israel. Were the all-seeing and all powerful CIA, SIS and Shin Bet unaware of this? How does one justify rendition to torture?
Dear lady, why do you suppose the UK government is offering very large sums of money to those former detainees who are suing the UK government for complicity in torture? To avoid disclosing the documentation. Because you can be assured that some part of what is in those files in the Cairo building of the Egyptian Torturers is also to be found in files maintained with your tax dollars in the USA and with mine in the UK.
I note that neurodoc now asserts: “a good advocate can anticipate the other side’s arguments and would be able to make their case almost as well as they can…” I’ve had the privilege over the last 40 years of listening to much great oral forensic advocacy. It comes with the job. What is also true that bad advocates often do make the other side’s case and I am always grateful when that happens.
March 9, 2011, 6:55 amLitigator London says:
A final note: I cannot think of any occasion where I have had what you term a “negative personal experience” with Jewish people in the UK.
At my (Catholic) school in the 1950′s, those of us who were Muslims and Jews were together when the Catholics went off to Church and I have friendships which go back to those days. In the Army there was a similar experience in relation to what were known as “Church Parades”.
In my professional life I meet and work closely with any number of colleagues and opponents who happen to be Jewish and some of the foremost lawyers who work “pro bono” on human rights issues and on matters relating to refugees are, as one might expect, the sons and daughters of people whose parents were refugees and therefore Jewish lawyers are over-represented. I participate in a number of inter-faith groups and have an identical experience.
But you see, as a middle class liberal, I find myself mainly in groups which are socially and politically homogeneous. That may have some part to play.
However, This thread has been hijacked for long enough. I want to write something later on another thread of interest to me.
March 9, 2011, 8:45 ampot meet kettle says:
neurodoc: Well, PmK may not really know what exactly he means to say,
Since you seem to be somebody who believes that saying that up is down again and again and again makes it so, I would, of course, not expect you to understand something that should be straightforward to right thinking people.
March 9, 2011, 8:52 amyankev says:
You mean the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. Yes, it was awful, and the ILGWU organized around it. Are you saying that if teachers can’t strike, not only every industrial safety law such as OSHA, every workplace civil rights law such as the ADA, but even every fire safety code and building code that was enacted in the past 100 years will be repealed or go unenforced? That’s difficult to believe. After all, most of those laws were enacted before there were public employees unions.
March 9, 2011, 9:19 amyankev says:
Well, I don’t know as much as I used to, but I know that you have the name of the fire wrong — it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory that burned, killing a shocking number of workers (I forget how many), many of them young immigrant women who were trapped in the sweatshop located in the top story of a crowded firetrap in the tenement district.
What shall we talk about? The AFL’s focus on organizing skilled crafts vs. the CIO’s emphasis on industry wide unions taking in skilled and unskilled workers? The Wobblies’ anarchist based opposition to what it saw as the capitalist orientation of both?
The songs of Joe Hill?
Jack London’s definition of a scab? How to tell a stool, and why he doesn’t have to stool because he makes a good living (and how he does it)?
Who the union maid was not afraid of, what she did when the company boys came ’round, and what she showed to the national guard?
Matewan? American Legion thugs breaking up strikes in Wilkes Barre PA? Salt of the Earth (terrific film — “We want sanitation, not discrimination”)?
A person can be familiar with the things you asked about and still conclude that we will not end up back in the era of sweat shops simply because some states curtail the power of public employee unions, or adopt right to work laws that protect private sector employees. It would not surprise me if the biggest threat to workplace safety today came from illegal aliens and those who hire them.
March 9, 2011, 9:31 amyankev says:
Which just shows the effectiveness of a few decades of a campaign of vilification by the the PA, the Statesman, the Arab League and others, to the point that they now have the BBC, the Guardian, Reuters, and others joining in and using memes that (conciously or not) tap into centuries of British and European anti-Semitism inclduing the greedy Jews, the international Jewish conspiracy that manipulates world events for the benefit of “the Jews” and the detriment of all others, or the Jew who thirsts after non-Jewish blood.
March 9, 2011, 9:40 amyankev says:
Not just for styling it Londonistan, but for AWJ — Arguing While Jewish. As a Jew, Phillips is of course automatically disqualifed from criticising Islamism, and is to be branded out of hand as a hater of all things Muslim for pointing out the dangers of violent militarized Islamism. Any attempts on her part to distinguish Islamism from Islam generally must of course be dismissed out of hand as a mere smokescreen to hide her self-evident bigotry.
March 9, 2011, 9:46 amyankev says:
Too bad that is not at all what neuorodoc says and that his posts contradict your caricature of his views.
Actually that is as accurate a description of hizbollah as one could ask for. What parts of it do you find inaccurate?
March 9, 2011, 9:50 amyankev says:
Yes, they have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn, even though it was we who plowed the prairies and built the cities where they trade. But in our hands is placed a power greater than their horded gold — which is why, if teachers, police officers and fire fighters lose the right to strike, we will lose our ability to bring about a new world from the ashes of the old.
March 9, 2011, 9:57 amDebrah says:
Neurodoc–
Rather than go through each specific point made by you and Litigator London, I’ll just offer a few thoughts and opinions on what both of you have said.
The thing that makes a thread like this one fascinating and exasperating, simultaneously, is that discussion of religion and sex mixed with politics are sure to produce a fora bloodletting.
I don’t happen to think that’s a bad thing.
On past threads I’ve seen the two of you inside the throes of long debates, and many times I simply didn’t follow their intricacies unless the discussion was related to something I had posted.
Consequently, I didn’t know that LL was actually Muslim, himself. That obviously casts a different patina on the discussion. I’m tempted to say that there’s no point in arguing these issues. Never will there be agreement.
Terms like “Islamophobia” are most certainly used promiscuously in order to silence detractors. This glaring example is but one among the thousands that illustrates how this issue is “covered” by media and pundits.
That has to be acknowledged or discussion should be halted until apologists for radical Islam can face reality.
These views aren’t a “phobia”, but a desire to stay alive!
Neurodoc, you don’t really want me to get into the reasons why the whiny tool “homophobia” is such a tyrannical and nauseating appellation, do you?
March 9, 2011, 10:42 amneurodoc says:
Surprising to hear that you were aware of those many lengthy soliloquies by Litigator London and his exchanges with neurodoc but were unaware until not that this 110% apologist for all things Islamic (those things for which no apologies can be fashioned are simply declared manifestations of “inauthentic” Islam, e.g., the greatly influential Wahhabis, and then don’t go on the balance sheet).
It seems you and neurodoc are in general agreement about the notion of “Islamophobia,” but go different ways on the notion of “homophobia” (some tendentiousness there, but a good deal to support teh “phobia” part, and thus not made largely of whole cloth).
But still you have nothing to say about out-of-nowhere riffs about corrupt rabbis in NJ and tax-cheating Jewish physicians at large in the US? neurodoc doesn’t think you (or others) can fully “appreciate” LL without taking account of that one. (There have been others, but nothing nearly as blatant or egregious as this one.)
And Debrah, let’s not allow ourselves to be further distracted by pre-pubescent jerk-offs doing their thing here. (Feel free, however, as neurodoc does, to use him for illustrative purposes, e.g., the use of “Islamophobia” to avoid scrutiny and discussion of that which so greatly needs it.)
March 9, 2011, 11:06 ampot meet kettle says:
Since you are the first person who made that argument on this thread, followed by Debrah here who says:
Consequently, I didn’t know that LL was actually Muslim, himself. That obviously casts a different patina on the discussion. I’m tempted to say that there’s no point in arguing these issues.
who exactly is using broad brush strokes to vilify their opponent while claiming victimhood themselves? (ignoring neurodoc’s risible dismissiveness about Islamophobia and homophobia, while simultaneously using slurs and invoking anti-semitism).
Way to miss the point (I don’t know if your missing the point was intentional or accidental) that she calls for the arrest of peaceful demonstrators and says that the lack of such arrests, among other things, makes England lemmingland.
March 9, 2011, 11:12 amloki13 says:
Neurodoc,
Please take this for what it’s worth. I decided to look at the thread you mentioned. I was expecting to find some horrible ranting. I was disappointed. While I can certainly understand that there were remarks that can be construed in a bad light, especially considering what I see between you and LL, it wasn’t the awful things I was expecting considering your comments.
In short, perhaps there is some “there, there.” And perhaps just a poor choice of words and examples. But maybe if you think it is unfair of others to accuse you of Islamopobia (or being anti-Islam) for some of your comments, you should save your charges of anti-seimitism for those that truly, and consistently, rise to the occasion. I have found that both sides on this argument have heated opinions, and most conversations tend to boil down to simply proving the other side is somehow more evil. It is said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but those who live in the past are doomed to never move forward.
Both you and LL offer reasoned discourse on many issues. Yet, on this one, it devolves into personal animus and a recitation of past wrongs. Somewhat like the underlying issue. :)
March 9, 2011, 11:23 amDebrah says:
Those incendiary remarks were made because LL, like many, believes the age-old stereotype of money-grubbing Jews.
When such a small segment of the population like the Jews have been persecuted and have endured attempted annihilation in almost every country on the globe…..
……and have not only survived, but thrived, some people get upset.
In this country Jews have great power relative to their numbers. No other group can compare.
People tend to harbor resentment because of that.
In the Middle East, they are the only thriving democracy inside that steaming cauldron of sand-scratching 7th century tools of madness.
Don’t know if you recall, but months ago Eugene took me to task on one of his threads for jovially bringing in the phrase “Jewish essence”. This was when several people were trying to find out exactly what my schtick was, so there was lots of scrutiny of every comment. (LOL! I still find such humor in it all). Hope you remember that because I thought it said more about the views of those going after me than it did about the phrase I used.
Astonishingly, it was people like Leo Marvin who understood instantly that I often combine literary embroidery with the more grave aspects of life……one, because it’s my style, and two, because the embroidery carries an emollient in delivery of what I believe to be statements of fact.
Jews are remarkable in their resilience and their achievements.
Hence, a Jewish essence.
March 9, 2011, 11:45 amclaves curiae says:
I read VC almost every day. I don’t have time to read every comment so I become selective. I do read Neurodoc’s comments because they contribute to the debate, are interesting and worth reading; I can say the opposite of London Litigator. For a while now I’ve been skipping over his overly-long comments rather than endure his preachy tone (if comments can have a tone). Understood as an accumulation, not one in specific, they’re too often tainted with openly anti-Semitic propaganda and tinged with his superior disdain. I’m of the view that he sees the VC as his platform to discredit Jewish people whenever possible, and teach us lessers a thing or two about being Muslim in London and how very much better that is. I’ve learned nothing from his posts. Furthermore, the statements in which he attempts to defend his intolerance carry no regret for the intolerance, and are typical, if not practiced.
The Londonstan comment in its first context was appropriate, but the continued use of it serves only to give the intolerant ammunition, especially when they’re searching for faults with anyone who dare AWJ.
London Litigator should be ignored, not because he’s Muslim or superior or British, but because the debate empowers his intolerance. Just because I ignore him doesn’t mean I “remain silent.”
March 9, 2011, 11:52 ampot meet kettle says:
It is probably appropriate to mention AWJ in the first place are yankev and claves curiae. Nobody has used that as an ad hominem. In contrast, neurodoc has used the slur Londonstan, and Debrah has dismissed Litigator London for being a Muslim.
March 9, 2011, 12:57 pmpot meet kettle says:
It is probably appropriate to mention AWJ in the first place are yankev and claves curiae
I meant: It is appropriate to note that the the people who mentioned AWJ in the first place are yankev and claves curiae.
March 9, 2011, 1:07 pmDebrah says:
I certainly did not “dismiss” anyone.
I merely stated the reality that since he is indeed Muslim, he would, necessarily, be coming to the debate with views that are very personal to him. Lapidary in nature.
Changes the context of the discussion somewhat.
Or are we to pretend that isn’t the case?
March 9, 2011, 1:47 pmpot meet kettle says:
Debrah: Consequently, I didn’t know that LL was actually Muslim, himself. That obviously casts a different patina on the discussion. I’m tempted to say that there’s no point in arguing these issues.
Got it. It is legit to bring up AWM as an argument, as it has been in this thread, but AWJ – which has been mentioned only by yankev and cavius (as a preemptive strike, I presume, since nobody has actually made the argument!) – is some sign of anti-semitic feelings or some dislike of Jews or some such thing. I assume this is because Islamophobia is a mythical creature much like the Lochness monster, whereas anti-semitism is as real as Pam Geller, or Peter King’s well known support of terrorism when Christians did it.
March 9, 2011, 1:56 pmLitigator London says:
I don’t know about the USA, but in the UK the biggest threats to health and safety at work come from employers who seek to reduce overheads by skimping on the requirements of health and safety at work legislation.
It’s a safe bet that employers who are willing to risk the heavy fines which are imposed on those who employ undocumented workers (eg the construction industry and some kinds of agriculture) are the very employers prone to violate HSAW norms.
But there has also been a tendency for employers in operations formerly in the public sector (eg transport) also to cut down on HSAW precautions.
March 9, 2011, 2:05 pmclaves curiae says:
Appropriate to what, exactly? Civility? Or lack of? Intolerance for an opinion or a religion? It’s an old tune you’re tooting; it’s been around for decades if not centuries and I for one am very tired of hearing it. Grow up.
The ad hominem attacks had already bottomed out with the use of necrodoc. Doctor of Death is in no way an equivalent to referring to London as Londonistan. One is personal and the other not; one is general and taken from published material, the other was clearly invented for a specific use and meaning. That neurodoc rose above the attack and referred to it as silliness is a tribute to his character. Perhaps you could channel some of that character.
March 9, 2011, 2:10 pmDebrah says:
…..illuminates with his efforts to get a handle on the very real strain of homegrown terrorism/anti-Semitism in the U.S.
March 9, 2011, 2:12 pmyankev says:
Okay, let’s talking about missing the point. These peaceful demonstrators were declaring themselves members of a genocidal terrorist group that, among other things, spreads vile anti-Semitic propaganda and launches murderous attacks against Jews. Reading the article as a whole, her question as to why they were not arrested strikes me as hyperbole. But her point that only a lemming like society would view this demonstration differently than we in the US would view a rally by the KKK or the American Nazi Party is sound. Only a bunch of lemmings would see a rally in support of Hezbollah as anything more than a necessary evil to be tolerated for the sake of free speech.
Nor have you illustrated any factual inaccuracies in her book Londonistan. Then again, there is something lemming like in your using “peaceful mosques” to describe institutions that preach a religious duty to murder Jews.
March 9, 2011, 2:24 pmyankev says:
Still no answer from Lisa. When I was in high school, no Friday night kumsitz was complete without someone singing Talking Union Blues.
March 9, 2011, 2:31 pmDebrah says:
To totally derail this discussion, I think Jamie Glasov is kind of hot.
March 9, 2011, 2:37 pmpot meet kettle says:
It is appropriate because it shows precisely the kind of misdirection and lack of honesty that characterized your original response, as well as this one. So, once again: you and yankev claimed that arguments were being dismissed on the basis of AWJ. You were the only people to bring up AWJ as an issue on the thread, nobody had mentioned evaluating arguments in that light. However, AWM was brought up independently by debrah who said that it was not worth discussing with LL for that reason, and Islamophobic slurs were used by neurodoc. Your response, which I have included above, makes it very clear that you do not value even basic honesty in a debate, let alone civility.
March 9, 2011, 2:59 pmclaves curiae says:
Sorry, but I fail to find anything “honest” from you in regards to my above comment. Memorized rhetoric and the typical knee-jerk weapon-loaded ready to fire response-sure, you’ve got plenty of that. Slicing and dicing skills? Sure, another area where you excel. But honesty? No.
If I were you, I’d take a few less nasty pills each morning and take some much needed time to practice your critical reading skills. The day will never come when I take seriously any comment made by an individual who calls another person a death doctor in the context of anti-Semitism. I cannot take seriously any person who defends it.
March 9, 2011, 3:42 pmyankev says:
Where? “Londonistan” is an objection to Islamism, not to Islam. Or do you mean that he used it as a slur to accuse LL of being Islamist? I don’t think LL is, but I do think that he is at best willfully blind to the Islamist threat in London, with its “no go” zones for non-Muslims and particularly Jews, its increase in anti-Semitic incidents including violent attacks and threats of violent attack, and its suppression of anything (piggy banks, among others) that the most extreme Muslims might find offensive while at the same time tolerating incitement to racial and religious attacks when that incitement comes from Muslims.
March 9, 2011, 3:50 pmneurodoc says:
It’s a fundamental right for the accused to know the charges against them, right? So, neurodoc, wants to know exactly what “‘Islamophobic’ slurs” he has allegedly used here.” “Londonistan”? But that is singular “slur,” if slur (and “Islamophobic”) it be, so what others? Was it a slur/slander/libel on the “good” Finsbury Park mosque to point out what their most notorious imam and congregants have gone on to do? (Is Finsbury Park completely overshadowed by that Hamburg mosque which nurtured Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 plotters along with other Islamofascists?)
neurodoc thinks this “Islamophobic slurs” business is complete BS, but he does want to know what exactly is being alleged against him. So, just “Londonistan” or that and more, and if more, what more? Or is neurodoc just being contentious by insisting on this clarification.
(In China, it seems, they don’t haul people into court unless they have committed the crimes they are accused of. So to protest one’s innocence in front of the court is worse than futile, it will be seen as lack of contrition and may bring a still harsher sentence. If the protestor gets the ultimate punishment, then there family may be required to pay for the bullet that was use to execute the person before his organs were harvested for the use of others. Thankfully, it is not as perilous to protest one’s innocence here, and neurodoc doesn’t simply protest his innocence of the bigotry he is being charged with, he wants to make clear his contempt for fools who would try to stifle debate with interruptive cries of “Islamophobia.”)
March 9, 2011, 4:06 pmpot meet kettle says:
I have no idea how this is responsive to my comment.
It is appropriate because it shows precisely the kind of misdirection and lack of honesty that characterized your original response, as well as this one. So, once again: you and yankev claimed that arguments were being dismissed on the basis of AWJ. You were the only people to bring up AWJ as an issue on the thread, nobody had mentioned evaluating arguments in that light. However, AWM was brought up independently by debrah who said that it was not worth discussing with LL for that reason, and Islamophobic slurs were used by neurodoc. Your response, which I have included above, makes it very clear that you do not value even basic honesty in a debate, let alone civility.
As for death doctor, you and I both know that (a) I said nothing of the sort, and (b) I apologized for my juvenile name calling right on that thread. And your response is to label me an anti-semite for calling out bigotry that has nothing to do with semitism? Good job.
March 9, 2011, 4:09 pmpot meet kettle says:
Goodness! A bigot who levels allegations of anti-semitism while simultaneously using a slur which has been pointed out, and then says that he does not understand why he is being called a bigot because such a thing couldn’t even exist thinks I am a fool!
March 9, 2011, 4:22 pmyankev says:
No, he did not “level allegations of anti-semitism”, he gave concrete examples.
But as far as thinking you are a fool, I would venture that the opinion here is near unanimous.
March 9, 2011, 6:33 pmleo marvin says:
You’re assuming your conclusion, unless you know of evidence “Islamophobia” was coined with that tendentious purpose in mind. I find it at least as plausible that by the time “Islamophobia” entered the lexicon, the “phobia” suffix had stretched along with the by then commonly understood meaning of “homophobia” as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”
Yes, “Islamophobia” is rhetorically preferable to “anti-Muslim” or “hatred of Muslims,” but I’d say that’s because it rolls off the tongue better than the alternatives, not because it serves a tendentious political purpose. I don’t see how “irrational fear” is politically preferable to “aversion” or “discrimination.”
Anway, that’s all beside the point. You’re making an etymological argument for what the word ought to mean. I’m just saying that even if your preference is shared by some, there are too many people who use the word generically for you to be well understood if you use it narrowly without clarifying your intention. I may not like the fact that “beg the question” has been corrupted by people who didn’t understand it, but I’ve taken Eugene Volokh’s point that I can stand on principle or I can make myself understood.
If I have time later, I’ll return to your other questions.
March 9, 2011, 6:39 pmyankev says:
I do however retract my suspicion that your objection to Melanie Phillips was AWJ. It never occurred to me that your objection might be that she dared to say that openly demonstrating in support of murderous genocidal terrorists, and declaring oneself a member of a murderous genocidal terrorist organization that regularly incites to violence and regularly spews anti-Semitic propaganda, amounts to sympathizing with, aiding and abetting a murderous genocidal terrorist organization in violation of the UK’s laws against inciting racial hatred.
Yes, if she can make irresponsible accusations like that one, I can certainly see why you would choose to dismiss out of hand anything and everything else she might charge.
So, I retract my suspicion that you object to her AWJ. In fact, you were objecting to her pointing out that expressing sympathy for a program of murdering Jews for the crime of being Jews consitutes expressing sympathy for a program of murdering Jews for the crime of being Jews.
March 9, 2011, 6:44 pmleo marvin says:
Multitasking isn’t my forté, but I’ll do my best.
Yes, I found the Jewish angle gratuitous and offensive.
I don’t know which other thread you mean, but if I were Muslim I’d be insulted by “Londonistan.” It’s not as bad as “Hymietown,” which adds slur to insult, but more like, say, “New Tel Aviv,” if someone said it to express their perception and dismay that New York was overrun by Jews.
March 9, 2011, 11:28 pmLitigator London says:
Dear lady, your reaction to the news of my faith was superficially rather similar to that of some other regulars on this blog such as:-
(i) the person who some time ago used words to the effect that I should pack my bags and go back to Pakistan or wherever I came from.
(ii) the person who above suggested that “All Muslims are guilty until proven innocent”
It also explains one of your own gems, which I had missed:
“No, I’m not an “Islamophobe”, but I do think Muslims, in general, will have to work harder, much harder, to distinguish themselves from the terrorists.“
There is a certain repulsive consonance between the Neurodoc assertion that the 1,650 million or so Muslims all around the world are guilty until proven innocent, and your proposition that we ought to work much, much harder to distinguish ourselves from the terrorists.
My family have been in the UK for rather longer than the USA has been a Republic. Unsurprisingly therefore, I was brought up to believe in certain values such as: trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and no punishment without due process.
I had had the impression that these English values had been part of the inheritance taken to our erstwhile North American colonies and that they had later been enshrined in the US Constitution.
I am not aware that any Amendment has been passed to say: “Except for Muslims”. Did I miss something?
Pray tell where all 1,650 million of us are to undergo this task of proving our innocence? In some US financed torture chamber after “extraordinary rendition”, perhaps? On the Guantanamo Bay “Frequent Flier Programme”?
So what do you propose for those of us who fail to prove our innocence? “Something lapidary in nature”?
March 10, 2011, 12:25 amneurodoc says:
Does your “gratuitous” equate with my “out of nowhere” and “out of nowhere,” or do you just mean unnecessary or uncalled for? What I think so remarkable about that “riff” is that it followed from nothing, or at least nothing I could see. The thread was about the BBC’s objectivity or lack thereof and LL tossed in some gratuity about health care in the US, which I reacted to, and then he was off on corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians. Can you offer any explanation for it; LL hasn’t and it seems won’t. Off the mark to characterize it as antisemitic expression? (“Offensive” is too non-specific.) If you think I somehow have this wrong, please don’t hesitate to say so. Like claves curiae @ 11:52AM, there was a “taint” of antisemitism in other LL posts, but not definite enough to mention before. This time, however, I think it stands out like a sore thumb, and I don’t give such things a pass.
I cited it above. http://volokh.com/2011/01/06/support-in-pakistan-for-murderer-of-the-pakistani-governor-who-had-opposed-blasphemy-punishment/ A “visitor” mentioned London and her impression that educated Muslims found it a salubrious place to reside, and LL “channeled” the late Abba Eban, imagining that Eban, who LL regretted was such a devoted Zionist, would be very pleased with the way the city had evolved since his days there. I jumped in to say I didn’t know that Eban would be all that pleased with “Londonistan.”
It seems to me that the difference between “Londonistan” and “Hymietown” is that there is a case to be made on the facts for the former, but none for the latter, unless it is to say that a great many Jews live in NYC, and for Jessie Jackson “Hymie” is a representative Jewish name just as some might say that there are many AA females in DC named Keisha (so Keishatown?). The case for “Londonistan” has been made in the book by the name by Melanie Phillips, and “Londonistan” is readily recognizable shorthand for what she describes in the book, whether one thinks she has fairly represented the state of affairs there or not. Now if there is something to “Islamophobia,” then I think it must be evident in the unwillingness to engage with her thesis because it goes to more than just those Muslim residents of the city who have made names for themselves as terrorists or terrorist supporters (e.g., al-Masri, Richard Reid, Zacharias Moussaoui, Kamel Rabat Bouralha, Osman Larussi, Yaccine Benalia, the Nigerian underpants bomber, the LSE alum who as a repeat killer assisted in the kidnapping and brutal murder of Pearl, etc.), it goes to the broader context, that is how things have developed over time in the UK, especially London. LL could, if he wished to, dispute Phillips, as others have, but he doesn’t, instead simply dismissing it as bigotry. That’s his prerogative, but it doesn’t amount to rebuttal.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
March 10, 2011, 12:33 amneurodoc says:
Kindly point to when/where neurodoc “assert(ed) that the 1,650 million or so Muslims all around the world are guilty until proven innocent.” If you can’t/won’t, then you won’t have grounds to object to being called a liar. (And do you have nothing more to say about those corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians you brought up back on 1/16/11 in that DB thread about the BBC, because that very much looked/smelled like straight up antisemitism?)
March 10, 2011, 12:53 amLitigator London says:
If it offended you, then I am sorry about that.
In true Daily Mail style, Melanie Phillips wrote much of her “Londonistan” stuff before she had the full story – so eager she was.
For example: The Finsbury Park Mosque was originally constructed to serve the needs of a community which was largely Urdu speaking. In such mosques the sermons are generally preached in Urdu, and sometimes repeated or summarised in English for the younger generation. The actual prayer will be in Arabic – because they can be and is learned by rote.
However, one of the cosequences of Algerian Mujahidin returning from Afghanistan was the near overthrow of the régime by an islamist party. The Army took over, cancelled the elections and started rounding up the usual suspects. A lot of people fled and claimed asylum in the UK. In the way of things they gravitated to the same district. Near the Finsbury Park Mosque. Algerians generally speak dialectal Arabic and French. They opened shops, restaurants ad the like. Because I had spent some years in Algeria and I’m quite partial to Algerian food, I used to vist the areas reasonably frequently.
The Mosque recruited Abu Hamza to serve as an assistant. He claimed to have been a Mujahid in Afghanistan ad that his injuries were sustained while he was clearing a mine left by the Soviets. I know not whether the claim was truthful. He had come to the UK married an Englishwoman and thereby gained British nationality.
The trustees of the Mosque did not understand his sermons but the Algerians did. One of them was so horrified that he went to the police. Nothing happened. He went again. Nothing happened. He secretly recorded ad took the cassettes in. Nothing happened.
By this time, the trustees had found out about the nature of the sermons and expelled Abu Hamza – so he stated preaching in the open air on the pubic highway. Nothing happened. What we now know is that the Security Service had stopped the police from intervening because they had Abu Hamza under covert surveillance to try to trace associates.
Eventually he was arrested, charged with various incitement offences for which he got 7 years. The Secretary of State tried to revoke his Naturalisation so as to deport him – that failed because he would thereby have become stateless. An order for his extradition to the USA has been signed but cannot yet be executed because an appeal is pending on the issue whether whole life sentence is ECHR compatible and whether the conditions in the Supermax are ECHR compliant.
The point is that his activities were brought to the attention of the proper authorities by Muslims. Ms Phillips work may have been a good scoop. But it was only “fair and balanced” in the Fox News sense.
March 10, 2011, 1:27 amleo marvin says:
It was also uncalled for, but I meant “out of nowhere.”
I’d call it antisemitic, but that doesn’t make LL an antisemite. I have no idea if he said it with malice or out of tin-eared ignorance (like, e.g., Al Campanis’ comment that African-Americans lack “the necessities” to be in baseball management). Or maybe he has another explanation. Those are the only two that occur to me.
As for Londonistan, I won’t rule out that I’d feel different if I read the book, but I’d be surprised. Even assuming London is a hotbet of jihadi violence, the term still disparages Muslims too indiscriminately to avoid tarring lots of innocents.
March 10, 2011, 1:43 amleo marvin says:
I appreciate your solicitude, but I’d rather you regretted the remarks than how they affected me.
March 10, 2011, 2:13 amGary Rosen says:
“I appreciate your solicitude, but I’d rather you regretted the remarks than how they affected me.”
That sums up LL – he isn’t sorry for his remars, just that he got caught.
“A final note: I cannot think of any occasion where I have had what you term a “negative personal experience” with Jewish people in the UK.”
Except for those crooked, greedy Jewish doctors. Oh wait, they were *American* Jews. So I guess that makes it OK for LL to be a Jew-baiting weasel.
March 10, 2011, 3:40 amLitigator London says:
Sorry. On checking back up the thread, I find that the words were not yours but someone else asserting his understanding of your remarks. I withdraw the assertion that the words were yours and apologise for having made it.
I do not withdraw the assertion that by reason of their education and industry the US Jewish diaspora has a higher proportion of High Net Worth Individuals than the population at large and that they are therefore targeted by those who market off shore “tax shelters” which in reality are tax evasion schemes. Nor do I withdraw the assertion that quite a number of the targets make use of the schemes. Nor can it be seriously in dispute that there have been fraudulent schemes of one kind and another marketed by rabbis -genuine or fake – who prey on the confidence people have in the Rabbinate.
If you or others think the remarks were anti-semitic, I am sorry but the facts are the facts.
” Londonistan”
Ms Phillips is a “Daily Mail” style journalist. She write columns and appears on political TV shows because she voices opinions which are provcative. But “Londonsitan!”. Of the 7.5 million population of London, only 450,000 or so are Muslims. That is significantly more than the Jewish population. The overwhelming majority are law abiding citizens. There are 168 mosques in London They are well run and pretty closely supervised. The only one to have had serious problems thus far is the Finsbury Park mosque which was a extraordinary saga. In fact the mosque problem I perceive is one which originates in Pakistan rather than the Arab world and it is the wonderfully insane world of Deobandi – (the theology of the Taliban) on which I have recently posted. That is more of a problem in the Midlands than in London. There are no “no go” areas in London. Yes, there are areas where I would not advise ladies to go alone at night – but for its size, London is a remarkably safe city.
There is a terrorist threat. There was such a threat from the IRA too. But Londoners don’t get their knickers in a twist about such things. We get on with our lives.
March 10, 2011, 7:45 amDebrah says:
Neurodoc–
I remain dismayed and chagrined that you appear not to have listened to at least a portion of the vid of Jamie Glazov that I linked above.
It certainly relates to some of the issues you mentioned.
March 10, 2011, 8:11 amyankev says:
And neither does saying that no one should believe a word that Caroline Glick wrote because she is a Jew who was born in America, voluntarily moved to Israel, and went to work for a conservative Israeli official.
Or that of all the ethnic and national groups in the world, only the Jews should have no right to national self-determination in an independent state, but should be forced to risk their survival on the tolerance and good will of majorities in other states — majorities with a centuries long history of persecuting Jews for not adopting the religion of the local majority. The same religions that preach that Jews are cursed for remaining loyal to the Jewish religion.
March 10, 2011, 9:20 amDebrah says:
LL, I was going to wait to respond to your comment later in the day; however, since I’m rushing to get things done before a noon appointment, I might as well make a response to you one of those “things to get done” this morning.
It will be a challenge to explain to you why I believe Muslims, in general, have an unspoken duty (to themselves!) to always speak out against the terrorist factions, not only in their own countries, but globally.
Just as it will be a challenge to explain to Neurodoc why the term “homophobia” is a superfluous and silly tool in this 21st century. Gays have all the rights as everyone else in this country. They have been granted civil unions which cover all legal and financial concerns. The only item missing is the word “marriage”. Make no mistake, in social settings, I can pretend that a man’s azz can magically turn into a c*nt and that they will have all the responsibilities and challenges as a regular heterosexual couple raising a family. No “phobia” involved here! Just a rational desire to help others not make fools of themselves; however, SSM will most definitely become law at some subsequent time, but it is a chimera for some to believe that many (most!) do not think that this agenda is a superfluous one, given the significant issues we are faced with that are of global magnitude.
IMO, a term such as “Islamophobia” is an infinitely more significant topic of discussion. Just as all issues of race and ethnicity…..which are in totally different orbits than sexual orientation.
Making such an analogy as many do is offensive.
Now LL, I will be off later today for my noon appointment with my very Muslim dentist who adores me as I adore him. He’s professionally excellent and distinguishes himself by always being flexible and making sure that his patient (Debrah) is totally thrilled with his work — cosmetic or regular dental care.
My other dentist is Iranian/Persian.
Both men have lived in the U.S. for quite some time and were educated here. Even they will acknowledge that Muslims should speak out more, especially with regard to the homegrown terrorism in the U.S.
I would suggest that some who become frustrated when their opinions are not met with an affirmative nod get used to the fact that there are many people who are certainly not “conservative” and who certainly have vast personal experiences with regard to aspects of the culture wars far and wide — but who will not be held hostage by the whims and dictations of the “victims” du jour and their janissaries — simply become more tolerant.
Exposing such tyranny betrays its core triviality.
March 10, 2011, 10:35 amleo marvin says:
No one disputes the facts (though I’d argue the ones you chose lie by omission, but I’ll save that argument for another time). The question is why anyone would steer a discussion on the relative merits of American and British health care to swindling rabbis and tax-evading, rich Jews. Of what possible relevance was ethnicity/religion to that discussion, other than to call attention to a few cherry-picked, out of context “facts” which just happen to play into age-old canards that have fueled some of the worst genocidal oppression the world has ever seen?
March 10, 2011, 6:03 pmleo marvin says:
Yankev,
You know I’m very hesitant to label people based on comment thread discussions. Whether someone is an antisemite depends on what’s in his heart and mind, and I doubt that can often be reliably discerned in these fora. I think using such labels here sheds more heat than light — false accusations of bigotry are especially pernicious — so I’d rather let the discussions speak for themselves, and readers draw their own conclusions.
March 10, 2011, 6:07 pmleo marvin says:
Why do you keep making this false claim, when its falsehood has been repeatedly pointed out to you (e.g., the tax benefits available to legally married couples only)?
March 10, 2011, 6:09 pmDebrah says:
Leo, marriage is not a right!
March 10, 2011, 8:44 pmneurodoc says:
What about the so-called “marriage tax” that higher income couples face when they marry, is that a “benefit” that those who can’t marry miss out on?
March 10, 2011, 8:52 pmneurodoc says:
Sorry about that. First, I mistakenly thought that was a different person, someone from The New Republic who writes on “homophobia,” which is not a topic I want to spend time on here; and second, for some reason I can’t hear the audio of YouTube videos, something I have to get taken care of. Will try to come back to it.
March 10, 2011, 8:58 pmneurodoc says:
neurodoc had drafted a rather long summing up post, but then it wiped out. He doesn’t have the time or energy to do it again starting from scratch. So he’ll just say that he’s satisfied to have at last gotten some attention to what even Leo now allows are antisemitic utterances by LL, and to have LL‘s thoughts on “Londonistan,” though disappointed that in the course of all that meaningless digression about Imam al-Masri’s hooks and the ethnic enclave around the Finsbury Park mosque (not the Finchly Street mosque!), we didn’t get restaurant recommendations.
March 10, 2011, 9:05 pmleo marvin says:
I never said it was. I’ll leave that for the Supreme Court to decide. I also didn’t say equal protection is a right (it is), or that free sushi and symphony tickets are rights (they aren’t). And what do all those things have in common? That they have nothing to do with what I did say. So let’s start over. You said
That is simply false. Civil unions do not confer, at minimum, the federal tax benefits available only to legally married couples. Tax treatment obviously falls under the heading of “legal and financial concerns.” I (and others) have pointed this out to you several times, yet you continue making the same false claim. Why?
March 10, 2011, 9:11 pmleo marvin says:
Sometimes being married is financially advantageous, sometimes disadvantageous. The one thing it is not, though, is exactly the same as being unmarried or in a civil union.
March 10, 2011, 9:18 pmDebrah says:
I hope you do.
Jamie Glazov’s issues are quite different than those you imagined. LIS!
I came upon his writing after checking out David Horowitz’s series on Hitchens last summer. In the past, I always dismissed Horowitz as too “far right”; however, his writing is really quite superb.
March 10, 2011, 9:18 pmDebrah says:
Well, Leo. The candid answer to that is….like most people I will go along with however that issue is decided. On most days I think people don’t have it on their radar screens. Who cares?
Until the agenda is used to damage other people inside ultra-left milieus where it’s easily forced down the throats (figuratively, of course) of other people.
I wouldn’t actively work against SSM and I wouldn’t work for it. There is absolutely nothing gays are deprived of except a formal law that forces society to accept their coupling as a “marriage”.
The word “marriage” is simply not an appellation that is accurate. Marriage was a concoction designed by heteros for heterosexual couplings. Moreover, I personally don’t even think that marriage, itself, is that big of a deal to cause this kind of cultural brouhaha because same-sex couples want to co-opt it.
I mean, when I encounter an accomplished professional or an intellectual who’s whining about this kind of thing and calling himself “queer”, rhapsodizing about “marrying”, etc……
…….my opinion and respect for him just plummets. That kind of temperament and sensibility works in the artistic world, but not in other arenas.
When I’m around someone like that I feel as though I need to strap on a set and take care of things myself. I literally don’t trust such a person to handle anything that requires objectivity and reason.
To put a fine point on it, the answer to your question is I don’t think they will actually have a legitimate “marriage”, but we can pretend.
And all the financial “advantages” you keep mentioning are negligible, if that.
This quest is for one thing and one thing only: to give gay couples a forced “dignity”.
March 10, 2011, 9:51 pmneurodoc says:
Marriage is not just sometimes financially advantageous and sometimes financially advantageous; it is sometimes advantageous in a great variety of ways and sometimes disadvantageous in a great variety of ways. But as for income taxes, when does being married confer much, if any benefit? For estate tax purposes, there are no advantages to being single, while there may be ones to being married, that is if there is enough wealth for estate taxes to be an issue.
March 10, 2011, 9:57 pmleo marvin says:
Never that I’m aware of, which is why I said “federal tax benefits,” not “federal income tax benefits.” The estate tax marital deduction is what I had in mind. That said, not having researched it, there could be other tax benefits I’m overlooking.
March 10, 2011, 10:14 pmleo marvin says:
I’m astonished that you think that answers any question I asked. I only asked you one question, i.e., why you keep making the demonstrably false claim I quoted in my previous comment.
Really? For some couples it could be millions of dollars. So either you’re talking out of your hat, or your definition of “negligible” is very different from mine.
March 10, 2011, 10:35 pmneurodoc says:
Do you think “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are self-evident, non-tendentiousness coinages, that is without an built-in spin to those labels? Can you say who introduced those labels, which have stuck, making them hard to avoid when talking about the politics of abortion? How likely do you think it that someone who thinks the state should do nothing to make it difficult to obtain an abortion came up with “pro-life to describe the position of those who think exactly the opposite should be the case; and how likely do you think it that somebody in the latter camp (“pro-life”), that is those adamantly opposed to abortion under any circumstances came up with “pro-choice” to describe those in the opposite camp? Do you think “framing” through the choice of terms influences minds, often subconsciously?
And it is just an accident that “Islamophobia” is freighted with implications well beyond the straight forward notion of hatred of Muslims, whether because they practice a different religion, or negative attributes are projected onto Muslims collectively by those prejudiced against them, or because of negative experiences of Muslims (e.g., a Hindu whose family fled Pakistan at the time of” partition), or whatever?
There have been various groups that have resorted to terror, but not much reason for those living in the US to fear the IRA, Tamil Tigers, ETA, Shining Path, Japanese Red Army, etc. But there is certainly reason for those living in the US (and in the UK, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, India, Canada, Israel, and a great many more places (it is not easy to say where there is no cause for fear, even, if not especially, in the Islamic world itself. “Islamophobia” puts the burden on the person who does fear for themselves, or their community, or their country the prospect of Islamist terrorism to prove that theirs is not an “irrational” fear. Any such fear is “irrational” on the part of individuals, since there is so little likelihood of them ever being a direct victim of Islamic terrorists? (My daughter was living in Greenwich Village not that far from the WTC on 9/11 and was just leaving for work when the towers were struck. Does she, or her parents, have reason to fear another attack, or still too improbable for any fear to be counted as “rational,” so then it would be a matter of “Islamophobia.” (Are we “Islamophobics” if we do not acknowledge that just because the odds are so greatly in favor of a car bomb in Times Square being the work of an Islamic terrorists that is not to say it could be other than a Muslim perp the next time?)
“Rhetorically preferable” from whose perspective? You think it scans better, it’s a matter of prosody?
It biases any discussion in favor of one side from the outset, with the alleged “Islamophobic” required to prove convincingly
that they are not “irrational” rather than starting from a neutral position.
No, not at all beside the point, it is the point. And what is this only an “etymological argument,” it’s settled and I must accept without protest the term with its implications?
Not even close, completely inapposite. Who is advantaged/disadvantaged when using “to beg the question”?
There is this, but don’t have time to get into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
March 10, 2011, 11:21 pmneurodoc says:
Is this again about estate taxes or something else? Certainly easier to “manuever” for estate planning purposes (e.g., first spouse dies and their property gets stepped up value, so can be sold without realizing a capital gain, but same stepped up value with no spouse, so just more time to become more liquid and not have a “fire sale” of illiquid assets, e.g., real estate or a closely held business)? Same individual exemptions and tax rates
March 10, 2011, 11:27 pm.
Debrah says:
A beautiful sentence.
Simply because this is the essence of it.
March 10, 2011, 11:35 pmneurodoc says:
Thanks for the affirmation. Maybe if people understood “framing,” they would recognize that “Islamophobia,” which is supposed to be an identifier of a bias against Muslims qua Muslims, is itself biasing! That is to say the term immediately advantages one side of a debate/discussion over the other, because it is so heavily freighted with implications.
Anyone who would tax Islam and the Islamic world with any responsibility for the barbarities committed in the name of the religion is presumptively an “Islamophobic.” That makes difficult, if it does not effectively preclude, any meaningful debate/discussion of the toxic manifestations of “Islamism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Politics
March 11, 2011, 12:13 amleo marvin says:
Estate tax. The marital deduction defers estate tax on the deceased spouse’s taxable estate for the life of the surviving spouse. It’s like having the decedent’s estate in an IRA or 401(k), but sheltered from estate tax, not income tax. That deferment can easily run into millions of dollars. Not for me or anyone I know, sorry to say, but certainly some people. And to the extent the decedent’s taxable estate exceeds the exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), and the surviving spouse’s separate taxable estate is less than $5 million, being married can be worth up to another $1.5 million or so, i.e., the value of the second exclusion amount (≈35% x $5 million) the marital deduction excludes from their combined taxable estate.
March 11, 2011, 12:18 amneurodoc says:
Deferral of taxes is not always the answer. If it were, I would not have accelerated the tax bill on my “deferred” qualified plans (a “traditional” IRA plus the equivalent of a 401(k)) as I did last year when I converted everything to a Roth IRA. I am very confident that that acceleration of taxes, with no more income taxes to pay in the future (that is to say, not just continued deferral of income taxes until they must be paid, and they always must be paid before you can get your hands on the money you have had stashed away, those hopefully increasing over time, with the taxes due in after-tax dollars) will work greatly to my advantage and that of my heirs.
Agin, in the end, I don’t think a single individual (or rather the beneficiary of their estate) is much, if at all, disadvantaged relative to the beneficiary of a married person’s estate, except that a married idividual may have had more “manueverability” in estate planning because of that possible deferral of estate taxes.
March 11, 2011, 12:48 amleo marvin says:
It doesn’t necessarily work for everyone, but for most people with the means to be relevant to this discussion, tax deferral is powerful leverage. If you don’t think so, try suggesting eliminating the marital deduction. If both spouses die within a couple of years of each other, no biggie. But if one survives the other by 20 or 30 years, the effect can be huge.
March 11, 2011, 1:09 amleo marvin says:
neurodoc,
If I understand you correctly, you think “Islamophobia” tendentiously frames the debate, like “pro choice” and “pro life.” I disagree, but before I explain why I’d appreciate your telling me again how that relates to your objection to the “phobia” suffix. How would it be different (better?) if the term was “Islamo-hate-ia” or just “anti-Islamic bigotry?”
March 11, 2011, 1:31 amneurodoc says:
That “marital deduction” is something of a misnomer, since the “deduction” is unlike any other tax deduction. All other tax deductions result in lesser net taxes. The “marital deduction” does no such thing, it only allows for deferral of estate taxes until the second to die spouse dies. And I’m not sure exactly what meaning you intend by “leverage” here, since there is no multiplier effect, again only the opportunity for deferral of the inevitable, which allows an estate to avoid a liquidity crunch. If everything is in liquid assets, e.g., readily marketable securities, no great economic advantage will be gained through deferral. When the assets stay longer in the “first” generation’s hands, be that the hands of a single individual or the hands of a married couple together, or goes sooner to the ultimate beneficiaries, the net effect will be the same. If you think that isn’t true, serve up a hypothetical with everything in cash or liquid assets illustrating how it isn’t, if you will, assuming any rate of taxation and investment growth you want.
[Some state estate taxes vary according to the relationship between the decedent and the beneficiary, so that could be a difference that would advantage the married over the single, but a different matter.
And boy, have we gone OT!]
March 11, 2011, 1:56 amneurodoc says:
That “phobia” suffix to which you attach so little significance may be used by the laity but it is a psychiatric term with precise meaning and criteria for its diagnosis. Tell me, if you can, how “Islamophobia” comports with that meaning and the diagnostic criteria:
Diagnostic criteria for 300.29 Specific Phobia
(cautionary statement)
A. Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood).
B. Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed Panic Attack.
Note: In children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing, or clinging.
C. The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable. Note: In children, this feature may be absent.
D. The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
E. The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person’s normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.
F. In individuals under age 18 years, the duration is at least 6 months.
G. The anxiety, Panic Attacks, or phobic avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (e.g., fear of dirt in someone with an obsession about contamination), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (e.g., avoidance of stimuli associated with a severe stressor), Separation Anxiety Disorder (e.g., avoidance of school), Social Phobia (e.g., avoidance of social situations because of fear of embarrassment), Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, or Agoraphobia Without History of Panic Disorder.
Specify type:
Animal Type
Natural Environment Type (e.g., heights, storms, water)
Blood-Injection-Injury Type
Situational Type (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places)
Other Type (e.g., phobic avoidance of situations that may lead to choking, vomiting, or contracting an illness; in children, avoidance of loud sounds or costumed characters)
As for a term that would serve for hatred of Muslims qua Muslims (not hatred of Islam, the religion, which apologists like LL maintain is not the reflection of its adherents beliefs or practices, but the other way around or should be the other way around), I don’t know what would have the prosody of the objectionable “Islamophobia,” but so what? Anti-Muslim, or anti-Islamic perhaps. Is there no prejudice against Mexican-Americans because we have no word specific to hatred of Mexican-Americans as Mexican-Americans and that hatred of that which is culturally identified with them? Is there a specific term for hatred of gypsies, that is Roma, though as a people they have certainly suffered from prejudice, dying in concentration camps along with Jews? (There may be reasons for one group to hate another, or the majority to hate certain minorities, and vice versa, but in how many instances do we have to parse it between understandable reasons for that hatred or antipathy and “rational” vs “irrational” fear, as we do when the debate becomes whether it is legitimate to worry about threats coming from the Islamic world?)
BTW, national data here in the US indicates that Jews are 8 times more likely to be the victims of hate crimes than Muslims, which you surely wouldn’t know from listening to CAIR. So, since antisemitism seems to be much discounted as a concern, often denied outright or explained away as “anti-Zionism,” should we “rebrand” like going from “liberal” to “progressive,” and talk about “Judeophobia” to get more attention for what up until now has been known as “antisemitism.” And then idiots wouldn’t be heard to say that Muslims are incapable of antisemitism because they are themselves semites? (The Islamic world is of course a huge fount of antisemitism, some of it derivative of Nazi and Soviet antisemitism, more of it religious in nature, notwithstanding the claim that Islam is respectful of the other people of the Book, that is both Christians and Jews. The Copts are feeling that respect acutely at the moment, and the Jews have felt it for a long time.)
March 11, 2011, 2:23 amneurodoc says:
BTW, I expect that those who object to the label “Islamofascist” because it doesn’t comport with how a political scientist would define fascism, have no such trouble with “Islamophobia,” though it is at greater variance with the psychiatric meaning of “phobia,” than is “Islamofascist” with the political science meaning of “fascism.”
[In another thread, that one about the killings of "blasphemers" in Pakistan to argue that though predominantly Muslim countries might not recognize freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other freedoms we consider fundamental to "democracy," those countries among them with governments that reflect the will of their citizens should be seen as "Islamic democracies." Not your idea of what constitutes a "democracy," nor mine, but she was quite insistent that those qualified as a special kind of democracy, that is the Islamic kind. She was roundly ridiculed, but stuck to her guns. So people can appropriate words to use as they please, but do the rest of us have to buy into what is implied by their use(s) of the appropriated words? I don't buy into the appropriated (and distorted) use of "phobia" for tendentious purposes. ]
March 11, 2011, 2:41 amneurodoc says:
BTW, I have no proof to offer, but I expect that those who object to the label “Islamofascist” because it doesn’t comport with how a political scientist would define fascism, have no such trouble with “Islamophobia,” though it is at greater variance with the well-established psychiatric meaning of “phobia,” than is “Islamofascist” with the political science meaning of “fascism.”
[In another thread, that one about the killings of "blasphemers" in Pakistan to argue that though predominantly Muslim countries might not recognize freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other freedoms we consider fundamental to "democracy," those countries among them with governments that reflect the will of their citizens should be seen as "Islamic democracies." Not your idea of what constitutes a "democracy," nor mine, but she was quite insistent that those qualified as a special kind of democracy, that is the Islamic kind. She was roundly ridiculed, but stuck to her guns. So people can appropriate words to use as they please, but do the rest of us have to buy into what is implied by their use(s) of the appropriated words? I don't buy into the appropriated (and distorted) use of "phobia" for tendentious purposes.]
March 11, 2011, 2:42 amleo marvin says:
Which is how I described it.
What I mean by “leverage” is the ability to earn on what, but for the deferment, would be the government’s money.
Ex.1: Decedent dies, unmarried, leaving a taxable estate of $100 million. Daughter, his sole heir, gets ≈$65 million after ≈35% estate tax. Daughter lives another 20 years, during which the inheritance earns 5% post-tax, compounded annually. When she dies, unmarried, her estate is worth ≈$172 million. Her sole heir, Granddaughter, gets ≈$112 million after ≈35% estate tax.
Ex.2: Decedent dies, married, leaving a taxable estate of $100 million. Wife, his sole heir, gets $100 million, because the marital deduction defers payment of estate tax during her lifetime. She lives another 20 years, during which the inheritance earns 5% post tax, compounded annually. When she dies, the estate is worth ≈$265 million. Her sole heir, Granddaughter (Wife and Daughter don’t get along) gets ≈$172 million after ≈35% estate tax.
The value of the marital deduction to Granddaughter in Ex.2 is $60 million ($172 million – $112 million).
Is your understanding different? I could be overlooking something, but it looks pretty straightforward to me. Obviously these are rough approximations, and the stipulated ROR may be overly optimistic, but I chose round numbers to keep the exercise simple. Even if the value to Granddaughter is a fraction of $60 million, the principle stands. The tax benefits of the right to marry can be anything but “negligible.”
March 11, 2011, 4:34 amleo marvin says:
“Pro life” and “pro choice” are tendentious frames because they imply something disparaging about everyone else, i.e., people who call themselves “pro-life” are really “anti-choice” and people who call themselves “pro-choice” are really “anti-life.” There’s no analogous implication to “Islamophobia” (or, for Debrah’s benefit, “homophobia.”) If someone is afraid of or hostile to Muslims a reasonable person would fear or oppose (e.g., al qaeda, the Taliban, their supporters and friends), s/he isn’t an Islamophobe. If the fear or hostility is generalized to members of the group it isn’t reasonable to fear or hate, s/he is an Islamophobe. If my gay next door neighbor was a paroled rapist, I wouldn’t be a homophobe for keeping my door locked and avoiding him like the plague. If I behaved that way toward the lovely person he actually is, I would be. I don’t see how those terms unfairly disparage anyone who doesn’t deserve the label.
As for your “phobia” objection, you really do seem to be making the prescriptivist argument that you shouldn’t have to read split infinitives or admit you know what someone means when they misuse “literally.” The ship has sailed on the narrow, fear-only, definition you’d like to apply to “phobia” (at least outside the clinical realm, where I’ll defer to your expertise), and there’s no evidence I know of that “Islamophobia” is responsible for it. Unless you think xenophobe, demophobe, and francophobe, just to name a few, are also tendentious frames.
March 11, 2011, 5:34 amleo marvin says:
(I didn’t mean to imply those words being tendentious would make Islamophobia responsible for the bastardization of “phobia.” Only that there’s no more reason to consider one tendentious than any of the others, all of them including similarly broad meanings of “phobe[ia].”)
March 11, 2011, 5:51 amloki13 says:
My few observations-
1. I agree with Leo Marvin that LL’s comments in the prior thread were unfortunate, and do play into a stereotype long used by anti-semites; but I also think that standing alone, they do not rise to the level anti-semitism. I think we have to give some room to allow people to make mistakes, especially regarding sensitive subjects. I do not think that neurodoc would want to be held to the standard that he would be accused of Islamobigotry any time he made a comment about Islamic terrorists on threads that didn’t originally deal with it.
2. I also agree with Leo Marvin that this parsing of Islamophobia doesn’t do anyone any favors. If someone is accused of anti-semitism, it is not usually expected that the person will reply that they like arabs (semites) just fine. Words have commonly accepted meanings, and Islamophobia doesn’t mean that one is diagnosed by the DSM IV to be irrationally afraid of Islam like one might be of, say, spiders. But if you’re a strong prescriptivist, I recommend popularizing the term “Islamobigotry” along with your war against split infinitives.
3. I have engaged in a few personal vendettas against other internet commenters over the years. One (1) made me feel good. That person was a holocaust denier who was completely lying about the law and misquoting facts. The ones I didn’t feel good about were just evil, annoying, or wrong. So my rule of thumb is that if the person doesn’t rise to the level of repeatedly and maliciously lying about the murder of millions of people, it’s best to let it go.
4. That’s it. I am now reminded why I don’t comment on this issue. It always ends in personal recriminations, a history of wrongs, and something about the Balfour Declaration. :)
March 11, 2011, 9:28 amLitigator London says:
I think this goes to the heart of a number of matters.
I accept entirely that there is a long history of persecution of the Jews, particularly in the Christian West. The purported religious grounds for persecution have been anathematised by the Roman Catholic Church and many other denominations. That is progress. All modern states have removed legal disabilities atttaching to Jews.
That is not to say that all discrimination has disappeared. Discrimination is often cultural. Anybody who is part of any minority may be discriminated against: Catholics, Irish, Blacks, Muslims, Jews, Gays and Lesbians, Roma. Women face discrimination even as a majority. But no country which is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights may discriminate against its citizens on grounds of sex, religion or ethnicity and there are effective and enforceable remedies. The same is true in the Americas. Here also there has been much progress.
So I would find it hard to believe that that there is today any rational reason for a person of Jewish faith or ethnicity to flee from the USA, or the EU on such grounds. Further, I note that the Supreme Court of Israel does act to protect the rights of Israeli Arabs not to be discriminated against. There is presently an ongoing case about discriminatory screening at airports.
Yankev does not mention, but it should not be ignored, that there are Jews who sincerely believe that they have a God-given right to the whole of the the biblical lands of Israel – what I understand they refer to as “Eretz Israel”. The problem is that this belief does not translate into an obligation enforceable against others who do not share that belief.
As I and maybe others will see it, “ethnicity” does not give rise to any enforceable rights either. First and foremost “ethnicity” is a self-identifying concept. If we look at the time of the recent Greek Monarchy the official title of the last monarch was “Constantine, King of the Hellenenes”. Thus he was claiming kingship over all the Greek peoples (classified by race or descent) but, of course post Westphalia he was considered internationally only to have sovereignty only over the territory of Greece. At best, ethnic considerations have been taken into account when negotiating treaties for the formation or secession of states.
It is a prerogative of a nation state itself to define who are its citizens and who may become its citizens. For example at this time a Braziian may presently become an Italian citizen if a parent or grandparent was born in Italy. That means that the state of Israel has a perfect right (as a matter of national law) to determine who are the persons born outside of Israel to which it will grant nationality and on what terms.
I would however argue that as a matter of human rights, no state’s domestic immigration law should discriminate on grounds of either religion or ethnicity. The problem for Israel is that the modern state of Israel has only existed for a brief period. There must be relatively few Jews who do not presently have Israeli nationality who would qualify for admission on grounds of descent from a person who had Israeli nationality post 1948 although the category might be wider if extended to prove descent from someone born in Mandate Palestine. But it would be quite difficult to frame a human rights compliant law which say granted a preferential immigration status to all the descendants of those resident in Mandate Palestine which excluded persons in that category who were Arabs.
Were Jews as an ethnic group in a particular location to have a fear of persecution (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention) there could be no possible objection to Israel granting them asylum. But I think it would be impossible to frame a nondiscrimatory immigration law which allowed a person of Jewish ethnicity and religion holding, say, a US passport to acquire instant settlement rights while denying that right to people of other ethnicity or religions.
It might on the other hand be possible to establish qualifications for immigration (wealth, skills, knowledge of the national language etc) which in practice might make it much easier for a Jew to qualify.
I would hope that the the recent moves to democracy in the Arab world will lead to modern non-discriminatory constitutions. I have met a number of Jewish families in France who have said to me that they would like to go back to where they were born in Algeria or Morocco if the circumstances were right. I would like to think that in God’s good time and in my lifetime, Christians and Jews could likewise return to, say, Iraq without fear of persecution. It’s not an impossible concept.
As some of you may have noticed a number of EU states (including the UK) have upgraded the status of their Palestinian delegations to that of mission in anticipation of the next UN General Assembly. It seems likely that very soon Palestine will have wide international recognition as a state.
Under the terms of the UN Charter, the concept of the acquisition of territory by conquest has gone. Therefore the precise borders of Israel are in practical terms to be defined by a peace treaty.
While I would have wished for Mandate Palestine to continue as a multicultural, multi-religious state, what has been done cannot be undone. The best hope is now for a two state solution and eventually for the sort of supranational agreements (Free Trade, Free Movement of Capital and Labour) which would increase the prosperity of the whole region.
March 11, 2011, 9:48 amyankev says:
In which Jews were at all times deprived of rights of worship enjoyed by their Christian (during Britsh rule) and Muslim (at all times) neighbors, and were subject to being murdered by their Arab neighbors with little in the way of protection or punishment being afforded by the Ottoman or British legal authorities. Gee, thanks.
March 11, 2011, 10:05 amloki13 says:
LL- This says both too much and too little. As you are undoubtedly well aware, while there has long been a history of Christian animus towards Judaism that has recently subsided (although it continues in some pockets today), and while Islam historically has been more favorable towards Judaism, there is a nasty, widespread, and virulent anti-semitism in the Islamic world *today*. Pointing out past abuses by Christians does little to shed light on current realities.
Yankev- Way to quote the first part of what he said while ignoring the rest. And you wonder why people have little belief in either side?
Okay. That really is enough. Now I’m going back to dreaming of a paperless office, hell freezing over, and peace in the Middle East.
March 11, 2011, 10:18 amneurodoc says:
Well, first I don’t think the way you use “leverage” is the way it is commonly understood. If it were, then it would pertain to 1031 like-kind exchanges, in which instead of settling up with the IRS upon sale of an appreciated property, one “trades” for another property of equal or greater value (not lesser because would then have “boot” and a tax liability, and rarely a direct swap between A and B). Hugely advantageous and a way that can make for real estate fortunes, but what is really achieving is not so much greater ultimate gain through deferral as it is greater ultimate gain by avoidance of multiple taxable events along the way, however close or far apart in time the sales/exchanges may take place. If one is “lucky,” or more correctly the heirs are lucky, then there is never a taxable event (sale or foreclosure and forgiveness of debt or negative basis) during the owner’s lifetime and property gets stepped up value upon his/her death, so capital gains tax has been finessed. It matters not a whit in this whether the property owner is married or single. If you would there was “leverage” in this, fine, but again I don’t think most people would. (The leverage is in putting up some money to buy/control the property and borrowing/mortgaging the rest and getting a return on both the money into the deal and on the borrowed money.)
Now it looks like the hypothetical you have constructed is very little about the marital deduction as such but about “generation skipping” (estate assets going to a grandchild, or is there a great-grandchild in there?), and you overlook the little matter of the GST (which isn’t little at all).
I think there are other problems with you hypothetical or illustration, but I’m not going to go further with this because: (i) I am so far from expert and anyone listening would be foolish to rely on what I say here; and, (ii) it is so wildly OT to this thread (M&W to “Islamophobia” to “homophobia” to SSM to tax law…) Sometimes OT is good, as when LL digressed, as he is wont to do, from the topic of the BBC’s objectivity (or lack thereof) to health care in the US to corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians, which, along with his comments in this thread, have been very revelatory.
* It would be very much in the self-interst of the people in your illustration to vote Republican lest that rate go from 35% to 45%, possibly 55%, and the exemption takes a big whack.
March 11, 2011, 11:11 amDebrah says:
Or pointing out past abuses by any so-called group serves no purpose.
No purpose at all.
And this extends to any group using selective examples from the past and wrapping them in hagiographic puffery as a way of saying “Can you top that? (!)”
Currently, even the most useless and insipid activists are magically turned into “courageous” saints — most often a status achieved by loitering with hand-scribbled signs and sandwich boards.
By the end of the 21st century some of these disgruntled little morons will have been turned into “freedom fighters” for tendentious historical fare. LOL!
Somehow, the “victim” who perpetrated the Ft. Hood massacre doesn’t quite stack up against the gas chambers of Dachau.
Everyone is a victim because they are told they are. Without exaggerating in the slightest, if most were to simply go about their days without an association with the idea that someone’s “rights” had been “violated” they would have no identity at all.
The beauty of this is that they also never have to work on themselves as individuals.
March 11, 2011, 11:20 amneurodoc says:
“Demophobia” is a terrible example for your purposes, a good one in support of mine. A “fear of crowds” falls squarely within the DSM-IV’s criteria for a “phobia.” I never heard the word “francophobe” and wonder how many have, let alone used it. It’s very hard for me to imagine a fear of the French or things French (Germans not so hard, especially for those with any memory of WWII). “xenophobe” is not a common word, but well-established. If someone were branded a “francophobe” or “xenophobe,” there is little likelihood that the conversation would be about “irrational fear” with the DSM-IV’s indicia rather than a straightforward, non-hysterical consideration of why the individual harbored those feelings. We wouldn’t be told that we couldn’t hold Congressional hearings on the radicalization of francophones to carry out acts of terror on behalf of the francophone world, if there were such a phenomenon. (Any experience of francophones commiting terrorism against the non-francophone world on behalf of the francophone world?) What would be irrational fear would be (is) the fear that such hearings will result in still more jihadis, e.g., young Somalis in MN going off to fight with the Shebab, with their families told by religious leaders in their communities that they will burn in hell if they go to the FBI to reports it; converts to Islam being radicalized with the active encouragement of fellow worshippers in a TN mosque, then going off to kill US military; etc.
“people who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ are really anti-life.’” – A modern Rip van Winkle has been asleep from before Roe v. Wade, wakes up and asks you what does it mean when people identifiy themselves as “pro-choice,” and you would tell them it is another way of saying “anti-life”? Or, “pro-abortion”? Nonsense. They would be grossly mislead by such an “explanation.” People who identify as “pro-choice” have a range of views, but all agree that the government should not preclude the possibility for a woman, while those who identify as “pro-life” are adamantly opposed to allowing abortions, most opposed under any and all circumstances, including incest and rape. “Pro-life” implies a definition of “life” as beginning with the junction of sperm with ova, and for some that means even before implantation, so IUDs should be banned too. And some of those “pro-lifers” are opposed to the use of contraceptives and would take us back pre-Griswold. In a similar way, there is a lot of “framing” when one goes with “Islamophobia.”
“I don’t see how those terms unfairly disparage anyone who doesn’t deserve the label.” Now, your being “circular,” since who is/isn’t deserving of that label is so much a matter of who is pronouncing the”diagnosis.” No such problem when saying whether an individual is acrophobic, claustrophobic, etc.
“you really do seem to be making the prescriptivist argument that you shouldn’t have to read split infinitives or admit you know what someone means when they misuse “literally.” The ship has sailed on the narrow, fear-only, definition you’d like to apply to “phobia” (at least outside the clinical realm, where I’ll defer to your expertise), and there’s no evidence I know of that “Islamophobia” is responsible for it.” Nonsense that this is anything like unwillingness to quietly accept splitting infinitives or jump whenever “literally” is used incorrectly. (I will confess that I often correct those, especially my wife, when they use “less” in place of “few,” and increasingly common and unfortunate mistake, since it makes for less (not fewer) precision.) And that this bogus and tendentious concept has gained traction may be so, but it doesn’t mean we should agree to it.
[On some university campus, e.g., UCI, Jewish students have been subjected to harrassment and threats by Muslim students and their supporters. As a result they have felt unsafe. Do such students become "Islamophobes," and if so, do they get anything they can show to identify themselves as not "irrational" haters of Muslims qua Muslims, but rather people acting in very understandable and justifiable self-protective ways? Or are they just "Islamophobics" like other "Islamophobics"?]
March 11, 2011, 11:57 amloki13 says:
Fine. Then you’ll agree to engage in pointless arguments with people that point out your use of anti-semitism is incorrect, and everyone can call it a day. :)
Heck, did you know that the aryans were were just speakers of proto Indo-European? And the swastika is a Native American Symbol? So there should be no problem, in your opinion, with someone who approves of aryans and swastikas, because, after all, even if other meanings may have gained traction, you wouldn’t want to agree to them. ;)
March 11, 2011, 12:29 pmneurodoc says:
So it means nothing that the corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewwish physicians truly came out of nowhere (LL got there by first interjecting something about health care in America, and from there went to the rabbis and Jewish physicians, and has never explained his thinking or offered proof of his allegations about American Jewish physicians. After studiously ignoring calls for an explanation, LLsaid he was sorry that Leo was offended, but he wouldn’t recant or apologize since “facts” were facts. Not an example of “antisemitic” expression?
That dog don’t hunt, which is to say it is nonsense which doesn’t comport with the facts here. But whenever anyone thinks neurodoc is spewing “Islamobigotry,” they should step up and make that case. (neurodoc has no patience with fools who simply charge “Islamophobia,” then come forward with no supporting evidence other than reference to Melanie Phillips’ “Londonistan.”
Again, the “splitting infinitives” nonsense. What of any consequence is involved in that argument? I am quite willing to split infinitives (not so willing to accept “less” in place of “few”), but won’t accept the “framing” that comes when “Islamophobia” is agreed to.
Some of us think “evil” generally should be called out, and that encompasses a good deal more than Holocaust denial, though Holocaust denial is certainly evil.
Well, that’s a Jewish thing. :)
March 11, 2011, 12:31 pmloki13 says:
That’s my point. I don’t think you’re evil. I don’t think LL is evil. I just think that the two of you have very different viewpoints, and that they’re passionately held. And, to a certain extent, understandable (after all, when passions get inflamed over discussion about raising or lowering the US marginal tax rate in an income bracket by two percentage points, I can certainly understand even greater passion over such an issue that has bedeviled generations and cause suffering and misery and death, and has been thought by both to be about existential survival).
But LL is not Ahmedinejad. By tarring usually-thoughtful commenters that you think are wrong and annoying and idiotic (your opinion) with that brush decreases dialogue, just like tarring you as an Islamophobe ends the discussion there. People can be wrong, but not evil. FWIW, I think both of you are wrong. :)
March 11, 2011, 1:29 pmneurodoc says:
“I don’t think you’re evil. I don’t think LL is evil.” Thank you, but where exactly do that get us? Did you think that I or others were trying to prove that LL is “evil”? Nonsense. (Yes, I’m resorting to that word a good deal, but that’s what this is, nonsense.)
“I just think that the two of you have very different viewpoints, and that they’re passionately held.” Can we add to that that attention has been called to antisemitic utterances by LL, and when he finally responds, he reaffirms then, while no one has “convicted” me of bigotry here, though you’re welcome to try. (“very different viewpoints… passionately held” – silly pap)
“LL is not Ahmedinejad.” None of the “jurors” ever imagined that he was, nor that he was Hitler, Qaddafi, Saddam, Assad, or any number of other loathsome people. So, what is your point? He’s not Ahmedinejad, so we should ignore the antisemitic utterances?
“By tarring usually-thoughtful commenters that you think are wrong and annoying and idiotic (your opinion) with that brush decreases dialogue…” Because LL does not usually go off on patently antisemitic tropes, it should be overlooked when he does? Can you identify those “usually-thoughtful commenters” that I have labeled “idiotic,” would PmK, a person who says I make charges on the basis of no evidence, then refuses to consider the evidence when it is brought to his attention, be one?
“…just like tarring you as an Islamophobe ends the discussion there” But I’ve invited those who would to do just that, so everyone could see what they could come up with in support of that allegation. No case or a bogus case, and we then have the accuser’s (e.g., p-pjo/PmK number, and an illustration of how the accusation is often used.
Sorry, but I don’t find discourse like this useful.
March 11, 2011, 1:51 pmneurodoc says:
I went past this one before. Can you point me to any of those instances in which my use of “anti-semitism is incorrect”? I would very much like to consider them, that is if yours isn’t 100% hypothetical (and a counterfactual one at that).
March 11, 2011, 2:10 pmloki13 says:
Do you use anti-semitism to refer to discrimination against arabs? Other semitic people? Do you use it to refer to discrimination against the jewish religion generally (say, converts) that aren’t semitic? Do you use it against people that are against Israel and for Palestine (both semitic peoples)?
Like I said, your nit-picking on Islamophobia seems a wee bit odd.
Anyway, to the main point. I reviewed the thread (as I mentioned). There was nothing factually incorrect in it. I could point out that Bernie Madoff, a jew, used his connections to rip off, inter alia, jewish charities. Does that make me an anti-semite? I understand the need for vigilance, since anti-semitism has often been subtle, with talk of rootless cosmopolitans, and there is often a code (see also, Hollywood and certain cabals, and the use of factually correct information to tar with smears and innuendo), but you seem to keep claiming special insight into LL’s heart despite the fact that he claimed, ending the thread, that he denied that he was anti-semitic. Perhaps this is the usual dodge (It’s not anti-semitic to keep pointing out that Jews control Hollywood- it’s a compliment!), but it’s his claim.
So, in effect, you keep badgering for an apology that he denies is due. And you’re surprised by this? That he isn’t giving you the courtesy of admitting being an anti-semite (which he denies) and asking forgiveness?
Will you ask him to stop beating his wife as well?
Like I said, I no more think he is an anti-semite than you’re an Islamophobe. But hey- if you need to carry that grudge, carry on!
March 11, 2011, 2:29 pmLitigator London says:
Indeed. Not only was there no reason for the USA to fear the IRA, there was very considerable support for and funding of the IRA in some parts of the USA which for a very long time the US government did nothing to prevent.
You speak of the “fear” of terrorism. Of course, all acts of terrorism by definition are carried out to put fear into people. Hitler’s V-1 and V-2 weapons were called “terror” weapons because they were designed to break the will of Londoners by the fear of death raining from the skies. There was something reminiscent of that in the expression “Shock and Awe” as applied to the pre-invasion bombing of Baghdad.
Awful as it was, 9-11 was never going to break the will of the US people and the fear of terrorism is irrational because one is statistically much more likely to meet one’s maker as the consequence of a road traffic accident. But irrationality does not mean that the fear does not exist. The issue is what level of enhanced precautions should be put in place. I last visited the USA before “Flying While Muslim” became a problem and I have to say that I was horrified to see that on all three internal flights, the pilots flew the aircraft with the cockpit door open throughout the flights. There was very much a “it can’t happen here” mentality. It was inevitable that 9-11 would change that mentality for always and that in terms of precautions the pendulum would swing the other way – from too lax to too strict.
The point is that it is all very well to say that acts of terrorism are always criminal acts but how often does a powerful nation state remedy injustice merely because of peaceful protest? The modern history of Ireland is a case in point. The carve-up of the island of Ireland into two separate states so as to ensure a continued Protestant ascendancy in the north where Catholics were systematically discriminated against was bound sooner or later to explode. So terrorism was the consequence. And the only way it was defeated was by a combination of measures – some of a “police – and military in aid of the civil power” nature and some of a political and social reform nature. But it would have been quite wrong to say, some Irish Catholics are terrorists, therefore all Irish Catholics are terrorists – particularly because there were acts of terrorism by Irish Protestant groups too.
Therefore, rightly, one spoke of “IRA terrorism” or “UVF terrorism” and thereby one did not tar all the adherents of the religion with the deeds of the terrorists. Likewise in Spain people do sometimes speak carelessly of “Basque terrorism” while the government is careful not to suggest that all Basques are terrorists and refers to “ETA terrorism”
That is what Muslims find so objectionable about expressions such as “Islamist terrorism”, “Islamo-fascist terrorism” or “Jihadi terrorism”. They tar all adherents of Islam. But, there cannot be the same objection to “Al Quaida Terrorism” or “GSPC Terrorism”.
Further there is more than a suspicion among Muslims that the choice of words of so many in the USA is attributable to a deliberate propaganda effort by those who have espoused the myth of the “class of civilisations” – namely that a confrontation between Islam and the West is inevitable. That suspicion is enhanced by the fact that so many (not all) of the proponents of this myth are Jewish and that there is an anti-Muslim a bandwagon on which people are climbing. See as an example Sharia Law in America by Janet Levy and see also Articles by Janet Levy for other examples or this Obama’s Legal State Department Adviser: Impose Sharia Law on America by Benyamin Solomon.
I agree that the expression “Islamophobia” is a neologism. It’s part of the “political correctess” agenda that holds that the word “chairman” is unacceptable, that “chairwoman” is equally unacceptable and that one should address the presiding person as “Chair” as if a piece of furniture. Since I’m of an age which taught that the correct form was “Mr Chairman” or “Madam Chairman” as the case may be, I confess to a preference for the use of the words “bigot” and “bigotry”. But we live in the age of euphemism and the politically correct have adopted “Islamophobia” possibly thinking it is less offensive.
I believe there are members of the Jewish community in America as in England who prefer to arbitrate some matters before a Beth Din and in the UK at any rate there are similar provisions for Muslims – in all cases the award is susceptible to judicial review and my be overturned for sound public policy reasons. So I read the articles in question as bigoted (or the euphemism of your choice). How about others?
In fact, if one listens to the voices of the ongoing revolutions in Tahrir Square, or in Tunisia, or Morocco, or elsewhere, what the people of Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco want are very much the things we in the UK or the USA or western Europe take for granted.
March 11, 2011, 2:29 pmneurodoc says:
Eugene Robinson is a highly-respected columnist for the WaPo, regularly appearing as a talking head on Meet the Press, PBS, etc. His column in the paper today says a great deal about this “Islamophobia” business, and the uses it is put to.
Robinson is so apoplectic about the hearings chaired by Peter King, he can’t contain himself, the spittle flying off the page. He began his agitated rant:
He doesn’t wish to acknowledge inconvenient facts, saying for example, “In addition to inviting Minneapolis-based Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali American whose nephew was recruited by the terrorist organization al-Shabab, King could have brought in police from the Twin Cities to testify about cooperation by the Somali immigrant community.” Would testimony about cooperation by some in the Somali immigrant community there negated Bihi’s testimony as reported on the front page of the same edition of the WaPo in which Robinson’s column appeared. On the front page, it was reported,
Robinson went on to imagine…
But that was pure “imagining,” because he could cite no such actual case, that is no real example like the Bihi one.
Non sequitor: “In other words, King suspects that the Muslim community is somehow complicit. Individuals of one faith are implicated; individuals of another faith are not.”
Through Sheriff Baca it was established that “that radical, extremist acts of crime are committed by non-Muslims as well,” though none were specified. (This is were Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph come in handy, and some would add Jared Loughner and Cho from VA Tech in support of that proposition.) 7 of 10 known instances of al Qaeda “have been foiled in part by information provided by Muslim Americans,” but no details of that cooperation were given, or at least not mentioned by Robinson, and nothing was said about whether other members of the Muslim community had the opportunity to help but didn’t, nor was anything said about the details of the other 3 out of 10. What conspicuously went unsaid in Robinson’s column was that CAIR has actively encouraged Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI.
Robinson concluded with an account of Rep. Ellison crying as he related the story of a Muslim paramedic who died helping others on 9/11, thereby proving up the “un-American” accusation against King and the hearings.
Oh, and Robinson was made to look like an exemplar of reasonableness when put alongside what two Ds from TX, Reps. Jackson and Green, had to say by way of protest.
Only Islamophobes could fail to be persuaded by the case Robinson makes, right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031004680.html
and before it, in anticipation of the hearings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030703197.html
Remember class, “framing.”
March 11, 2011, 2:45 pmneurodoc says:
If it is “more than a suspicion,” then what is it in the minds of Muslims, a certainty?
And why should that be a surprise to Muslims, since they know, don’t they, the Jews control all the levers of power in the US, most especially the press. Media throughout the Islamic world, backed up by a great many (not all) Muslims clerics who sermonize on the subject, and organs of the PA, etc. so inform Muslims, don’t they?
[In the UK, do judges let counsel natter on in the way you regularly do here in your posts?]
March 11, 2011, 3:13 pmneurodoc says:
The more you go on, the clearer it becomes that not only don’t you get it, but you are unlikely to ever get. I would assure you, though, in all sincerity, that I don’t doubt your sincerity.
March 11, 2011, 3:23 pmneurodoc says:
Another precint reporting in:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-11/liberals-missed-opportunity-to-discuss-radical-islam-at-peter-king-hearingss/?cid=topic:featured1
March 11, 2011, 3:40 pmLitigator London says:
A hearing before our Supreme Court can take 1-5 days rather than the very limited time for oral argument allowed in the US Supreme Court. It all depends on the complexity of the issues.
A blog is not a courtroom.
Do you consider the two articles I linked to bigoted? If not, why not?
March 11, 2011, 3:45 pmneurodoc says:
OK, I dragged in Eugene Robinson before, now I’ll drag in Eugene Volokh:
March 11, 2011, 4:18 pmleo marvin says:
That’s not what I said. Apparently my meaning wasn’t clear, so I’ll try to do better. “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are tendentious because calling oneself “pro-life” implies that those who call themselves “pro-choice” are “anti-life,” and calling oneself “pro-choice” implies that those who call themselves “pro-life” are “anti-choice.” “Islamophobia” contains no such tendentious implication about those to whom the term doesn’t apply.
I wonder if you followed my link, because it shows that the non-medical dictionary definition of “demophobe” is “a hater of people, esp. in crowds” (emphasis mine), which makes my point perfectly. The DSM-IV notwithstanding, “phobe” and “phobia” have become commonly understood suffixes for not just irrational fear, but prejudice and hatred for a particular group. I’m sure you know that a word can have one meaning as a term of art and another in common usage, right? Or do you correct everyone who uses “narcissist” outside the DSM-IV parameters?
So what do we call people who hate foreigners? “Xenophobe.” Want a word for people with a thing against the English? “Anglophobe.” And when the need arises for something to call people who don’t like Muslims, “Islamophobe.”
Like loki and LL, I have no particular affection for that neologism. If you want to change it to “people with a hair across their ass about Islam,” fine with me. Just know that when a suffix has taken on a common meaning in the lexicon, claiming that one, and only one, of the many examples of its use that way is a tendentious coinage defies Occam’s razor.
March 11, 2011, 5:14 pmLitigator London says:
It’s still the same problem. Writing about the IRA would you consider it more appropriate to write about “IRA terrorism” or “Catholic terrorism”? Or if there were some act of terrorism committed by a group who happened to be Jews would you want people to refer to “Jewish terrorism” or prefer a reference to the particular group which carried out the act?
And you haven’t answered the question about the two articles I linked to: bigoted or not bigoted and if not, why not?
March 11, 2011, 5:45 pmleo marvin says:
But you also seem to think “calling out evil” implicitly requires attaching labels. If your purpose is to call attention to evil, I’d encourage you to consider whether attaching the label yourself, rather than just exposing what makes the object of your criticism objectionable, isn’t self-defeating. As I said earlier, and loki made the same point with different words to this effect, labels like “antisemite” and “Islamophobe” shed more heat than light in these fora, except maybe in the most extreme cases where in any event the label almost goes without saying. The upshot is that less attention gets paid the thing you want exposed, and more to the inevitable flame war that follows.
March 11, 2011, 7:06 pmleo marvin says:
neuro,
You’re right. I forgot about the GST, but the examples can be modified to avoid any generation skipping and illustrate the same result. As for how I used “leverage,” I picked it up from the eminent, now long retired tax attorney who taught me most of what little I know about these matters. Which isn’t to say his usage might not have been idiosyncratic.
March 11, 2011, 7:13 pmleo marvin says:
Having once urged you to let one of those go, it may come as some consolation to know, since I neglected to mention it at the time, that I also found (and still find) him very annoying.
March 11, 2011, 7:27 pmLitigator London says:
I just thought thought Imperial History of the Middle East might be of interest to some.
March 11, 2011, 8:09 pmneurodoc says:
Please point to the post in which I labeled LL an “antisemite,” because I don’t recall doing so and you are placing great emphasis on labeling utterances “antisemitic” or expressions of “antisemitism” and labeling the speaker/writer an “antisemite.” I am not as reticent as you, requiring a clear statement of antisemitic intentions, and think LL‘s responses to you more telling than you seem to, but I tried to avoid that “personalization,” though it isn’t easy. (And do note that LL has personalized responses to me, calling me a bigot, referring to me as the person full of invective, etc. And no, I am not saying “well, he did it too,” and I would not discourage him from more of the same because it undermines him, not me.)
As for “calling out evil,” I was just responding to loki13, who didn’t feel obliged to go after those who didn’t measure up to Holocaust deniers in reprehensibleness. I don’t see myself as on patrol here or elsewhere to identify those who come down on the side of “evil,” but I am reluctant to do so, perhaps because I have no “strategic” objectives, including winning converts to my points of view. If I did I might be more heedful of loki13‘s about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar. (In any event, I am certainly not out to attract flies, though I seem to do so even with “vinegar”.)
March 11, 2011, 9:36 pmneurodoc says:
Having said this is way OT, and more importantly that I was no expert in these matters, I will just add a bit more beyond the GST issue, which could be a very substantial one, undermining your analysis.
The “law of commutivity” tells us that it doesn’t matter the ordere in which arithmetic operations are performed, you will come out with the same result. I believe that pertains to this estate business and what exactly “deferral” achieves or doesn’t achieve. I could be wrong (is there a readily recognizable acronym ICBW?), but I don’t think it matters whether you take the 35% (or 45% or whatever) estate tax sooner or later and the heirs go on with the same 5% after-tax return you were getting while alive, or the estate tax is long deferred (the testator lives longer or his/her assets go over to a spouse before eventually passing to others) while the assets throw a 5% after-tax return, and a greater sum in estate taxes is paid later because more assets have accumulated up until that point, and then once again it is a 5% after-tax rate of return after the estate is settled up with the IRS.
Now, “traditional” IRA continuing as a “traditional IRA” until age 70 1/2, when distributions must begin, or conversion to a Roth IRA which becomes a “stretch” IRA for the benefit of heirs, is similar in many ways to the “sooner” vs “later” choice with the “death tax” (you don’t mind that tendentious framing, do you?) popular with Palin and others, that we analyze differently. I am much more confident where the “sooner” versus “later” question is concerned for those with substantial assets. Some will say, “oh, you may be paying income taxes at a higher rate now than you will in the future, so hold off,” which may make sense for those who know they will be in a substantially lower marginal bracket later on, but the benefits of early conversion are substantial, among them that later you will need to pay a greater amount of taxes than now if the corpus grows substantially, and with a Roth all the subsequent gains escape income tax while with a “traditional” IRA you are only postponing the day of recogning, and you will have to have been earning a greater after-tax rate of return to keep pace with what is growing tax-free for all time in your friend’s Roth account. Why should you expecct to get a better rate of return outside an IRA than within one?
There, I’ve done my best with this, such as it is. And if anyone with real knowledge of estate matters thinks I have things wrong, please tell me so and explain how/why.
March 11, 2011, 9:58 pmneurodoc says:
Sorry for my misunderstanding. I would point out though that those who call themselves “pro life” are indeed “anti-choice” and they might try to avoid saying so, but there can be no doubt about it. On the other hand, it is only in the minds of the “pro life” crowd that “pro choice” means “anti-life,” part of the Pope’s “culture of death.” (I won’t dispute him as the place of the Islamofascists in the “culture of death,” since they are at times manifestly fetishistic about death, especially killing in the defense of Islam and dying as martyrs so as to get their rewards in Paradise.) But I take it we agree that “framing” influences the course of debates, and terms may be inherently tendentious (which you don’t think “Islamophobia” is, and I do).
No sure that it doesn’t contain any implication about those to whom the term doesn’t apply. Who is the decider of to whom that label applies and to whom it doesn’t? If given a “clear” by whoever is empowered to decide it, then they are PC OK. (Those parties who decide questions of “victimhood,” including the pecking order among various victim classes, for which white males and Jews rarely qualify, are not known for objectivity in these things, and it is very political. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0211/glick021811.php3)
Will try to come back to this later. I don’t expect that Occam is in any great hurry.
March 11, 2011, 10:22 pmleo marvin says:
Neither do I. Nor did I say you had.
I’m more reticent in two ways. First, the way I think you mean here, is that as we seem to agree, I set a higher bar for what constitutes antisemitism (albeit apparently lower than loki’s). But in this case I was referring only to the second way, which is strategic, along the lines loki discussed. Yes, I do think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, the relevant “flies” being people susceptible to your persuasion. Those will rarely if ever be the people you’d consider accusing of antisemitism, and never the ones who identified the antisemitism on their own, as they’re already persuaded.
When you say,
I wonder what you think the value is of “calling out evil” on a comment thread, if not to persuade the persuadable.
March 11, 2011, 11:33 pmleo marvin says:
But doesn’t that describe every politically and/or socially charged category, e.g., liberal, conservative, centrist, moderate, pragmatist, leftist, Marxist, Zionist, neocon, likudnik, fascist, Stalinist, racist, homophobe, misogynist, theocrat, Darwinist, pedophile, Red Sox fan…? They’re all (except maybe the last) roiled from within and without by arguments over what they mean and to whom they do and don’t apply. That doesn’t make them all inherently loaded. Some are and some aren’t. It takes more to show that “Islamophobe” is one of the former.
March 11, 2011, 11:40 pmleo marvin says:
The law of commutivity requires using the same numbers, even if the order of operations changes. That’s not what happens here.
The operative principle is the time value of money. With “P” being principle, “R” return (capital gain + income), and T% tax rate, if R is positive and T is constant, (P+R)(1-.T) will always be more than P(1-.T). Which is another way of saying getting paid earlier, or paying someone else (in this case the government) later is always presumptively valuable, all other things (e.g., rates of return, tax rates) being equal.
March 12, 2011, 12:49 amDebrah says:
Wow. This thread is still alive.
Neurodoc–
The link that you left provides a great example of the “framing” technique in which all evidence of barbarism, 7th century mentalities, and yes, evil, are swept under the proverbial prayer rug.
Ironically, those who openly identify evil and try to prevent its destruction are attacked as being “evil” with such embarrassing sideshows.
If this insanely unprofessional grandstander Keith Ellison had an ounce of decency and integrity he’d resign, go home, and build a mosque as a place to perform more of these shenanigans.
Everyone knows that there are Muslims living and working in the U.S. who are just as dedicated to their jobs and to making a better life for themselves as any other American.
So why do some people invariably attempt to thwart any effort to fight against those Muslims who will do us all harm if given the chance?
Is “Allah” that sweepingly charismatic? … Or toxic?
And all this talk about “catching more flies with honey” is so insipid as to drive away even the most dedicated worker bees!
This is the approach — uttered aloud or not — that people use when they know the reality of a situation, but want to avoid discussing the most negative aspects and putting their names on identifying them.
I personally despise this method; however, it does keep such people (they think) in their much-valued “safe” and “civil” commentariat sphere.
As Einstein said: “Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.”
March 12, 2011, 8:05 amloki13 says:
Leo Marvin-
I don’t think my bar for anti-semitism is lower than yours; I think the comments in the other thread were a little odd, unnecessary, and out-of-left field. I just don’t think that, standing alone, they are enough to accuse an individual of being an anti-semite (as opposed to being insensitive and using a poor example). Sometimes people touch on sensitive points or stereotypes without meaning to, and sometimes they do it deliberately. LL says he didn’t mean to, and *absent other evidence* I assume his good faith.
I will amend my previous statement. I will call out evil in two instances- holocaust denial and Yankees fans.
(Too far?) :)
March 12, 2011, 9:33 amneurodoc says:
I do think the law of commutivity pertains, since it is about arithmetic operations (multiplication, as in figuring periodically compounding interest, and subtraction, as in taking a chunk out of the total to pay taxes) done in one order or another, but the order not effecting the end result. And while it may seem like a “present value” of money issue, in fact it is not.
Is it OK if I go back to the IRA question, that is whether to convert from a “traditional” to a Roth IRA now (sooner), which means paying a substantial taxes upfront (everything in the tax-deferred account, including original contributions, unless they were made with post-tax dollars, comes out as ordinary income, no capital gains that will be taxed at a lower rate), or to defer the conversion, and with it the payment of those taxes that are due when money is withdrawn from a tax-deferred account, until some time down the road. Again, ICBW, but I think this scenario is enough like the estate tax one (and estate taxes await in the end here to, that is unless one spends the money they convert during their lifetime rather than leave it untouched to become a “stretch” Roth IRA for an heir(s)) to use it for illustrative purposes.
Take 2 guys, Joe and Bob, who are identical in every way relevant to this hypothetical, that is each has the same amount as the other in a “traditional” IRA, say the relatively small amount of $100K, and each has the same amount in ordinary, none tax qualified accounts, say $40K. They make virtually identical investment choices, so we can figure they will the same rate of return; they are in the same tax bracket now and will likely be in the same tax bracket until the end of their days. Joe decides to convert everything now, Bob decides to convert some years in the future. Is one likely to come out ahead of the other? If you would say that Bob, the late converter, who is deferring income tax, should come out ahead of Joe, the guy taking his income tax hit now so as to get past it and be earning tax-free on Roth IRA funds henceforth, I think you are wrong.
Joe, like Bob, must pay 40% in taxes between federal and state. So when Joe converts all of his $100K, he’s going to have to exhaust his non-qualified holdings of $40K. Now, he is left with $0 outside his Roth IRA, and $100K in the Roth. That’s $0 now and it will always be $0 because nothing will be added to it. Bob, who has
deferred on the conversion, and hence on the taxes too, stays pat with $40K in non-qualified funds and $100K in his “traditional” IRA.
According to the rule of 72, a compounding 9% should see your money double in 8 years. So after 8 years, Joe has $0 in the non-tax-qualified side, Bob has $80K, and it is $200K even for each. Bob decides it is now time to convert (he doesn’t want to be forced to take distributions at 70 1/2), and after he does, he is left with $200K in a Roth and nothing in non-qualified funds because he had to use all of the $80K to pay the income taxes due on the conversion (40% of $200K). So it looks like a wash, since in the end, though they converted at different times and paid taxes at different times, they are left with exactly the same amounts. BUT WAIT, we overlooked something – how did Bob’s non-qualified funds go from $40K to $80K in 8 years, because he was earning a 9% fully taxable rate of return on those monies, while the 9% rate of return Joe was earning in his Roth was a fully tax-free one! For Bob’s $40K to go to $80K in 8 years, and give him enough to pay taxes on the conversion, he had to have had a 15% taxable rate of return, but 15% is improbable, and besides we postulated that Joe and Bob would see exactly the same RORs, though because of the timing of the conversions, Joe’s would be tax-free, Bob’s taxable. So Bob can’t keep up with what is necessary to keep him even with Joe, and Joe winds up better off than Bob in the end.
Now, perhaps you will say that the estate tax thing is a different matter because there is not the same tax-free vs taxable issue. Agreed, though I think there is much in common between the two scenarios (timing of taxes on conversion to Roth and timing of estate taxes). Anyway, my point, which I think I have just proven, is that it is not always the case that deferral of taxes will be the best economic decision, sometimes deferral won’t produce an advantage, and it may even prove disadvantageous.
Leo, if we are to continue this, perhaps we should take it off-line. I don’t know what more I might say about this, though, and I never meant to get into this, or at least go on with it like this. And I didn’t think I was going OT when I brought up “homophobia” when discussing “Islamophobia,” one thing led to another and we wound up so far afield. I think I must train myself not to react to some things lest I find myself going in directions I never expected to, nor wanted to. That is what happened when in a previous thread, someone made a gratuitous aside about health care in the US, which had 0 relevance to the topic thread (the BBC’s objectivity), I reacted, and then outpoured that truly out of nowhere antisemitic “factual” stuff about corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians. (BTW, what you and I have been talking about is tax avoidance, not tax evasion, and a Jewish Supreme Court justice said long ago that there was nothing wrong with tax avoidance, it was only the evasion stuff that was punishable.)
March 12, 2011, 10:30 amneurodoc says:
Debrah, I’m not sure which link you were referring to, was it the Caroline Glick one in which she uses the reporting of the attack on Lara Logan to discuss the pecking order of victimhood? I think Glick was dead on there, as she so often is. I wish I could find another article that I read about the same time about the incredibly bad treatment of women in Egypt, with nothing at all thought about physical assaults on women in public places in broad daylight. It seems that Islamic values don’t keep Egyptian men (is it really necessary to add “some” all the time, especially when we are talking broadly about the culture?) from reaching out to touch a woman’s breasts when they walk by. (It was written by a woman reporter based in Egypt who was recounting how she had had to avoid walking in the streets and otherwise go about life differently than in a society in which women were not so regularly abused.) Am I proving myself up as an “Islamophobe” when I bring stuff like this up? Hell, I was charged with that for substituting “Londonistan” for “London,” and it seems we aren’t going to discuss the evidence to support the Londonistan thesis. (What did you think of the “rebuttal,” which corrected me on Finchley Street vs Finsbury Park; who’s in and who’s out at the moment as mayor and MP; how it is that the Finsbury Park, which btw is in a neighborhood with a number of good Algerian restaurants, though I don’t have the names of them for you, came to turn out such an impressive number of major terrorists; etc.?)
Anyway, it seems I can’t convince some of my interlocutors of the tendentiousness of the very term “Islamophobia,” and we haven’t even touched on its huge overinclusiveness. But glad I could persuade you, but then you were already persuaded, weren’t you?
March 12, 2011, 10:45 amneurodoc says:
I think that should be raise the bar “higher,” not “lower,” since setting the bar lower would mean employing less rigorous criteria and greater willingness to call out antisemitism, not more rigorous criteria (e.g., those who admire Hitler and celebrate his birthday).
Did I say before that “you really, really don’t get it”? I want to amend that to “you really, really, really don’t get it.” And I’m not talking now about the rigorousness of the criteria you employ, but the evidence itself.
You say, “Sometimes people touch on sensitive points or stereotypes without meaning to, and sometimes they do it deliberately. LL says he didn’t mean to, and *absent other evidence* I assume his good faith.” Where/when did LL say what you say he said, that is that he touched on “sensitive points or stereotypes without meaning to.” He won’t allow that it was an expression of antisemitism to bring up out of nowhere, as he did, corrupt rabbis and tax-cheating Jewish physicians. (Can you say how that story about rabbis arrested for their participation in tax fraud had anything to do with anything? And did you see LL adduce any evidence that Jewish physicians are overrepresented among tax-fraudsters, that is other than his claim to have first-hand knowledge as a lawyer of it?) And the only regret he expressed was for offending Leo, who quite appropriately said he wished that instead of expressing regret for causing him offense, LL had expressed regrets for the original remarks. But Litigator Londonistan (yeah, I’m sticking with that one) stood pat, refusing to recant or apologize for the antisemitism, denying it was antisemitic, saying those were “facts” and facts are facts. Can’t one sincerely believe that Jews tend to be more dishonest (cheating on taxes) than others and that they “control” much in the US (that’s more than just a Muslim “suspicion), and thus say those things “in good faith.” It seems to me there would only be “bad faith” there if the speaker did not believe what he was saying, saying it only to provoke or rabble-rouse.
I don’t think I ever accused LL of being an “antisemite” (if I did, please show me when and where I did), only of giving voice to antisemitism. So I have not dwelt on what I can’t argue on the basis of evidence (what is in his “heart”), I have argued what I have (antisemitic utterances) on the basis of evidence, which you don’t wish to focus on, in order to get by the unpleasantness of it.
March 12, 2011, 11:12 amDebrah says:
The one you left on The Daily Beast coverage of Ellison and a photo of Sheila Jackson Leeeeeeeeeah……with a decidedly angry expression on her face.
March 12, 2011, 12:05 pmneurodoc says:
Leo, about “demophobe” and its significance here…
There are others whose personal lexicons are greater than mine, but I think mine is pretty good, yet “demophobe” is unfamiliar to me. I don’t recall ever seeing it in print, and I am certain I have never heard the word uttered. Maybe that’s just a “lacune” in my brain, but more likely it is a reflection of how infrequently the word is used, and for good reason infrequently used.
The online dictionary which you cite for authority ain’t the OED (and unfortunately my own 2-volume, microscopic print edition of the OED is packed away in our basement somewhere), a far cry from it. It defines “demophobe” as: “a hater of people, esp. in crowds.” Do you know anyone who hates people in crowds as opposite to crowds themselves, so that you might have a use for “demophobe” to describe them? I know someone who is quite personable but very much doesn’t like crowds, and thus doesn’t go out much, which is unfortunate, since that is very limiting. There is a psychiatric label or diagnosis for such a person, that is “agorophobic,” someone who avoids public spaces because they are truly fearful (not hateful) of crowds. And I think many non-psychiatrists know the meaning of “agorophobic.” Those whose song isn’t Barbara Streisand’s “People,” because they don’t like people generally, it seems can be called “demophobes,” but I think few would know and use that term in preference to the one commonly employed for people who are “anti-social,” that is “misanthrope.” If I had access to and knew how to use certain databases (e.g., Nexus, or perhaps Google), then I expect I could prove up the rarity of “demophobe” and regular use of “misanthrope” and “agorophobe.” So I grant you, FWIW, that your online dictionary establishes that “-phobe” and “-phobia” can be used as suffixes to create new words that might be employed to describe “hate” of various groups, but that is as far as I will go with this. I continue to believe that the “-phobe/phobia” is freighted with the implication of “irrational fear of,” so doesn’t service well to describe those who think there is damn good reason to see Islamofascism as a very serious threat.
Another problem with “Islamophobia” is that it implies that it is about the religion itself rather than the adherents thereof, that is Muslims. Frankly, that isn’t a big problem for me, but there are many, like LL, who insist on distinguishing the religion from its adherents and what they may do in the name of their religion. I know very little about the tenets of Islam (though we keep being told over and over again that it is a religion of “peace” and does not countenance “coercion” notwithstanding that so many of its adherents seem to understand their religion that way), but LL holds the Wahabis to be a heretical form of Islam, so nothing about “true” Islam can be inferred from what goes on in Saudi Arabia and from what Saudi Arabia exports to the rest of the world. (They not only fund those wonderful madrassas in Pakistan, they also teach their hateful ideology here at schools in the US. Some of the textbooks those schools use are extraordinary expressions of bigotry.) So, not only does use of “Islamophobia” imply the question of what is irrational as opposed to very rational fear, and fear of as opposed to straight up hatred of, it muddies the question what is the true object of that fear and/or hatred, is it the religion, the adherents of that religion, or both. If someone says they hate camel jockies and rag-heads, which are slurs aimed at Arabs, are they expressing fear and/or hatred of Muslims, while someone who focuses their expressions of fear and/or hatred on the Quran, for example the “sword” verses, is to be seen as a bigot because of their attitude toward the religion per se, though they may also irrationally fear and/or hate Muslims qua Muslims, and not just subgroups thereof. (Fear of or hatred of someone who is a Muslim won’t by itself make one an “Islamophobe,” they must fear and/or hate, perhaps irrationally, Muslims as a group, not individual Muslims, to be counted “Islamophobes,” right?)
Can we stop here, at least for the time being, rather than go on to “xenophobe,” which I grant is a perfectly good word to describe those who hate (or fear?) foreigners because they are foreigners? (“Nativist” might do the same job as a descriptor, but it may not be as familiar a word, and there may be nuanced differences between “xenophobe” and “nativitst,” though they don’t immediately occur to me.)
(Francophobe, Anglophobe, and other such combinations of country with “phobe/phobia” persuade me of little more than “demophobe” does. Apropos those words, however, I do wonder what one would call a person who is so repulsed by Pakistan and its culture, that they hate all Pakistanis wherever they may encounter them, are those people “Pakistanophobes”?)
Don’t know if I have persuaded you of anything or you me in this regard, but even if the result has not been persuasion, perhaps it has been useful anyway.
March 12, 2011, 12:08 pmDebrah says:
In a word: yes.
March 12, 2011, 12:13 pmneurodoc says:
And that is just a small bit of what can and should be said apropos the hearings and what they have brought out. (Do look at Eugene Robinson’s columns to see his hysterical denunciations of the hearings as “McCarthyite” and “Un-American.” And hysterical rantings like his are the order of the day for the left right now. “Islamophobia” is the great concern, not that which explains much of that so-called “Islamophobia.”)
This Muslim physician, M. Zuhdi Jasser, who founded American Muslim Forum for Democracy, is most impressive in my eyes. (If you can find on the NPR website audio of his interview by Michele Martin, listen to it and tell me what you think of him and what he has to say.) But for the CAIR types he is a “traitor” and they are trying very hard to impeach him in any way they can. The best it seems they can do (see Media Matters) it seems is to harp on the claim that his organization isn’t as representative of American Muslims as theirs are. Unfortunately, I think it probably true that AMFD isn’t and won’t be as representative as is CAIR, ISNA, the Muslim Student Association, and their ilk. The AMFD will never have the likes of Sami al-Arian on one of their programs, advise Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI, etc.
(Still don’t have my audio problem fixed, so can’t listen to YouTube clips. When I can I’ll listen to the clip you linked to.)