 |
The message, I take it, is pretty clear — "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life," coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies." Yet this is what the American Jewish Congress reports happened when the ad was submitted to Ms. magazine:
When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject -− the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.
A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is....
Ms. Magazine has a long record of publishing advertisements rallying readers to support reproductive choice; opposing the Religious Right; highlighting the fragility of the pro-Roe v. Wade majority on the Supreme Court; charging that “Pat Robertson and his Religious Right cohorts don’t like individual freedom;” announcing support for the “struggle for freedom and human rights;” opposing the Bush administration’s campaign to fill federal courts with judges who “will reverse decades of progress on reproductive rights and privacy, civil rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and so much more;” as well as accusing the Bush administration of being “bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad.”
“This flagship publication of the American women’s empowerment movement publishes ads that are controversial in the general culture but not so among its readership,” Ms. Kurlander said. “Obviously, Ms. believes our ad would enflame a significant portion of their readers.”
Mr. Gordon added, “What really amazes me is that just recently, in their Winter 2007 issue, Ms. ran a cover story with a picture of Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi with the heading in big letters: “This is What a Speaker Looks Like.” While Ms. has every reason to be proud of Speaker Pelosi and her accomplishments, as are we, the only discernable difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Itzik apparently is that Speaker Pelosi is not Israeli.”
Mr. Gordon noted that while Israel was apparently too hot to handle, Ms. Magazine did not extend that taboo to Arab and Moslem women. “What is even more amazing is that, while refusing to publish a simple ad praising three very notable women, women who embody the ideal that Ms. Magazine seemingly espouses, Ms. has run a cover article in the Fall 2003 issue on Queen Noor of Jordan, has featured a number of articles on Muslim women, and even ran an article in the Winter 2004 issue entitled, ‘Images of Palestine,’ which discussed the Ramallah Film Festival and gave sympathetic reviews to films concerning ‘the liberation of South Lebanon’ from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate ‘revolutionary’ activity against Israel and miscast Israel’s activities to counter terrorism as ‘oppressive.’” ...
The AJC item closes with this: “Ms. has the right to turn down our ad. But in exercising that right, it has spoken loudly about itself and its readership, and their lingering hostility to Israel.” If the account in the AJC report is correct — and I have no reason to doubt it, though if you know of contrary facts, please let me know — then the AJC's evaluation seems quite right, too: Ms. is entitled to make its editorial judgment, but it's an editorial judgment that we ought to condemn.
UPDATE: Here's the magazine's response.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ms. Response:
- The Ad Ms. Magazine Refused To Run:
People who have sympathy for the oppressed mean well, but sometimes they miss the mark as to where the oppression is coming from.
Also, while the American Jewish Congress may promote foreign aid to Israel generally, I see nothing in the ad itself which could be construed as "promoting donations to foreign nations."
Which is why I cannot understand why most Jews are Democrats.
JewsZionists.There may be others more political in nature, I can't recall. Certainly there are ads on tv and on billboards about supporting political causes in other countries- not sure if they are all put out by American groups or not.
But it seems natural to me-- Israelis looking for support. Moral, financial, etc. And to promote a good image for tourism. It seems in line with all the other ads.
But, I do not think that Ms. magazine's editorial decision should be condemned.
Basically, they know that this ad will cause a lot of controversy, because the message behind the ad is, as you suggest, a comparison between Israel and its neighbors.
And maybe, just maybe, they didn't want the Palestinian/Isreali conflict to be the main point made in this particular issue.
Their main issue happens to be the rights of women, not discussions of the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. It seems reasonable for them to want to focus their magazine on a particular issue and not have other issues thrust upon their readers.
With respect to the Queen Noor Jordan, she is not deeply associated with the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Coverage of her may not distract from the message that Ms. magazine wants to emphasize in a particular issue in the same way that this ad would.
Now, perhaps in other issues Ms. magazine has had issues that have features views on Isreali relations with others. That does not mean that we should expect them to allow others to hijack their magazine with this particular topic for all other issues. Just because Ms. covered the conflict in one particular issue doesn't mean that this particular ad "fits" in other issues.
If we are going to condemn Ms. magazine, it should be for
I really didn't know that Ms. magazine supported terrorism. But, if it does, it should be condemned. Part of me suspects we are not being told the whole story Mr. Gordon. I doubt that Ms. magazine is in fact a supporter of terrorism. But if it is, then of course it should be condemned.
But, not printing these ads is a very reasonable decision by a magazine that understandably wants to maintain editorial autonomy concerning the themes of any particular issue.
But those right-wing militias, they just love Israel, and Jews too.
Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.
I don't see how you got the leap to "... coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies." " It's not in the ad I saw. Had it been, then the MS. rejection would have been more reasonable. The ad I saw seemed to be only "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life, ..." That ad MS. should be condemned for rejecting.
Not wanting to run a pro-Israel ad isn't as bad as the whole Freedom Fries debacle, when the Right was similarly pissed at France. At least Ms. isn't being antagonistic.
If this were an ad for, say Belgium, and showed three prominent woman from Belgium, would they have hesitated to publish that?
Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.
The difference is that right-wing militias are fringe movements, while anti-Israeli and anti-semitic views are openly espoused by relatively main-stream elements of the left.
Is it truly a celebration of women in power?
The three photos chosen have an uncanny parallel with the photos used on those flyers seen at the entrances of Wal-Mart and the supermarket. Although there is only so much that can be done with a portrait, these are not good examples of the kind that should be used to celebrate an individual's achievements. In all three of them, the women look unhappy.
Is this ad an attempt to create a shift in the image of Israel in the US (among a certain segment of the population)?
Possibly, but the poor choice of the photos used may actually reinforce the negative connotations held by people who are actively hostile towards Israel and the ad would fail to reach the "persuadable" who have not taken a firm stance in favor for either side of the debate.
Are there other considerations to take into account when reading the ad?
I don't know the actual demographics of the magazine's target audience, but there may be extra considerations regarding the glamour, or lack thereof, in the ad as well as the education level of the readers. If the magazine is targeted towards people, or even specifically women, with a high school education and maybe some college, would it really make sense to place an *unattractive* ad celebrating powerful, highly educated women in that publication? I don't think it would for a variety of reasons.
However, if the ad was rejected merely for the reason of having the word "Israel" in it, featuring powerful Israelis, or being a plug for the American Jewish Congress then I firmly agree that the editorial decision to exclude the ad was in poor taste and should be condemned.
Which brings up the question:
Who's more influential, Ms. Magazine or the Ron Paul Report?
That's a tough one, it's often hard to accurately measure small quantities.
Another difference -- or perhaps another aspect of the same difference -- is that Speaker Pelosi is an American and Ms. Magazine is an American magazine. It makes sense to me that they would be more apt to spotlight the successes of U.S. women than women of other countries.
That said, I do agree with Prof. Volokh's bottom line -- Ms. has every right to make editorial decisions regarding from whom it will accept ads, but this is a decision with which I disagree.
Juanita Broderick? Mrs. Willy?
http://www.msmagazine.com/contact.asp
Basically, they know that this ad will cause a lot of controversy"
That an "image" ad this innocuous would cause controversy says something about their readership. What's controversial about it - that it mentions Israel without condemning it? That it tries to do for Israel the kind of thing other countries do all the time, so accepting it would mean implicitly holding Israel to the same standards other countries are held to?
It appears that Ms. believes their readership considers Israel's mere existence "controversial."
I don't recall anybody saying the Slick Willy's indiscretions were 'OK' but to call it a rape strains credulity.
Juanita Broderick says she was raped by Bill Clinton when he was the AG of Arkansas. It was a pretty credible allegation, though it was never investigated because it was well past the statute of limitations. Obviously making a charge like that years later makes it pretty hard for Clinton to defend himself, so it is unfair in that regard, but it is understandable that a woman might feel intimidated accusing a powerful state official in a state like Arkansas.
or the duke corollary which is that
1) the woman must be telling the truth because she is a person of color, single mother, oppressed class hero-victim
2) the duke 'boys' must be lying, vicious, evil privileged patriarchal white rapists
3) oh wait. she made it up? well, SOMETHING happened, and she's still a victim.
Hard to swallow that if you've read the more detailed report at yourish.com, that Ms. has published
as well as a strongly anti-Israel piece during the height of the suicide bombings in 2001, glossing over the bombings and attacking Israel's response.
and when a woman turns out to be a conservative/hawkish type, she is not "authentically woman" in the same way clarence thomas or sowell are not "authentically black".
iirc, one feminist referred to margaret thatcher as clearly "without uterus" (iow, not a REAL woman), since no woman could possibly be conservative and be an authentic woman
punctuality, and the concept of "time" are clearly white heterosexist patriarchal phallological fascist corporatist concepts so...
6 pm
It seems the pro-Israel bias of some has caused them to let this statement pass by without critical analysis.
The "their" is an obvious non-sequitor. Ms. may indeed support Israel. But the job of Ms. editors is to sell magazines and not turn off subscribers.
Also, the anti-Israel readership may likely be very small. But it's a loud and emotional group. Let's say that it's only 1% of readers.
What magazine do you folks know that wouldn't feel a hit by losing 1% of subscribers? What if the anti-Israel readership 10% of all subscribers. That's a tiny minority. But, again, are there any business people here who wouldn't mind losing 10% of revenue?
Every day editors make decisions they might personally disagree with in an effort to maintain readership levels. So Ms.'s refusal to run that ad says nothing about Ms.'s hostility towards Israel. It's refusal likely says something about some segment of its readership. But, really, we can't know how large that segment is.
As Donald Kaul wrote, in a democracy, it's hard to generate much sympathy for an oppressed majority.
Well done. You should be working for Ron Paul's campaign.
I doubt this will accomplish anything useful.
Checking whether your local public library carries Ms. and, if so, lodging a protest seems to me much more useful. Also useful may contacting Ms.'s other advertisers, and asking them if they want to be associated with this decision.
This is well said.
I actually disagree with the Ms. Magazine decision not to run the ad as well. But, I think saying we should "condemn" them for not running it is going too far.
I wouldn't have made the same decision if I were the editor of the magazine, but I do not think that I care that much one way or the other that this ad, which I do consider kind of boring, was not run.
Or maybe not.
Mainstream liberals have a lot in common with the extremist right wing.
Hey, Monica's affidavit was false too...she just happened to have the special sauce that showed it was.
But if I chose not to run it in a publication I controlled there would be the same howls, lots of nasty accusations about me, and every damn one would be wrong. If I were to choose to not run this add I would be no more sending a message than the add sends to me.
Ms. is a private entity, takes no federal dollars, and does not have to observe any of the ammendments that impose limits on government but upon no one else.
Justice Beinisch, at the least, has impeccable left wing credentials. Foreign Minister Livni is not exactly a hawk's dream politician either.
As to whether the editorial decision results from business reasons or sympathy, we can only guess. But the refusal to return AJC's calls hardly makes it look like a dispassionate business decision.
I think it's fair to claim that Power Line is considered part of "relatively main-stream elements" of the right. After all, the major GOP candidates have all set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that commenters in the Power Line Forum have "openly espoused" Holocaust denial (see especially here but also here). I think it's widely accepted that Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism.
I realize that it's often not fair to blame a forum operator for what commenters say. However, in this instance, the Holocaust denialists are folks who post very,very frequently (although usually they are discussing other subjects). I think this is important to notice. It's not a case of hit and run, where someone shows up and is never seen again. This is a case of Holocaust denialists being welcomed as longstanding members of the community.
More importantly, the administrators are aware of the situation, and they did nothing, as far as I can tell. How do I know they're aware of the situation? Hinderaker posted in the thread, saying this:
He posted that at about 1 am, on a Sunday morning. At about 10 am, I pointed out this example of Holocaust denial:
A little later, I posted other examples. Hinderaker never posted again in that thread. As far as I can tell, he has never said anything to condemn the comments I brought to his attention. Likewise for his fellow forum administrators.
The person who made the comment about "this Holocaust crap" has now posted at Power Line almost 10,000 times. He is almost certaintly in the 99th percentile, with regard to commenting there frequently.
If you can find a comparable example, demonstrating that "anti-semitic views are openly espoused by relatively main-stream elements of the left," that would be helpful.
My comment is also addressed to timber, who said this: "mainstream liberals have a lot in common with the extremist right wing." I'd like to see proof of that. I think I've just shown that the mainstream right wing has a lot in common with the extremist right wing.
Huh? While tastelessly lacking in compassion, this comment is not Holocaust denial.
Leave it to [certain elements] to manufacture a controversy. "They wouldn't accept our ad! Must be anti-Semitic." Oh, wait, you mean they don't accept any ads?
Until those issues are addressed, AJC can STFU about Israeli feminism.
Yes. A few Powerline commenters is indicative of the Republican party.
Dig deep son. On the otherhand, open hostility to Isreal and anti-semitism is a daily staple on myriad of progressive site-. Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground. So much so that Lanny Davis wrote an op-ed warning about the anti-semitism running rampant in the Dem party.
As to PowerLine - I cannot speak to all the commenters, but the operators of the site are very pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish.
On a relatged note, the Germans seem to be getting back to their roots. I think that's so sweet.
Did you really not bother clicking through in order to see the context?
The proof I showed is not just about the behavior of "a few Powerline commenters." I showed proof regarding the behavior of John Hinderaker, Time Magazine's 2004 Blogger of the Year.
"open hostility to Isreal and anti-semitism is a daily staple on myriad of progressive site"
If you don't see a distinction between "hostility to Isreal" as compared with "anti-semitism," then there's probably no reason for me take anything you say seriously. So maybe you could indicate whether or not you acknowledge the distinction.
Also, I'm not that impressed by vague claims that aren't backed up by specific examples.
"Lanny Davis wrote an op-ed warning about the anti-semitism running rampant in the Dem party"
His snide pro-Lieberman column is very short on facts, aside from a few comments he cherry-picked. I refer you to what you said:
There are many differences between the proof Davis brought, as compared with the proof I brought. One very important difference is that I showed very good reason to believe that Hinderaker was personally aware of the material.
I didn't do the thing you accused me of doing. But the thing you accused me of doing is exacly what Davis did.
What's the controversy? It's a simple fact that those three women occupy responsible decision making roles in Israeli society. It's also a fact that women don't occupy such roles in Arab societies.
Perhaps the controversy is that some people think the news of success of one society should be suppressed because others societies have failed? If so, then we can only publish news of Israeli success when the Arabs catch up. Could be a long wait...
They're still ahead of us as far as women in government go, though. We haven't had any female Chief Justices or heads of government yet.
I am very aware that they make that claim. However, I think I have demonstrated that the claim is somewhat opportunistic. In other words, I think they are inclined to condemn Holocaust denial when it comes from Ahmadinejad, but not when it comes from their own loyal fans. That's not the way I define "pro-Jewish."
timber: "I am fairly certain that one or more of the Powerline bloggers is jewish themselves."
Indeed. And I am fairly certain that this will not be the first or last time that a Jew is caught condoning or even promoting anti-Semitism.
First, I have to agree with other commenters who say that being anti-Israel (or more specifically against their actions) is not the same as being anti-semitic. And, ejo, I dont' believe that Israel should not exist. I just think that if Israel is serious about peace they would use the same tactics on their own settlers as they do on Palestinians, issue a date for them to be out of the houses, then run the houses over with a tank. When Israel does that, and stops authorizing further settlements, I'll be pro-Israel. (FWIW, the "collateral damage" doesn't bother me much as Palestinian terrorists, by and large, hide in civillian populations).
Secondly, a thought. Could AJC have submitted this ad for the press advantage of being turned down? I'm not necessarily advocating that viewpoint, just want the opinions of those with more knowledge. Several commenters have noted that the ad is fairly sloppily done. Ms. is known to be quite liberal. But, I know nothing of AJC or their common tactics, so I don't know if that would be totally in or out of character.
???
The watermelon comment is implicitly racist. The $100 bill comment is derogatory towards the poor. In this country, mocking the poor is much less offensive than mocking blacks. Vote for John Edwards if you would like to change that.
Here is a primer Holocaust Denial, Anti-Semitism, and other Daily Kos HATE Meta
Opinions regarding whether the women in the add hold those offices? Because if there's not a debate on that, then shame on Ms.
So when Edwards is president it will be more acceptable to mock blacks?
The magazine's explanation is:
The article also notes that Ms. is running a two-page article on Livni in the current issue.
When someone holds Israel to different standards than every other nation on Earth, I figure it's probably antisemitism.
Maybe you don't know enough about how Kos works to able to comprehend the text you're reading and quoting. See those numbers? Do you really not know what they mean? "0+" means that when the person said "actually now I deny the holocaust," the number of people who expressed approval was this: zero. "18-" means that 18 people clicked on the troll-rating button, to condemn this person as a troll, and to remove the comment from view.
If you take a look at the diary you cited, you'll notice that it attracted over 400 comments. And it's easy to see the ratings these comments received. The highest-rated comments were the ones that strongly condemned the offensive speech.
Incidentally, there have been pretty clear examples of folks showing up at Kos and making offensive statements expressly for the purpose of discrediting the blog.
Kos has over 100,000 registered members. The average weekday traffic is about 500,000 visits. The number of new comments posted daily is in the thousands. In a group that size, there is always going to be someone making an offensive statement. There's lots of evidence that those statements are quickly condemned by many, including other members and administrators. So nice job bringing proof that indicates the opposite of what you hope it indicates.
The example I raised shows that at Power Line, things are different. And the most important thing about my example is that Hinderaker didn't speak up. Still hasn't, as far as I know.
When someone treats every criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism, I figure it's probably dishonesty.
So, Powerline's failure to indiviually denounce every idiotic post on their site makes them antisemites?
As to whether the quote was "denialist" or just "dismissive," here's some more context:
which tends to support my interpretation that he's saying "get over it already" rather than "it didn't happen."
I'm not agreeing with the "get over it," merely pointing out that your claim of Holocaust denial is incorrect.
I think the magazine is harder to judge without knowing what other ads they approve. Even then, what if they ok a tourism ad for Belgium but not one defending human rights in Turkey? I don't know that they should be condemned, but a better explanation is probably fair.
On the other hand, I just recalled these ads I was somewhat shocked to see in the DC metro a few months ago, and have to wonder whether that was a better editorial choice...
No, but we find the straw man entertaining. First of all, the posts weren't just "idiotic." They were promoting Holocaust denial. Second, I'm not making a point about "every idiotic post on their site." I'm making a point about posts that were brought to Hinderaker's personal attention, in a thread where he was participating.
"which tends to support my interpretation that he's saying 'get over it already' rather than 'it didn't happen.' "
For whatever reason, you are either not looking at the evidence very carefully, or you're pretending it doesn't exist. Speaking of denial. I guess you didn't notice this, even though I already posted the link:
Let me know if you're claiming those words mean something other than "it didn't happen."
"your claim of Holocaust denial is incorrect"
Really? I think the word for what you're doing is denial.
... you'll probably catch the DNC.
I happen to be a regular reader of power line. None of the authors of that blog have ever posted anything remotely antisemitic or wrote comments that could be construed that way. In addition, their positions are in general pro-Isreal. So you are inventing or imagining the anti-semitism.
You yourself said that it isn't fair to judge a blog by its comments section... and then you proceeded to do precisely that. Whiplash, much?
You have an agenda to slime people you disagree with, and that's just not something that people are required to be civil to you about when you try it.
... you'll probably catch the DNC."
Right. Whereas if you drag a portfolio of fraudulent stock options through the golf course, you'll probably catch the GOP.
So? If he's running an "open" comments section, the fact that he's got freaks and wierdos posting on his blog will strike him as neither surprising nor interesting.
Oops, I fed the troll, didn't I? My bad.
Power line runs a semi-open comments section. It does require a registration, but bans don't often happen (so far as I can tell).
What we are witnessing here is a tantrum by someone who wanted to get another commenter banned or his comments removed, and didn't get his way, for whatever reason.
I didn't claim they did. Here's what I did: I proved Hinderaker was silent when personally confronted with Holocaust denial on his own forum.
"You yourself said that it isn't fair to judge a blog by its comments section... and then you proceeded to do precisely that. Whiplash, much?"
Irrational, much? It's not "fair to judge a blog by its comments section," except when you know that the administrator is personally aware of multiple highly offensive comments and doesn't lift a finger to condemn them.
"You have an agenda to slime people you disagree with"
You have an agenda to dismiss facts that make you uncomfortable.
Sorry, but that's incredibly lame. I'm not claiming that Hinderaker had an obligation to feel 'surprised' or 'interested.' I'm claiming he had an obligation to condemn hate speech on his forum, when it was personally brought to his attention. Especially when one of the "weirdos" happens to be one of the top commenters there.
Maybe you didn't notice what Hinderaker wrote, in his blog post that headed the thread:
Hinderaker didn't take the position that the folks running Politico should find the presence of "freaks and wierdos … neither surprising nor interesting." Hinderaker took the position that the folks running Politico would be expected not just to condemn the hate speech, but to "take it down when they find out about it."
Meanwhile, when the shoe was on the other foot literally a day later, Hinderaker lost his ability to speak. The hypocrisy is pretty breathtaking.
I dunno, but it seems a little strange to me to see an advertisement for a foreign nation in a U.S. magazine. Not to say that the message is nice, that Israel has women leaders I think is a great thing... but I don't see what's wrong with a magazine being keen on the idea that they should have advertisements that promote donations to foreign nations- it might be a little backwards and nationalistic, but I think its a reach to assume antisemitism.
What exactly is the ad advertising? Tourism? Immigration of women to Israel? Donations to the AJC?
Ask yourself this: if you want Ms. to get into the vague political or international advertising game, how would y'all feel if some other group then submitted a photo of American Rachel Corrie getting run over by a tank (deliberately or not) under the caption, "THIS IS ISRAEL?"
Or pictures of dead women and children, little Palestinian girls, killed by Israel strikes (again, caused deliberately or intentionally, no illumininating copy just, "THIS TOO IS ISRAEL")
I can totatlly understand why this type of ad would be rejected, just as I understand why some schools have gone to requiring content-free writing on shirts and clothes that students wear. Because once you crack that door open to vague statements of support, you invite others to also propagandize their messages.
Frankly, from the unflatting photos of those three faces (maybe it looks better in color than black and white?) and as a non-devoted follower of all things Israel, I'm not exactly sure what message that would send to non-political readers of the magazine.
"Condemn" away but consider that the writer here, and probably many of the commenters, come into this ad with a much different outlook that a good majority of American women who might see it and be like, "What the heck is this all about?"
At the very least, they might want to add written copy explaining something like, "Here in Israel, we not only verbally support the inclusion of women into public leadership roles, but we also practice what we preach." In this way, the ad might be seen as nudging American readers to consider why there are relatively so few American women in leadership positions.
Looking again, I think the post with the Star of David in the middle is designed to make American women sympathize with the beleaguered foreign state -- to hype Israel, not powerful political women in general. Otherwise they might include women like the assisanted Bhutto, Sen. Clinton, Margaret Thatcher and others who have served their countries over the years.
I think they were correct in rejecting it as just to vague an advertisement for the AMerican public. You see what you want, others see what they see. An endorsement of women, or subtly of the Jewish state of Israel? The latter really has no place in a magazine that caters to women of all faiths.
(Again, consider if they have in the past run photos of the Virgin Mary at Christmastime with the message, "THIS IS THE MOST REVERED WOMAN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." and then an ad for say, the Knights of Columbus. For political reasons, that one is likely to be rejected too. And somehow I doubt any of us would condemn that editorial decision.)
Well, that and the fact that Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. This is the woman who said of the Kelo decision: "It's almost as if God has spoken."
Safe for Almost all Work Environments
Revised Ad for Ms. Magazine Demographics
Heading on back to the power line blog and searching the front page for 'Isreal'...
Item number 1: "The ad Ms. doesn't want you to see"... comes to the same concusion that the VC did: "I think it is fair to say that in most parts of the United States it would be deemed an utterly innocuous ad."
Item number 2: "The diplomacy of as if", where he criticizes Bush for treating the palestinians 'as if' they were actually seeking peace.
Obviously an anti-Isreal agenda at work here!
Right now, the Isreal coverage is being bumped by all the election news, but even so there's 2 examples, ready and available to anyone who bothers to type www.powerlineblog.com into their web browser instead of taking a jilted troll's word for it.
Are those the kinds of posts anti-semites make? Only if you use your sooper-sekkret power line fassist-detectin dekoder ring, apparently.
Uh, no. I'm holding them to the same standard. But I don't expect you to have the minimal intellectual acuity required to grasp the facts that I described.
For a good example of someone with a double standard, read this comment and my response to it.
And expect a reasonable reader to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism must be himself anti-semitic?
At WORST, we have a case of a blogger incompletely policing his comments section. And as for jbg's whine that he TOLLLLLD them about the posts, guess what?
If I had a blog and a commenter like jbg showed up, it'd probably be a week max before he earned himself into the email's bozo bin, and I bet that's exactly what happened. Jbg was probably whining about other commenters before the incident, and got spamblocked therefore no one saw his oh-so-important complaint.
And the best part is, I have exactly as much proof of the above theory as jbg has regarding the motives of Hindraker not to delete the comments in question.
at the beginning, it Strongly suggested that. as time went on, it became more and more clear it was almost certainly a fabrication.
i made that very point at feministing.com repeatedly. the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-realitybased posters there (which made up about 95%+ of the responses in those threads) could not accept that because feminists are way more interested in metanarratives, "power" issues, and denigrating white males of "privilege" than they are in whether or not the woman was ACTUALLY RAPED.
" And there was no history of acts similar to the acts they were accused of. Can Pres. Clinton say the same, or should his past and subsequent actions make us more and not less suspicious of him?"
i'm not going down the clinton bunny trail. not addresing him at all... except to say it's ironic that the same leftists who pushed for all these sex harassment laws felt free to ignore them when the accused was bill clinton
Second, what is the reader supposed to make of the message? Three female politicians are Israel? Isn't there a lot more to Israel than three women politicians. Consider that The Israeli Friends of the US, if such an organization existed, could place an ad in a local women's magazine showing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton over the headline, "This is America." And what the heck would it mean?
Third, because any ad run in Ms. is implicitly approved by Ms., the vagueness of the ad's meaning creates a problem -- what, exactly, are they endorsing?
Finally, what if the American Islamist Association had asked Ms. to run an ad featuring Benazir Bhutto, with the headline "I Am Pakistan"? Who would think they should have run it?
So I can see why a magazine would prefer not to run an ad with a vague political message paid for by a third party.
Correct.
"What we are witnessing here is a tantrum by someone who wanted to get another commenter banned or his comments removed, and didn't get his way, for whatever reason."
What we are witnessing here is someone who likes to make things up. I've said nothing to indicate that I'm in favor of banning, or of having comments removed. All I've said is that an administrator is obliged to do something other than sit on his hands, when it comes to his attention that he's hosting offensive material. Oddly enough, this is essentially the same position taken by Hinderaker himself when he was standing in his glass house throwing gratuitous, hypocritical stones at politico.
I realize that they make a lot of statements in support of Israel, but that support starts to look superficial when they tolerate Holocaust denial in their own forum.
"… expect a reasonable reader to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism must be himself anti-semitic?"
A "reasonable reader" looking at all the facts is likely "to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism" is in the business of seeking out and condemning anti-Semitism only when it serves his purpose of scoring cheap political points. When he had a perfect chance to seek out and condemn the anti-Semitism on his own site, he looked the other way. Talk is cheap. Especially Hinderaker's talk. And yours.
"At WORST, we have a case of a blogger incompletely policing his comments section"
I haven't claimed that an administrator has an obligation to 'completely police' their comments section. I've claimed only what Hinderaker himself suggested: when administrators learn they are hosting hate speech, they are obliged to do something other than be silent.
"got spamblocked therefore no one saw his oh-so-important complaint."
My complaint was posted on a thread where Hinderaker had commented. It was not conveyed via email. I can see that you're not making much of an effort to grasp the basic facts of the matter.
"regarding the motives of Hindraker not to delete the comments in question"
I have never suggested that the comments should have been deleted.
I looks like a straightforward attempt to generate positive feelings about Israel from the readership. My guess is that the point was not to compare Israel to any particular country (certainly not its neighbours) but rather create the impression that Israeli society is fairly egalitarian. If any comparison was intended, it was to the US, which has yet to have a female President or Chief Justice (perhaps they should have included a photo of Golda Meir, Israeli PM '69-'74). I think the longer-term goal is to get people to buy Israeli products, perhaps go to Israel as tourists, and at least not talk about boycotting Israel.
Some facts: Itzik and Livni are not from the same party (Itzik belongs to Labour, Livni to the right-wing Kadima [and formerly of the Likud]). Beinisch is certainly not a politician -- in Israel judges may not express political opinions.
I often see people accused of antisemitism when they try to hold Israel to the *same* standards they'd apply to every other nation on earth.
And here I thought the job of Ms. editors was to advance the feminist cause. Silly me.
(And I'm with Connie. When the hell did they start taking ads again anyway?)
So can we make analogous conclusions about those who don't believe the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or an independent Palestine or Kosovo or Euskal Herria ought to exist?
That explanation would have held water if all three were from the same party. As it is, is sounds like a lame excuse. What is Spillar implying? "We'll take your ad if each party is represented by 1.5 women"? Talk about Solomonic!
As I noted above, this statement is false. Livni belongs to a right-wing party, Itzik to a left-wing party, and Beinisch is a-political (she's a judge and can therefore have no public political opinions). I saw the statement in some comments but have just realized it was apparently made by the magazine. That should tell us enough about their level of professionalism.
- I'd laugh my ass off, and maybe criticize the accuracy, but would not care if they ran it. It does not defame anyone - it would, presumably, be trying for a positive spin. Of course, some jihad johnny might object to the message and bomb the maagazine...
I have to question the "often". Where are the calls for boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, whose human rights records are infinitely worse than that of Israel? Why is there such great concern about the Palestinian "refugees", most of whom are only refugees under a special definition created just for them, at variance with all other definitions, and not about Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, or about the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Overall, there is a huge bias against Israel.
Maybe because of the very real perception that America is complicit in Israel's crimes against humanity by providing direct support, whereas our funding of Saudia Arabia is more indirect -- cash in exhange for oil.
What does America get from our Israeli support of the mistreatment of Palestinian refugees -- the absolution from Holocaust guilt really is wearing thin.
If American taxpayers were not directly called on to support Israel, I suspect not only would we care a good deal less about what they do, but also that a lot of that bad things they get away with would end when they were forced to stand along, defend themselves alone, and prove their "independence".
Just a thought. I don't want my tax money being used to kill civilians in Israel, anymore than I condone it being used to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
Not In My Name.
It's not the Christian way, it's not working, and many resent having to pay the bills for it.
Where have you been? Do yourself a favor--google "boycott saudi arabia," "boycott sudan" and "boycott china tibet" and see what pops up. Sheesh.
We expect more from Israel than we do Sudan, because Israel holds itself to a higher standard, by proudly proclaiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East, and America's best friend and strongest ally. Does Israel really want to be judged by the military dictatorship standard? Regarding boycotts: Note that the U.S. already sanctions Sudanese businesses and individuals.
Move.
Indeed you did. I was also silent in failing to respond to that Holocaust denial. Who else will stand in shame with Hindraker and me?
It's not the Christian way, it's not working, and many resent having to pay the bills for it.
Christians have shown us their way for two thousand years, and we can see that it includes just about everything.
Nice job with the idiotic sophistry. You're not the manager of the site that hosted (and is still hosting) the offensive material. He is. You weren't present in that thread. He was. You hadn't just written an article throwing stones at politico for allegedly being tolerant of offensive material on their site. He had.
So there are several important differences between you and him. But here's one similarity: you both like making arguments that are embarrassingly fatuous.
Jeez this is stupid. Let me ask you this: How many posts denying the Holocaust did this "regular" poster make on the thread, and how many followup posts agreed with him, as against how many anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts are made on the liberal blogs? Humm? Maybe Hinderocker (sp?) just thought that the other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required. And, quite frankly, just reading your posts here make me want to go out and read some David Irving.
I mean, sometimes you just push too hard, ya dig? It does not do you ANY GOOD to trash people who would be your allies for tiny faults so that when you need their help, they can't stand the sight of you.
Oh, ya, in case you are interested, I am one of those guys that believe the Nazi's did the Holocaust, that Israel should have keept ALL of the West Bank after the 1967 war, that the U.N. is the problem not the solution in the Middle East, and uncompromising support for Isreal is the best policy for the United States. So don't go there, OK?
One would be too many, but the answer is a lot more than one. And it was not just one thread. It was multiple threads. One had this charming title: Jew Watch. And he wasn't the only poster promoting Holocaust denial. Click through and see for yourself. But that's beside the point. My concern is not his behavior. My concern is Hinderaker's behavior.
"how many followup posts agreed with him"
He wasn't the only one. But that's beside the point. My concern is not his behavior, or the behavior of other posters. My concern is Hinderaker's behavior.
"as against how many anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts are made on the liberal blogs?"
I'm still waiting for someone to show a single example of "anti-jewish posts … made on the liberal blogs" where a site administrator was demonstrably present and decided to sit on their hands. There is no excuse for such a thing, and it's pretty disgraceful that you're trying to pretend otherwise.
"Maybe Hinderocker (sp?) just thought that the other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required."
Maybe you've never heard this old expression: silence is consent. If the administrator is present, there is no defense for them sitting on their hands. Period.
Anyway, the rationale you're raising is oddly nowhere to be found when the shoe is on the other foot. The prior day, when Hinderaker was standing in his glass house throwing stones at politico, Hinderaker paid no attention to the fact that someone spoke up to defend Israel within minutes of the original anti-Israel post, at politico. Hinderaker seemed to have no interest whatsoever in applying your logic, that "other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required." On the contrary. Even though there were "other posts [that] adequately answered the orginial post," Hinderaker still sternly insisted that the politico administrators had a responsibility not just to speak up, but to take the thread down. And the speech in the politico thread fell far short of Holocaust denial, if one wants to compare relative levels of offensiveness. So Hinderaker's hypocrisy in this instance is quite spectacular.
The rationale you're raising is also oddly nowhere to be found in this Lanny Davis column, which impressed a poster here.
And the rationale you're raising is even inconsistent with your own comment, where you make reference to "anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts … made on the liberal blogs." It's not just that you haven't shown an example where such posts have been condoned by an administrator. You haven't even shown an example where such posts haven't been "adequately answered [by] other posts." Your double standard is pretty stunning.
"just reading your posts here make me want to go out and read some David Irving"
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it seems to be consistent with your overall stance of suggesting that a little Holocaust denial here and there is no big deal.
"I mean, sometimes you just push too hard, ya dig? It does not do you ANY GOOD to trash people who would be your allies for tiny faults so that when you need their help, they can't stand the sight of you."
I'm not sure how to decode that, but it sounds like this: "you Jews better not get too uppity." Is that what you're trying to say? With friends like you, Jews don't need enemies.
By the way, Jews are not the only people who are offended by Holocaust denial. But this unwarranted assumption on your part is fairly revealing.
"I am one of those guys that believe the Nazi's did the Holocaust"
Wow. Really? I guess that means you think you deserve a cookie.
Move.
Eh. I think I'll just wait it out...
Given the correlation between aid to the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian attacks on civilians within Israel -- when the aid goes up, so does the number of attacks -- I am glad to see Gary support the cutting off of all US aid to the PA.