Thursday, September 30, 2010

James O'Keefe, and the Sinking of The Lubesitania: It never happened.

A reply (revised and extended) to: Are Breitbart bloggers forbidden from writing about the O'Keefe "prank"? - Media Matters for America, and this comment by Andy Kreiss (1 hour and 1 minute ago, as of this writing) in particular:
"One exception was The Blaze, another poster tipped me off that it was being discussed there. A good number of the wingnuts there were very suspicious that the incident had even happened ( they don't consider CNN a reliable source), even as it was reported on Glenn Beck's site, including responses about the incident from O'Keefe himself."
The same thing is happening among the commenters at HotAir, at least at Allahpundit's recent post "CNN accuses James O’Keefe of bizarre prank"... This may be the meme folks on the right go with... ...it just plain never happened.

If any of this was even planned at all, it was all that guy Ben Wetmore's fault, and James DildO'Keefe had nothing to do with it. (that seems to be the line DidO'Keefe is runnin' with; Ben wrote it, and JimmYo rejected the idea, outright. -- which is no kinda way for a bro to stick up for a bro, if ya ask me...) The fact is, there were no sex toys or mood music on the boat James and his low cut shirt were waiting on that day (dubbed "The Lubesitania" at tbogg's place), and you just go ahead and prove there was... You just prove it. I dares ya... I double-dares ya...

AND... even if it was actually planned, and James actually was involved in it, the thing on The Lubesitania never actually took place. Therefore, no harm, no foul, right?
---

At least until somethin' better comes along, that seems to be the meme folks on the right are going with...

Also, via a commenter at an earlier TBogg post on the subject, this has to be DildO'Keefe's joint:



(John C. Reilly even looks a little like disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart in this vid, if ya ask me...)
---

Submitted for moderator approval 9/30/10, 11:15 AM (or so, WIS blog time)

X-Post: "You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP?" Yes, Donald, it is.

American Power: Obama Loves Gangsta Rap
Well, yeah.

Lil Wayne doin' time for attempted weapons possession, yo! And some lefty lamebrains have issues? You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP? (That's paraphrasing Fox Nation, before anyone gets uptight about it — hilarious, if you ask me!)



Unfortunately for them, FOX Nation scrubbed every trace of the post they could within hours of first releasing it, leaving sycophants like Dr Douglas and Weasel Zipper blogging out there on their own, linking to each other for support.

Yeah Donald... Your post is kinda racist.

And no, it (your post, Weasel's post, Fox's post, racism--even when spelled with five "a"s, and two exclamation points) isn't funny.

Better luck next time, yo.
---

UPDATE #1, added 9/30/2010, 8:10 AM:

This is why I find teh Donalde so fascinating... Here is his reply to someone else who suggested his post was racist:
Donald Douglas said...
Jim: No, it's not racist. You have a severe mental defect. Racism infers racial inferiority, hence white supremacism. I do not think Barack Obama is inferior to me, and I am not white. My father and I used to talk to each other using urban slang. You wanna call that a "black thang"? That's fine with me, but it's not racist. As for Fox Nation, attack them as racist all you want. I never did see the entire post. Maybe the comments were racist, just like the comments that all the leftists leave at Sadly No! and BJ Keefe blog. It's sick. So, I'm calling you out as well. Say it to my face or STFU. - September 29, 2010 2:13 PM
One can just imagine Donalde and his father sitting in the den when he was a kid, listnin' to the gangsta rap and puffin' on the fatty blunts and menthols, trying to figger out how to score dem a liddle more mofo crack... you know, like black people do, it bein' a black thang, n'all...

Donald... Your post (and all of your bigotronics posts) perpetuate a stereotype about black people that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The weirdest thing about your doing this, is that you yourself are proof that the stereotype isn't true. Crack pipes, fatty blunts and menthols, gangsta rap, and even your mofo urban slang are not "black thangs," and yes my friend, it's racist to suggest they are. The urban stereotype, based on the color of one's skin, is the thing that infers racial inferiority. Anyone who stereotypes another race--or even their own race--in a negative way is guilty of racism; one needn't be white to do it. One only needs to say "the people of this race as a whole are less (less intelligent, less moral, less attractive, less human, ...) than the people of other races, because of the race they are." One only need pass judgement on others, based on their race.

I'll get back to the Fox Nation thing shortly, in Update #2...
---

UPDATE #2, 8:47 AM: (Welcome back. Did you miss me?)

Donald digs a little deeper, with a follow-up post: Obama's Gangsta Playlist:
Here's the cached copy of yesterday's Fox Nation piece. Lefties have been freakin' ever since.
Ok, follow that link. (You know, the one Donalde never did see in it's entirety (see comment in update #1), but yet claims he "paraphrased" using the bigotronics in his original post.) Anyone see anything approaching the same kinda language or stereotyping (racism) in the Fox Nation piece? (I mean sure, the headline is pretty misleading, the videos way over the top, and there's little doubt they chose to highlight the President's mention of these two rappers (as opposed to say, his mention of Maria Callas) because he's black, but for real over the top racially motivated goodness, are the folks at Fox Nation anywhere near teh Donalde?)

And besides... How did Donalde paraphrase something he says he never read? And if he did paraphrase it, how did he get it so wrong? (There's nothing at Fox Nation about menthols, drugs, or mothafucka's. Just a headline about gangsta rap, and a quote from the Rolling Stone article--which doesn't mention ANY of those things, INCLUDING gangsta rap.)

It's just too bad the Fox Nation viewer commentary appended to this post seems to be lost... I hear it was just delightful...
---

Related: Donald Douglas - On African Americans
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

In Reply: David Horowitz, and Extremist Thinking

In reply to: David Horowitz in Beverly Hills: ‘Crush the Arabs Militarily’ | Right Wing News, and the following comment, in particular:
"Having been a hard-core leftist once, Horowitz fundamentally understands the sinister nature of the liberal mindset."

David Horowitz went from being a radical to being a reactionary... ...but seemingly never lost his penchant for extremist thinking.

Back when he was a radical, he was involved with communists, not the Democratic Party. He never claimed to be a mainstream (or even "fringe") Democrat, and they didn't claim him as one of theirs, either. He was a radical extremist, and both he and the mainstream left knew it.

Now that he's a reactionary though, he seems to believe everyone to his political left is a cooooomunist!!! or a sooooocialist!!! or some other kinda crazy scary raaaaadical extreeeeemist like he used to be.

Just like any born again or reformed "sinner" (smoker, drinker, gambler, porn addict), he sees evil--dangerous radical leftist evil--everywhere he goes.

When one imagines himself a hammer, one sees nothing in his world but nails. And that makes David Horowitz hard to take seriously...

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

In Reply: Note to The White House: Hippie Punching Ain't Where It's At, Cats

In reply to: The Reaction: Stop digging (revised and extended.):
---

The whole hippie-punching thing coming out of the White House lately is getting real old and tired. It's too the point where it's really going to start pissing off the ones that stand the most chance of being there for them, now and in future. Besides which, it's a strategy that's not likely to help them win over more of the middle, either. To do that, they ought to be talking about their record of accomplishments, not whining (yes, WHINING, Mr. Biden) about the folks that prolly did the most to help them achieve them.

Bruce Miller at The Blue Voice, writing the same post as yours, only using more verbiage: "I CAN’T STAND YOU, NOW GO VOTE FOR ME"
---

Posted 9/28/2010, 4:49 PM

In Reply: Did Dr Gottheil's motivations taint his methodology?

In reply to: Trees For Lunch: A Form of Bigotry You Seldom Hear of

As far as Israel, I think Froggie's correct about it's age having something to do with folks taking issue with it. While it's founding is in many ways not all that different from other countries--very few nations are populated now by the same people who've always populated them, and many stories of conquest and political maneuver include sad stories about the side that lost "their" land--it's different when there are people still alive who can personally recall when they lived there. Wars have consequences, and Israel is a fact--and has as much right to remain a fact as America, Australia, Mexico or any other country--but if you're one of those people who feels a little sympathy for or sense of injustice about the people who lost their land as a result of war or politics in the first place, the story of Israel, being so relatively recent that there are folks still alive today who used to live on that land, seems a little more sad and unjust. And yeah... That it's founding is at least in part based on a Bible story doesn't help, especially if the Bible doesn't happen to be your Sacred Text.

As far as Dr. Gottheil, I have some serious questions about both his methodology and his motivations (and whether his motivations tainted his methodology, and thus his results.) Had he really wanted to gather signatures opposing human rights abuses in the Middle East--rather than "proving" the rhetorical point he came in with--he could've and would've done a far better job trying to get those signatures than to send out a single "cold call" e-mail to a bunch of strangers and not even do any follow-up to make sure they received and read what he sent them. It seems to me that he wanted these academics to fail his little test, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, they did. Anyone interested can further explore my thinkin' on the subject here.

I did like Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern, however, and that's the real reason I dropped by. I posted it at PetitionOnline.com, and I'm trying to do a better job collecting signatures on it than Dr Gottheil managed to do. To that end, I'm hoping that you folks here (and anyone who comes along and reads this comment later) will follow the link, read it over, and consider adding your name.: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition. It may not do much good, in the overall scheme of things, but it may get people thinking and talking about the issue, and something worthwhile ought to come out of this story.
---

Posted September 28, 2010 5:36 AM (Trees for Lunch blog time)
---

To read the rest of my commentary on this subject, previous and since, please click the GOTTHEIL label, below.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

In Reply: Still talking about Dr. Gottheil, at GeeeeeZ! (blog), this time

In reply to: GeeeeeZ!: Larry Elder REALLY tells it like it is.........
---

Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.

And hey... Thanks for the shout-out there, Ducky.

I wouldn't say Dr. Gottheil punked out, exactly... ...but the methodology by which he tried to garner rhetorical support for anyone's human rights in the Middle East by collecting signatures (to the extent that such a thing actually was his goal, in the first place) was pretty sorely lacking...

And any comparison between the two campaigns to gather signatures that doesn't discuss in the slightest the methods by which each petitioner went about trying to get those signatures, seems kinda short-sighted and ultimately destined to be a failed experiment. (I mean, does anyone really believe that Dr. Lloyd (of the Israel divestment petition) sent out 900+ unsolicited e-mails to strangers one time, all by himself, with zero follow-up and no human rights or sociopolitical education group, history of work in the region, or so much as a website to back him up, the way Dr. Gottheil did? If so, it's bridge buying time, and I've got some real beauts over desert waters... ...cheap. But you have to hurry, they're goin' fast....)

As far as I'm concerned, counting the number of people who didn't respond to a single unsolicited e-mail from a stranger, that may or may not've even made it into their "IN" box (spam filters, don'cha know), is hardly the best way to determine who does and does not care about the rights of women or gay folks in Middle Eastern countries. YMMV, obviously...

Anyway... Please sign the petition. Whatever one thinks of the way Dr. Gottheil went about it or his motivations for doing so, his Statement of Concern is pretty sound, and somebody ought to get some actual use out of the thing.

Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition
---

Had some issues actually getting this bit of commentary to show up over there on GeeeeeZ, but I'm hoping the proprietess there will get it all straightened out. If not, I'll go on back there and try to post it again, later, perhaps by just posting a link to this post, here. (I'm thinkin' it's a spam folder thing, though. I left a comment there about that, too --see below-- but I'm not altogether sure that that showed up on the blog, either. As with everything else, though, it was in my e-mail.)

Below: After part/all of my messages didn't show on the blog, and ALL of 'em showed up in my e-mail, I (tried to) post the following (As I said, I'm not sure this one made it, either. In comment view (Blogger: GeeeeeZ! - Post a Comment), it was there, but in post page view: (GeeeeeZ!: Larry Elder REALLY tells it like it is.........) it wasn't. Go figure...:
hmmm... Somethin's up here (spam filter, is my bet)

I got error messages, (and no message here) so I kept trying to post... Finally I (thought I) got both parts to post (though as I look now, part 1/2 isn't here). ALL of 'em (including the ones to which I got error messages) showed up in my e-mail, though...

Bottom line, sorry about any excess commentary anyone gets...

Z, please get one full copy of what I (tried to) say showing, and delete the rest, with my apologies to all for the wasted time/trouble. (If you wish, you can ditch this comment as well, once you get me posted as I intended.)

And then feel free to let me have it for whatever it is you disagree with in my words... 8>)
---

UPDATE, 9/26, 6:55 PM: Successfully posted full comment at GeeeeeZ! blog, Part 1, 6:48 PM, Part 2, 6:51 PM.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Dr. Gottheil's 'Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com...

The comment, posted to as many sites as I could find that covered any portion of the Dr. Fred Gottheil story this week:
Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
Here are the blogs that I found that covered the story, and to which I posted/submitted the comment.
The first seven allowed the comment to appear immediately. I saw the post, and wherever possible, the link I posted is to the comment, rather than the blog post:

1) carnage and culture: Australian Muslim cleric calls for a beheading. Who cares? - 9/24 - Blogger signed petition, and left a reply comment letting me (and the rest of his readers) know.

2) Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II - THERESE ZRIHEN-DVIR, Regard d'un Ecrivain sur le Monde

3) The Fall of Human Rights | No Left Turns

4) Elder of Ziyon: A unique experiment on anti-Israel academics

5) DUFF & NONSENSE!: Humbug and humbuggers! *** Disappointingly, as of 9:20 AM on 9/25/10 (less than 12 hours later), this blogger seems to've deleted my comment, as well as the Blogger backlink to this post. How should we judge that, when evaluating this conservative's commitment to human rights? Duff sure seemed to care when it was liberal academics who weren't stepping up, but when it's his turn to speak out, he chooses not to do so himself, or to allow any of his readers the opportunity to do so, either. Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

6) What bias? Contrary

7) XDA: Thoughts of the Day

The remaining 12 blogs are moderated. I will report back as the comment at each is approved (or new posts/comments appear at the blog, indicating the the moderator has been there, and likely rejected my comment for publication.):

8) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | Washington Examiner - On 9/25/10, I was finally successful in getting a version of the comment above--sans link or .com attribution--to appear in the comments. (I'd tried several variations, adding this and removing that, before hitting on the right combination of info, without including what WashEx obviously considers "too much info" for their readership to handle. Like actual links.)

9) Hummers & Cigarettes: Academia: Sanctimonious Leftist Professors - 9/25 - Comment posted

10) American Power: 'Sanctimonious Bigots' – Leftist Professors and Double Standards - 9/25 - *** Dr. Douglas has added several posts to his blog since I submitted my comment, so I reluctantly have to assume that he has rejected my comment asking he and his readers to step up and sign Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern. As he is both a conservative and an academic in the field of political science, I'm most disappointed in his obvious lack of concern for the human rights of women, gays, and lesbians in the Middle East. Given the chance to reply (figuratively, anyway) to Dr Gottheil's e-mail plea--a plea we can be almost certain Dr Douglas received and read--he chose not to step up, just like those "leftist" (and likely "nihilist" or "demonic," too) professors that he posted about failed to do. Double standard? You decide. ***

11) Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted. There's even a subsequent comment from "Doug," who wrote the post, thanking me for the pointer. (Although as of this writing, no one named Doug has signed the Statement, as yet...)

12) Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy: "They are sanctimonious bigots at heart" 9/24 - Comment has been approved and posted.

13) I Beg to Disagree: Academic Criticisms of Israel: 96% Hypocritical - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted

14) Leslie S. Lebl: Disrobing the Left - 9/24 - Posted comment above within an hour or so of my submitting it, but will not sign the petition because she feels my introductory blurb is "unfair" to Dr. Gottheil. As of this posting (9/24), she has not approved a subsequent comment. - 9/25 Subsequent comment was approved. No response or link to "clean" petition, however.

15) fousesquawk: An Academic Petition You May Never Have Heard Of - 9/24 - Posted comment within a half hour of my submitting it.

16) Love of the Land: What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions? - 9/25 - Comment posted.

17) It’s all about the hypocrisy Full Metal Cynic - 9/28 - *** - Given that there is a new post at this site, and my comment is still being held for moderation, it's lookin' like the chances of it's getting posted are pretty slim. It is indeed, all about the hypocrisy, I guess... ***

18) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | San Francisco Examiner - 9/24 - Comment approved and posted at this site.

19) An experiment in Academia | Wolfville watch - 9/24 - Left a longer comment at this blog, based on an exchange posted in the comments. Not approved for publication, as of this writing. - 9/25 - Comment approved, posted, and positively replied to by blogger.

Obviously, the way these rightwing blogs and the individuals associated with them deal with my comment and the petition could prove interesting (*** in a rhetorical sense, anyway... Just as I don't buy into the theory that not reading/replying to a stranger's unsolicited e-mailed petition doesn't "prove" anything about an academic's beliefs about human rights as concerns any/all countries in the Middle East, I don't believe that the way a rightwing blogger or blog reader responds to a petition or a comment about a petition doesn't speak to their human rights cred, either. Not even if they suggested that the unreturned e-mails, did.) And, while it's only been a few hours, the response to the petition so far has been unsatisfying... Hopefully, it'll pick up...
---

9/25/10 Additional sites:

Posted:

20) Reverend Rubicon: Leftist Professors and Double Standards

21) True Catholic : Re: AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM CALLS FOR BEHEADING - WHO CARES?? SUCH A DOUBLE STANDARD!

22) The Day In Israel: Mon Sept 20th, 2010 : Israellycool

23) Our Man in Palestine - The Daily Beast

24) American academia: Condemn Israel, love Muslims | Liberty Pundits Blog *** 9/26 *** - It seems that Liberty Pundits here flagged my previously posted comment for review. Y'all see what I posted at all these sites... Is a comment asking folks to sign s Statement of Concern about human rights in the Middle East, at a post about that very same Statement, critical of the fact that a whole lotta previous folks didn't sign onto it, somehow off topic or offensive? Or is it that Liberty Pundits hates liberals (and/or muslims) more than they love supporting God given natural rights for all mankind? Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

25) What's the difference between a highly educated bigot and a lowly uneducated bigot?

26) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - THE BLACK KETTLE - (This one was actually posted on 9/24, but missed in the previous list. A subsequent commenter there notes that the Middle East (aside Israel) is awash in discrimination. While I've read a few reports that suggest Palestinians (and others, including a few young American jewish women, like Rachel Corrie and Emily Henochowicz ) may feel differently about discrimination in Israel than this commenter does, that's the reason for the Statement of Concern, and why as many people as possible should sign it. Whatever is/isn't going on in Israel, what's going on in the rest of the Middle East is more widespread and systematic. And there's no reason not speak up in opposition, even if you do believe there are problems in other places, as well.)

Moderated:

27) education teacher : As if we needed more proof that liberal academics are usually hypocites and bigots - 9/27 - *** - Doesn't look good for this blog, either. There are a whole lotta new posts at the site, and my moderated comment still hasn't appeared. On the other hand, this whole blog seems kinda suspect. While it did publish this story, which seems to have a pretty rightwing slant, other posts seem to have just as liberal a slant. It's almost as though they're robotically cut and pasted, all based on having certain educational keywords in them... The links in the sidebar mostly link to education/college topics concerning Punjab or India. And none of the posts I've seen there have any comments. Perhaps I'll give this one another day or two, and keep evaluating just who/what this blog represents, if anyone... I'm beginning to wonder whether it isn't some kinda ghost site where items are (re)posted based on those keywords alone. (If there were links, I'd think it was one of those spam sites/comments/e-mails that "borrow" random bits of text (and look like they are not written by people who speak English) to get you to click the links. While they're "borrowing" whole posts revolving around a specific topic in this case, it's the same kinda soulless/creepy...) ***

28) The Baltimore Reporter: Sally Quinn: Obama Went to Church Because Americans Are Bigots - 9/27 - *** - The Baltimore Reporter (blog) fails to approve my comment. Apparently, standing up for human rights in the Middle East is more of a rhetorical bit of self-indulgent pleasuring themselves than an actual, y'know, ideal that they strive to live up to. Meaninglessly denouncing the "evils of liberalism" for being hypocrites on this issue, while similarly being hypocrites themselves is just so much easier. And, in refusing to post my comment, they not only do nothing about the issue of human rights abuses in the Middle East themselves, they don't allow their readers to make the choice to do anything, either. Nice going, wingnuts. ***

29) Media Backspin: An Experiment Exposes Academia's Double Standards Against Israel - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted at Media Backspin

30) An Empirical Test for Academic Hypocrisy - Grendel Report - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted at Grendel Report

31) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ - 9/25 - *** Rachel at 'Thoughts From A Conservative Mom' here, obviously doesn't really care much about the rights of muslim women or gay folks, because she chose not to allow my comment about signing Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern to appear. Not only didn't she reply to Dr Gottheil's plea (very much like those "sanctimonious, bigoted" academics failed to do), she doesn't want her readers to reply, either. Let human rights be someone else's problem, I guess... Sanctimony and hypocrisy walk hand in hand, sometimes... ***

32) I also sent an e-mail to Dr Gottheil himself earlier today, asking him to formally sign his Statement at the petition site. I'll post here letting everyone know when he's done so. (While he answered my previous e-mails pretty quickly, I'd imagine he's a busy man. I told him I'd follow up with him again by e-mail in a week or two, if I hadn't heard from him by then.) - 9/27 - *** - Sadly, Dr Gottheil has declined to formally sign his own Statement of Concern on the Petition site or do anything further to stand up for the human rights of women, gays and lesbians in the Middle East, believing that his authorship of the initial statement was enough. Folks reading this can make of that what they will, but personally, I'm very disappointed in him, and further question both his motivations and his methodology, in light of these newest facts. I'll keep pushing for signatures for awhile longer, regardless, because I believe he wrote a good Statement, in spite of of his reasons for doing so... ...but I have to say, given both Dr. Gottheil's reply and the paltry degree of positive response from the very same rightwing bloggers championing his story (especially the number of 'em who either wouldn't post the comment, or went so far as to remove it from their blog posts), I think the point about rightwing hypocrisy has been made, here... It's one thing not to reply to a "cold call" e-mail from a stranger that may or may not've even made it into your "IN" box, asking you to reply to an issue you've perhaps never spoken about. It's another to fail to reply to an issue that you yourself were critical of others not replying to. To me, that is more hypocritical. ***

09/26/10 - Yet more invitations for folks to sign up to Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern

Current number of signatures as of the start of this day (including my own): 6

Posted:

33) GeeeeeZ!: Larry Elder REALLY tells it like it is.........

34) Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Not Everyone Likes the Jews

35) “Fellow academics” call prof “master of the obvious.” | Right Wing News

Moderated:

36) Look No Further - Big Citizen - 9/26 - Comment approved at Big Citizen.

37) Villainous Company: Quantifying the Hypocrisy of Lefty Academicians - 9/26 - Not actually moderated, and another that I'd posted (and forgotten to list) back on September 24, 2010 (02:41 PM comment, since there's no permalinks to commentary there) Unlike most of the blogs on this list, other commenters here (conservatives, from what I can tell) were already asking questions about the methodology and motivations of Dr. Fred Gottheil's "experiment" and results thereof... Also the only blog where I got a friendly welcome from the proprietress... 8>) (Don't see any familiar names from here on the petition, however... ((Actually, that goes for all but one name/blog, thus far... Kinda makes me wonder why...))

9/27/2010:
Current signature count, as of start of day (including my own): 7

Further addition(s) to the list of blogs/blog readers invited to stand up against human rights abuses in the Middle East by signing Dr Gottheil's infamous Statement of Concern:

Moderated:

38) SEE MUSLIMS..MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE CATCHING ON TO YOU…. - Canadian Kuffars - 9/28 - Comment approved and posted, here. (Of course, one of the enlightened there left a comment in reply that said the following, in part: "Human rights for Middle Eastern women has to come from their own educated, “enlightened” women to cleanse themselves from the tyranny imposed by their paedophile sex maniac mohd. Apparently, the women themselves do not want it." This in turn received a comment in praise from the blogger who made the original post. It's a scary, scary world...)

39) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - First Thoughts | A First Things Blog - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted at First Thoughts.

40) HuffPo: W James Casper: After giving this whole issue a whole lotta thought, and - 9/27 - Comment approved and posted at HuffPo.

41) Academic Bigotry: Israel and the Social Justice Farce - The Lesbian Conservative - 9/28 - Comment approved and posted at The Lesbian Conservative.

9/28/10
Current signature count at start of day: 9

New additions to the list today:
Posted:
42) Trees For Lunch: A Form of Bigotry You Seldom Hear of

43) Shameless hypocrisy watch: “What kind of academic signs anti-Israel petitions?" - Los Angeles Middle Eastern Policy - Examiner.com

Moderated:
44) BarkGrowlBite: LEFTIST DOUBLE STANDARDS - 9/29 - Comment approved and posted at BarkGrowlBite.

9/29/10
Current signature count at start of day: 9 (Looks like the folks at these links are about done caring about the human rights of women and gay folks in the Middle East. That was so last week, when they had a rhetorical point to sell. That's over now... On to the next bit of ginned up "OUTRAGE!!!"...) I'll keep trying, however...

9/30/10
Current signature count: Still 9, which is kinda disappointing...

At least we've received a comment however (see the comment section, below), and from a blogger I had managed to miss, no less (see link directly below, to Doug's moderated blog, where I hope he'll approve my invitation... ...for his readers, if not for himself...):

45) Considerettes - Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits - Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel - approved and posted by Doug at Considerettes (blog)
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Was I really unfair to Dr Gottheil?

Can you explain how, exactly?

In reply to Leslie S. Lebl: Disrobing the Left, and in particular, the following comment:
Leslie Lebl said...
I went to PetitionOnline, as repsac3 recommended, but did not sign the petition because I didn't like it. I agree with the idea of protesting human rights violations in the Middle East, but the text criticized Prof. Gottheil in a way that I consider very unfair. I would be very happy to sign another, clean version, and to recommend that my blog readers do same.
---
Since mine is the only version currently posted (which pretty much provides evidence of one of my issues, if ya think about it), I can only request that you (or perhaps someone else who regularly reads your site) post your own version, then.

Here is the link to do so: PetitionOnline.com - Petition Submission Form

(Feel free to copy the text from my petition, or from FrontPage Magazine.)

I'm sorry you felt I was unfair to Dr. Gottheil, but that is the way I see the situation up to now.

Thanks for trying, in any case, and let me know if you post your "clean" version. (I'd certainly be willing to provide links to both versions when soliciting signatures, in future.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval 9/24/10, 9:20 PM? (or so, WIS blog time)
---

For context, here is what my "unfair" text says:
The following text was originally written by Dr. Fred Gottheil, from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign He e-mailed it to a small group of fellow professors (675, in all) who had signed a different petition months earlier. Though Dr. Gottheil did not receive a very good response (perhaps because he cast his net too narrowly, sending a single "cold call" e-mail to 675 strangers, not soliciting signatures from anyone he knew or came into contact with personally, politically or professionally, or posting it online for the general public to read and sign, and taking no further action on this issue when his e-mails failed to achieve satisfactory results, other than to release the statement, and cast aspersions on those who did not reply to his e-mail), the Statement of Concern that he wrote is worthy of support. I'm hoping that by posting it here, we can make the statement that Dr. Gottheil intended, regarding discrimination in the Middle East against women, gays, and lesbians.
I'm not sure what Leslie believes to be untrue or otherwise unfair about what I said, but if anyone here agrees with her (or if she herself happens to drop by), I'd be most interested in hearing your (or her, or even Dr Gottheil's) thoughts on the matter.

In any case, the petition is here (in it's current "unfair, dirty" form. I'll let you know if anyone produces one that "whitewashes" Dr Gottheil's involvement in a way that's acceptable to Leslie and those who agree with her.): Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge everyone reading these words to step up and sign it... ...no matter what you think of the Left, the Right, Dr. Gottheil, Leslie, or me.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

In Reply: Why Dr Fred Gottheil's "experiment in Academia" didn't yield valid results

In reply to An experiment in Academia - Wolfville watch, after reading several comments discussing unknown factors that may've skewed the experiment, giving Dr. Gottheil the results he got (and was looking for? Maybe.)
---

Of course, you also have to know the methodology by which each petitioner tried to collect their signatures.

It's my understanding that Dr. Lloyd was one of quite a few professors involved in the Israel petition, and that there were several years of divestment work put in by human rights organizations and liberal educators, both in this country and elsewhere, prior to this petition even being written, and that the signatures were collected via a website self-selected by many of the professors. (In other words, the petition didn't so much come to them, as they searched it out and went to it.)

Dr. Gottheil, on the other hand, sent "cold call" e-mails to strangers one time, and cannot account for how many ended up in spam folders or tossed from "IN" boxes unread because they came from an unfamiliar name/address. He had no organization behind him, no website explaining his intent or ability to make any difference, and no discernible history dealing with human rights in the Middle East. He did not contact any of his personal, professional or political friends and colleagues to solicit their signatures, and did not do any followup to his one e-mail with the people who didn't reply the first time.

We also don't know how long Dr Lloyd and those working with him took in trying to gather their signatures, after their petition was composed... ...though I'd imagine it was likely longer than it took Dr Gottheil to send out his 675 e-mails. (And that's assuming he didn't send them in bulk, which, though faster for him, would greatly increase the likelihood of ending up in a spam filter.)

As far as I'm concerned, counting the number of people who didn't respond to a single unsolicited e-mail from a stranger that may or may not've even made it into their "IN" box is hardly the best way to determine who does and does not care about the rights of women or gay folks in Middle Eastern countries. YMMV, however...

In any case, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
---

Sumbitted for moderator approval 9/24/10, 8:37 PM (Wis blog time)
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

David Bromberg Will Not Be Your Fool

So, I made mention of David Bromberg's version of Mr. Bojangles earlier today, and I haven't been able to get his music out of my head ever since. While I don't believe my posting this video will help that, it certainly will not hurt anyone, either. (Unless it brings up any of those painful memories we all seem to have of that one guy or gal who did you wrong, that is... But even if that's the case for you, I believe this pleasure is worth a little pain.)



Demon in Disguise has the definitive version of Mr Bojangles (which as I said earlier, I believe to be the finest version out there; slower and sadder than most, as it tells the story of this happy-go-lucky, lonely drunk... It evokes the same kind of emotion as those pictures of crying clowns), and How Late'll Ya Play Till, and the first version of Will Not Be Your Fool I heard, back on WLIR FM, when it was a progressive, free-form station. (Long time readers will also note that the title of the latter album likely had some kinda long term influence on how I express myself, if ya know what I mean... ...and I think it likely you do.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

UPDATE, 9/25/10, 2:30 PM: In an odd twist that says something about the lengths my nemesis Donald Douglas will travel, he actually took the trouble to remove the backlink to this post from the one on his site that inspired it. (And this after I wished him a happy birthday, too. Twice, even.) You really have to feel bad for the kinda guy who'd feel the impulse, let alone actually act on it... I mean, it's a music post, fer gosh sakes... Sad.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Attn Conservatives: You've (figuratively) 'received the e-mail' from Fred Gottheil... How have YOU replied?

In reply to: Townhall - Australian Muslim Cleric Calls for Beheading -- Who Cares?, and this section in particular:
Dr. Fred Gottheil is an economics professor at the University of Illinois. He calls himself a "Keynesian-type economist" who is "not afraid of deficit spending" -- not exactly Reaganesque.

In January 2009, some 900 academics signed a four-page petition calling for a U.S. abandonment of the support of Israel. Gottheil learned that many of the petition signatories belonged to faculty from women's and gender studies departments. He decided to conduct an experiment.

Would the same professors sign a "Statement of Concern" over the anti-human rights, anti-gay, anti-woman practices in the Muslim Middle East? Gottheil composed a four-page document citing evidence of atrocities, along with the names of Muslim clerics and scholars defending these violations of human decency. He e-mailed his statement to 675 signers of the anti-Israel petition.

What happened? "The results were surprising," Gottheil said, "even though I thought the responses would be few. They were almost nonexistent."

Bottom line: Barbarity in the name of Islam is not even remotely condemned to the degree that the West condemns insensitivity by cartoonists, politicians and anti-Islam clerics. Why? A denunciation of Muslim practices suggests a superiority of American values and culture. The left finds the very notion objectionable.

Gottheil put it this way: "If leftist 'progressives' really cared about women, gays and lesbians, then they would be fighting for their rights in places where such rights are really violated -- like under Hamas in Gaza and under the mullahs in Iran. But doing so would legitimize their own society and its values and therefore completely cripple their entire identity and life purpose, and so their purported concern for women, gays and lesbians has to go out the window."

---
I don't know about this Gottheil thing... I mean, Dr. Gottheil sent his Statement to these 675 professors as a private e-mail from his college account. (It's unclear whether he sent them individually, or as mass-mailings, likely to get caught in spam filters.) There is no indication of how many actually received his unsolicited missive (vs the spam folder) or how many of the folks who did actually see it in their in box tossed it away before even reading it because they had no idea who he was. Even among the folks who did receive and actually read it, there's no saying how many saw that this was one lone professor with no human rights organization or website behind him, and tossed it away as being unproductive. (And that's only one possible reason that a person who got as far as reading it may've chosen not to reply...)

The bottom line is, counting the number of people who didn't respond to a single unsolicited e-mail from a stranger that may or may not've even made it into their "IN" box is hardly the best way to determine who does and does not care about the rights of women or gay folks in Middle Eastern countries. (If you ask me, the real discovery here is the ineffectiveness of Dr. Gottheil's methods in taking action for human rights.)

While the fact is that very few professors replied, it'd be foolish to assume any particular causation from those facts alone, especially when there are so many other possibilities...

Besides... An argument could be made that if Dr Gottheil really cared about the women and homosexuals of the Middle East, he would've cast a wider net than to only send a single e-mail to one small set of professors who'd signed one obscure petition a year and a half earlier. If he really cared, he'd've followed up with the people he solicited e-mails from. And if he really cared, he would've done something--anything--regarding this issue since.

And by the way, the same goes for every person reading this comment (all of whom obviously have "received the e-mail" about the human rights abuses Dr Gottheil wrote about, and have done... what? ...about it since...)

Maybe it's time to stop feeling smug and superior to all those lib'rul professors, and instead start talking about what YOU'VE done about this issue since reading the story about Dr Gottheil and his Statement of Concern...

I'm just sayin'...
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Also, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Dr. Fred Gottheil and the "sanctimonious bigots" commenting at the Washington Examiner

In reply to: Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ - Washington Examiner
---

Dr. Gottheil sent his Statement to these 675 professors as a private e-mail from his college account. There is no indication of how many actually received his unsolicited missive (vs the spam folder) and how many of the folks who did actually see it in their in box tossed it away before even reading it because they had no idea who he was. Then there are those who did read it, but saw that there was no rights organization affiliated with the e-mail, and ignored it as being unproductive.

The bottom line is, counting the number of people who didn't respond to a single unsolicited e-mail from a stranger that may or may not've even made it into their "IN" box is hardly the best way to determine who does and does not care about the rights of women or gay folks in Middle Eastern countries. (If you ask me, the real discovery here is the ineffectiveness of Dr. Gottheil's methods in taking action for human rights.)

What has Dr. Gottheil done for his cause since, other than excoriate his fellow professors for "their" lack of concern (obviously forgiving himself for his own lackluster effort to actually obtain those signatures.)?

What has American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, or the Washington Examiner--or any member of their writing staff, readership, or sycophants done to help?

What have YOU done to help?

Has anyone here (or at any of those sites) posted Dr. Fred Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians online and solicited signatures from their own readership and from the general public--right and left, liberal and conservative, muslim, gentile, atheist, or jew--rather than the relatively small subgroup that Dr Gottheil initially targeted with his piss-poor "cold call" e-mail campaign--a group who'd signed one relatively obscure petition over a year and a half earlier?

It's one thing to whine and complain and then consider yourselves so much more "moral" and "right" than the other side, but perhaps folks would take the lot of you more seriously if you actually did something yourselves regarding the issue, rather than bitch about what "they" didn't do, and what that says about "them." Perhaps it's time that some of you folks took a look in the mirror, instead.

I'm just sayin'...
---

Submitted for Washington Examiner moderator approval 9/23/10, 2:46 PM (WIS blog time)
Reposted without links (and thus, without moderator review) 4:35 PM or so.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Also, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

X-Post: A Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians - Dr. Fred Gottheil

While the majority of those who read this post will likely not be academics from American campuses who offered your names last January to a list petitioning President Obama to reconsider our relationship with Israel, I'm curious... ...liberal, conservative or otherwise, and whatever your career and position in life; would you sign this statement?

A simple "YES" or "NO" will do, though if you're willing, I'd be most interested to find out who would/wouldn't, and why/why not.

I look forward to any/all replies...

A Statement of Concern
Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians.

This document is not a petition. It is, instead, a statement of concern addressing the problem of human rights abuses that appears to be pervasive in the Middle East. Having offered your name last January to the list of academics on American campuses who petitioned President Obama to reconsider our relationship with Israel, we ask that you now join us in expressing your concern about human rights abuses practiced against gays and lesbians and against women in many of the Middle Eastern countries, including the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There are other gender-based human rights violations in the region but by concentrating on these particularly egregious ones, we will be able to focus support for the victims of these abuses, and perhaps in this way help change the environment that fosters such long-practiced violations.

This statement of concern, along with its list of academic signatories, will be put in the public domain; to be made available to our colleagues, to members of Congress, to government people in the Middle East, and to the media. To repeat: It does not call upon any persons, organizations, or governments to take specific action.

The information offered below is meant only to highlight the ideas held and practices condoned by people in authoritative positions in the Middle East. Documentation is derived from sources as widespread as United Nations agencies, survey research units, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, academic journals, NGOs such as Asylum-Law and Human Rights Watch, and from media reporting offered on the Internet, such as BBC.

Discrimination against Gays and Lesbians

Allegations and evidence of discrimination against gays and lesbians is compelling. Asylum-Law, an organization aiding asylum-seeking persons worldwide reports that treatment of gay men in Arab countries is particularly distressing. Punishment for acts of homosexuality varies. In Saudi Arabia, capital punishment – beheading – applies. Syrians convicted of practicing homosexuality serve three years’ imprisonment. Most other sources describe the physical abuse of and long-terms prison terms for gays in Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza. Specific laws against homosexuality exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, and Libya. The 2001 amendment to Iraq’s 1990 Penal Code made homosexual behavior between consenting adults a crime. The 1991 Iranian Constitution allows execution for sodomy. Specifically, Articles 108-113: “Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Sharia judge to decide.” A documented testimony from a 19-year old Palestinian homosexual claims that he had been pressured by the al-Aqua Martyr’s Brigade to become a suicide bomber in order to purge his moral guilt.

Religious authority supports and even promotes these practices. According to prominent Muslim clerics, Sharia law mandates the death penalty for homosexuality. Among such authority, Cleric Sheikh Ali Amar offers that “Muslims believe that homosexual behavior is an offence against Islam and anyone who behaves this way should be sentenced to death without compassion.” Egyptian scholar Shaykh Dr. Yusuf Abdahhal al-Qaradawi, director of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar, cites Sharia law to declare that a Qatari Prince, ousted from political office on grounds of homosexuality, should be stoned to death. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqis’ Shitte Muslims concurs. Kuwaiti cleric Dr. Sa’d al-‘Inzi cites article 203 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code as sanctioning death: “According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.”

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination – wife beating, honor killing, and genital mutilation – against women is sanctioned by both legal and religious authority and has been planted in varying degrees into cultural habits and institutions. The legitimacy and justification for wife beating is found in the Surra 4:34: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others … good women are therefore obedient … and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.”

Various clerical interpretations of this Surra range from beating doesn’t mean physical, to beating means only open-handed slaps, to beating must avoid delicate parts of the body, to beating is a beating. That clerics differ on this matter is acknowledged, but the legitimacy of and justification for wife beating is nonetheless appreciated. Dr. Muhammas al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the University of Jordan argues that the central issue is guardianship of the family and that domination and subordination are properly gender based. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, answers the question “Does Islam allow wife beating?” by replying that wife beating is permissible in cases of persistent insubordination.

Algerian-born Iman Abdel Qader Bouziane was expelled from France for advocating wife beating. Professor Sabri Abd al-Rauf of Al-Azhar University argued that the beatings are intended to instill fear. Sheik abd Al-Hamid al-Muhajir explained that the Koran stipulates when a husband can beat a disobedient wife. Sheik Muhmmad al-Mussayar, an Egyptian professor at Al-Azhar University describes what kind of woman may be beaten. Sheik Yousuf al-Badri, member of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, asserts that since wife beatings are noted in the Koran and Sunna, it “means we’re allowed to beat.” Egyptian Cleric Galal al-Khatib is straightforward and blunt: “only a rod would help.”

Advocacy for female genital mutilation commands less of a consensus; its acceptance and promotion stem more from social custom than from religious instruction. But its practice in the Middle East, once thought minimal, is, in reality, widespread and expanding and a matter of much concern. The UN Commission on Human Rights, the World Health Organization, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women report that female genital mutilation has affected the lives of millions of women in Africa and the Middle East.

A 2005 UNICEF report claims an overwhelming percent of Egyptian women have undergone genital mutilation. Other sources report 60 percent for both Yemeni and Kurdish Iraqi women. There is strong circumstantial evidence of its practice in Syria and Jordan. Whether religiously prescribed or not, among rural populations most of the perpetrators and victims of female genital mutilation believe it to be religiously mandated. There is also enough authoritative religious voice to validate that view.

Clerical and government opposition to female genital mutilation is growing in the Middle East. Witness the 2006 conference at al-Azhar university sponsored by 20 esteemed clerics with its president, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi, concluding that the practice “must be considered as a criminal aggression against mankind.” Yet Professor Muhammad Shamaa of the university’s Islamic Research Academy said that “it would take a long time before such an ancient custom disappears,” and admitted about the conference: “We simply did not invite those who disagree with us.”

And many Islamic clerics and educators do disagree; among them, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who stated that “whoever finds it serving the interests of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.” Egyptian Sheikh Mustafa al-Azhari believes that the attempt to end the practice is a Western conspiracy. Mufti Sa’id al-Hijawi of Jordan declared female circumcision to be a “noble trait accepted by Islam even though it is not a necessity.” Past rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad al-Haq noted that since the Prophet did not ban female circumcision, it was permissible. And Umdat al-Salik, e4.3, a much referred to manual of Shafi’i Islamic law, affirms that female circumcision is obligatory.

Honor killing – murder of a female who has allegedly committed an act that shamed her family – represents yet another form of violent discrimination against women. Male family members are judge and jury. The Islamist party in the Jordanian parliament condones it as part of Islam’s code. Egypt’s Ifta’ Council of al-Azhar University issued a fatwa stating that punishment for adultery should be left to the ruler. The mufti of Gaza, Sheikh Abd al-Karim Kahlut demands the death penalty. Jordanian minister of awqaf – an Islamic foundation – is more lenient arguing that “Shari’a is clear and she should be lashed eighty times. His colleague, Hamdi Murad, advises one hundred lashes for a first offence and death by stoning thereafter. In Saudi Arabia, tenth-grade textbooks teach that it is permissible to kill adulterers. Tarrad Fayiz, a Jordanian tribal leader explains its harshness: “A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure.”

In Jordan, Syria, and Morocco, specific articles of their penal codes condone honor killing. Morocco’s Article 418 states that murder and beatings by a husband or by his accomplice are excusable if his wife is discovered in the act of adultery. Syria’s Article 548 protects the husband from penalty in cases where his wife or sister engages in adultery. In Jordan, Article 340 states that: “he who discovers one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them is exempted from any penalty.”

In 2007, 21 honor killings were reported in the West Bank and 25 in Gaza. Saed Taha, dean of Qalqilya’s College of Islamic Law, criticized these killings on the grounds that they were not administered according to Sharia law. Although articles 19, 22, and 23 of the 2003 revised Constitution of the State of Palestine specify that women shall have the same rights, liberties, and duties of men, article 7 specifies that Sharia law is the main source of all civil and religious matters.

Most Middle Eastern countries adopted the 2006 treaty concerning discrimination against women, sponsored by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women but with provisos. In the case of Egypt, the proviso addresses the relationship between positive law and the Islamic Sharia: “The Egyptian legal system is based on a number of legislative levels, of which constitutional principles and precepts are foremost, followed by legal principles. The legislative authority is therefore bound to apply constitutional principles when enacting laws. Any violation by the legislative authorities of these principles would be considered as flouting the Constitution. In article 2, the Constitution states that the principles of the Islamic Shariah are the primary source of legislation. They are an obligation by which the legislative authorities are bound when issuing laws.” In substance, then, the proviso undermines the force of the treaty

Express Your Concern

The referenced material offered here is obviously only the tip of the discrimination iceberg. As academics who have already been a signatory to a petition declaring concern for human rights abuses practiced in one country of the Middle East, please exercise this privilege to express your concern now about the widely practiced and condoned discrimination against women, gays and lesbians in the many countries of that same region. Please join us by affirming this call for support. You can sign on to this statement by replying to this email with a one-word reply: YES. Please do so as soon as possible.

Fred Gottheil,

University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign

For the record, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed liberal "moonbat," and I fully support this statement with a big ol' YES. I believe there are natural/God-given human rights, and that all people who are able need to speak up in support of them throughout the world. Right is right, and whether abuses are being perpetrated by friend or foe, we have an obligation to speak up and speak out. (For the record, I believe that the relatively less life-threatening--but still very serious--human rights abuses against the rights of women, gays, and lesbians in this country also deserves our voices and our support, and I hope that Dr. Gottheil and his friends at FrontPage Magazine and the American Thinker blog will agree to speak up for them, as well. I'm just sayin'...)

What say you?

---
Warning: Failure to reply to my post will be taken (by some--see links above) as proof that you don't care about human rights. (...or that you didn't actually read this post... ...or you don't have the time to reply... ...or maybe that you don't add your name to a stranger's blog, willy-nilly... ...or perhaps that you think it's a stunt designed to "prove" that one side of the political spectrum in America is somehow more "moral" and "right" than the other, and doesn't express much in the way of genuine concern for anyone's human rights... ... ...)

In fact, I really do support it, regardless of where it came from, or why... ...and I'm sincerely interested in hearing what others think. I look forward to any/all replies.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Also, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

In Reply: "If Fred Gottheil doesn't reply to my unsolicited e-mails, it's proof that he doesn't care about this issue."

See UPDATES, below.

In reply to Beverley, a commenter at the FrontPage Magazine post Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II, who notes that the same professors who didn't sign Dr. Fred Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians "did not have any trouble reading and signing the documents accusing Israil of human rights violation. Where there is a will there is a way."
---

While it was also written by a college academic, the Israel petition was posted online by a human rights organization that the prospective signers could Google to find out more about. (While there may've been an e-mail campaign as well--with a "sender" address from a personal friend (via a "tell your friends" link) or from the human rights group directly, rather than from an individual stranger--the bulk of those who signed the Israel petition went to it, rather than having it come to them.) It was not a "cold call" e-mail campaign by a single professor they never heard of who had no history of dealing with Muslim rights issues.

While I want to hear from the people who did/didn't sign before jumping to any conclusions, I believe it quite likely that the vast majority of Dr. Gottheil's e-mails were tossed out without ever having been read, and that many more weren't signed because they had no idea who he was or the interest he was representing.

Should later facts prove my theory wrong, perhaps I'll come to agree with you, but the way it stands at present, I'm not prepared to indict the whole academy based on the fact that the majority of college professors who signed a petition on a human rights org website failed to read/respond to a different petition that showed up in their received e-mail from an individual stranger.

For the record, I've sent two e-mails to Dr. Gottheil in the past 48 hours, and he hasn't responded to either of them. How long do I have to wait before accusing him of not caring about my concerns regarding this issue--an issue that he himself put into motion? (Granted, he's never heard of me or anything, and I have no media or academic credentials, but I fail to see why that should matter...) If Fred Gottheil does not reply to my unsolicited e-mails, I declare it to be obvious proof that he does not really care about this issue.
---
UPDATE, 9/23/10, 10:10 AM: While I was writing another post, Dr. Gottheil did in fact reply to one of my e-mails, and in fact credits me with his decision to release his Statement (which I must say, I think is kinda groovy.) I'm sending him an e-mail requesting to quote that private e-mail here, and will post another update in 24 hours/when he replies. (Whichever comes first.)

UPDATE, 9/23/10, 11:30 AM: I received permission to quote Dr. Gottheil's e-mail to me. Here is what we said:
Gottheil, Fred M wrote:
1) if you Google "900 academics sign ..." you'll get the Lloyd list. I think it's still up. 2) because only 27 responded positively, the idea of making their names public -- I certainly expected more -- would, I believe, be unfair to them. You may think otherwise. 3) three said no and told me what they thought of me, not very flattering. 4) one Lloyd signer first replied with "yes" then emailed asking to have her name removed. Peer pressure? 5) Stunt? Why would you think my effort was a stunt? If 600 would have responded positively, would that have made it a non-stunt? 6) follow up by actually calling the 675? Some might consider that harassment. Anyway, I thought the email service actually works. 7) some would delete it because they didn't know the source? Quite possible but consider: They signed the Lloyd petition and mine was directly related. You read it. To delete it does give us some real information. 8) I did mention your email (not your name) to frontpagemag.com (along with a few others) and thought it was a good idea. So did frontpagemag.com. Thanks.
To which I replied:
Thank you for your reply, and I'm glad I influenced your decision.

I had posted this as a comment at frontpage (part 2), as well as on my own blog and, as I would like for some aspects of your reply to be public, I am writing to request you to post the same reply at those sites, or give me permission to quote this private e-mail and do so myself. (Otherwise, I will summarize what you said in my own words--obviously, I'd prefer to use your words to discuss what you said, rather than my interpretation of them.)

Here are the links:
http://whatdisay.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-reply-more-questions-for-fred.html
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/22/leftist-professors-and-double-standards-part-ii/

I'll hold off until I hear from you, or 24 hours, whichever comes first.

Thanks again for your reply.
And finally, Dr. Gottheil's permission to post and required statement (the latter required inclusion being the only reason I posted my e-mail to him... Context.):
You have my permission to quote this exchange IN FULL, WITH THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE. Frankly, I am surprised by the tone of your reply. You give me "24 hours" otherwise ... ? Why didn't you wait the 24 hours and email me again to remind me, as you suggest I should have done with 675 emails? Or is your exchange with me -- to use your words -- only a stunt? That said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are really interested, as I am, in the issue of human rights violations in the Middle East. Good luck.
***
First I'll address his initial reply:
1) if you Google "900 academics sign ..." you'll get the Lloyd list. I think it's still up.
Indeed, I found and posted a link to it. 900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" - Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid
2) because only 27 responded positively, the idea of making their names public -- I certainly expected more -- would, I believe, be unfair to them. You may think otherwise.
In fact I do. Their signatures were not dependent on how many signed the Statement, but on the text of the Statement itself. Dr. Gottheil committed to posting his Statement of Concern, and they made a comittment to speak up against oppression in the Middle East by signing it, fully aware that he intended to make his statement and their signatures public. They held up their end of the bargain, and Dr. Gottheil ought to uphold his.

(Alternatively, Dr. Gottheil could e-mail them again, letting them know the situation, and giving them the opportunity to stand up and be counted, or to back down. As there are so few, he could probably even call them all, I'd imagine.)
3) three said no and told me what they thought of me, not very flattering.
I'm most sorry to hear that. I expect better from people... But then, in every group, there's bound to be a few nuts...
4) one Lloyd signer first replied with "yes" then emailed asking to have her name removed. Peer pressure?
I don't know, but I'd certainly like to ask her...
5) Stunt? Why would you think my effort was a stunt? If 600 would have responded positively, would that have made it a non-stunt?
It only becomes a stunt if Dr. Gottheil fails to keep his end of the bargain, and instead continues to excoriate "the liberal academy" for not replying to his e-mail. (I mean, obviously, there will be some who believe that his whole intent was to highlight the hypocrisy of his fellow professors--that while they're willing to criticize Israel, they're not willing to criticize muslim countries--and that he doesn't really care much about the plight of women and gay folks in the Middle East, and never intended to release this statement. By not releasing it as he said he would in his original e-mail, I believe he gives them further ammunition to make that charge.) Obviously, if this is an issue Dr. Gottheil sincerely cares about, there is much more that he can do to collect signatures (from everyone, including his friends and fellow conservatives this time, perhaps) and otherwise make his voice heard. I'd suggest beginning with a website, rather than a cold-call e-mail campaign, and that he cast a wider net than just a group of academics who signed one particular petition several months earlier. Starting up or joining together with a legitimate human rights organisation might help, as well. (An established organisation would take him much further. I can assure him that Dr. Lloyd did not collect his 900 signatures by mounting a cold-call e-mail campaign to strangers all by himself.)
6) follow up by actually calling the 675? Some might consider that harassment. Anyway, I thought the email service actually works.
It would be alot of calls to be sure, but obviously Dr. Gottheil was mistaken about the value of the e-mail service, alone... (Perhaps that is the lesson we ought to be taking from this, rather than the one FrontPage and American Thinker are pushing...) As he'd only be making one call to each professor, I can't imagine that anyone would accuse him of harassment. (But in retrospect, a website and having a legitimate human rights organization with a history of work in the region behind him would likely trump even the calls... ...and surely the e-mails.)
7) some would delete it because they didn't know the source? Quite possible but consider: They signed the Lloyd petition and mine was directly related. You read it. To delete it does give us some real information.
Still, there are those who don't sign stuff when they are unfamiliar with the author or his motivations. Like it or not, it's just a fact. Even more don't even read unsolicited e-mails from unfamiliar addresses. (Again, that's why having an organisation behind Dr. Gottheil would be so helpful. Folks are far more likely to accept. read, and sign a petition from "MidEast Gay RightsWatch.org" than they are from "Gottheil, Fred M (fgotthei@REDACTED)" (While Dr Gottheil's e-mail address is in the public domain, I'm not comfortable publishing it here in this post. Those who feel strongly about e-mailing him, pro or con, can find it the same way I did.) As an aside, folks might remember an old Steve Martin routine about banking, and how much more likely the public is to put their money into "National Loan and Federal Reserve" than they are "Fred's Bank." The same principle applies here.)

Yes, Dr Gottheil wrote a good Statement of Concern, and I'm fully supportive of it. But I only read it because of the controversy. Had it been a random e-mail in my box from "fgotthei@REDACTED," I can't promise I would have, because I would have no clue who "Fred M Gottheil" was... (Now me, I prolly would've signed it, had I actually read it... But I don't have much of a public reputation to consider, should Dr Gottheil turn out to be a crackpot soliciting names under false pretences or something... I'd imagine that a good number of his target signatories are more careful than I'd likely be, having more of a public reputation than I to consider...)
8) I did mention your email (not your name) to frontpagemag.com (along with a few others) and thought it was a good idea. So did frontpagemag.com. Thanks.
Dr Gottheil is quite welcome. (Should he take more of my suggestions, and perhaps become a leading spokeman in the cause of human rights for Middle Eastern homosexuals and women, I'll be even more pleased to've done my small part to set him on his way. One can only hope...)
***

And, the required extra response:
You have my permission to quote this exchange IN FULL, WITH THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE. Frankly, I am surprised by the tone of your reply. You give me "24 hours" otherwise ... ? Why didn't you wait the 24 hours and email me again to remind me, as you suggest I should have done with 675 emails? Or is your exchange with me -- to use your words -- only a stunt? That said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are really interested, as I am, in the issue of human rights violations in the Middle East. Good luck.
The reason I didn't give him any longer is that I don't need his permission to summarize an e-mail sent to me. (Technically, I didn't need his permission to quote it, either, but I prefer to have that when quoting words sent to me in private. Whether or not it's necessary, I believe that asking the permission of the person who sent the e-mail is the right thing to do, whenever possible. In fact, I believe it so strongly that I did not intend to quote him, without it.), and also because I had received the initial e-mail from him less than an hour earlier, so I was hoping he was still near his computer.

The situation with the 675 folks who didn't reply is a different situation. There, he would be following up a second time, giving them a second opportunity to give something that he believed they would be willing to give in the first place, assuming they received his message.

I knew my initial message had been received, and thought it likely that the one I was sending asking for the permission to quote would be received, as well. And again, I did not need his permission to summarize his reply, only to quote him. The 24 hour limit was for his benefit, not for mine. (I wanted to post right away, of course... ...but I preferred to do so using his actual words, rather than my paraphrase of them.)

I'm not quite sure how my exchange with him could be characterized--or actually used--as a stunt, but I can only assure Dr Gottheil this is an honest exchange of ideas. While I disagree with his conclusions about what happened, I'd like for the truth about it to come out, whatever it may be, and all I've written has been in furtherance of that goal.

Additionally, I'd like to see more folks, left and right, speaking up in favor of Dr Gottheil's cause. Whatever you think of his motivations before or after the fact, gay folks and women in the Middle East are suffering discrimination--in some cases, violent discrimination. And I see no reason not to sign Dr Fred Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians, regardless of what you think of the Left, the Right, Israel, Muslims, Dr. Gottheil, or me.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Also, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

X-Post: Dear Jan... (Repsac3's reply to an inquisitive American Power commenter)

An American Nihilist x-post:
---

A response to Jan, a commenter at the American Power post "Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea," who addressed me directly:
repsac3:

Do you even realize that you, and the rest of the harassers, and haranguers, from your site, and the others who seem to delight in sitting at the ready to pounce on every misspelled word, or anything else that you think you can use to embarrass, or to insult the intelligence of Dr. Douglas, only serve to make you look like a bunch of Junior High School bullies?
Jan, you are certainly welcome to view any/all of us as Junior High School bullies if you wish... ...but I hope you understand that much of what folks on my site and others do is in response to very similar bad behavior from Dr. Douglas. (In fact, every author and blog listed at American Nihilist is there as a result of having been attacked by Dr. Douglas on the pages of American Power, and many of us view Donald Douglas as the Jr. High bully--especially given his penchant for making up fake names for us and making crude suggestions about our sexuality.)

That said, I agree that some of the behavior found on our blogs and on Dr. Douglas' American Power is immature. There is much--even on American Nihilist--that I wouldn't personally post. (That can happen with group blogs, especially when one gives each author the responsibility for policing his own work...) While you're free to try to lump "all liberals" or "all who disagree with Donald Douglas" together, I summarily reject such nonsense... We're each individuals, and each responsible for our own words and deeds. If you wish to address something I've said or done, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But there's little I can do with your general condemnation of us all... We're no more a monolith than "all conservatives" or "all American Power readers."
I've read the comments on your site, and the others, and you all seem to get great satisfaction in egging each other on, each trying to be funnier, more clever, or even more sarcastic than the other. Have you thought about how awful you make yourselves, and your own ideological beliefs look to others?
There is little doubt that we at American Nihilist enjoy ourselves and laugh at many of each other's posts and comments. I'm sorry that you do not find them funny and that you feel we should be more serious about it all, but perhaps American Nihilist just isn't the blog for you... (If you notice, I tend to be the most serious author here... When Donald Douglas wishes aloud that liberals like me lose our heads the way Daniel Perl did, I have trouble finding the funny... YMMV...)

Of course, I don't agree that we make ourselves look awful, but as above, that's a subjective thing. You're free to view us however you choose. I'm perfectly willing to defend my ideological beliefs, as soon as you're more clear as to what beliefs of mine you're taking issue with...
As to your constant complaining about comment moderation, I think it is just another aspect of your bullying, thinking that you have made him afraid of your hateful words...just another of your silly ways of trying to intimidate. I, daresay, that he is in no way intimidated by any of you, knowing that what you say about him is not true...but the man does have feelings like any other human being, believe it, or not.
I'm not so sure I have constantly complained about comment moderation, and invite you to back what you say with evidence of my having done so.

I do think that moderating one's comments before the fact for content is kinda cowardly, and is wholly inconsistent with a person whose blog blurb claims that they "welcome comments and debate, and [will] defend [their] positions vigorously." Dr. Douglas has every right to moderate his comments for content, whatever his reason, but that doesn't preclude me from expressing my opinion about his doing so... (...much as you have about my blog...)

And again, you really are kinda missing the point. There is very little being done TO Donald Douglas on other blogs that hasn't been done BY Donald Douglas to one or more of his many detractors, on his blog and elsewhere. It's kind of a tit for tat thing... And no, we're not intimidated by him, either...
Concerning the Sasquatch Isreal sign, who's to say that it really wasn't a play on words, and wasn't saying what it looked like to some people.? I think that the way that Dr. Douglas' photo was altered, with the "I Love Jusus" was not only to heap more ridicule upon him, because of his own moral views, but was a rather racist, anti-Semitic statement in itself...considering the fact that Jesus was a Jew. A play on words?
You are, of course, welcome to interpret the "Sasquatch Is Real" sign any way you wish, including going so far as to agree with Dr. Douglas that it was some kind of liberal, anti-semitic conspiracy, where the man was saying (on behalf of all liberals, natch) that Israel is as phony as bigfoot himself. If you have indeed read through the posts that others have written on the subject, you already know about the Facebook page "Sasquatch is Real," as well as all the other evidence indicating that such an interpretation is a pretty big stretch of the imagination, with no other purpose than to paint all liberals with a big ol' anti-semitic brush, but even so, you're welcome to buy into that, if you wish. But if you do, then don't be surprised when folks look at you kinda funny, the same way they do Professor Douglas...

Because to most of us, misreading the sign--seeing "Sasquatch Isreal," rather than "Sasquatch Is Real," isn't a big deal... A cringe-worthy mistake to be sure, especially when one goes out in public--say, announcing it on a blog--misreading it for the whole world to see, but minor in the general scheme of things...

But making up some myth about anti-semitism based on misreading a sign, and lying about a whole group of people just because you disagree with them politically, is pretty friggin' bad. And Jan, it is a good indication of the kind of person you're defending... You're welcome to continue doing so, of course, but I warn you... People will judge you as a person based on your willingness to defend those actions... People will think you'd be willing to lie that way, yourself.

I've no doubt that the photoshop of Donald's hat was intended to heap ridicule upon Dr. Douglas. But according to the folks who made it, the intent was to make fun of his letter transposition ("ISRAEL", vs "ISREAL"), and nothing more... (As I wasn't there, I cannot say... ...nor can I be held responsible, whatever your interpretation...)
Tell me, repsac3..exactly what is the agenda of yourself, and the others, in your constantly trying to tear down this man, and his ideals? Is it your idea of intellectual elitism? Or did you guys just never get that Junior High School bullying out of your systems?

I'd really like to know.
As I've said several times, I can only speak for myself in this regard... (Though perhaps some of the others to whom you refer would be willing to chime in and speak for themselves.) But here's why I created American Nihilist, and why I often post about the antics of Professor Douglas:

I hate bullies. For well over a year, I read as Donald Douglas excoriated liberal blogger after liberal blogger, often in pretty nasty terms. I found him to be wrong politically, of course, but that wasn't it. My problem with Dr. Douglas was that he was pompous and kinda mean, as well as being wrong.

Also, I was mystified by this whole nihilist thing. See, everytime he called me a nihilist, I asked him--a professor of political science--to back what he said with evidence of my nihilism. I'd challenge him to choose any dictionary, copy the definition of the word "nihilism," and then show examples, in the form of quotes from me, that support the notion that I am a nihilist. When he labeled some other blogger, I challenged him to do the same with quotes of that person. And while he was very free with the label, he has never actually shown that any liberal blogger has ever expressed a nihilist thought. In fact, he has never even tried.

As Donald attacked other bloggers on his site or theirs, labeling them no good nihilists everywhere he went, this whole "nihilist" schtick of his became kind of a joke around the liberal blogosphere, and folks began to know him as the wingnut who goes around calling everyone nihilists, like the boy who cried wolf... He practically made the word meaningless through repetition...

So one night, I was bored, and created a blogspot blog that was a funhouse mirror of American Power. Where he used black, I used white, and where he used white, I used black. I intended it to be a one-off joke, where I'd do one or two posts calling everyone and everything "nihilist," and that'd be that. I sent authorship invitations to a few of the bloggers who Donald had attacked as being nihilists, figuring that we'd all have a good laugh... But instead, a few of 'em accepted the authorship positions, and started writing posts, in character. And the rest, as they say...

Authors have come, and authors have gone, but we're still here, still dealing with Donald's many attacks on others, and yes, launching a few on him, as well. The blogroll is made up of blogs/bloggers that Donald has attacked on his blog. Any of 'em are welcome to become authors here, anytime they wish. Other than illegal acts or items that threaten the continued existence of the blog, I don't censor anyone's writing. They're all adults, and thus each author is responsible for defending or apologizing for his own posts. (Yes, I know that Donald would prefer that I treat them like children, and only allow posts that I personally would approve of, but I see that as being far too "nanny state" for me. Should Donald ever run a group blog of his own, he is free to censor it any way he sees fit, but I believe that each individual author is capable of dealing with/defending their own posts.)

In a nutshell, Jan, that is why I expose the foolish and the dangerous or nasty things Donald Douglas says on his blog. I don't like bullies in general, and I specifically don't like the way Dr Douglas treats the folks he doesn't agree with, so I decided to do to him what he was doing to others. Should he ever stop mistreating people, I'll stop calling him out for it. In the meantime, we'll all be here, Donald in his place, and we in ours...

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reply, Jan... I hope that I've made some things at least a little more clear... If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to stop by American Nihilist or any of the other blogs I frequent... Everyone's welcome, even Dr. Douglas... (I'd advise against bothering to contact me again via Donald's blog, however--particularly if you expect a response--as he obviously frowns on my commenting there...) Should this be our last encounter, I hope you didn't find it too hard to stomach... (Obviously I'm biased, but I really don't believe any of us are the monsters Dr. Douglas makes us out to be... We just disagree with his political beliefs, and even moreso, his behavior toward those who don't see things as he does, politically or socially. For the most part, however, we're quite pleasant, if we do say so ourselves...)

September 21, 2010 6:42 AM
---

The following was submitted for moderator approval to the relevant post at American Power at 2:55 AM (WIS blog time) on 9/22/10:

American Nihilist tracked back with Dear Jan... (Repsac3's reply to an inquisitive American Power commenter)

We question whether Dr. Douglas will permit it to appear, and if he does not, why he refuses.

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)