Friday, September 24, 2010

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.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

In Reply: More questions for Fred Gottheil, regarding his Statement of Concern

In reply to: Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II | FrontPage Magazine

Dr. Gottheil:

Thank you for releasing your Statement of Concern. (While I doubt you did so as a result of my e-mail or blog post, I still appreciate the quick response.)

However, I'm still looking for the official version, complete with signatures, released in the public domain in the manner you promised in your Statement. (One would hate to think that this was just a stunt, and that you had no intention of doing so).

I'm also hoping you'll release:
1) the list of people to whom you e-mailed the statement
2) any proof you have that some/all/any of the folks you e-mailed but who didn't reply actually read it (Did anyone reply with a "NO"?), and
3) any follow-up you did to determine why these folks hadn't signed (phone calls making sure they had in fact received and read it, for instance).

Personally, I find it kinda troubling that you folks are making such a big deal about the fact that many academics failed to reply to a "cold-call" e-mail campaign from a professor they likely never heard of...

But as I said yesterday, I would like to hear it direct from the horse's mouths, as it were. The professors who didn't sign should be afforded the opportunity to explain why they didn't sign originally, and, now that they have another chance, whether they'd be willing to sign now. (Again, while I'm not an academic, I'm willing to affix my liberal "YES" to the statement. I'd be surprised to find there were many liberals who would disagree...)

I again look forward to your further reply (in part 3, I'd imagine.)
---

Posted (and e-mailed to Dr Gottheil) 9/22/10, 5:52 PM (WIS blog time)
---

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: Donalde Douglas: Wingnut Eliminationist

Warning: Beheadings and other murders/victims appear in the video below. You're free to watch, but you're also free to just take my word for it. I felt it needed to be posted as it was by Professor Donald Douglas at his blog American Power, so there can be no mistaking what he and the commenter Grizzly Mama were saying.

And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl:



Grizzly Mama said...
"Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl"

Amen to that.

September 19, 2010 9:01 PM
There are people that I'm ashamed to call fellow Americans, and these two extremist reactionaries are examples of who and why.
---

American Nihilist x-post

In Reply: "And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl"

In reply to: ThinkingMeat - Donald Douglas is confused, who also noticed Donald Douglas' recent spate of eliminationist rhetoric regarding those with whom he disagrees politically...
---

Donalde has really been going at it, eliminationist-wise, of late...
"And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl" - Donald Douglas (Posted along with a video of Al Qaeda fundamentalist beheadings, natch...)
While I suspect that he's all talk (another blogger referred to it as a Walter Mitty complex, I believe), I also hope that the folks who're responsible for the public safety in his area are keeping tabs on the guy, just in case...

Threatening folks with violence or death, just for disagreeing with you politically, is pretty friggin' extreme...
---

Submitted for moderator approval Approved and posted September 22, 2010 at 12:53 am (Thinking Meat blog time)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

An Open Letter to Dr. Fred Gottheil, regarding his "Statement of Concern"

See UPDATES, below, and my subsequent post with more questions for Dr. Gottheil.

Offered in reply to Dr. Gottheil's piece at American Thinker, on Tuesday, 9/21/10, 1:05 PM (WIS blog time) As it is a moderated blog, I will report back as to whether this comment is or is not approved. (UPDATE: It was approved.)
---

Dr. Gottheil:

While I find the story as posted (both here and at other sites) troubling, I am very interested in getting more information about all that went on before jumping to any conclusions.

Please post:
1) the content of your Statement of Concern, along with the names of those who signed it,
2) the list of names to whom you sent the petition and the method by which you contacted them,
3) any proof you have that those who did not sign it actually received and read it,as opposed to just throwing it away as spam/junk mail,
4) any follow-up you or anyone else did with those academics who did not sign your Statement, to find out firsthand why they did not sign
5) as you seem to have access to it, Dr. Lloyd's petition and signature list from 2009.

Assuming the story is as you say it is, I would be most interested in hearing what these academics have to say for themselves, and hope that there will be vigorous follow-up, both in the old and new media. For that to happen, however, you're going to have to release some/all of the items listed above, so that others can continue the story where you left off...

I would like to see the whole truth exposed, and I look forward to seeing the information I've requested available for public consumption and scrutiny.

I'll be watching for your speedy reply.

UPDATE, 9/22/10, 3:15 AM: Via the blog I Beg to Disagree, a link to Dr. Lloyd's 2009 petition with signatures (though it doesn't look like 900 signatures to me): 900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" | Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid

Still waiting for the rest (though since writing the original post, I found an e-mail address for Professor Gottheil, and wrote him directly, asking him to release the rest of the information. While I don't expect him to reply to me, it can't hurt to ask... Hopefully, he'll update his American Thinker post with the rest of the story, including the missing information.)

UPDATE, 9/23/10, 5:08 PM: According to a poster named Oberliner at Democratic Underground, the following is the text of Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern (there is no indication of how Oberliner came by this or any second sourcing, but for what it's worth, here is what it's rumored to've said):

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

Still looking for the Statement in the public domain, complete with signatures. (One would hate to think that this was just a stunt, and that Dr Gottheil was lying...), as well as the list of people to whom he e-mailed the statement, any proof he has that some/all/any of the folks he e-mailed that didn't reply actually read it (did anyone reply with a "NO"?), and any follow-up he did to determine why these folks hadn't signed (making sure they had in fact read it, for instance.).

Personally, I find it kinda troubling that Dr Gottheil and certain far right sites are making such a big deal about the fact that so many academics failed to reply to a "cold-call" e-mail campaign from a professor they likely never heard of... But as I said at the outset, I would like to hear it from the horse's mouths, as it were. The professors who didn't sign should be afforded the opportunity to explain why they didn't sign originally, and, now that they have another chance, whether they'd be willing to sign now. (Again, while I'm not an academic, I'm willing to affix my liberal "YES" to the statement. I'd be surprised to find there were many liberals who would disagree...)
---

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/X-Post: Dr. Gottheil, Where's Your Petition?

In reply to this post, which tells the story of a right wing professor who saw a petition condemning some of the practices of the Israeli government, and that it was signed by over 900 academics--including a few from his own college--and wrote up a similar petition expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians, just to see whether these same academics would also sign his... According to the story--as told at FrontPage Magazine, and echoed throughout the more reactionary reaches of the wingnutosphere, all of which should raise a degree of suspicion in the reader, given the sources--very few did...

Unfortunately, verification for any of it is hard to come by... From what I can tell, neither petition or list of signatures is available for the public to read and evaluate for themselves... You're just supposed to believe the story as written, no questions asked...

Anyway, here is my reply (submitted to the blog at the first link, above. I will also ask Dr Gottheil directly, should American Thinker approve my registration so I can post this comment to his post.):
---

Is Dr. Gottheil's original petition (with or without signatures) available for public viewing? I mean, it's a pretty important part of the story, but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere... All we have are thumbnail descriptions of what it says and the kind of people who did/did not sign it.

Before I condemn or praise anyone for their actions as concerns a given petition, I'd want to actually read the petition, so I can see for myself what they are or are not supporting... YMMV...

Though I'm not an academic, I oppose poor treatment of people regardless of who is perpetrating it. Assuming the petitions actually were as described, I likely would've signed both of 'em... I'd be curious to hear from the non-signing academics themselves why they chose not to sign the latter petition... ...but that requires actually finding and reading Dr. Gottheil's petition... Let's hope it becomes available...
---

Others asking the same questions:
I have two issues with Dr. Gottheil's conclusion. | FrontPage Magazine

Since you don't feel the need to provide or link to either your "Statement of Concern" or the Lloyd’s original petition, I can't see giving any of this any credence. - FrontPage Magazine
---

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

Monday, September 20, 2010

In Reply: Donald Douglas tears up and runs for the cover of his moderator "Delete" button.

Rather than post my previous comment in full, Dr. Douglas rejects it as unworthy, but then quotes a piece of it for his attempt at rebuttal, safe in the knowledge that I cannot reply where his readers will likely see it...

Repsac3:

You're banned, as always.

That said, this is fail:

"...you pick a definition out of a lexicographer's hat. And again you fail to show with real-world examples..."

First you claim no definitions. Then when supplied you reject them. And who's doing the twisting? I've got you guys pinned down. You're done. You got your moment in my comment section. You DON'T get your own milk crate to make a speech. Go back to your shithole of a blog and do what you do best: nihilist hate and demonology with all the other idiots fucks who drag their knuckles over there.
Classic.

Just classic...

I replied, anyway...
---

Quoting a part of my reply without posting the comment is cowardly. (But you already knew that, didn't you?)

I'm guessing it's the only way you can feel as though you've "won," however...

Whatever, Dr. Douglas... Enjoy your "victory..." And come on by, should you ever wish to have a complete (and unfortunate for you, unmoderated) discussion... Your many detractors welcome you to visit their blogs, anytime you wish... ...though we doubt you have the courage to take any of us on without your handy delete button, anymore... It's the only "american power," you have left.
---

Submitted for approval 9/20/10, 5:52 PM

...and rejected for publication, of course. (As I said, it's the only way he can legitimately feel like he's "won.")

In Reply: The Douglas Strikes Back

After actually approving one of my comments to his blog earlier today, Dr. Douglas replied. This is my next rejoinder... Let's see whether he's brave enough to continue the conversation...
---

Well, no, actually, Repsac3.

Denial will get you nowhere.

And why you keep alleging victim status is beyond me.

Some of your posts of late read as though you're whining about how those bad liberal bloggers are being mean to you... Of course, you're free to deny that, as well...

I'm not supposed to fight back when folks like you launch campaigns of workplace harassment?

Are you alleging workplace harassment, again? Where? (Or are you still whining about those incidents that two other bloggers allegedly did to you over a year ago? And what is this about you writing to SEK's place of employment to harass him, btw...?)

Yeah, by all means fight back... The more you do, the more you expose yourself for who you really are and what values you do and do not represent.

When I'm slurred for all kinds of shit, old, fat, stupid -- you name it?. Is that what you call "getting his ass kicked"?

No, much of that stuff is as foolish and as ultimately meaningless as your own calls of "butt-freaks" "nihilists" or your penchant for creating grade-school style fake names for those you oppose ("hatemaster," "bonejobkeefe").

Getting your ass kicked is the more subjective stuff that makes up the bulk of the replies to you on those blogs you attack... You know, the stuff you dismiss with a quoted line or two from a friendly source, if you bother to address it at all... (But of course, you already know all that, which is why you're stepping up the attacks on the ephemera, instead...)

You showing up here again proves there are no rules, norms, or standards you will abide, because you're nihilist.

We've been over this, and I've expressed what my rules, norms, and standards are on this subject many times over. It's a public blog that accepts comments (albeit moderated). You don't have to print those comments with which you disagree (or cannot argue), but you cannot stop me or anyone else from offering them. (And if this is an example of your practical, real-world definition of nihilism, I really do feel sorry for those students who end up in your classes...)

For what? Misreading? Kinda hypocritical, no?

No. I specifically said that misreading the sign (at least initially) isn't much of an offense. What you did is make up a pretty vicious lie based on your misreading, and then attribute that lie to a whole group of people in an effort to smear them.

I stand by it.

You stand by what? The mistake? The vicious lie?

Unlike you.

No idea what you mean by that. Doubt you do, either, though perhaps whatever you make up to explain it (if you do indeed post this/reply at all) will be entertaining...

Nice try on the "evil" thing.

Pretty much nailed it, I think. But those who read my charge and your excuses can decide for themselves...

You must feel pretty stupid adopting nihilism as your handle.

We never did... Your constant misuse of the word as an epithet for your many enemies a few years ago--which you've replaced with variants of the term "demonology" of late, according to other bloggers--kind of bestowed it on us.

And Brendan doesn't offer a definition. Neither do you.

Well, we're not the ones making the charge. You are... Since you're the one saying we're nihilists, you're the one who should be making your case by defining your terms and then showing how the definitions apply... And for years now, you've failed to even try, let alone actually do so.

try this.

Again you pick a definition out of a lexicographer's hat. And again you fail to show with real-world examples (quotes, for example...) how I or anyone else you label a nihilist fits that definition.

Another failure. (It's always that second part that seems to trip you up... It's easy to just toss out labels against folks with whom you disagree... It's a whole other thing trying to convince anyone aside yourself that they actually apply... But by all means, keep trying, Dr Douglas... Keep trying...)

(The Marxist-Leninist stuff similarly doesn't apply... ...though you're welcome to attempt offering real world examples of my believing in any of that, should you wish to... In the meantime, what's freely offered may be freely denied.)
---

Submitted for American Power blog moderator approval Monday, 9/20/10, 4:01 PM (WIS blog time)...
...and (except for one sentence fragment that Donald chose to quote in a comment he made) rejected for publication, for reasons I leave for the reader to judge for himself. (I know what *I* think, but each can judge Donald's level of cowardice without my having to tell ya...)

In Reply: Donald Douglas Plays the Victim

In reply to American Power: Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea:

Poor Dr. Douglas...

Getting his ass kicked all over the blogesphere, these days...

You really ought to stop playing the victim so much, my friend. Calling you out for the foolish things you say (from Sasquatch Israel" to your inability to define nihilism and then show with examples how the definition you choose fits "the Left," whatever that is... Sweeping generalization, anyone?) is no different than much of the blogging you do, calling out those with whom you disagree. Seems you're fine attacking others, but whine like a poor, victimized stuck polecat when folks treat you the same way...

Yes, you have received a few comments that treat you poorly... But we all know that they're not the only comments you've received... They're just the only ones that provide examples for your "poor me" pity party. Those that don't fit the meme don't see the light of day... (at least, not on your blog...)

It's fine to be a bomb thrower, if that's what you wish to be... ...but Donald, folks are going to make fun of you every time you see a sign that says "Sasquatch is Real" and spin some kinda anti-semite mythology around it, just to attack folks you don't personally agree with or like. It's not just that you misread the sign. It's that you then made shit up out of whole cloth just to tar folks you see as your enemies... And dude, it ain't the first time, either... And that, my friend, is evil and wrong, and discredits you as a serious thinker.
---

Submitted for American Power blog moderator approval on Monday, 9/20/10, 10:42 AM (WIS blog time)... And actually posted, for once. (If I had to venture a guess as to why, I'd think that the number of people pointing out the disconnect between "I welcome comments and debate..." and his practice of moderating comments for content before they appear, is getting to be too much, even for him... YMMV...) In any case, it appears there, all by its lonesome, at least as of this writing: September 20, 2010 7:43 AM

Sunday, September 19, 2010

In Reply: Murder (for those who dare disagree) Is Just Alright With Him

In reply to the following quote from Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers
And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl
I'm sorry... But did this ass just say that there would be an upside of some kind (ANY KIND?!?) to having leftists killed by being beheaded the way Daniel Pearl was, and that such a thing wouldn't bother him? Fellow citizens of the USA being horribly murdered the way terrorists do in fundamentalist countries, and he'd be ok with it? What the fuck is wrong with him, that he could hate his fellow Americans so much just for having different political beliefs than he does.? (And of course, don't miss the sick puppy of a reader who agrees with him, also at that link.) No, douchebag... Chances are slim that God will forgive that, at least until you actually are sorry for thinking/feeling that way, anyway... You can't just say it; you actually have to mean it.

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)