Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Third Time, You Answer

If someone asks a question three times, you have to try to answer it.

My pal, The Dread Pirate Gryphon (his friends call him "The," for short*) has asked this question in three very similar ways. I will use the most recent phrasing.

Would the Chronicle have published an article entitled "The Blacks" that railed against their unfair over-representation in jazz music and professional sports? (And a corollary - would Prof. Munger have defended its publication on the same grounds?)

Answer to primary question: Probably not. Hard to say, because the newspaper is independent, and run by students. The editor of the Chronicle, Karen Hauptman, is herself Jewish, and was (IMHO) bending over backwards to be fair to this view. She might not have done the same for an article (mutatis mutandis) on "The Blacks." She also might have. My speculation: no.

Answer to corollary: Of course K. Grease's pussweiler friend, "Professor Munger," would have defended it on the same grounds. Yes. Absolutely. He already did that in the case of the Horowitz ad a few years ago. But so did Nan Keohane, bless her. In spite of abuse.

Unsolicited Bonus Answer: (And the reason I think "The" is such a cutie...) The reaction, among the faculty, to the Kurian piece has been negative, but not outraged. The reaction among the faculty to the Horowitz ad was outraged, and organized. Protests, meetings, ass-whuppin. Mea culpas.

What conclusion to draw? In my opinon, the Kurian piece was more of a personal assualt on Jewish people than the Horowitz ad was on African-Americans (this is obviously a subjective assessment, but I would defend it). Yet, the reaction to the Horowitz ad was much stronger than the reaction to the Kurian editorial. This means....that "The" has a point, much as I would like to deny it.

*His line, not mine. I can't take credit. But it did make me laugh.

9 comments:

The Dread Pirate Gryphon said...

"If someone asks a question three times, you have to try to answer it." Gratuitous question: is this one of those airy-fairy sayings from the 60s like, "If you love something, let it go?" (not that there's anything wrong with airy-fairy sayings from the 60s. My favorite button from the used-to-be hippie school I attended as an undergrad in the 70s: "How dare you assume I'm a heterosexual?" Just goes to show, the 70s lacked a certain Jenny Saikwa...)

Thanks for (at long last!) answering, and the parallel with the Horowitz ad is telling, as are the reactions to it. My whole deal with having beat this dead horse into a finely scalloped French delicacy is that the atmosphere of tolerance for Jew-bashing (and yes, I'm one of those unreasonable wackos who believes that anti-Zionism is EXACTLY equivalent to anti-Semitism) in the academy has been given a particularly odious incarnation at Duke of late.

My commitment to free speech is deep and wide, but we're talking about people who want to kill me (PSM, not necessarily Kurian, though I wouldn't be surprised) - and maybe you (I dunno - Munger? Hard to say.)

Affectionately,
The


Arrrrrr!

Anonymous said...

Define pussweiler, please. I googled it... negatory. It's late though so maybe I'm missing something I should understand.

Anonymous said...

It's a pretty giant leap from allowing people to voice the opinion that the Jewish state of Israel opppresses Palestineans with superior weapons (much of which GIVEN by the United States, not sold) and an actual army instead of the resistance of the seperate Palestinean factions to saying people are condoning the wish of your own death.

"Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, which is its major source of economic and military aid." - CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

"I'm one of those unreasonable wackos who believes that anti-Zionism is EXACTLY equivalent to anti-Semitism"
Now... you wouldn't actually hope or want people to believe or agree with you, would you? It couldn't possibly serve the Jewish people any purpose to have the masses holding to a belief such as yourself, would there? After all, supporting Palestinean life doesn't automatically equate to supporting destruction of the Jewish people or their way of life.

It sounds like you're proving the Jewish-sympathy-capital entrepreneurist point yourself by using Holocaust and Biblical sympathies to argue a point that has really no logical basis. The thought of tolerating "Jew-bashing" being revived and tolerated on Duke as the truth of what is happening is unfound. Believing in a market place of ideas, I would like all ideas to be given the chance to be heard. What you seem to argue is that the voice that dissents from the pro-Israelis should be silenced. Whether that's what you wanted or not, it is the distinct impression that I get from your wording of your reply.

Professors at Duke, definately not all, may hold the view that Jewish are unfair oppressors. They may even be supporters of Palestineans. However, that is not justification for declaring Duke or any of its professors anti-semitic. I'm so glad to think that just by thinking Ariel Sharone to be fallible or that might does not equate to right means I'm being anti-semitic. Silly me to think that Palestineans are human beings deserving of the same comforts of peace as Israelis, English, Americans, anyone. Then again, if Jewish people acknowledged Palestinean human rights they might actually have to acknowledge Palestinean property rights and where would that leave them?

The personal attacks on the Duke faculty, the insults to the Duke student body, and the vicious lies about Duke University are what is wrong with America, not the exercise of free speech by a private newspaper (even if it is given funding by Duke does not mean it is run by Duke).

It seems to me that all those used to calling Duke overly PC are trying to suffocate Duke with their own political correctness.

-My views are completely unaffiliated with K. Grease (some would say obviously). If this is found to be a flame, I apologize and would be greatful if K. Grease deletes it if he judges it to be so. Sometimes it is hard to know where the line between healthy debate and slander is, and apologies if I overstepped the line.

Mungowitz said...

a "pussweiler" is a wimp, a weak person.

Anonymous said...

MIght be of interest --
Columbia professors accused of being anti-Semite after students show a documentary... and here I thought Duke was having all the fun..

I thought "pussweiler" was rather offhandedly creative and self-evident

janet

The Dread Pirate Gryphon said...

Wow, where do I start with the bravely anonymous post above? We'll just take it in order, but first, before you get all het up and start screaming about how I'm trampling your First Amendment rights, let's get that straightened out right from the git-go: If I, as a hypothetical private citizen, tell you, as a hypothetical ignoramus, to shut up and sit down (which I have not done and will not do,) that is NOT a violation of your rights. Nor is my labelling a foul piece of human detritus like Kurian an anti-Semite a violation of HIS rights. If Mungowitz wants to keep me off his blog because he doesn't like the cut of my jib or the color of my hair or the angelic phrasing with which I express myself, THAT is not a violation of MY rights. So let's jump right to your ridiculous and unfounded (by the way, that's "unfounded," not "unfound") assertions about my supposed desire to curtail anybody's speech:

"What you seem to argue is that the voice that dissents from the pro-Israelis should be silenced. Whether that's what you wanted or not, it is the distinct impression that I get from your wording of your reply."

I'm not responsible for your prejudices or your poor reading comprehension. Exactly what "wording of my reply" did you use to construct the fantasy that I think dissent should be silenced? I'd really like to know.

"Professors at Duke, definately not all, may hold the view that Jewish are unfair oppressors."

So do you, don't you? Notice that this brilliant redactor of political discourse uses the word "Jew" or "Jewish" seven times, and the words "Israeli" or "Israel" twice. You seem to have no problem conflating the concepts of Judaism and Israel as a state. Why do you try to argue that Jews shouldn't?

"They may even be supporters of Palestineans. However, that is not justification for declaring Duke or any of its professors anti-semitic."

Again with the reading skills problem. This is a straw man argument (as is so much of your poorly constructed diatribe) that, consciously or not (I vote for the latter) you are using to deflect attention from the points I made to bolster your tenuous and ahistorical weltanschauung. For the record, please cite my words that called Duke or any of its professors anti-Semitic. What's that I hear? Crickets chirping?

"The personal attacks on the Duke faculty, the insults to the Duke student body, and the vicious lies about Duke University are what is wrong with America, not the exercise of free speech by a private newspaper (even if it is given funding by Duke does not mean it is run by Duke)."

What personal attacks on the Duke faculty? What insults to the student body? What vicious lies? Duke allowed a terror-supporting organization a forum on its campus (the fact that they also allowed protests is laudable, but doesn't negate PSM/ISM's numerous connections to terrorists: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/psm/qa.html#Q03 and http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=80928 ) and the university newspaper published a foul, anti-Semitic screed less than a week later. Making up stuff again, Anonymous - tsk, tsk.


Now, let's get back to our regularly scheduled fisking:

"It's a pretty giant leap from allowing people to voice the opinion that the Jewish state of Israel opppresses Palestineans with superior weapons (much of which GIVEN by the United States, not sold) and an actual army instead of the resistance of the seperate Palestinean factions..."

As is often the case with those who believe that the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict (and by the way, the correct spelling is "PalestinIan") is caused by Israeli "agression" and "occupation", Anonymous chooses to ignore history and morality in his/her perverted characterization of Israeli defensive actions.

What's your point here, A.? Should the Israelis give up their military superiority because you think being militarily superior is a moral shortcoming? Did our military superiority in WWII make the Nazis morally superior to us? I think you'd better think this out again.

"...to saying people are condoning the wish of your own death."

http://www.take-a-pen.org/Campus/
http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/PSM_record.htm#kill
http://www.bnainoach.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=79
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny09_weiner/082703ohio.html
http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1686160p-7930216c.html
http://judaism.about.com/library/2_americanjewry/bl_campus_palconf.htm?iam=dpile_100

No. It's NOT a giant leap. And you simply don't know what you're talking about. Read up.

"Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, which is its major source of economic and military aid." - CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html"

So what? This completely gratuitous link, with no accompanying commentary in your post - NO REFERENCE TO IT AT ALL - is obviously put here as a red herring. Oooo, those eeevil Joooz! They're stealing our money and our precious bodily fluids!! Why else would you stick this irrelevant factoid in the middle of your diatribe? By the way, this is a prime example of YOUR anti-Semitism: in a classic maneuver, you completely ignore the foreign aid given to Egypt and Jordan as outright gifts, while taking Israel to task for having a relationship with the US that is far from one-sided. You really think the US gets nothing for the money it spends on Israel? Ooops, your ignorance is showing again!

""I'm one of those unreasonable wackos who believes that anti-Zionism is EXACTLY equivalent to anti-Semitism"
Now... you wouldn't actually hope or want people to believe or agree with you, would you? It couldn't possibly serve the Jewish people any purpose to have the masses holding to a belief such as yourself, would there? After all, supporting Palestinean life doesn't automatically equate to supporting destruction of the Jewish people or their way of life."

What the hell does this mean? You've stumped me, A. I don't even know how to come at this.

"It sounds like you're proving the Jewish-sympathy-capital entrepreneurist point yourself..."

Noooooo, no anti-Semites here!


"...by using Holocaust and Biblical sympathies to argue a point that has really no logical basis."

AGAIN with the poor reading comprehension. Pay attention: I have not brought up the Holocaust or the Bible in any of my exchanges with the Mung-man. Can you say "straw man?" I knew that you could.

The thought of tolerating "Jew-bashing" being revived and tolerated on Duke as the truth of what is happening is unfound."

No, it's not "unfound." Kurian's piece has been widely described and condemned as a poorly-thought-out anti-Semitic piece of trash (don't make me post the links - you'll be sorry!) and it is certainly being tolerated by Duke. By the way, YOU are the one bringing up arguments about stifling people like Kurian. I have NEVER suggested that he should be censored, and I defy you to prove otherwise. And again, I'm not responsible for your fantasy life.

"I'm so glad to think that just by thinking Ariel Sharone to be fallible or that might does not equate to right means I'm being anti-semitic. Silly me to think that Palestineans are human beings deserving of the same comforts of peace as Israelis, English, Americans, anyone. Then again, if Jewish people acknowledged Palestinean human rights they might actually have to acknowledge Palestinean property rights and where would that leave them?"

You're ignorant, A. Do you know that the Palestian Charter STILL calls for the destruction of Israel?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm
From Article 15 of the Charter:

"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine." (They ain't talking about the West Bank, bub.)

Article 20: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Read it carefully, A. Whose human rights are being ignored? (By the way, there have been "votes" to remove this sort of language form the Charter - but TO THIS DAY the language remains.)

Did you know, A., that the uniform patch the soon-to-be-former Yasser Arafat wears contains a representation of "Palestine" that encompasses the entire piece of real estate - all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and ALL OF THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL. Can you say "push the Jews into the sea?" I knew that you could.

Tell me - does Israel have the right to exist as a Jewish state?

OOOPS! I disagreed with you in very strong terms! I must be trampling on your First Amendment rights!

Anonymous said...

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1686160p-7930216c.html
"Duke officials received at least one threat of violence against the conference, but Bar-On downplayed that possibility. "There is absolutely no reason to expect violence," he said. "There never has been.""
Ok, so I'm reading up... and where is it that says Jews will be targeted in the PSM conference? If anything, as the quote above shows, pro-Israeli factions were targeting the conference with violence. I mean... if you're going to overflow the bin with a list of links thinking it'll be too much work to go through and read each, maybe you should at least make sure each one supports your stance and has a direct bearing on what you're going to say. Though apparently I fell into that trap with my Factbook example so obviously you're justified in doing it yourself.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/psm/qa.html#Q03
" Is it true that conference organizers have said their group will not sign a statement condemning terrorism?
According to a story in the Sept. 20 issue of the (Durham) Herald-Sun, a spokesman for the group said group members would not sign such a statement. The story may be viewed online here. Duke's student newspaper, the Chronicle, discussed this in a Sept. 14 editorial. On its conference Web site, the PSM says it 'does not support or endorse terrorism' (click here for additional information), a position that has been challenged by some critics of the group (as can be found easily through a Google search)."
Unless you're saying that an official position made by an organization shouldn't be held up as credible then I guess the public shouldn't trust any groups. I mean... Greenpeace is just a front for terrorism against medical researchers. Oh no, was that argument a straw man argument? Uh oh...

http://www.take-a-pen.org/Campus/
I like it... I really do. It's the bolding and red letters that really get to me. I think I will go write a letter right now. *hears cricket chirping being replaced by the sound of marching in step*
Oh, and freedom of speech be damned!!!
"Write Your Letter to Duke President Brodhead to keep the PSM meeting off campus!" (That's in big, blue letters at the bottom of the page. It's the subtle use of red, white, and blue that make me feel like a stance against free speech is the patriotic thing to do.)

http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/PSM_record.htm#kill
"At OSU, the light of good overpowered the darkness of evil." Call my reading skills into question, which you've already done. It's the personal attacks that make an argument best. However, if I weren't a rabid supporter of Israel's right to push the Palestineans into the desert (which if you're going extremist then this is a view that is held by the extremist right), then I might just realize that the arguments and stories are all emotional appeals to my natural sympathies. Also the line between supporting suicide bombers and wording that declares non-support for them is blurred and used as slander against the group.

I don't have the time (but I think you do) of going through every linke. There's a general trend of silencing the speech of PSM. I guess tolerance means nothing to some people. Where has all the faith in democractic principles gone? It is your right to speak out against PSM, against what anyone says. It's also mine. Yet, from what I've read (far less than you have, admittedly), the groups and websites endorse the silencing of PSM. It's their right to endorse, but the concept of intolerance should not be lauded or viewed as patriotic.

-Once again, the cowardly, lacking in comprehension, A.

Just a note on my actual position in all of this. I am against terrorism, whether it's Israeli or Palestinean terrorism. I am for the resolution of the conflict trough a two nation state of affairs. I don't want to see Israelis pushed in to the sea nor do I want Palestineans forced in to the desert. I think the pull out by Ariel Sharone and the creation of the border is right. I think bombing of civilian buses is wrong. I also think Israel has a propensity to use too much military force and a bomb is still a bomb no matter how smart or how high up it's dropped from.

The Dread Pirate Gryphon said...

All right - I'm not going to waste time on someone who hasn't the gumption to address one single positive assertion I made. I will, however, show you the relevant information from the links you say you examined but found no evidence of anti-Semitism:

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1686160p-7930216c.html

"Witnesses at previous conferences say on Internet sites that they've heard anti-Semitic speech and, according to one affidavit, an Arabic chant of "Kill the Jews.""

Here's the snarky comment you made when you failed to find (or more likely, honestly acknowledge) the above:

"...if you're going to overflow the bin with a list of links thinking it'll be too much work to go through and read each, maybe you should at least make sure each one supports your stance and has a direct bearing on what you're going to say."

Perhaps YOU should actually run the words you're going to use through what passes for your brain to make sure they accurately reflect the reality you're so desperately trying to deny.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/psm/qa.html#Q03

"Duke's understanding from multiple sources is that the Palestine Solidarity Movement, while related to the International Solidarity Movement, is a distinct and separate organization. Extensive inquiries, also with police authorities, have revealed no evidence to support a claim that there is a connection between terrorist groups and the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is a largely student organization."

Duke admits a connection to ISM, which hides and supports "Palestinian" suicide bombers. Regarding the disclaimers in the paragraph above: what "multiple sources?" What "police authorities?" Unless Duke has the integrity to actually cite their sources, this is useless as information. If you had the integrity to actually read the links I posted, you'd have found plenty of indisputable facts linking the ISM to terrorism.

http://www.take-a-pen.org/Campus/

This is the caption of the picture you ignored here:
"The display at the Rutgers Student Center in honour of last year�s national conference. The text "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free", a Hamas slogan,�which implicitly calls for the�takeover of Israel. "

(By the way, this caption IS in error. This is an EXPLICIT call for the destruction of Israel.) Which sea do you think they're talking about, Einstein? Which river? (Hint - it ain't the one you're so enamored with: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.)

and:

"At the 2nd PSM Conference at the University of Michigan in October 2002, the audience chanted "Kill the Jews" -�"Ittbach al yahood" in Arabic."


http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/PSM_record.htm#kill
Your deliberate discarding of the information in this link leads me to the only possible conclusion - you're a sick little Jew-baiter who refuses to be diverted by the facts.


Finally, let's see if you have the horsepower to deal with the following. I'm not going to engage with you anymore, because you're one of the worst kinds of bigoted homunculi known to walk the earth: a coward who won't admit his/her desperate hatred. "How DARE you call me an anti-Semite?!?" is the cry of birds of your feather. Give me a mosh-pitting, skin-headed, goose-stepping neo-Nazi over the disgusting likes of you any day.

If I'm mistaken, and you're actually interested in the truth, I dare you to answer the following questions.

(Oh - you think ad hominem arguments undercut my position? Not if the hominem in question is a truth-denying piece of pond scum. You don't deserve civility until you show a modicum of human understanding.)

1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the �Palestinians� and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel�s border in order to �push the Jews into the sea�. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the "Palestinians" don�t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn�t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity - making the desert bloom - while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?

2. Did you know that the �Palestinians� could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?

3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn�t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?

4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren�t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?

5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven�t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren�t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?

6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?

7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the �brave� Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy asses kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?

8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world�s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can�t their brother Muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature�s riches to the �Palestinians�? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last �Palestinian�?

9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? Where were you during the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of �Palestinians� by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn�t this concern you?

10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?

11. Have you heard �People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery�? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir�s words to the effect of �There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours�? Why do the Arabs hate so much?


Please state your answers to the questions listed above. If you need assistance or require additional study, then please refer to the following links:


Thousands of women killed for honor: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html
.

Disputed Territories � Forgotten Facts
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n1m0

The size of Israel compared to neighboring countries in the region
http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps.htm#index

Jews expelled from Arab Countries
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#b
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#a

One Million Jews flee Arab countries � why no right of return for them?
http://www.forgottenexodus.com/

Middle East Facts
http://yashiko.middleeastfacts.com/

Middle East Truth
http://www.mideasttruth.com/

Larry Miller on Hypocrisy
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/161yaihr.asp

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry for flooding Mungowitz's website. Pirate, if you really want to keep arguing w/ me then that's fine. Get your own blog. As far as i can tell you don't have any posts or a blog on blogspot.

You're lack of civility is disturbing. Also, your detouring of the issue to the larger issue of Israeli versus Palestineans is not where I wanted to go in the first place. I argued for PSM and any group's right to speech, but it got twisted by you into a declaration of being an anti-semitical life form infinitely lower than pond scum with no regard for facts. Which, if it's so important to The, then fine, whatever.

Well, I'll make this short. I'm sorry, K. Grease. Whether you approve/disprove, like/dislike, amused/annoyed, at this little discussion, I did not mean for it to turn out as it did and I will no longer post any comments on here.