| |
|
20. mars 2006
|
|
The difference between the Israel-critical left and outright anti-Semites is getting harder to spot all the time:
A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.
The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.
But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.
Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.
"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."
Stephen Walt is not happy about this praise, obviously, but it should give pause to see who holds views very similar to those so frequently propagated by the left-wing academia.
11:39:46 PM 
|
|
Why you should not even consider airing private laundry on the net:
An exasperated father has discovered to his cost that cyberspace is not the ideal arena for family feuds. Two weeks ago Steve Williams became so fed up with his daughter's messy bedroom that he built a website featuring pictures of his slothful offspring's lair in an attempt to shame her into action.
But the public humiliation proved a short-lived victory. While it did spur his daughter, Claire, into tidying up her room, it also whet her appetite for revenge. With the help of her father's friends, the 20-year-old business student has now set up a rival website that displays photos of him in a variety of compromising situations.
"All my friends feel sorry for Claire so they're ganging up on me," said Mr Williams, of Whitehaven, Cumbria. "They've managed to dig out photos of me drunk and dancing round with a handbag at a party, and also put pictures of my garage on to show it's not just Claire who's untidy.
"The boot's on the other foot now, but I suppose I deserve it."
Yes, you do.
Williams hasn't learned his lesson, obviously, as he has no regrets about his action. The daughter's room, apparently, is much cleaner now (she is, however, twenty years old not ten).
It adds up to a very common tendency for newbies (and, occasionally, experienced netizens who should know better) to believe a blog, a message board or a private webpage is a small community, or even a circle of friends. Thus they post, often under their real names and pictures, private details about their love life, how fed up they are with their boss or workmates, and post pictures of themselves and friends in more or less compromising situations.
Yes, last night was a blast, but your prospective employer tomorrow, or ten or twenty years from now, may not think you are the right man or woman for the job after googling up those pictures.
5:50:48 PM
|
|
 In October, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky made by Emma Brockes, where Chomsky is referred to as denying and minimising the Srebrenica massacre and the genocide on Bosnian Muslims by Serbs.
Chomsky pulled out his old "I was misquoted" trick, and the Guardian unsurprisingly pulled the interview. It is no longer on the website, but is mirrored here. Brockes was widely attacked by Chomskyites taking their master's denial as factual.
David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm and Francis Wheen have conducted a careful investigation of the issue, quoting the denialist author Diana Johnstone, whom Chomsky had approvingly referenced, as well as Chomsky himself. The article is long, but devastating to both the left-wing newspaper and the increasingly rabid Milosevic apologist Noam Chomsky.
It's not exactly the first time Chomsky is caught lying, and he has a long history of denying and belittling the atrocities of marxist dictatures, and then lying about it afterwards.
5:02:38 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.04.2006; 13:22:33.
|
|
|
