from the article:
With the poll now closed, more than 1.2 million votes have been cast: roughly 60 percent voting yes, 40 percent voting no. But the vote flip-flopped several times during its 30-day run, which also indicates that some of those in favor of the boycott, while not as e-mail prolific as those opposed, may have been using software scripts to push up the “yes” vote.)

“the lunatic left” would not all like to be associated with divestment, thank you. there are plenty of reasons why it’s not a good strategy.
and why do we have to keep pulling these cliches out of the cliche phrasebook? isn’t turkey “in the region?” is it not sufficiently democratic for you?

Hey Sam, I would say the fact that it is illegal to teach Zionism, or any form of non-Turkish nationalism, in Turkey would qualify that country as undemocratic.

Damn. Sorry about the italics screw-up.

Wtihout jumping down my throat, can you please explain to me why divesment is a “moral outrage”?? I understand the position against it (and agree to some extent), but why moral outrage?
p.s. Robbie, how many nations “teach” the nationalism of other nations? Even in America, they certainly don’t promote, say, Canadian or French nationalism? Or do you mean that Turkey disallows the teaching/promotion of cultural pluralism? Because if that’s what it is, I agree that it’s not very democratic.
Though, any nation based solely on ethnic/religious identity is treading on thin ice in that respect, no?

PurpleGrl, According to my Turkish Jewish friends and my American friends who have worked with the JDC in Turkey, it is illegal to teach Zionism.
Sam, There is a difference between the schools teaching it and it being illegal. It used to be illegal to fly a Palestinian flag (right? at least in the territories?), that’s pretty antidemocratic (and kind of short sighted…like Palestinian nationalism would disappear if their flags weren’t flying)…BUT, it is not illegal in Israel to preach or teach Palestinian nationalism. It is illegal for my friend’s jewish community to teach the younger kids about Zionism…but of course, they do it anyway.
It is not illegal to teach Zionism in France. It’s not illegal to teach Northern Irish nationalism in the UK. BUT it is illegal to teach Zionist or Kurdish or Armenian or Islamist or any other nationalism in Turkey.
I tend to think that democracy isn’t an all or nothing thing though. It’s a spectrum. Turkey surely is more democratic than Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
I mean even within the countries that are thought of as democratic pillars of the world (ie US or Western Europe), there are limits to democracy…ie-you cant preach Nazi nationalism in Germany. I’m not at all saying it should be legalized there (who knows what would happen…), only that every country has some limits to their democracy, even the US and Israel (and these limits are usually placed with the perceived interest of the public good at hand, much to the dismay of libertarians)…
And as a fellow Columbia alum, I’d like to send a shout out to Ronen.

ok purrplgrl, the following are a few of the reasons why the divesment campaign against israel is a moral outrage: a) it singles out israel as singularly odius amongst all nations. lets take the worst case against israel (for the sake of argument) as true: it subjugates a group of muslims living on the west bank to its rule. now compare that to china, where tibet has been invaded, its religious leaders exiled, and china is forcably attempting to destroy the indigenous religious and cultural life of the tibetans (no one makes the claim that israel is trying to convert the muslims to jews); lets take the sudan, where over 1 to 3 million black and xtian/animists sudanese have been killed by by the central muslim government in an attempt to cull non muslims or at least drive them out of sudan; lets take iran, where bahais were taken out and murdered by the central government because they were considered particularly offensive to muslims; lets take saudi arabia, where it against the law subject to prison time to publicly display xtain emblems or attempt to have xtain ceremonies, i could go on, but notice all of these actions are worse in fact than anything israel is even accused of, but we dont see the radicals of calberkley or columbia asking for divesment as to them. are you morally outraged? then how about b) the leadership of the antidivestment groups are usually muslims who come from the most dictatorial countries in the world, saudi arabia, iran, syria, etc. they arent leading divestment efforts against their own current/former countries, their moral hypocracy leads me to moral outrage. and are your morally outraged that one of the few countries in the world whose very existence is in doubt is the one the leftist crowd has chosen to attempt to harm even more. anyone else want to make the case for purrplgrl, feel free

Sam is right, the discourse has been polluted with cliches for too long now, though I think people will continue to refer to Israel as the only democracy in the region as long as the statement remains true.
But if we’re getting rid of useless phrases clogging up the debate, I have a few we could throw on the pyre. How about “End the Occupation?” or “Right of Return” to Palestinians in areas inside Israel? or “A Palestinian State in its 1967 borders.” That one’s my favorite: it transcends meaninglessness and dives headfirst into the world of wishful thinking.

What’s a leftist, avi? The LaRouchies? The Unification Church?
Are the Socialists in the European Parliament who led the fight to get the EC to audit EU funding of the Palestinian Authority conservatives because they stuck up for Israel?
I’m counting on your brilliance here, avi.

mmm, based on your logic, prpl grl i shouldnt be outraged if only black criminals are put in prison….i shouldnt be outraged if because there are some asshold obnoxious jews (cf. certain posters to this board, and i aint talkin about me) harvard bars all jews from entry (btw, i believe israel’s level of morality is amongst the highest in the world, but we are assuming for sake of this argument that its as bad as its haters believe) – if none of this would bother you, purpgrl, you live in a different moral universe than i, but i guess thats why im a libertarian/conservative, and you are what you are
zionista, your assumed naivety is positively brilliant. tell you what, let me list a few items, i dare say that if you agree with most of them you are a leftist (if you agree with all of them you are michael moore or noam chomsky):
bush is a moron
higher taxes are a good thing
the corporations of america are trying to rob us blind
bush is destroying the economy
bush is destroying the eclology
we never should have gone into iraq
we never should have gone into afghanistan
communism is a great system that has never been given a real chance (russia ruined it)
we should pull out of iraq immediately
the iraqui beheaders are freedom fighters
israel is a wicked country that stole land from the arabs and subjugates the country of palestine
there is no g-d
we have no right to judge the muslim religions treatment of women since all cultures are inherently equally good and evil
israel is as evil for even innocently killing children as a muslim suicide bomber who targets jewish children
democracy is an unknown concept to the muslim mind and we shouldnt try to foster it
ok, z, take the test, 70% agreement and you qualify as a leftist, 85% agreement and you get to teach in the middle east studies department at columbia university

Hey Avi,
WHY CAN’t YOU COMMENT WITHOUT CALLING PEOPLE NAMES?????
Putting a “D” at the end of ***hole doesn’t make you any less of one. (I’m sorry, you really goaded me into it)
OK, I will take your point about not being outraged by only black men being arrested–but again, I guess my point is that the answer to only (guilty) black men being arrested is neither to stop arresting any rapists NOR to just be outraged and that’s all.
your quiz is a real joke, by the way. I think you spend a LOT more time arguing that Muslims are fundamentally undemocratic than any of the lefties on this site. Not to mention, what makes you think the IDF is any less aware of the presence of children and elderly people in homes that they admittedly bomb seeking their targets than the Palestinians who walk onto buses?? How are they “innocently” killing them when they know perfectly well that there are family members as well as targets in the house??
And I will NEVER argue that oppression of Muslim women is permitted because of Muslim teachings, any more than I would argue that because some Orthodox Jews are oppressive towards women (traditional ketubah, anyone??), all Judaism is oppressive. Except for wait, doesn’t that example actually how that all cultures do have the possibilities for good and evil??
Is God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son something we really think is “civilized”??

prp girl, “all judaism is oppressive [to women]” wow, now i understand you a lot better, too much time taking womens studies, not enough time taking history

Hah, and just to REALLY freak you out, Avi, I’ll tell you that not only did I take plenty of history classes, I actually teach high school history.

avi green: “in fact, im sure your political views were considered by your school district the qualifying factor in your hiring”
Oh good! The Liberal Academic Elite boogeyman. What would we ever do without our fear fantasies?

“They’re not going to give up their best rhetorical flourish since the days of Jim Crow…”
Ooh, love that. Comparing the conservatives of 40-plus years ago to the conservatives of today without a word of explanation. But I guess we can’t expect anything more from you Stalinists, can we? How’s it hangin’ in the Gulag?
And which is it? Is there real left-wing bias which conservatives use to play underdog, or is it a figment of some people’s imagination?
“just because they control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court…”
Just one second there. Conservatives control what? Congress? Did you just conflate Republicans with conservatives? Not quite the same thing (although it’s true that the Republicans are more conservative now than in the past). The Supreme Court? I count three conservative justices- Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia. Two short of control.
In any case, let me point out that these conservatives were either elected or appointed by elected people, fair and square. Job discrimination in the academy against conservatives? Often legal, but slimy. Surprising behavior for people who can’t stop talking about the destruction of careers under the Evil One, the Oppressor of the Twentieth Century himself, McCarthy.

z, name two beliefs of yours that arent straight out of the democratic party national platform (and before you make the same challenge to me, i support the right to abortion, wouldnt censor tv at all, would significantly reduce penalities for drug use – thats 3, you come up with 2)

I love it when a ubiquitous poster tells me to spend less time online. High comedy….
J: “Of all the professions – including medicine, law, engineering, finance, journalism, etc., I can’t think of a place more slack and unaccountable than the academy.”
Funny how you don’t even get into those professions without an academic degree.
Arguing the merits of deregulation and privatisation by comparing the USA to a country with a population the size of the city of Chicago and the area of the state of Maine is just plain flakey. Besides falling way short of any standard of academic rigor. See what I mean?
And the point remains. To argue that there is such an animal as a liberal academic elite, you have to go alot deeper into a system of over 4,000 insititutions and nearly 16 million enrollments. Now prove it.
avi,
If my opinions seem consistent with Democratic Party platform principles, so what? We’re talking about a platform that attracts nearly half the national electorate. Is that supposed to be somehow “out of the mainstream”? Not everyone will bow down to the opinion of avi green. Deal with it.

“I love it when a ubiquitous poster tells me to spend less time online. High comedy….”
Hey, if I start finding economic policy arguments romantic, I’ll take my own advice and get offline. Interesting, yes, but romantic…?
“Funny how you don’t even get into those professions without an academic degree.”
What’s funny? The process of getting the degree can be slack, but I was referring to what happens on the job. A lawyer or doctor has to get results; academics often pass off self-indulgent slop and are allowed to call it scholarship (if we can even coax slop out of them once they get tenure).
“Arguing the merits of deregulation and privatisation by comparing the USA to a country with a population the size of the city of Chicago and the area of the state of Maine is just plain flakey.”
Not just wrong, but flakey, huh? Care to tell me why? As an apostle of academic rigor, you might try to explain yourself. And you only addressed my Ireland example. What about my second point concerning looking at those countries with the least taxation and regulation? Is ignoring inconvienient arguments part of your rigor?
“And the point remains. To argue that there is such an animal as a liberal academic elite, you have to go alot deeper into a system of over 4,000 insititutions and nearly 16 million enrollments. Now prove it.”
I hope you’re this exacting regarding evidence across the board. But I doubt it. Anyway, I’ll bite. What about the extensive studies comparing the number of Republicans to Democrats among academics? (While party affiliation can be a crude measure of a person’s political views, the overwhelming disparity – do I need to tell you which side overwhelmed the other? – can hardly be explained any other way.)
“We’re talking about a platform that attracts nearly half the national electorate. Is that supposed to be somehow “out of the mainstream”? ”
I see you’re still ignoring the congressional elections.
“Oh, and J. “Nanny-state plantation” is one of those platitudes. ”
Yes, it is. So what? That doesn’t make it untrue. And for a hater of platitudes, who’s the author of this howler: “as long as the government is seen as the boogeyman and the GOP saviors get it “off our backs”?
“Of course, a job and money is plenty to keep those “little people” down in your company towns.”
You’re getting confused. With plentiful jobs and money, people have the option of telling any given company (including an oppressive “company town” one) to shove it. Under these conditions, if employees are found in a “company town”, it’s by choice, and the company town isn’t a bad place to live.
Imagine that. Prosperity without being beholden to politicians and “activists” such as yourself.

“Feel free to reread the statement where word was originally used.”
I just did. Still an odd usage.
“Whether we discuss labor, environment, education, communications, etc., conservatives have hammered away with canards and platitudes …”
What would you call this sentence?
“The conservative approach amounts to every man for himself, while the liberal approach is we’re all in this together. ”
Canards and platitudes, anyone? Not to mention gross oversimplification. Not that “every man for himself” is always a bad thing, or that “we’re all in this together” is always good.

J: “Why is Ireland a bad example? Why did you fail to address my argument about low-tax and low-regulation countries? How do you answer to the Democrat-Republican discrepancy in academia?”
Because Ireland is a weak comparison. Maybe Europe combined will one day have the trade balance to withstand deficits for as long as we can, but not Ireland all by itself. And for all the hard data you’re able to show us, maybe Republicans are simply less respectful of book learnin than Democrats are. Who knows?
So, tell me. What’s not for sale in the “Ownership Society”? Public lands, public airwaves, public education. How much fewer private security contractors do we have in Iraq than foreign allied military? Isn’t anything worth pitching in for anymore?

I asked three questions of Zionista. To the first, “”Why is Ireland a bad example? ” I got the following:
“Because Ireland is a weak comparison. Maybe Europe combined will one day have the trade balance to withstand deficits for as long as we can, but not Ireland all by itself.”
Yikes, what a mess. I used Ireland as an example of a country that radically deregulated and lowered taxes in a short span of time (about 10-12 years ago) and saw a dramatic turnaround (positive) in its economic situation. (Money quote from the government official in charge of labor: To the effect that “all these years I had to find jobs for people; now (post-changes), I have to find people for jobs.” (Employment and prosperity- more cruelty from conservatives.)
Now, if Ireland is unable to withstand deficits (the presumption being that deficits are a way to create an artificial, borrowed prosperity), doesn’t this just indicate that the strength of Ireland’s economy is the real thing, which bolsters my argument??
To my second question, “Why did you fail to address my argument about low-tax and low-regulation countries? “, no answer. Which is a shame, because I used Ireland only as a colorful example. The heart of my argument is the general correlation between low taxes/ low regulation and economic growth.
To my third question, “How do you answer to the Democrat-Republican discrepancy in academia?” I got “And for all the hard data you’re able to show us, maybe Republicans are simply less respectful of book learnin than Democrats are. Who knows?”
So I was forced to prove that there’s a lefty bias in academia, but statements like “Perhaps conservatives have a bigger and more real problem with academic rigor than the popularly presumed liberal bias” can just be floated out there. As far as “book learnin” is concerned, thanks for continuing the hick Republican stereotype. It’ll keep you losing elections for a long time to come.
Actually, when a survey was taken of voters, the findings were that Republicans are strongest among those with high school or college educations, while Democrats are strongest among those with grad degrees and those who never finished high school. What does all this mean? Probably that the “book learnin’ thing is about even.
“So, tell me. What’s not for sale in the “Ownership Society”? Public lands, public airwaves, public education. ”
Some lands should be sold/leased, some not. I’d be happy to argue the school choice thing if there’s interest. As for media, I would generally be sympathetic to your arguments, at least insofar as I acknowledge that the media is a unique industry. But in today’s age of cable news, hundreds of diverse publications, and the internet, even if it’s true that we shouldn’t be letting Clearchannel dominate the radio, etc., I don’t see a great deal of harm being done. For something like thirty years, news was dominated by three networks, three prestige papers, and two newsmagazines. No longer. Why is this such an issue for you?
“Isn’t anything worth pitching in for anymore?”
Lots of things are. But the American way, and the right way, is to make as many of them as possible voluntary. Forcing people to do things, when not necessary, tends to be wasteful and oppressive.

I wrote: “No matter how many question marks you use, you’re still comparing a nation the size of Maine with a population the size of Chicago.”
Clarity…
“…comparing the USA to a nation the size of Maine and a population the size of Chicago,” is more to the point.

J: “So? No analogy is perfect. You still have to explain why the size difference makes my argument regarding the economic boom in Ireland invalid.
“You also said nothing about my general argument re the correlation between low-tax/ low regulation and high employment and prosperity.”
What I wrote speaks to debt, and the ability to coast on trade deficits, etc.
What sort of foreign policy commitments is Ireland involved in that are comparable to the USA’s? How does the scale of domestic services Ireland provides compare to the USA?

You win, J. I don’t know anything about economics, and we’ll all be OK when we’re more like Ireland.

No, J. It’s about you, not me. Having to argue why Ireland is an inappropriate comparison to the economic engine of the United States in order to pass some character test is bullshit. You and your character issue should only have a long and happy life together.

The way I understand it, a trade balance is much like any individual account balance only on a grander, international scale. There are debits and credits. When debits outpace credits, if you’re lucky you end up borrowing. The more you borrow, the deeper you end up in debt. Nothing has infinite growth potential in this world. There are cycles determined by technological advances and such, but a smaller and younger nation like Ireland will hit a given ceiling between cycles well before an older and more developed nation like the US. When that happens their debits will likely catch up to their credits, and they will end up having to borrow from somewhere to sustain their infrastructure in the manner they will have become accustomed. Since Ireland is a big part of a very new project called the European Union, no one can really know exactly how all this will play out in that context. OK?
You came into this discussion insisting on the existence of some liberal academic elite. Now we come to the familiar conservative terrain of “character issues.” Seems whenever conservatives have their beliefs challenged, it has everything to do with the “character” of their adversaries. Like the Gingrich rule says, “when you run out of arguments, make it personal.” So, you steadfastly support deregulatory trends and an administration charged with expediting them by dividing Americans (in a time of war, no less) over bogus threats from gay marriage and hyped up crises like social security in order to relieve government of its public accountability. In order to advance the narrow agenda of privitisation at the expense of public accountability, we can point to all sorts of boogeymen all over the land of the free and the home of the brave that we are all supposed to be afraid of. Liberal academic elites, liberal media, trial lawyers, Hollywood, secular humanists, the homosexual agenda, Massachusetts, and others surely coming soon. Similar to the way the Arab-Muslim establishments prop up their despotic regimes by convincing their constituents of a threat from “the Zionist entity,” movement conservatives advance the agenda of deregulation and privatisation against government and other public interests by convincing true believers like yourself of a threat from “the Liberal elite.” “Character,” your ass.
J • 01/17/05 01:14pm: “Some lands should be sold/leased, some not. I’d be happy to argue the school choice thing if there’s interest. As for media, I would generally be sympathetic to your arguments, at least insofar as I acknowledge that the media is a unique industry. But in today’s age of cable news, hundreds of diverse publications, and the internet, even if it’s true that we shouldn’t be letting Clearchannel dominate the radio, etc., I don’t see a great deal of harm being done. For something like thirty years, news was dominated by three networks, three prestige papers, and two newsmagazines. No longer. Why is this such an issue for you?”
It’s important to me because I am one of those patriotic Americans who value accountability to public interests, and in a political system like ours the public interest rests upon twin pillars of accountable leadership and public involvement. Private enterprise allows for the creativity of a given community, but when taken to its unregulated laissez-faire ethic, it is all about devouring and exploiting any and all resources that unchecked competition will allow — human, natural, or otherwise. And there is a difference between repression and restraint.
“Some lands should be sold/leased, some not”? Fine. In our government there is a distinction between the purposes of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. That’s why national parks come under the direction of Interior and national forests are Ag. How about sticking with what we have? For example, ranchers would no longer get pet treatment when it comes to grazing their private livestock on public lands at cut rates. And of course, that would remove the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the discussion of oil and gas exploration and extraction.
Aside, do you think they call it “Anwar” so it sounds to the layman’s ear like just another oil rich OPEC nation? “Ownership Society”; “Defense of Marriage”; “Healthy Forest Initiative”; “No Child Left Behind.” They can be sneaky little shits when it comes to linguistics, can’t they?
Meanwhile, back in the days of very- and ultra-high frequencies, we had three national companies and a variety of independent systems licensing the airwaves. Licenses that required regular renewal based on public accountability. Also, they were all broadcast companies. Thanks to the degeneration of antitrust laws for the sake of deregulation and privatisation, now we have essentially five corporate conglomerates owning and operating across the cable and broadcast spectrum, owning various forms of media within the same market, with interests conflicting all over the place, and not much left of the fairness doctrine and equal time provision of the old Communications Acts.
Look, if you want to base your argument for privatisation and deregulation here based on what goes on in Ireland or any other smaller nation, you are not going to convince me that way (that is, if you even care to — but there doesn’t seem to be anyone else in this discussion, so I don’t really know what other reason you keep this up).
As usual, looking forward to your next string of juevenile insults, and other insights into the inner workings of the mind of a conservative true believer.