Furor erupts over Web site monitoring of Middle Eastern scholars (America haters whine)

AP ^ | 9-27- | Ron Todt

[Dan from Michigan]

Furor erupts over Web site monitoring of Middle Eastern scholars

By RON TODT
The Associated Press
9/27/02 10:22 PM

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A pro-Israel organization has set up a Web site to monitor professors and universities for pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias -- a move some academics are decrying as campus McCarthyism and attempted intimidation.

The Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum said it organized the Campus Watch site to counter pervasive bias in universities' Middle Eastern studies.

The site names schools and specific professors. Forum director Daniel Pipes said the think tank hopes eventually to monitor 250 North American academic institutions.

"Our goal is to monitor, critique and improve Middle East studies," Pipes said. "We're not at universities because our views are not welcome. We're trying to create an alternative voice within the field."

Scholars whose articles are compiled into dossiers on the Web site include Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad of Columbia, John Esposito of Georgetown, Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Snehal Shingavi of University of California at Berkeley. Dossiers are also listed on those institutions as well as a dozen others, including Stanford, Northeastern, the University of Chicago and the University of North Carolina.

Opponents immediately called the effort "McCarthy-like" and an attempt to stifle opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Professors listed on the site said they were bombarded with e-mail over the weekend.

In a show of support for those named on the site, about 100 other academics have asked to be added to the list.

Judith Butler, a gender theorist at Berkeley, wrote that she would like to be included in the list of U.S. academics "who oppose the Israeli occupation and its brutality, actively support Palestinian rights of self-determination" and support an informed view of Islam.

The Campus Watch site accuses American Middle Eastern scholars of generally being biased against the United States and being apologists for unfriendly regimes.

University of Chicago historian Rashid Khalidi, who is quoted on the Web site as sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, called the site "slimy" and intended to chill opposition.

"What they're trying to do is exclude from public debate opinions that go against the neo-conservative consensus that dominates discussion of policy on Iraq or policy on the Israeli conflict by smearing us and calling us aliens," he said.

Pipes said he will not remove a "Keep Us Informed" page on the site that opponents say is an attempt to get students to turn in their professors. He said it gives students a place to complain about mistreatment.

"What you have in university is exclusion of alternate points of view," Pipes said. "You've got to subscribe to the party line and then you can make your career; if you don't, you're out."

------

On the Net:

http://www.campus-watch.org

[Southack]

"When I quote Bush himself showing that he thinks there are better ways? You ignore it. You keep defending Bush in spite of the fact that all of the evidence runs against your position."

Nonsense! All of the evidence obliterates your bizarre claims that Bush "opposed" arming pilots. Evidence? Evidence is something tangible such as SIGNING TWO pro-gun arming-pilots bills! Evidence is FIRING Magaw, the bureaucrat who held up in red tape the implimentation of the first pro-gun-pilot law.

Nor did I "ignore" what you said about Bush. In fact, I showed you that Bush's view about being "open to better ways" did NOT support your wild-eyed claim that Bush was opposed to arming pilots. That's hardly "ignoring" what you said.

What's missing, however, is any evidence to contradict what I said at the very first (that you would at BEST only be able to show non-Bush sources claiming that Bush opposed arming pilots).

[Southack]

"I claimed right from the beginning that he only signed it because of the homeland security issues. You haven't cited either of the alleged bills."

By referring to the one bill in question, you concede that it exists by default (so no source is necessary). To ask for a source from ME after YOU have pontificated about the first bill is a pretty lame delaying tactic, unworthy of serious consideration or respect.

[Demidog]

All of the evidence obliterates your bizarre claims that Bush "opposed" arming pilots.

LOL....Of course. Virtually everyone connected with airline security in his cabinet opposes, he says there are better ways and the evidence is all for his support....

What's missing, however, is any evidence to contradict what I said at the very first (that you would at BEST only be able to show non-Bush sources claiming that Bush opposed arming pilots).

The fact that you wish to ignore his underlings opposition to the bill was not really representative of his views.

But this should lay it all to rest for anyone with any intellecutal honesty:

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush is unlikely to support the idea. Bush plans to follow the advice of administration officials, Fleischer said, "and the recommendation of the experts is that this not proceed." Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta oppose arming pilots.

Aren't you embarrrassed yet? It's not missing. You are simply ignoring the evidence.

[Southack]

"Yeah. I quoted Ridge after you said I only quoted "press lackeys." - Demidog

Is that where you claimed that I was lying, or am I mistaken?

[Demidog]

By referring to the one bill in question, you concede that it exists by default (so no source is necessary). To ask for a source from ME after YOU have pontificated about the first bill is a pretty lame delaying tactic, unworthy of serious consideration or respect.

Uhhh.....I conceded that one existed. I didn't concede that TWO existed and asked along time ago if you could even cite one of them. You obviously cannot.

[Demidog]

Is that where you claimed that I was lying, or am I mistaken?

You're not mistaken. I claimed you were lying. You were lying.

[Southack]

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush is unlikely to support the idea. Bush plans to follow the advice of administration officials, Fleischer said, "and the recommendation of the experts is that this not proceed."

... Aren't you embarrrassed yet? It's not missing. You are simply ignoring the evidence." - Demidog

And yet, Bush DID support the idea (he signed the two bills into law, after all) and the idea did go ahead (especially after Magaw, who seemed to oppose it, was fired by Bush) and the idea DID proceed (who knows, maybe Ari was not completely on-message with Bush for once).

But it is YOU who can't show Bush saying that he was against it (which makes sense, since Bush signed that pro-gun bill and one other into law, after all).

[Southack]

"Yeah. I quoted Ridge after you said I only quoted "press lackeys." - Demidog

So only AFTER I cited your claims of "just" press lackeys and one fired Bush-admin official [Magaw], you posted something from Ridge and then claimed that I was lying because I didn't cite Ridge for you in advance.

Typical.

[Demidog]

And yet, Bush DID support the idea

Right. Ari Fleischer says he doesn't support it and this is evidence that he DID...LOL!

[Demidog]

Stop whining. You were wrong.

[Demidog]

On November 19, President Bush signs the armed pilots provision into law.

Where's the second bill you claim exists?

[Southack]

"Right. Ari Fleischer says he doesn't support it and this is evidence that he DID...LOL!"

No, the evidence that Bush supported it is that Bush signed it into law.

Again, what is missing is that YOU can't show Bush saying that he was opposed to arming pilots. You can stay up all night and make post after post, but you'll be no closer to showing a source for your long-since-discredited claim.

And in the end, Bush signed the bill to arm pilots into law (actually TWO such bills), directly contrary to your claim that Bush opposed arming pilots.

Have you caught on yet that I'm going to continue hammering you on your inability to show Bush saying what you claim he opposed yet? This failure on your part is NOT going to be ignored regardless of how much you dance and spin.

No matter. I suspect that I'll be around to continue to debunk you on post after post after post after post...

[Southack]

"Yeah. I quoted Ridge after you said I only quoted "press lackeys." - Demidog

And what did you say about my claim that you only quoted press lackeys and one fired Bush admin official [i.e. Magaw]?

Oh yeah, that I was "lying" because I didn't mention that you had cited Ridge. Except that you now admit that you only cited Ridge AFTER I made the post in question.

Gee, I didn't know that you'd quote Ridge in the future, so that somehow makes me a liar?

Grow up.

[Southack]

On November 19, President Bush signs the armed pilots provision into law.

"Where's the second bill you claim exists?" - Demidog

The better question is: Do you still think that Bush is opposed to signing it?

[Southack]

"On November 19, President Bush signs the armed pilots provision into law."

For the record, if you got that from the GOA website (I'm a life member, btw), that refers to the FIRST pro-gun pilot-arming bill that Bush signed into law on November 19, 2001 (i.e. last year).

[Pyro7480]

Bump!!!!