The Commissar Two-Step at DePaul: Defamation, Zionist-Style

Over the last few weeks, as I have thought hard about how the Finkelstein and Larudee tenure denials went down the way they did, I repeatedly stumble upon a troubling, but perhaps plausible, scenario. Imagine the following phone conversation between the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, and John Simon, the Chair of DePaul’s Board of Trustees:

Alan Dershowitz: “Is this Finkelstein tenure denial really going to go down without a hitch? There’s a lot riding on this.”

John Simon: “We’ll take care of it Alan. No need to worry. The players are in place. It’s a lock. You have my personal assurance.”

Alan Dershowitz: “Thanks, John.”

In May 2004, a mere one month before fifty Jenner and Block attorneys attended a Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Lawyer’s Division dinner in Chicago, where Alan Dershowitz delivered the keynote address on “The Case for Israel,” John Simon, a Jenner and Block partner, was elected Chair of DePaul’s Board of Trustees. In October 2004, he assumed the position of chair of the Board of Trustees after having served as a Trustee since 1990.

You read that correctly: one month before Dershowitz made the case for Israel in front of the Chicago JUF and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Lawyer’s Division, with fifty Jenner and Block attorneys in attendance, John Simon became chair of DePaul’s Board of Trustees. Three months after Dershowitz makes the case for Israel before fifty Jenner and Block attorneys and 2500 die-hard supporters of Israel at a JUF fundraiser, John Simon officially began his stint as chair of DePaul’s Board of Trustees. (See p. 28 and this video). Simon received the ORT Jurisprudence Award in 1999. A little digging allowed me to learn that:

ORT (was created in 1880 by Russian Jews who established new colonies and agricultural schools and model farms to help newly displaced Russian Jews adapt to an agricultural existence.) Known as the ‘Obschestvo Remeslenovo i. Zemledelcheskovo Trouda,’ which translates into the ‘Society for Trades and Agricultural Labor,’ ORT has developed into an international non-governmental educator that has had schools and programs in 88 countries throughout the world and that helps to educate 300,000 students each year. Today, ORT is a world leader in technological and general education, teaching the skills necessary for success in today’s world. (See press release)

Was John Simon in attendance at Dershowitz’s talk before the Jewish United Fund and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Lawyer’s Division? Are Simon and Dershowitz acquaintances? Friends? Was John Simon elected chair of DePaul’s Board of Trustees to take care of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure case, as a favor to Alan Dershowitz? Who knows? The answers to these questions are merely speculative at this point, but they are certainly worth asking. You can email John Simon at moc.rennejnull@nomisj and ask him for some answers to these questions.

“All of this is merely a coincidence,” you say, “Don’t be paranoid!” We all know an upstanding professional such as Alan Dershowitz would not try to tamper with Norman Finkelstein’s tenure case through DePaul’s Board of Trustees nearly two years before his good friend “Norm” was supposed to go up for tenure, right? Or would he?

Readers will remember that Finkelstein gave Dershowitz the drubbing of his life in September 24th, 2003 on Democracy Now!, where Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of concocting a hoax plagiarized from another hoax, a reference to the fact that Dershowitz, in writing his The Case for Israel, “borrowed” — perhaps illegitimately — secondary material from Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

We all know the dangers of positing conspiracy theories, but this one is really too good to pass up:

On the Jenner and Block website advertising Dershowitz’s June 2004 speech before the Chicago JUF, you’ll notice that the JUF/JF board of directors is headed by Chairman Lester J. Rosenberg and President Steven B. Nasatir. Well, the name Nasatir leapt out at me. As it turns out, one Lonnie Nasatir delivered the joyous news on 6/11/07 from the ADL office about the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest Regional Office’s stance on Finkelstein’s tenure denial. Are Lonnie and Steve Nasatir related? I’m thinking they might be.

Speaking on behalf of the Chicago ADL Office, Lonnie Nasatir insisted that one Claudette Marie Muhmammad, who had been appointed to Rod Blagojevich’s Task Force on Hate Crimes, be removed after it was revealed that Muhammad had connections to the Nation of Islam. Imagine what might have happened had a woman with the last name of “Epstein” been removed from Blagojevich’s task force for sending money to the Israeli Settler Movement or for proven connections to the Israeli Likud Party. The Heavens would surely have darkened. Add to all this that the Anti-Defamation League actually specializes in defaming U.S. critics of Israel, it’s a wonder that Nasatir wasn’t rung up on charges of “gross hypocrisy”.

Another internal player at DePaul, who undoubtedly watched the Finkelstein tenure proceeding with keen interest, is J.D. Bindenagel, Vice President for DePaul’s Community, Government, and International Affairs. Bindenagel was a Holocaust Compensation official in the State Department appointed in 1999 by President Clinton as U.S. Ambassador and Special Envoy for Holocaust issues, reaching “agreements on World War II-era forced labor, insurance, art, property restitution, and Holocaust education, research and remembrance.” In his The Holocaust Industry: On the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering Finkelstein deals critically with the likes of Bindenagel and Stuart Eizenstat, the author of Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II and a key player in the Holocaust Industry racket. Here’s what Finkelstein had to say on Bindenagel:

Even Holocaust survivor organizations decry that the Holocaust industry inflated the number of survivors during negotiations only to deflate the number once it had the compensation monies earmarked for Holocaust survivors at hand: “Why during the negotiations were the numbers of actual Shoah survivors so vastly exaggerated and why were the negotiators so fearful that the press and the German and Swiss opponents might challenge their proclaimed survivors statistics?” The inflation now exceeds that of the Weimar years with the US State Department’s Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, J.D. Bindenagel, proclaiming that “in the postwar years many millions of Holocaust victims were caught behind the Iron Curtain.” (The Holocaust Industry, p. 238-39).

To see Bindenagel’s contributions to the Proceedings of the Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, go here. I’m sure this Vice President at DePaul would have loved to have had Finkelstein on the faculty permanently. I’m sure Finkelstein could have reminded Bindenagel on a regular basis of the full dimensions of the Holocaust Industry’s “Double Shakedown” of Europe. “Hey Norm, let’s get a martini at 5 so we can recap the Holocaust Industry’s shakedown of Germany and a good bit of Eastern Europe.” Probably not — wasn’t going to happen.

Assuming DePaul’s administration made a commitment nearly three years ago to make sure that Finkelstein would be denied tenure, wouldn’t it have just been more honest and efficient for President Dennis Holtscheider to have sent Finkelstein a short note along these lines:

We don’t like the conclusions of your scholarship, which are supported by the leading scholars on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Nazi Holocaust, because they aren’t conducive to perpetuating the propaganda system that DePaul University is dedicated to upholding under the banner of ‘Vincentian Personalism,’ so we’ll accuse you of advocacy, which suffuses all social-science scholarship.

This is truly defamation, Zionist-style. To hide behind the obvious bad-faith language of the tenure denial letter itself, which is effectively disposed of by Kim Petersen in his three-part essay on Bathos at DePaul/Academe, really requires chutzpah. But when it comes to justifying the unjustifiable and explaining the unexplainable, chutzpah is all you’ve got to lean on.

If there’s no place for Norman G. Finkelstein in American Academe, what does that mean? I’m afraid it means that American Academe isn’t ready for serious scholarship, especially when it impedes U.S. and Israeli war aims in the Middle East.

Bill Williams is an independent writer who lives in Toledo, Ohio. He can be reached at wassup7525@aol.com. Read other articles by Bill, or visit Bill's website.

20 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. gerald spezio said on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:48am #

    Bill, there is an inescapable connection between the “lawyering ethic” and the entire peeyar linguistic flim-flam. As the supreme advocate, Dershowitz’ s mad dog lawyering for Israel does a great job of exposing it. Finkelstein’s persecution shows how deep it goes.

  2. elias aboud said on July 2nd, 2007 at 12:19pm #

    I have it on good authority that the Christian Zionist lobby numbering 65 million in the USA put the fix in against Finkelstein. Apparently, Finkelstein made the mistake of mocking concentration camp survivors, sneering at their tales of escapre from the German Nazi beasts. Now, Finkelstein may be the greatest scholar on this Earth but sinking this low would make even the Darfur population vomit. You may be quite right about American academe not being Finkelstein’s cup of tea. Why don’t all we progressives pass the hat around and set up a chair in Ad Hominem Studies for our hero at Cairo University with his pal Joel Beinin?

  3. D. Beaudoin-Zaki said on July 2nd, 2007 at 1:04pm #

    I am shocked to see how deep this infiltration of Israel goes in to the American society…Am I missing something? Is Israel the crown of
    the US, and we are just humble servents in the States for all Jews interested in “torture” and any type of “harrassment techniques” to keep their positions on educational institutions alive and expanding. This appears to be based on hate for groups that they do not identify with? It was not the Palestine people that were killing and eliminating the Jewish people in Europe during World War II! Why are aggressive Jewish extemists taking out fustrations on an entire group of displayed people? Are the extremists now giving their definitions for who can teach our children in US Universities? If teachings and writings are all one sided, such as current existing education in many areas of the Arab and Israel territories; do we want this spoon feeding of orchistrated information provided by a lobby and it’s supporters setting criculum for our students….I do not want this for my children!
    Dr. Norm Finkenstein should be the one teaching at Harvard, he appears to be a fine example of a person of values and respect for research, academics, and students.
    Not an apparent member of another country with disreguard for all that America values were formed from. If people want to move to Israel where they have citizenship just by professing to be “Jewish” that is fine. However, the USA is not an Israeli territory and a religion should not be running this country and expect closed idears to exist in the educational institutions. This is creating hatred for other groups within our home land!
    Perhaps Harvard has been purchased by this lobby as well!
    It does appears that it has tolerated the spread of this to continue onto their soil….cancelling speaking engagements and receptions by people that doesn’t subscribe to aggressive faculty that have influence in having other people that question their opinions eliminated. Sounds like it is Harvard that is the breeding ground for extremists with faculty
    like it currently allows to teach their students!!!
    Thank you for allowing the comment,
    A mother for peace and equality

  4. Sam Livingston said on July 2nd, 2007 at 2:04pm #

    Wow – very nice analysis” I think you should lend your significant talent in that arena to LooseChange.org – they can use someone with such a creative imagination for conspiracy theories.

    But, alas, I think that the author has not dig deep enough. If Bill would do some more research he will surely discover that Zionists practically forced Germans into creating Holocaust so that they can use it as an excuse for all their Zionist actions for the next 50 years, ultimately culminating in their paramount goal of denying Finkeltsein his well deserved tenure. It is a diabolically evil plan, worthy of the wretched Jew..argh, I mean Zionists!.

    Please proceed with your voluble research, while there are still people remain out there who are blind to the truth of evil Zionists.

  5. Michael Pyshnov said on July 2nd, 2007 at 3:21pm #

    The conversation between the “players” who decided to deny Prof. Finkelstein the tenure had to include the phrase “We can not open the floodgate”. I believe that their main consideration was to make an example for others. It’s obviously too late trying to silence Finkelstein, but others must know that the punishment is inevitable.

  6. Hue Longer said on July 2nd, 2007 at 6:15pm #

    Quit it Sam, you know we all understand a Jewish life (providing it’s Zionist of course) is worth more than any other…relax.

  7. Sam Livingston said on July 3rd, 2007 at 7:01am #

    Hue, you obviously didn’t understand – the only good Zionist is dead Zionist – the entire Zionist state should be wiped out – then radical Muslims can finally can put down their arms (that they’ve been waiting to do for so long) and live happily together with Christians, gays, unveiled women, free speech lovers and etc…

    Oh, and if anybody publishes a favorable book about Zionist state, or anything negative about Koran or Mohamed (like Satanic Verses), or makes a movie about Muslim culture in negative light – those people should at best be declared plagiarists who didn’t write their books and at worst be put on a fatwa death list – no mercy for those infidels.

    Also, I personally think that if person speaks out against Zionism, he/she should be automatically awarded tenure. In fact we should put it into constitution – any controversial speech should be protected by tenure.

  8. Carol White said on July 3rd, 2007 at 8:45pm #

    How unfortunate for the students of DePaul. I have studied the Middle East since 1970s, and University professors have always had to speak in code in order to not “offend”. I continued on to Law School, and kept up with the Middle East as a hobby. I have books by both Professor Dershowitz and Professor Finkelstein. There is no comparison between the two. Professor Dershowitz is a propagandist, and Professor Finkelstein did clearly show that he “lifted” significant amounts of his copy from Peters. DePaul must have some shoddy standards. I hope he finds a place in American academia, but if he does not, there are many who will read his books for their content.

  9. Mike Mason said on July 4th, 2007 at 7:22am #

    Maybe this has something to do with a piece of legislation inserted into the recent immigration bill you may not have seen. An earmark of $600,000 to study if the U.S. mistreated jewish refugees during WW2, they are studying European people overall as well, but then why double up the effort to focus on Jews in particular? Perhaps the U.S. populace is about to be asked to pay for alleged “war crimes”, or perhaps the payoff will be slipped past us by a willing congress, just like this bit of funding.

  10. Sam Livingston Re: Carol White said on July 5th, 2007 at 2:07pm #

    That’s funny I actually found Dershowitz’s books informative while Finkelstein’s propagandistic. I guess one is always biased toward supportive views hah.

    What about the fact that Finkelstein was never published in peer reviewed academic journals? That either says something about Finkelstein or something about our Academia. I’d rather put my faith in academia rather then one Finkelstein.

    B.t.w the litmus test for academic writing vs. advocacy rating, is that academic writing should not contain vilification of opposing college’s intentions such as “Nazi, Nazi sympathizer, Nazi-like apologist, Clown, etc…” It will be a sad day in Academia when this kind of writing becomes acceptable. (I also deplore Dershowitz for stooping to the same level as Finkelstein in battling him)

  11. Kim Petersen said on July 5th, 2007 at 7:14pm #

    Sam Livingstone: “…then radical Muslims can finally can put down their arms (that they’ve been waiting to do for so long) and live happily together with Christians, gays, unveiled women, free speech lovers and etc…”

    Just wondering Sam: is that like how radical Christians live happily with Muslims, gays, women, free speech lovers, etc.?

    Sam Livingstone: “Oh, and if anybody publishes a favorable book about Zionist state, or anything negative about Koran or Mohamed (like Satanic Verses), or makes a movie about Muslim culture in negative light – those people should at best be declared plagiarists who didn’t write their books and at worst be put on a fatwa death list – no mercy for those infidels.”

    Sounds speciously clever. But the excesses of Zionism are not excused by any excesses among a minority of Islam. Furthermore, you draw false analogies. The racist ideology of Zionism is not to be compared with the religion of Islam. The correct analogy would be between Judaism and Islam. The Koran should be compared to the Bible or other core religious books. One could compare the outrage among Christians to Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ to the outrage felt by some Muslims over Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

    Sam Livingstone: “Also, I personally think that if person speaks out against Zionism, he/she should be automatically awarded tenure. In fact we should put it into constitution – any controversial speech should be protected by tenure.”

    Are you insinuating that it is okay to deny tenure for speaking out against Zionist crimes?

    Sam Livingstone: “That’s funny I actually found Dershowitz’s books informative while Finkelstein’s propagandistic. I guess one is always biased toward supportive views hah.”

    Strange sense of humor. At any rate, your bias is palpable.

    Sam Livingstone: “What about the fact that Finkelstein was never published in peer reviewed academic journals? … I’d rather put my faith in academia rather then one Finkelstein.”

    Given academia’s silencing of Finkelstein within it, how you place your “faith,” with all due respect, condemningly.

    Sam Livingstone: “B.t.w the litmus test for academic writing vs. advocacy rating, is that academic writing should not contain vilification of opposing college’s intentions … It will be a sad day in Academia when this kind of writing becomes acceptable. (I also deplore Dershowitz for stooping to the same level as Finkelstein in battling him)”

    Advocacy is something that needs to be established. When a scholar writes on a subject and the conclusions point in a direction, to write that this so is called honesty. Some twist honesty by calling it advocacy. Nevertheless, advocacy is not necessarily bad. To advocate against the humiliation and destruction of Palestinians honors the advocate.

    When an opposing colleague is a scoundrel and when writing exposes a scoundrel (warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter, insert your epithet) for what he is, then it is not vilification. It is implicit that vilification is the defamation or slander of someone’s good character. If the character is not good, then it is not vilification; it is honesty. Nonetheless, it should suffice to point out the misdeeds of a person, then the readers can draw their own conclusions as to what type of person the doer of such deeds is.

  12. Sam Livingston Re: Kim Petersen said on July 6th, 2007 at 10:50am #

    I know how this thing will turn out – my messages will be most likely deleted or stopped from being published – people don’t want to hear opposing opinion. Maybe though this site is more liberal then others, so while I am allowed to post here…

    >>”Just wondering Sam: is that like how radical Christians live happily with Muslims, gays, women, free speech lovers, etc.?”

    – Well, if you can give me an example of prominent radical Christians putting a bounty on Scorsese’s head for “The Last Temptation of Christ ” and openly calling for someone to murder him – I may concede.

    >>”racist ideology of Zionism”
    – Are Arab Zionists also racists?

    >> “At any rate, your bias is palpable”
    – LOL the old “me objective, you not” argument

    >>”Given academia’s silencing of Finkelstein within it…”
    – I didn’t realize that only tenured professors had voice in academia.

    >>”Advocacy is something that needs to be established”
    – Stating facts and statistics is academic, passing judgment and assigning subjective, loaded labels is not, no matter what side you’re on. E.g. to say “this person killed 10,000 people” is academic, to say “this person is a Nazi” is not (unless person actually was a Nazi in Germany in 40’s).

    Can I ask you a personal question, do you consider me also a warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter for supporting Israel?

    (hate is easy to spread but difficult to stop, that’s why I personally don’t rush to label people a Nazi supporter – but that’s just me)

  13. Kim Petersen said on July 6th, 2007 at 3:53pm #

    SL: “Well, if you can give me an example of prominent radical Christians putting a bounty on Scorsese’s head for “The Last Temptation of Christ” and openly calling for someone to murder him – I may concede.”

    A fatwa is not the only measurement of intolerant religious views. The fact is that among Christians, Jews, and Muslims some will agitate against perceived slights of their religion.

    SL: “Are Arab Zionists also racists?”

    An Arab Zionist is just as pathetic as a Jewish Nazi.

    SL: “Stating facts and statistics is academic, passing judgment and assigning subjective, loaded labels is not, no matter what side you’re on. E.g. to say ‘this person killed 10,000 people’ is academic, to say ‘this person is a Nazi’ is not (unless person actually was a Nazi in Germany in 40’s).”

    I also share your dislike labels, but sometimes the label is correct. As with your Nazi example, to call a person who lies a “liar” is not subjective. Labels need to be substantiated. However, preferably a writer will just present the facts and rationale and let the readers form their own conclusions. Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.

    SL: “Can I ask you a personal question, do you consider me also a warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter for supporting Israel?”

    I don’t know you. Depending on your principles and worldview, with all due respect, it seems that you are at least misguided.

  14. Sam Livingston Re: Kim Petersen said on July 6th, 2007 at 9:29pm #

    So you couldn’t give an example of a bounty. Yes Christians get agitated (just like every one else) but they don’t put a bounty on a man’s head and call for his death. You can’t honestly tell me you don’t see a difference between being agitated and calling for someone’s death!

    >> “Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.”
    – I guess DePaul thinks otherwise, I personally agree with them.

    >>”it seems that you are at least misguided”
    – I thought you would say that (well I thought you would use the words like ignorant or brainwashed). Not surprising I think the same about you.

    The question is: how would two people like you and me would come to understand one another. I think the first step is to stop assuming that your opponent is either evil or ignorant for holding an opposing view. If we, two completely independent people, can’t do that, how can we expect Palestinians and Israelis to?

  15. Kim Petersen said on July 6th, 2007 at 11:52pm #

    It is not just “agitation.” You appear unaware of the crimes of one side and view the other side as a homogenous evil. The examples of Christian sins are myriad. I am surprised that you require a listing. There is the Inquisition, the Crusades, and witch burning in the US. Then there is the US government official’s admission that the lives of 500,000 children are worth sacrificing for the “national interest.” The US, while constitutionally providing for separation of state and religion, is unmistakably a Christian nation.

    >> “Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.”
    – SL: I guess DePaul thinks otherwise, I personally agree with them.

    There would be a major house cleaning in academia if that were to be the case, and I would venture to hazard a guess that you are above ever calling someone a name in your lifetime. If so, did you ever lose your job because of it?

    I refrain from setting myself up as a judge of the evil of others. What I can attempt to do is describe the actions that would constitute evil. You seem to take the stance that theft of an indigenous people’s land, their humiliation and slow-motion genocide are okay. That is what separates us. The question is not how we would come to understand one another. How can you expect a people, such as the Palestinians, to accept suffering and murder, meted out to them by their oppressors? Would you accept if someone conquered your household by force and humiliated your loved ones daily?

  16. Sam Livingston Re: Kim Petersen said on July 7th, 2007 at 2:27pm #

    >>” There IS the Inquisition, the Crusades, and witch burning in the US.”
    – seriously? I wasn’t aware that’s still going on! Honestly you are insulting your own intelligence when you stoop to comparing Christian sins from 100 some years ago (that Christianity admitted to being wrong) to present day Muslim fatwa’s which threaten and take lives of people for things like drawing cartoons and writing novels.

    So, my challenge still stands, give me an example (in modern times) of radical Christians putting a bounty on someone’s head or calling for a death of an artist or a novelist.

    Also, food for though – if you ever find such a freak, you can be sure of one thing – all prominent Christians will condemn it. While when fatwa is issued in Arab country, not only it is not being condemned , but in fact Muslims in other countries try to carry it out!

    Imagine a prominent Christian in US calling for death of a Muslim artist for disrespecting Christ and then some Christian in UK to carry the threat out! – that would be equivalent to what radical Muslims are doing right now.

    >> ” I would venture to hazard a guess that you are above ever calling someone a name in your lifetime. If so, did you ever lose your job because of it”
    – Very good example! I like name calling as much as a next guy and often do, BUT not in professional environment. Yes I would loose my job if on my job I would insult someone! In my professional writing I never, ever can allow myself to stoop to name-calling. However I am not a standard for academic discourse. Such standard exists and clearly does not allow for childish name-calling.

    >>”You seem to take the stance that theft of an indigenous people’s land, their humiliation and slow-motion genocide are okay”
    – you see, that’s why arguments with you guys never get anywhere, because as soon as I try to have a intelligent discourse, I am accused of supporting genocide! Do you really think I support genocide!?
    Again you insult your intelligence when you write things like that.

    It seems to me that there are plenty of people including prominent historians and political analysts who do not share your opinion that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is genocide. You seem to assume that your opinion is a fact. It’s unlikely to be a fact, if so many well educated, professional, independent in their judgment academics disagree with you on that.
    So, if considering Israeli actions genocide is YOUR opinion, and MY opinion that it is not genocide, then that’s what we need to talk about and not insult each other with Nazi name calling.

  17. Kim Petersen said on July 7th, 2007 at 3:40pm #

    Great, you draw up rules that limit the huge crimes of history. Pat Robertson.
    I insult my intelligence if I continue further debating semantics with someone over “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.” The fact is that it (massacres and mass expulsion) did occur, and the crimes are occurring, and yet you implicitly are siding with the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. That not only insults one’s intelligence, even worse it points a dark finger at one’s arrested moral development.

  18. Sam Livingston Re: Kim Petersen said on July 7th, 2007 at 5:18pm #

    Well, as far as I see it – you are defending religious fanatics who actually openly advocate genocide against Jews and anyone who does not respect Muslim religion. You are on a side of people who advocate theocracy as a mode of government, sharia law as a social norm and who are intolerant to the point of killing or openly advocating killing those that don’t conform to Muslim rules.

    I’d rather be on a side of democratic countries where people hold their government accountable vs. theocratic countries where government suppresses its people like Taliban.

    People like you defended communism when it took hold Russia and then in China, all the wile so enthralled with your anti capitalist ideology to the point of finding excuses for repressions and mass murder that happened in those countries in early stages. Just as you find excuses right now for radical Muslims. Of cause history proved people like you wrong and eventually you had to acknowledge the horrific regimes for what they are. But you don’t learn your lessons. So be it .

  19. Kim Petersen said on July 7th, 2007 at 5:31pm #

    Such is the level of your argument Sam that you need to place words from your head in my mouth. Shameful.

  20. Sam Livingston Re: Kim Petersen said on July 7th, 2007 at 6:01pm #

    and you didn’t?! Your argument hardly went beyond questioning my morality and accusing me of supporting genocide. Strategy surely befitting a blog post, but not by an intellectual.