<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/">
<title>Dean's World</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/</link>
<description>Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2007-04-19T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176774406.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176339866.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172944175.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172801118.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172621961.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1168303618.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1167460027.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164933964.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164548980.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164361620.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176774406.shtml">
<title>Thoughts On The Silent Majority</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176774406.shtml</link>
<description>Ron Coleman muses on an interesting question: Why are most internet readers silent?...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-04-17T12:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">Ron Coleman muses on an interesting question: <a href="http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/04/16/the-silent-majority/">Why are most internet readers silent?</a></p>

<p>This is a subject I've been contemplating for decades, from back in the days when I was a professional sysop on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEnie">the old GEnie network</a>, wherein we had thousands of daily readers on our RoundTable (GEnie's word for "forum") and I discovered from the user statistics that people who left messages in the "bulletin board" were outnumbered by at least 10:1 by people who actually read it.</p>

<p>When I started looking at the Dean's World reader statistics some five years ago, I was unsurprised to notice a similar pattern: readers always vastly outnumbered commenters. Always.</p>

<p>In fact, 10:1 is probably very conservative for the blogosphere. </p>

<p>Once you realize that this is simply a truism, and unlikely to change, it changes your attitude about blogging, and much else.</p>

<p>The reality behind this is visible every time you're in a business meeting with more than three or four people. What do you see in such meetings? A few people do most of the talking, a few others offer a few brief comments, and most others remain entirely silent unless directly prodded--and then they (usually) say as little as possible, although sometimes they change the entire conversation when they do so.</p>

<p>Some are afraid to be made fools of, or aren't sure what they think, or think you can learn more by listening than by talking. So they just sit and listen.</p>

<p>Now amplify it online: many people, even bright and talented people, just plain hate writing. Or they're insecure. Plus they see what really goes on: if you stick your neck out then people will often swing swords at it.</p>

<p>Writing is an act of leadership in such an environment. It may not seem like it, but it is.</p>

<p>I see it every day on Dean's World. I get emails constantly from people who don't want to leave a public comment but want to tell me privately what they think, or who want to share something with me but don't want to leave a public comment. I even have ex-bloggers--people who quit because they didn't want to do it anymore--email me regularly with their comments and with suggested links. Or from people who maintain a blog, but refuse to put anything controversial on it because they'd rather pass it to me quietly.</p>

<p>It's where half my links come from.</p>

<p>Here's the truth: </p>

<p>Blogging on controversial issues is an exercise in arrogance and occasionally self-indulgence. It is also an exercise in leadership. Both are basically the same thing.</p>

<p>If you're a blogger and you don't recognize that both assertions are true, then you're being at least a little foolish and/or naive.</p>

<p>The same is true of commenters. Commenters are truly invaluable to the good blogger. If you use them as an exercise in self-aggrandizement, then, you're just mentally masturbating on your front page. But if you look upon them as people who provide a necessary foil and a very necessary check on your own arrogance, then, they are invaluable.</p>

<p>But they, too, are being arrogant. They presume to take a public stance in opposition, or in support. And they, too, will always be a minority. They're willing to speak up. They're leaders too.</p>

<p>As another exercise in self-aggrandizement, I'll tell you what my philosophy toward commenters on Dean's World is, and has been for a long time:</p>

<p>I have no interest in sycophants, and I also have no interest in bloviators who seek to turn every conversation to their pet peeves--including my own shortcomings, which are manifold but not an appropriate subject for every conversation. Unlike other blogs, I want the Dean's World comments to be constantly challenging and interesting. I've worked hard to establish that. In my own imperfect way.</p>

<p>As <a href="http://www.palmtrees.ws/blog/">Tyrone</a> has said, if you come here, you'd best come correct. Meaning: if you're going to use up our precious time with your words, you'd better have something to say that's worth reading. Even if it's just funny or silly.</p>

<p>That's my arrogance. </p>

<p>But Dean's World had a bit over 32,000 visits on Sunday, out of 10,800 unique IP addresses. And only a handful of commenters. But almost all of those comments were worth reading.</p>

<p>I don't care how many comments get left, and assign no great significance to a thread that has zero comments. So what? Tons of people are reading, and benefiting from it. Even if the benefit is just to laugh, or determine that they disagree.</p>

<p>Dean's World could become like Tim Blair or Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos or Firedog Lake: every thread with dozens or hundreds of comments, most of them not worth the time to read.</p>

<p>I don't want that, so I do it differently. I don't care if an entire day goes by with no comments. The really good commenters will say something when they have something interesting to say.</p>

<p>When you first start a new blog, you want commenters. You thirst for them. Why wouldn't you? You--being an arrogant person in many ways--thirst for the validation of having someone answer you. Just getting an answer assures you that yes, someone is at least reading and thinking about what you wrote.</p>

<p>Then, if you keep going and develop an audience--and you will develop an audience if you keep writing regularly--you reach another point, where growth continues and you realize you actually want a decent conversation. Or you just want sycophants and constant validation. Or you let the constant nattering and criticism destroy you, which is what did the great Steven Den Beste in. Anyway, you make a choice:</p>

<p>1) Shut the comments down (like Instapundit did) and stop paying attention to most of the emails<br />
2) Let the comments become chaos<br />
3) Quit<br />
4) Shepherd the comments and just deal with the fact that a lot of people seem to hate you</p>

<p>I see no other choices. #4 is the most demanding, which is why few choose it.</p>

<p>I mostly find it worth it, even if it makes me crazy sometimes, and I sometimes (usually?) fail in my best aspirations and lose my temper. In fact, losing my temper is probably my most chronic shortcoming.</p>

<p>But remember it always: when you blog on controversial issues, you're being arrogant, and you're being a leader. Both are always true. And if you keep writing, and keep writing well, the readers will come.</p>

<p>It may also make you a little (or a lot) crazy sometimes. That's your price of admission: you asked for it, bubbula.</p>

<p>The silent majority just sits and watches. They have their own lives and their own concerns, and you're just a small part of it at best.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176339866.shtml">
<title>Don Imus Proves Feminism Dead</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176339866.shtml</link>
<description>I don't like Don Imus. I never have. But Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, what a bunch of sobbing whiners America's women have become....</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-04-12T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">I don't like Don Imus. I never have. But Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, what a bunch of sobbing whiners America's women have become.</p>

<p>Radio shock jock Don Imus recently issued an offhanded rude comment about a group of stellar, amazing college basketball players. His comment was mildly racially inflammatory, somewhat more sexist, and totally stupid. It was also just an offhand comment by a well-known shock-jock who's made his whole living being obnoxious.</p>

<p>The reaction of these poor wilting-lilly women and their coach? And both the "liberal" and "conservative" political establishments? Just look at the results: the coach gives us a lengthy and unnecessary <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/media/11vstextcnd.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">defense of her players in a national press conference</a>, while everyone else fulminates about the evil men and/or the evil liberals and/or evil conservatives or whatever.</p>

<p>What next? Will all these fragile flower basketball ladies get the vapors and faint?</p>

<p>Does even one of them have the moxie to just say, "to hell with you Imus, you stupid old fart" and otherwise forget his stupidity?</p>

<p>My God. When did American women--black women no less, who are usually so proud and so strong!--become such freaking wimps?</p>

<p><b>*Update*:</b> Mrs. Esmay <a href="http://www.qoae.net/posts/1176231335.shtml">is even less charitable</a> than I am.</p>

<p><b>*Update 2*:</b> If these women had any balls at all, they'd make fun of creepy old Imus, challenge him to a game of one-on-one, and then ask him to lead the tipoff in their next game after they embarrassed him.</p>

<p><b>*Update 3*:</b> Since some seem not to have clicked the link that led to my rant above, here are some choice quotes from the coach who held the national press conference:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>"We have all been physically, mentally and emotionally spent. So hurt by the remarks that were uttered by Mr. Imus."</p>

<p>"Yes, and I’ve cried and I’ve been angry and disappointed. Because I don’t understand all of that. And yet, to a great extent I do. I do. "</p>

<p>"It’s more than the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It is all women athletes. It is all women."</p>

<p>"Is there malice in my heart? No, I’m hurt. But I do recognize that this issue speaks to a bigger issue. To utter such despicable words are not right, whether spoken by black, white, purple or green, male or female, tall or short, skinny or thin, fat, whatever. It is not right. It’s time for everybody to reflect on what is going on. Oh it’s time, ladies and gentlemen. It’s been time."</p>

<p>"And I trust that our president, our governor, our athletic director will continue to lead, support, respect, honor and defend these young ladies."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You need a national press conference and the involvement of political leaders, to tell us all you've cried and you're hurt and you need these young women defended--from a jackass shock jockey like DON FRICKIN' IMUS?!!?!?</p>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172944175.shtml">
<title>Response to Armed Liberal</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172944175.shtml</link>
<description>In other news, a far more rational writer, Armed Liberal, a.k.a. Marc Danziger, has some thoughts....</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-03-03T17:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">In other news, a far more rational writer, Armed Liberal, a.k.a. Marc Danziger, <a href="http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009486.php">has some thoughts</a>.</p>

<p>I'd like to ask Marc to update his link to <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172801118.shtml">point to this</a>. And I'd say that some of the comments left by others to his article illustrate just how deep a problem Islamophobia has become in certain segments of the right and/or hawkish community.</p>

<p>So here's what I'll state again:</p>

<p>I believe Islamophobia is real. I think Marc Danziger would agree that it is. Am I right, Marc? And if so, how do you identify it, and what do you do about it? I know what I do: I'm rude about it when I see it.</p>

<p>That's my choice. You can choose other approaches. But a few years ago I started arguing with Islamophobes with cool reason and logic and references. Their response was to get nastier and snottier and meaner. I was challenged to find some Muslims who might come to Dean's World to show that they were rational, decent, modern human beings, and I thought that was a simply terrific idea, so I found a couple of terrific writers who had lots to say--not just about Islam, but lots of things that they might want to write about besides that--and they often got treated like utter garbage and as if they could fix the problem of terrorism all by themselves. I started semi-regularly finding good news stories, about progress and hope and reform, about Muslims making a difference, only to see that crapped upon regularly, usually as "taqiyyah" or some other such rubbish.</p>

<p>I even posted inspiring stories of Muslims serving in our armed forces, with valor, only to have that dismissed and ignored as utterly irrelevant to anything.</p>

<p>At some point I stopped being nice about this. And I will not start being nice about it again.</p>

<p>Because the fact is that American forces are fighting side-by-side with Muslims to defeat terrorism--all over the world. There are Muslim nations asking for help to stamp out terrorism. There are Muslim organizations worldwide trying to fight the cause. Treating all of this with contempt is utter insanity.</p>

<p>Not to mention that it's just plain bad behavior. </p>

<p>I cannot make anyone think anything. I can, however, set editorial policies for this web site. Which is, as anyone who really reads it knows, pretty much as hawkish on terrorism as you can get without advocating nuclear annihilation.</p>

<p>But: this is an Islamophobe-free zone. </p>

<p>That does not mean there can be no criticism, by the way. That's just another straw man. It means that if you cannot agree in principal to all five editorial principles I laid out <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172801118.shtml">right here</a>, you don't belong here and will not be welcomed or treated politely.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean we can't be friends. But this is what I insist upon on this blog.</p>

<p>And that's really all there is to it.</p>

<p>I'm curious to know if Marc and the fine folks at Winds of Change find all that reasonable. Because I don't find it unreasonable at all.</p>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172801118.shtml">
<title>"Ideological Purity"</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172801118.shtml</link>
<description>I recently lost my temper after two years of trying to be temperate (sometimes successfully, sometimes not at all) on the subject of religious hatred. But I hereby withdraw my previous...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-03-02T10:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">I recently lost my temper after two years of trying to be temperate (sometimes successfully, sometimes not at all) on the subject of religious hatred. But I hereby withdraw my previous demand for "ideological purity," which was snotty and sarcastic and not sincere. I used it because I knew that if I put down any editorial policy, I'd be accused of that anyway. So I snottily said, "yeah!!" Because I didn't think it necessary to say that we don't put up with religious bigots or racists. But apparently, we do need to say it.</p>

<p>But: this is the new editorial policy at Dean's World, stated concisely:</p>

<p>"This is an Islamophobe-free zone."</p>

<p>I will not engage in lengthy parsings and arguments over exactly what that means. If you cannot tell the difference between "I believe Islam is a false faith" and "I believe Islam is the cause of terrorism and repression in the Middle East and wherever else it goes," then you don't belong here.</p>

<p>If you think the problem in the Middle East is primarily a Muslim Problem rather than a problem with a region plagued with a legacy of fascism, communism, and brutal dictatorships stemming from the Cold War and colonial eras---along with the ethnic strife and of course the religious matters that usually add to such things--then you do not belong here.</p>

<p>Heck, if you think the Middle East <b>is</b> "The Islamic World," you probably don't belong here.</p>

<p>It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:<blockquote>1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent upon destruction of the Christian world.</p>

<p>2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by "The Muslims" or anyone else.</p>

<p>3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most ancient religions.</p>

<p>4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for intellectual discussion & analysis. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.</p>

<p>5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.</blockquote>That is our stated editorial position. You--and this includes commenters--will work from respect for that, or you just need to leave.</p>

<p>If you have any further questions about the policy, direct them to me.</p>

<p>By the way, this also applies to people who hate Christians, or Jews, or other Major World Religions ("Major World Religions defined <a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html">right here</a>). Or even secular non-theists.</p>

<p>I am entirely certain that some will claim that this is still "ideological purity," which is why I caustically embraced the phrase in the first place. But I'm not putting up with having the front page or any more discussion threads derailed by Islamophobic garbage.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172621961.shtml">
<title>Dean's World Line In The Sand: Make A  Choice</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172621961.shtml</link>
<description>Back in the 1950s William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a purge in the ranks of his young publication, The National Review. He was running a conservative publication at a time when...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-02-28T00:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">Back in the 1950s William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a purge in the ranks of his young publication, <i>The National Review</i>. He was running a conservative publication at a time when conservative publications were not respected and were thus by nature low-circulation. In those circumstances it would be hard to stand on principal and refuse to associate with certain parties who might provide short-term gain.</p>

<p>Buckley refused to align his publication with elements on the right that were excessively hateful, rabidly racist, or just plain nuts. The whole thing came to a head when Buckley one day drew a line in the sand:</p>

<p>You could either be a John Birch Society supporter, or you could write for the National Review.</p>

<p>One or the other. "Both" was not an option.</p>

<p>This is a minor correction to my friend Ron Coleman's earlier article by the way. It was not anti-semites he threw off his publication, although he was no anti-semite and hired many Jews. No, it was radical frothing nutjobs who saw Communist conspiracies everywhere. Buckley was staunchly anti-Communist, but would not align himself with people who saw everything as a Communist plot.</p>

<p>Today <a href="http://nationalreview.com/">National Review</a> is still one of the most respected conservative intellectual journals. The <a href="http://www.jbs.org/">John Birch Society</a> is rightly remembered as a bunch of right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists.</p>

<p>Not that the National Review is the greatest publication in the history of the universe, but it's a venerable and respectable institution that's made a difference in the world. I find the example inspiring.</p>

<p>And, having wearied of fighting constantly against Islamophobic fools on Dean's World and other places, only to have people ridiculously deny the very possibility that there could be any such thing as Islamophobia even when the evidence is presented them full in the face, I've decided to draw a similar line in the sand:</p>

<p>You can be an Islamophobe, or you can contribute to Dean's World. You cannot do both.</p>

<p>This is meant for front-page contributors, submitters, or even commenters. It is time for you to make a choice, and to live by that choice. Because I certainly intend to.</p>

<p>Simply put, you must agree <s>with</s>to all of the following <s>assertions</s>assumptions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.<br /><br />
 2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.<br /><br />
 3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.<br /><br />
 4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.<br /><br />
 5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is this a test of "ideological purity?"</p>

<p>Why yes. Yes it is.</p>

<p>If you cannot accept, wholeheartedly, all of the above 5 assertions--without <s>exception or</s> weasel-wording--then if you are a front page Dean's World contributor you should turn in your keys and say goodbye. You can do it gracefully or ingracefully. You can do it by email or by posting whatever you want on the front page before you go. Your choice. But you need to do it: <i>you need to leave</i>.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I will accept no more debate upon this matter by commenters bent upon snarky, snotty, Islamophobic irrationality. You should either stop using your comment account, or you should be prepared to simply be thrown out without further ado.</p>

<p>I'm done with this.</p>

<p>By the way, feel free to take us off your blogroll if you can't handle this. Or to ask me to take you off of ours.</p>

<p>We can still be friends if you want. I have relatives and even friends who are racists, sexists, homophobes, even anti-semites. But I won't provide them with a forum either.</p>

<p>Criticism is fine. Intellectual argument is fine. Traditionalist moral arguments are fine. But I will not provide a forum for haters or paranoids.</p>

<p>I'm done. Islamophobia has no more place in polite society than any other form of irrational hatred, and I will no longer be any part of hosting discussions or "debates" with Islamophobes.</p>

<p><b>*Update*:</b> Made a slight modification above. Sorry about that. Nothing really major though.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1168303618.shtml">
<title>Two and a Half Challenges for My Libertarian and Market-Oriented Conservative Friends</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1168303618.shtml</link>
<description>I have long been known as a dedicated, unrelenting foe of Communism, and of the dysfunctional philosophy that underlies it known as Marxism....</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-01-09T13:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">I have long been known as a dedicated, unrelenting foe of Communism, and of the dysfunctional philosophy that underlies it known as Marxism.</p>

<p>If you're looking for me to say "but" right about here, just stop. There is no "but."</p>

<p>I feel almost stupid having to write the above sentences. Honestly, it's almost humiliating to have to write them. <a href="http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi">Search my archives</a>. I'm not even a little nice on this subject. I don't even have much truck with those who say "Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing." Nice try. In the real world it's almost invariably a distinction without a difference.</p>

<p>I'll make some excuses for useful idiots and youthful idealists. But only so many. I make similar forgiveness of white supremacists or "black power" extremists or whatnot; basically, I sympathize with those who in fear and ignorance made youthful mistakes; this is why I think that <a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-History-X-Edward-Norton/dp/6305313687/sr=1-1/qid=1168302367/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4713790-9667245?ie=UTF8&s=dvd/deansworld01-20">American History X</a> was one of the greatest films of the 1990s, and should be required watching. Not with your young children, but certainly with your older children. Not because it's an exercise in self-flagellation (it is not) but because it's an eye-opener that will leave neither the left nor the right nor members of any faith tradition or culture entirely comfortable.</p>

<p>Maybe the problem here is the Manichean worldview that still infects a lot of discussions: you're either X or Y, you're either black or white, you're either liberal or conservative, you're either left or right, you're either pro-market or anti-market, etc.</p>

<p>For example, I have always been so utterly against Islamo-fascist ideology that I can't express it. I don't find the term "Islamo-Fascist" wrong at all; I use it to distinguish the utter nutjobs from the sane people. Most of the sane people I know agree with me on that point. It is a stain that should be viewed much like the evil that infected some (not all, just some) Christian thinking in the past--and not always as far back in the past as we would like to imagine. </p>

<p>It's also not an attempt to draw a "moral equivalency" by the way--try as some might to shoehorn me into that nonsense.</p>

<p>I guess I write all this only because I get tired of hearing these days from people who think I have "changed." I suppose I have a little--if you've aged 5 years and you haven't changed at all, there's probably something wrong with you--but my "change" is a bit less dramatic than some seem to think.</p>

<p>I say all this by way of explaining: I feel that market-oriented libertarianism and conservatism are not evil, but in need of challenging forthrightly. You know, just because they proved themselves right about many issues--the overreaching of state power, of the limited value of populism and state regulation, and the limited value of state planning--that does not make them inherently right about everything.</p>

<p>So in this friendly, genuinely non-hostile and Socratic (I hope) spirit, I offer two simple questions:</p>

<p>1) Can you find for me, anywhere in history, the existence of any such thing as a "corporation" before <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stora_Kopparberg">Stora Kopparberg was granted a charter by the King of Sweden in 1347</a>, and can you find me more than a dozen examples of such corporations that existed before His Majesty granted said charter? Indeed, can you provide me with examples of at least two dozen such corporations that existed in the entirety of history before the 18th century? Please be specific. Partnerships and family-owned businesses do not apply.</p>

<p>2) Although neither Ayn Rand nor Adam Smith were perfect or infallible philosophers, I think most would agree that they are the best expositors of the idea of the free market and the entrepreneur. So, can you find me any example of a vigorous defense of the idea of the Corporation in the entire writings of either Adam Smith or Ayn Rand?</p>

<p>Since I'm pretty sure that the answers are "no" and "no," I now ask sub-question 2a: Who was Howard Roark's primary nemesis in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191153/sr=1-1/qid=1168305300/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4713790-9667245?ie=UTF8&s=books/deansworld01-20">The Fountainhead</a>? It wasn't the government, was it?</p>

<p>I am astounded by how many so-called "libertarians" and "conservatives" talk as if the Corporation is the ultimate expression of the natural and organic free market, the great expression of individual triumph--as opposed to being exactly what it is: a creation of and an ongoing expression of state power, and an exercise in collectivism.</p>

<p>By the way, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton">Sam Walton has been dead for 15 years</a>. So why is Wal-Mart an expression of the individual entrepreneur again? </p>

<p>Compare this to marriage, which existed long before the government defined it, and has existed for tens of thousands of years, under every culture and religion, whether the state recognized it or not. You really think they're comparable? How so? Where do you find an example in history of such a beastie as a corporation prior to 14th century Europe, and where do you find more than a dozen of them worldwide before 19th and 20th century governments expanded the concept for trade and other purposes?</p>

<p>I think these are important questions that don't get asked often enough. Indeed, I'm pretty sure these questions are going to define the political debate for the next generation.</p>

<p>To put it in short: you guys won on a very major and important question. Marx was wrong in most of his particulars. You won, the Marxists lost. Granted. So the argument stops there?</p>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1167460027.shtml">
<title>This Was The Price For Your "Peace."</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1167460027.shtml</link>
<description>Four years ago I founded the Campaign for Democracy and Human Rights in Iraq....</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-12-30T06:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">Four years ago I founded the <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000810.html">Campaign for Democracy and Human Rights in Iraq</a>.</p>

<p>Not long after that, I helped found the charity known as <a href="http://www.operationgive.org/">Operation Give</a>. </p>

<p>I have no regrets over any of that, except for the fact that a lot of that work led to a nervous and physical collapse into alcohol and exhaustion that it took me some time to recover from.</p>

<p>My stepdad, and more than one friend, served over there. I'm proud of them too, and humbled by their sacrifice. More than I can say.</p>

<p>On this day of final justice being delivered to the Butcher of Baghdad, I am reminded of this Flash video, which I posted more than once on Dean's World. I first posted it on February 17, 2003. Much to my dismay, the old Dean's World archives are still completely broken, but <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000818.html#000818">here was my original posting</a>.</p>

<p>Since those old archives are frustratingly broken, I present it here again:</p>

<p><!-- text used in the movie-->
<!-- Saturday February 15, 2003Thousands are walking in the streets.Demonstrating for 'Peace' with Iraq.In Iraq, there are thousands who can't walkSaddam gave them 'Peace'You walked for your own peace.You walked for Saddam's peace.Not for hers.Not for his.This is the price of your 'peace'.I can't afford it. I won't buy it. It's yours.--></p>

<p><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="585" height="100" id="peaceprice" align="">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.deanesmay.com/files/pace.swf">
<param name="menu" value="false">
<param name="quality" value="high">
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff">
<embed src="http://www.deanesmay.com/files/pace.swf" menu="false" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff"  width="585" height="100" name="pace" align="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
</object></p>

<p>In the intervening years my attitude has not changed in any way I can think of, except that I'm much more jaded about the American political system. But I have not one drop of remorse over my support of the effort to finally, after more than a decade of keeping the Iraqi people in agony, to excise the cancer on the world that was Saddam Hussein.</p>

<p>Was the sacrifice worth it? I have no doubt at all about the answer. I'm just bitter over the fact that some American politicians have conveniently forgotten why they also supported that action.</p>

<p>The video, by the way, was created by the <a href="http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/">Dissident Frogman</a>.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164933964.shtml">
<title>Terrorist Apologism</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164933964.shtml</link>
<description>Meryl Yourish notes, quite correctly, that I did not repudiate some obscure remarks by Dean's World commenters that have appeared here from time to time over the years. Which is...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-12-01T18:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost"><a href="http://www.yourish.com/2006/11/27/2355">Meryl Yourish notes, quite correctly</a>, that I did not repudiate some obscure remarks by Dean's World commenters that have appeared here from time to time over the years. Which is quite true. But she then suggests that I was "ignoring" such things. Hahahaha. Riiiiight. [Eyes roll]. Leave it to Meryl Yourish to try to worm out of her shameful Kahanist apologism with a lame <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html">tu quoque</a> response.</p>

<p>Truth: I didn't even remember those obscure remarks by my commenters, but if if a civil, decent person were to have asked I would have said, "I assume those commenters didn't know any better. I certainly didn't at the time. Now that I do know better, however, it's a different story."</p>

<p>For reference, here once again is the terrorist whom Meryl Yourish and others proudly allow to speak for the people of Israel:</p>

<p><div><object width="425" height="335"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/3PU8ay77FNofj2TUQ"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/3PU8ay77FNofj2TUQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="334" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xetn4_lettre-ouverte-au-monde-entier">Lettre ouverte au monde entier</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Tazda">Tazda</a></i></div></p>

<p>I considered linking this video on Dean's World with a minor hat-tip, on the order of "Hey, this is pretty cool" when I first spotted it. But a friend asked if I knew all I should about the terrorist Kahane.</p>

<p>"Terrorist? No way!" Then I researched, and I realized: "Oh sh*t. Yes he was." In fact, he was convicted more than once of terrorist activities by the United States government. When he learned that he was almost certainly going to be indicted again for his ongoing terrorist activities, he finally fled to Israel--where he continued his terrorist activities with pride.</p>

<p>I initially posted a very mild, non-confrontational article about it. <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1163897303.shtml">Here it is in its entirety</a>. Please read what I wrote carefully and tell me where there was a single ad hominem attack on anyone besides the terrorist thug Meir Kahane and his violent movement.</p>

<p>Later in the day, I sent an even more polite, and utterly non-confrontational, email to Meryl Yourish about it, since it had appeared on her site. I'll happily re-post that email in public by the way. The whole exchange, every word of it. There was nothing in the least bit nasty about it.</p>

<p>The whole exchange from my perspective was, in essence: "Are you sure you want to be associating yourself with this guy? He was not a good guy."</p>

<p>Although I did not say so at the time, I don't think it right that anyone should let an avowed theocrat, an avowed terrorist, and a thug speak for the people of Israel, with little more than a weak "I don't agree with everything BUT..." description of the man.</p>

<p>Let us review:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3326400,00.html">Kahanists approve of stabbing homosexuals for being homosexuals</a> and <a href="http://kahane.blogspot.com/2006/10/resistance-to-rescheduled-homosexual.html">still hate homosexuals</a>. And <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3326400,00.html">applaud the death of innocents as "holy"</a>.</p>

<p>Respected pro-Israel Jewish scholars <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html">recognize  Kahanism as quasi-fascist and violent criminal terrorist</a>.</p>

<p>Kahane wanted to <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFDC1338F931A25755C0A967948260">make it a crime punishable by law for a non-Jewish man to have sex with a Jewish woman</a></p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp">Anti-Defamation League calls Kahanism terrorism</a>.</p>

<p>So does the <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm">US State Department</a>.</p>

<p>So does the <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031010-112733-8086r.htm">Israeli government</a>, especially after the <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/rabinass.html">Kahanist murder of Yitzhak Rabin</a>.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9178/">Council on Foreign Relations calls Kahanism terrorism</a>.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm">Center for Defense Information calls Kahanism terrorism</a>.</p>

<p>Even <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19068">David  Horowitz's Front Page Magazine declares Kahanism terrorism</a>.</p>

<p>Note, please, that aside from the US State Department, the Center for Defense Intelligence, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Washington Times, I have not named a single source that is not a Jewish source.</p>

<p>Ehud Sprinzak's <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html">expose of Kahanism</a> remains the single best source I have found so far on Kahane and his thug followers. These people terrorized not just Arabs or Muslims but also Americans. Christians and even Jews.</p>

<p>For the record: I hereby officially declare that I utterly repudiate Kahanism. I don't believe that any prior positive comments about Kahane that appeared from Dean's World commenters were made with full understanding of his record, and they certainly were not made with <b>my</b> full understanding. But now that I am fully aware (and the rest of us are too), I utterly repudiate them. Are you pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist? If you're pro-terrorist then I want nothing to do with you.</p>

<p>Will Meryl Yourish make make such an unequivocal statement? Just curious.</p>

<p>I get a lot of people who tell me I should let this go. They even tell me that I should stop because I'm being "emotional." You know what? I am emotional: I f*cking hate terrorists. I don't want to reason with them or try to rationalize their behavior. I want the military and law enforcement authorities of free democracies to hunt them down and kill them, or lock them in a dungeon and throw away the key.</p>

<p>Just so you know where I stand.</p>

<p>I still have two questions I am waiting to have answered by Meryl Yourish and her apologists:</p>

<p>1) Do you unequivocally condemn terrorism or do you not?</p>

<p>2) Do you think it's okay for a Jew to murder Christians, Muslims, and even Jews--Americans as well as Arabs--if it's done in the name of Israel?</p>

<p>I await unequivocal answers to these questions which do not involve attacks upon my person, my sex, my motives, my friends, my faith, or my family. Just answer the questions.</p>

<p>I for one have no more olive branches to offer to terrorist apologists. I just want to know who the enemies of terrorism are.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164548980.shtml">
<title>Don't Get Fooled Again: The Reality of Kahanism</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164548980.shtml</link>
<description>Some years ago Meryl Yourish and I had a fight over a couple of things that, in retrospect, were pretty stupid. Still, it was funny: a year or so after those...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-11-27T16:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">Some years ago Meryl Yourish and I had a fight over a couple of things that, in retrospect, were pretty stupid. Still, it was funny: a year or so after those incidents she wrote me to ask for a personal favor. She was entirely nice about it. I assumed this was an olive branch and complied. Since then we've exchanged short, polite emails a couple of times over mostly blogging-related matters. I didn't think we'd ever be friends again but I thought simple civility and courtesy were now a reasonable expectation.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yourish.com/2006/11/21/2319">Apparently not</a>. Well, live and learn I guess.</p>

<p>Without responding to the slime spewed by Meryl and her commenters--the sexist, misandrist garbage about me, the slanderous claims about what I supposedly think about Judaism, or the shamefully Islamophobic nonsense--let me focus once again on my exact problem with the following video:</p>

<p><div><object width="425" height="335"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/2QNCR2vlYj8IO2TUQ"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/2QNCR2vlYj8IO2TUQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="334" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xetn4_lettre-ouverte-au-monde-entier">Lettre ouverte au monde entier</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Tazda">Tazda</a></i></div></p>

<p>I agree with much of what's said in that video, as I've said from the start. I quibble with one or two things. If they weren't the words of a deplorable man, I would find nothing worth remarking negatively upon. I'd have probably posted the video on Dean's World, with a hat tip, and said little more about it.</p>

<p>However, the fact is that Meir Kahane was an evil man. Weak-tea statements like "I do not agree with everything he stood for" while glowingly quoting him at length strikes me as a big mistake. That opens up the Israeli people, and their supporters, to the charge that they stand by terrorism and theocratic extremism and are thus "no better than" their enemies--which is stupid garbage. But Kahane, by his life and actions, made such bullcrap harder to refute. If most Jews hadn't thoroughly rejected him he'd be the poster child for Jewish evil rather than the minor footnote he deserves to be.</p>

<p>I've spent too many years, too much personal time and money, and taken too much abuse for defending Israel. I will not stand by while a murdering terrorist thug and embarrassment to humanist values is approvingly quoted and treated as merely a bit controversial.</p>

<p>Under the assumption that we are actually talking like rational adults, let me point to a few examples that might help Meryl and her friends understand my point. I'll start with some comparatively mild objections about Kahane. I will then move up to issues that I consider felonies and not misdemeanors. So if someone tries the trick of only responding to my more mild objections, or pretending I put them all on the same level, we'll all know better. </p>

<p><b>Minor objection #1</b>, which might be called a nitpick:</p>

<p>Meryl <a href="http://www.yourish.com/2006/11/21/2324">approvingly notes that Israel respects gay rights</a> and <a href="http://www.yourish.com/2006/11/06/2237">is proud about this</a>. She and I completely agree about this--we're both liberal humanists after all. As I noted almost three years ago, <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/006153.html">the following quiz is reason alone for tolerant people everywhere to respect Israel</a>. You don't have to "approve" of homosexuality to note what it says about an enlightened, tolerant society not to imprison and persecute such people, to prefer to talk to them rather than stone them.</p>

<p>What would Rabbi Kahane have said about this? Well, he wanted to throw every non-Jew out of Israel, get rid of most of Israel's democratic institutions, and bring in traditionalist, Orthodox religious rule throughout the country. He advocated turning Israel into an officially theocratic, Orthodox regime. Furthermore, the Kahanist official line has always been that homosexuality is "detrimental to the perpetuation of Jewish life."</p>

<p><i><b>Update:</b> This just in, Kahanists <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3326400,00.html">lionize a man for stabbing a homosexual</a>. Nice folks, those Kahanists.</i></p>

<p>I think we are safe to assume that there would be no gay pride parades if Rabbi Kahane's Israel came into existence; indeed, the Kahanists <a href="http://kahane.blogspot.com/2006/10/resistance-to-rescheduled-homosexual.html">continue to do their best best stop such things</a>.</p>

<p><b>Minor objection #2</b>, a bit more serious:</p>

<p>Ehud Sprinzak some years ago wrote an <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html">excellent expose of Rabbi Meir Kahane</a>, detailing Kahane's theocratic views. There's lots there to read but I found this part particularly revealing:</p>

<p><blockquote>The Arabs are, taken together, the collective entity that, for Kahane, threatens Jewish existence; and the Israeli Arabs (there is no Palestinian nation for Kahane) are a highly explosive time bomb. The Arabs claim the same land as the Jews, refuse to recognize God's biblical prescriptions and would never be ready to settle for less than the whole. This places them in the same position as the native population of Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest, and all biblical rules and regulations adopted and applied by Joshua against the Canaanites are relevant today. Joshua, Kahane reminds us, sent the Canaanites three letters offering them three alternative courses of action: leave the land, fight for it and bear the consequences or peacefully surrender to the Jews and obtain the status of loyal "resident strangers." Any individual Arab is thus welcome to stay provided he fully accepts Jewish sovereignty, as well as the right upon which it is founded. Applying the rules of Halakha (written and oral tradition) according to his understanding, Kahane maintains that even in the case of complete submission, full rights of citizenship should not be given to "strangers." Only "strangers" who will obey the seven commandments of "Noah's sons," pay special taxes and submit to special labour regulations may remain. Following the "kingdom rules" of Maimonides, the "strangers" must also constantly be "humiliated and detested"</blockquote></p>

<p>Does that sound like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude">dhimmitude</a> to you? It sure does to me.</p>

<p>I thought we were all proud of the fact that Arab citizens of Israel serve in its armed forces, in its government, and enjoy almost all the same rights that everyone else in Israel does. Israeli Arabs--not the Palestinians, but the actual Israeli Arabs who stood by Israel even when they were invaded--are treated with respect and friendship, and even gratitude. I've noted this myself many times as a reason to respect Israel. Would that every one of Israel's immediate neighbors was so tolerant of religious and ethnic minorities within their borders.</p>

<p>But Sprinzak <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html">notes that Kahane called for even Israeli Arabs to be expelled or at least treated with contempt and loathing</a>. As Sprinzak noted, Kahane didn't just hate the non-Jews in Israel. He wanted them all gone, and the few who might stupidly remain should be treated with utter loathing and permanent second-class citizenship.</p>

<p><b>Minor Objection #3</b>: To Kahanists, a Jewish woman who has sex with a non-Jew is a whore and a traitor to the Jewish people. If she doesn't deserve jail then certainly the man who had sex with her does. The Kahanists <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFDC1338F931A25755C0A967948260">openly advocate this policy</a>. They don't just frown upon miscegenation. They don't just condemn it. They don't even limit themselves to discouraging it. They want to <i>make it punishable by law for a Jewish woman to have sex with a non-Jew.</i> </p>

<p>I admit we are still in "controversial" territory here. I can understand why a reasonable Jew would say, "well maybe I support some of those ideas, or some parts of them," or even, "well I don't support much of that but I get where it's coming from." Either way, most would say, "we have higher issues we have to deal with right now--the protection of Israel."</p>

<p>I get that. So:</p>

<p><b>Not-So-Minor Objection #4: Kahanism is a terrorist movement.</b></p>

<p>If you read <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html">Sprinzak's expose</a>, you'll find it's a pretty good introduction to Kahane's actual terrorist activities. The innocent people he beat up, the everyday people his followers hit with sticks and stones, the bombs they blew up or tried to blow up, the car bombs they set, the people he and his friends threatened to kill--and some of the people they actually did kill.</p>

<p>The Anti-Defamation League--an organization of which I am sometimes critical, but is certainly not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel--has a <a href="http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp">lengthy look at Kahane and his movement's violence</a>. Click "show" below to see a few selections. By the way, the Jewish Defense League, mentioned repeatedly, is a Kahanist organization:</p>

<p><div class="trigger" id="sheuzhz8y3.53">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('heuzhz8y3.53').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('sheuzhz8y3.53').style.display = 'none'; return false;">show</a>)</div>
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="heuzhz8y3.53">
"We feel that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein">[Baruch] Goldstein</a> took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. And we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League."</p>

<p>May 22, 1970:
Six unidentified members of the JDL stormed into the offices of two Arab propaganda agencies in New York. Three Arab men were severely beaten with wooden clubs, and the offices were left in disarray. The three victims were hospitalized. Responding to reports that JDL literature was found at the scene of the attacks, Kahane did not take credit for the assaults but stated that "If we did [take credit], we'd be open to all sorts of problems. We obviously can't." He then proceeded to express his approval of the attacks.</p>

<p>November 25, 1970:
At 3:20 a.m., a bomb exploded at the Manhattan offices of the Soviet airline Aeroflot and its travel agency Intourist causing extensive damage. Thirty-five minutes after the explosion of the bomb, an anonymous caller telephoned the Associated Press and declared that the bomb was in response to Soviet anti-Semitism and pronounced the JDL slogan, "Never again!" At a subsequent press conference, Kahane voiced approval of the bombing but denied responsibility for it, stating, "Any protest to help enslaved people is a legitimate form of protest - including bombing and other forms of violent action."</p>

<p>January 8, 1971:
A bomb exploded in the pre-dawn hours of the morning outside a Soviet cultural building in Washington DC causing moderate damage. Shortly after the explosion, a woman telephoned news agencies and warned: "This is a sample of things to come. Let our people go. Never again! " Bertram Zweibon, the vice-chairman of the JDL denied the group's involvement, but declared, "We do not condemn the act."</p>

<p>May 24, 1972:
In an apparent effort to disrupt U.S. - Soviet relations, four people, two of which were reported to be members of the JDL, were arrested and charged with bomb possession and burglary in a conspiracy to blow up the Long Island residence of the Soviet Mission to the UN. President Nixon was on an official visit to Moscow at the time. The arrests were announced by Acting Attorney General Richard Kliendienst. On August 4 1972, the two JDL members pleaded guilty and were sentenced to serve 3 years in prison for one and a year and a day for the other.</p>

<p>February 8, 1975:
Rabbi Kahane was accused of having conspired to kidnap a Soviet diplomat, to bomb the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, and to ship arms abroad from Israel, when he was there in 1972. As a result, a federal judge scheduled a hearing on revocation of Kahane's 5-year probation, dating from a July, 1971 conviction for making a firebomb. The judge subsequently found Kahane guilty of violating his probation, and imposed a one-year prison term, which Kahane began serving on March 18 of that year.</p>

<p>April 25, 1975:
Six JDL members, expressing dissatisfaction with the responsiveness to community needs of the San Francisco Jewish Welfare Federation, forced their way into the office of the executive vice president of the Federation, ransacked files and assaulted four staff members, including one who, according to a Federation spokesman, had been crippled as a result of having spent time in a concentration camp during World War II.</p>

<p>January 13, 1976:
Three pipe bombs were discovered and disarmed by New York City police near the United Nations, and a fourth bomb found at the Iraqi UN Mission was later similarly disarmed. Anonymous telephone callers told the Associated Press that the bombs had been set by the Jewish Armed Resistance Strike Unit, which has been associated with the JDL. The UN bombs were found by a Transit Authority employee in a subway emergency exit shaft under an exit ramp from the FDR drive next to the UN. A UN spokesman said that fragments from the bomb could have killed or wounded anyone within 50 feet. A JDL spokesman said his organization applauded the attempted bombing.</p>

<p>On March 28 1976, in an article titled "Anti-Soviet Violence Here Upsets Jews in Moscow" The New York Times reported that Soviet Jewish refuseniks had publicly criticized the JDL's actions: "A number of Jewish activists refused permission to emigrate... feel that lanti-Soviet] harassment in New York hurts their cause and may give Soviet authorities an excuse to become even more intransigent." The article also quoted several Jews awaiting exit visas in Moscow as expressing opposition to violent attacks upon Soviet personnel in New York, and concluded: "Another Jewish activist feared that such actions could make authorities more unwilling to relax emigration policies for fear of losing face."</p>

<p>May 3, 1976:
Five pipe bombs shattered windows and caused minor damage to two banks, a Russian book store, a subway exit near the UN and the national headquarters of the Communist Party. A caller to the Daily News stated that the bombs had been planted by the Jewish Armed Resistance Strike Unit, and supplied the location of a letter relating to the bombings, which was later found there by police.</p>

<p>Responding to the spate of violence against Soviet diplomatic personnel and property, six Orthodox rabbis and deans of Yeshivot (Jewish religious seminaries) issued a statement denouncing violence and terror by Jews against Russian officials and property in the United States as a transgression of Jewish law. The statement was released on May 14, 1976 by the Agudat Israel of America in the name of the Council of Torah Sages. </p>

<p>August 30, 1981:
Four gasoline firebombs were hurled at the home of an accused Nazi war criminal, Boleslavs Maikovskis, in Mineola, Long Island at 2:30 a.m. There were no injuries, but slight damage to the house was reported. Within minutes of the firebombing attack, a representative of the JDL telephoned the New York Post and took responsibility for the attack.</p>

<p>September 6, 1981:
A small bomb exploded at the Four Continent Bookstore at 1:40 a.m., causing damage to the display window of the store. The Four Continent Bookstore, which sold literature published in the Soviet Union, was targeted by what a caller identified as the "Thunder of Zion" which claimed to be a "militant faction" of the JDL. The caller stated, "Within the next two weeks they [Soviet Jews, including refuseniks Anatoly Shcharansky and Maria Tlemkin] had better be released or Russian blood will flow on New York streets. There will be blood up to your knees, including [Soviet foreign minister Andrei] Gromyko's." Arno Weinstein, the national director of the JDL, in an interview with the New York Post, said, "We do not take responsibility for this, but we applaud it. I am very happy that Jews are finally taking some action."</p>

<p>October 25, 1981:
Two firebombs severely damaged the Egyptian Government Tourist Office at Rockefeller Center in New York at 4:18 a.m. There were no injuries. An anonymous caller to the New York Daily News claimed responsibility for the bombing at 4:35 a.m., stating, "This is the JDL. We have just firebombed the Egyptian government offices. We demand that the Camp David Accords be buried with Anwar Sadat, in solidarity with those against the retreat from the Israeli-liberated lands - the Sinai. Shalom. Never again!" A spokesman for the JDL later denied responsibility for the bombing, but "if this bombing was done to expose the fallacy of the Camp David Accords, we support the act. " Kahane himself was quoted by the New York Post as saying, "it could have been members of the JDL and it could have been anyone. "249 At a press conference on October 26, Kahane stated, "I would not be particularly anxious to be an Egyptian in New York City."</p>

<p>October 11, 1985:
The West Coast headquarters of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is bombed, killing its Palestinian-American director, Alex Odeh and injuring 7 others. A JDL spokesman declared that Odeh "got exactly what he deserved."</p>

<p>October 27, 1987:
Victor Vancier, the former National Chairman of the JDL, was sentenced to ten years in prison for bombing attacks at the Soviet diplomatic residence in New York and at Soviet cultural performances. A JDL co-defendant in the case, Jay Cohen, committed suicide on September 6 in his hotel room in the Catskill Mountains. Two other JDL members who were sentenced in the same case were Murray Young, described as a "bomb maker," who received a five-year term because he co-operated with prosecutors after his arrest. Young told the sentencing judge that he had engaged in violence because his grandfather had been beheaded in Russia. Sharon Katz was sentenced to six months house arrest and five years probation, and a $5000 fine for detonating a tear gas grenade. The three were sentenced for an incident in October of 1986 in which the opening night performance of the Soviet Union's Moiseyev Dancers was tear gassed. Vancier had previously justified the JDL's violence by saying that Jews must take extreme measures because "crazy Jews live longer.</p>

<p>January 5, 1994:
Between 2:30 and 3:30 a.m., a bomb was placed outside a New York building that houses Americans for Peace Now, Habonim, Israel Horizons, and the Progressive Zionist Caucus. The bomb did not explode but was later defused by police . A second bomb, placed outside the building which houses the New Israel Fund, exploded but there were no injuries. Notes left with the bombs declared that an Jewish "civil war has begun. " The notes also spoke of the "spilling of blood in Israel" and criticized the Israeli Government as being "too liberal. " The notes were signed by the "Shield of David" and the "Maccabee Squad." A press release issued by Kahane Chai provided its traditional response subsequent to such incidents: the organization "denied responsibility" for the attacks, but "refused] to condemn the act."</p>

<p>June 9, 1995:
Los Angeles, California - William Howard Ross, a member of the Jewish Defense League, was sentenced to life imprisonment for having enlisted Robert and Rochelle Manning to construct and mail a booby trap bomb to a local computer company with whom Ross had had a personal dispute. (See June 1988 and February 10, 1994 regarding the trial and sentencing of Robert Manning.)</p>

<p><div class="trigger">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('sheuzhz8y3.53').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('heuzhz8y3.53').style.display = 'none'; return false;">hide</a>)</div></div></p>

<p>Those are just a few selections I chose almost at random; you should <a href="http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp">read the whole thing yourself</a>.</p>

<p>Indeed, the ADL's listing isn't even complete. The <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/kahane.html">Jewish Virtual Library</a> notes one of the supreme ironies: Binyamin Zev Kahane, Rabbi Kahane's son, openly approved of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.</p>

<p>Rabin was murdered in 1995 by a Kahanist terrorist named Yigal Amir, a member of a Kahanist offshoot group known as <a href="http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm">Eyal</a>.</p>

<p>Got that? No Arab, no Islamist, murdered Yitzhak Rabin. <b>A Jew proudly affiliated with Kahane murdered Yitzhak Rabin</b>.</p>

<p>Worse, the Kahane organization, in their typical fashion, denied being part of the terrorist act but then said they approved of the action anyway.</p>

<p>This was not the first time a Jew was terrorized by the Kahanists. But it was the final straw for most Israelis.</p>

<p>So let's get something straight: it is not Dean Esmay who says Kahane and his followers are terrrorists. The <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm">U.S. State Department says so</a>. The <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9178/">Council on Foreign Relations</a> says so. The Israeli government says so. The Center for Defense Information's <a href="http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm">Terrorist Project says so</a>. The Anti-Defamation League says so. Even <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19068">Front Page Magazine, of all places</a>, recognizes that Jewish terrorism is still terrorism, and notes a recent Kahanist atrocity from 2005.</p>

<p>"Are they as bad as bad as the Islamist terrorists?" is almost a cowardly question. Who gives a damn? Are they evil or are they not? Do you have the moral fortitude to answer that without equivocation?</p>

<p>I do not "think" Kahane was a terrorist, I know he was. And now everybody, including Meryl Yourish, knows it too. <b>Kahanism = terror and oppression and barbarism</b>. That being the case, here are a few simple questions:</p>

<p>Will you unequivocally denounce Rabbi Meir Kahane as the leader of a radical theocratic and terrorist movement that even Jews are not safe from being harassed, beaten, and murdered by? Or will you stick with a mealy-mouthed "well, I don't agree with everything, but..." or "yes but Dean Esmay is a bad, evil man" response?</p>

<p>We all make mistakes. The real question is whether we apologize for them and try to make amends.</p>

<p><small>(And by the way, see <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1160008074.shtml">Dean Esmay, Terrorist Supporter</a> if you're thinking I've never made the mistake of unwittingly supporting terrorists myself.)</small></p>

<p><b>Update:</b> And by the way, I thought this blindingly obvious but maybe it needs to be stated: when a terrorist--a man who was a practicing terrorist before he ever even moved to Israel--takes it upon himself to speak for all of Israel, the unspoken assumptions behind his "we don't give a damn what anyone in the world thinks" rhetoric seem pretty obvious, do they not? </p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164361620.shtml">
<title>The Pledge</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164361620.shtml</link>
<description>"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-11-24T09:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."</p>

<p>I'm not aware of any other nation on Earth which has a similar oath, but every American I know can recite that by heart. As children, we grew up reciting it every day in school. Every American who was born in this country knows that oath. They can recite it in their sleep. Conservatives especially tend to love it.</p>

<p>But here's the funny part: it was a liberal--a leftist socialist--who first formulated that pledge. His name was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy">Francis Bellamy</a>, and he was a Jimmy Carter-style liberal Democrat.</p>

<p>Ann Coulter must be having hissy fits over this news: a left-wing socialist in the Jimmy Carter tradition invented the Pledge of Allegiance. Worse, here is the pledge he actually wrote in the late 1800s:</p>

<p>"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."</p>

<p>It was formulated to get young children past the wounds of America's great Civil War of the 1860s. It was meant to encourage children to see America as one nation, and to repudiate the war of secession that the South had lost.</p>

<p>By the 1920s the pledge was altered to read as follows:</p>

<p>"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."</p>

<p>At the time they thought this was a better formulation because the words "my flag" seemed vague. An immigrant might say "I pledge allegiance to my flag" and they might mean the flag of another nation. So this new version seemed a much more clear. It was not just any flag, it was the flag of the United States.</p>

<p>This is almost the version of the pledge that most Americans know today. But back then, a lot of Americans still objected to the pledge for religious reasons. They considered it a form of idolatry, and even slightly blasphemous. You pledge allegiance to <b>a flag??</b> And to <b>a republic??</b> Isn't that putting your government and its symbols <b>above your faith in God???</b> </p>

<p>So in the 1950s some liberals suggested this formulation: "one nation, under God," so that everyone would understand that pledging allegiance to the United States would not mean you were making faith in America more important than faith in God. Devoutly religious people could now recite the oath and not feel like they were betraying their faith.</p>

<p>What's funny about all this is that a lot of people today take the line "one nation, under God" as some kind of affirmation of America's religious nature. When in fact that line was added for the exact opposite reason: so that the devoutly religious could recite the oath and not feel like they were putting love of country above love of God.</p>

<p>None of this makes either liberals or conservatives comfortable today. Because it flies in the face of all of their prejudices. Let's review:</p>

<p>Fact: The pledge was invented by a liberal left-wing socialist from the same tradition that Jimmy Carter came from.</p>

<p>Fact: the pledge was never intended to be a religious oath, it was supposed to be an oath that helped people get past the arguments that led to the Great Civil War, and to realize that they lived in a truly great country.</p>

<p>Fact: the words "under God" were only added in the 1950s so that religious people would be comfortable reciting the oath, so they could affirm the oath without feeling like they were putting love of country above love of God.</p>

<p>By the way, in case you're curious: I'm basically a secular humanist and a deist. I oppose the idiots who want to take the words "under God" out of the pledge, and I utterly oppose those who want to take the words "In God we trust" off of our money and who seek to abolish religious symbols in government. I oppose such efforts completely, for I recognize that religion has always been part of what makes America great. They're wrong, they're totally wrong. </p>

<p>I also have absolutely no problem affirming this oath:</p>

<p><a href="/files/deanesmay-iwo-jima-flag.jpg"><img src="/files/deanesmay-iwo-jima-flag-small.jpg" width="300" height="271" alt="iwo jima"></a></p>

<p><img src="/files/deanesmay-AAAfirefighters-flag-2-320.jpg" width="320" height="510" alt="9/11"></p>

<p>"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."</p>

<p>I do so pledge, without reservation.</p>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>