Wednesday, February 13, 2008
[This past Monday the 11th, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard hosted Columbia University's Joseph Massad for a lecture entitled, "Desiring Arabs: Orientalism and Sexual Rights." Our own Hillel Stavis was on hand and files this report.]
Fresh off the news from the rumor mill that he had lost his bid for tenure at Columbia University, Joseph Massad, unembarrassed, held forth at Harvard this week. His introducer, Sara Roy, apparently also unembarrassed, having been caught in the preposterous allegation that Israel was withholding daily 680,000 tons of flour from Gazans (doing her simple math reveals that every Gazan uses a half ton of flour daily - obesity and potential bodily explosions would no doubt ensue) was all hugs and kisses as she presented Edward Said's keeper of the flame of Orientalism.
Sara Roy (file)
And so, here we have, arguably, the world's most prestigious university providing a forum for Mr. Massad, whose two central theories are:
- That Zionism itself produces Anti-Semitism as a result of its theoreticians' essentialist self-hatred
- That the gay rights movement is a stalking horse for the western imperialism, creating gays and lesbians in Arab lands where they had never existed.
If number two reminds you more than a bit of Iran's Ahmadinejad's bizarre claim made at Mr. Massad's university last year that there were no homosexuals in Iran, you're right. Propelled by his role as jihad-enabler and trying to out-stupid the mullahs, Joe Massad has convinced The University of Chicago Press to publish his book, Desiring Arabs
Imagine our surprise when Edward Said's disciple tells us that a corollary of the pet "colonialism/imperialism/orientalism" theory, in its relentless and racist "observations" of the Arab world, has infected that world with homosexuality. That's right - merely by observing and commenting! All those millions of Arab men and women for 1400 years, untainted by homoerotic desires, have been propelled into homosexuality by dreaded "orientalism".
Joseph Massad (file)
What a head - spinner for the university crowd in attendance! NB: No self-respecting college student would even entertain a single homophobic thought let alone publicly espouse one. But of course, "Palestinianism" and its corollary, Israel -hatred (now rapidly morphing into Jew hatred) trumps everything, including PC views on homosexuality.
As I glanced around the room during Massad's disjointed and tortuously pedantic delivery, several younger women began to squirm, obviously confused by the default sympathy they felt for their "Palestinian" professor and the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing by his you'd -better -not -even- think- of -commenting- on -Arab -sexuality -argument in the face of endemic homophobia and violence against homosexuals in the Arab and Muslim world.
Eventually, a number of women exited the hall, whipsawed by Massad's baroque literary allusions, with the requisite name-dropping of Foucault and Derrida and his sly apologetics for same-sex hating cultures.
Massad fleshed out the theme of his book from an essay he wrote in 2002 for Public Culture entitled "Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World," identifying (surprise) the United States and Israel as the chief conspirators in corroding Arab and Muslim societies (without, of course, mentioning the fact that Israel is the sole country in the region that accepts Arab gays and lesbians).
But of all the unsettling themes he tossed out, the one that drew the most eye-rolls from the faithful was his absurd declaration that honor killings in the Arab world were the equivalent of "crimes of passion" in the West. Let's see now: Honor killings: sacralized and sanctioned in the Arab and Muslim world for the most part. "Crimes of Passion" i.e. Murder in the Western world: a serious crime carrying severe penalties. A perfect equivalency for Professor Massad.
The usual anti-Israel suspects were in attendance, including one gentleman who, during the Q & A, sought to impress Massad by noting the barbarity of "male genital mutilation" (Jewish brit milah) as a rejoinder to the practice of clitorectomy widespread in the Arab and Muslim world. Not content with agreeing with this other ridiculous equivalency, he sought to remind the audience that "there were people in the room" who were male victims of such mutilation - a clumsy swipe at Jews of course. When I reminded him that for every Jewish male that is circumcised 10,000 Muslim males undergo a similar procedure (except that rather than performed at 8 days for Jews, Muslims undergo circumcision from between 8 to 13 years of age), he became worried that he might have offended the Muslims in the room!
There were remarkably few questions during the Q&A, but I recognized Joachim (get all those Ashkenazis!) Martillo who proceeded to ramble on incoherently for nearly 5 minutes on Jewish male effeminacy, "regendering" and lots more arcane topics that were clearly obsessing him.
Cutting Massad more slack than he deserved, a woman gently suggested that his theories might be contributing to the woman-hating culture of the Middle East. He did the waltz around and exited to the applause of the audience.
Whatever happened to those college degrees you could get from the back of matchbooks?
Stavis should have spent more time actually reading books, rather than just selling them. His remarks indicate that he totally misunderstood -- or is willfully distorting -- what was said at the Harvard lecture he attended. Perhaps he might have actually listened rather than spending his time thinking of clever and disparaging comments to make afterward.
Far from denying that homoerotic desires existed in Arab societies (as they surely do and have done so in all cultures) Massad was making the point that how these desires are perceived and characterized is variable according the the values and outlooks evolved in this societies -- and among those who observe from the outside. Not so complicated, really. Were there "Gay People" among the ancient Hebrews? The Massachusetts Puritans? Modern Haredi Israelis?
And my point about "male genital mutilation" (yes, it was me!) merely served to emphasize the point. If circumcision were a purely "Muslim" practice, rather than one observed by influential segments of our society -- and which might even have (after the fact) some health benefits -- does anyone doubt that it would also be cited as another sinister and primitive practice among "the Arabs"? And today, among urbanized Muslims circumcision is most often done at the hospital shortly after the male child's birth.
By the way, "female circumcision" is not any universal "Muslim" practice mandated by religious decree, but is widespread in some parts of the world among adherents of various religions. It a custom foreign to many Muslim societies.
Stavis emailed me directly with a reply, which he may or may not have intended to share as a comment, but here it is:
"I have his talk on tape and whatever spin you choose to apply to it, Massad considers the Gay Rights movement part of an imperialist, "orientalist" conspiracy against Arabs. If you're really interested in plumbing the depths of Said's bogus Orientalist theories, I suggest you read Ibn Warraq's latest book.
Incidentally, would you please identify " influential segments of our Society?" Sounds a bit conspiratorial, don't you think? I never said that female genital mutilation was an exclusively Muslim practice, but the statistics show that it is still a widespread practice in the Muslim world.
The last time I checked, there were not instances of it in, say, Belgium, Austria or Israel. It is not uncommon in the Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Mauretania, Nigeria (the Muslim north) and other predominantly Muslim countries. But you're right - it's not an exclusively Islamic practice.
Honor killings, however, which you chose not to comment on (why am I not
surprised?) is an almost exclusively Arab practice. Perhaps international condemnation of this practice, too, is an expression of the dreaded "Orientalist" urge?
Pointing out Massad's clearly anti-progressive opinions on the international gay rights movement should have sounded an alarm bell in your passionate brain, but, as I pointed out, Jew hatred trumps everything doesn't it?
Violence against women, gays, minorities - they can all be muted if the speaker hates Israel. But what about your progressive soul? Aren't you even a teensy bit disturbed by Massad's obvious retrograde positions? It would appear you are not."
Who are those "influential segments of our Society" practicing or advocating male circumcision? Observant Jews, obviously,(also most non-observant Jews), but also US Muslims, many pediatricians and others in the medical establishment. Is this a "conspiracy"?
"Honor Killing" is vile, whether practiced by Muslims or anyone else. Massad was making the point that it frequently occurs in various societies, including our own, where violence against women (and murder) for reasons of jealousy or cultural shaming claim the lives of many thousands of women (and some homosexuals) each year.
Massad did not "excuse" violence against women, "gays" or others under the sanction of religious or cultural norms -- he only pointed out that the discourse about it tends to be one-sided and culture-centric. For example, I haven't seen any commentary here about the demand for gender segregation of public buses in ultra-orthodox Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem among people who still uphold the biblical injunction to stone home-erotic practitioners -- Leviticus, is it? Anti-"Gay" incitement is something practiced by fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians (the latter considered welcome allies by supporters of Israel) and condemned by progressive people of all faiths. The fundamentalist religious adherents all joined in threatening violence against a Gay Pride march scheduled in Jerusalem not long ago.
...among people who still uphold the biblical injunction to stone home-erotic practitioners -- Leviticus, is it?
Excuse me?!? The number of homosexuals executed in Israel is what, exactly?
Yes, thankfully the ultra-orthodox do not yet have state power in Israel -- though they seem to be on the way. No doubt there have been "private" honor killings and attempted or actual murders of homosexuals, but not yet state-sanctioned. That's the way we do it in the USA, or haven't you heard?
And exactly how many homosexuals have been officially put to death in other countries? Do I assume you are keeping a state-by-state log?
In fact, much of what Massad says regarding the "Gay International" has been said over and over again, for a long time, in the literature of Queer Studies.
i.e. the theoretical elan of Massad is inspired from a widespread literature, the basic argument being that sexuality and gender roles are constructed and historically contingent.
No one accused those authors of bearing an evil agenda.
Also, the promulgation of the mainstream Gay and Lesbian identity in Western popular culture was also critiqued by the above literature as being "not progressive enough" : creating a compartmentalized notion of "pure" homosexuality mirroring that of the heterosexual ideal (rather than an open notion of sexual proclivity.) This may sound as too po-mo, wordy, ivory tower academic etc... but it is no sense malicious.
All Massad did was apply this concept to the Middle East to study how these notions of "being gay" (congruent with western modernity) were exported to the region, with all the power relations and political problematics that it entails. Very much like he did with the concept of nationalism in his first book on Jordan.
In fact, his article was discussed a few years back in Beirut, during a conference organized by pro-GLBT groups and received quite a bit of interest.
If you dislike Massad's political views (note: neither of his two books are on Israel, nor do they take the Arab-Israeli conflict as a central theme,) it would be intellectually dishonest to vilify the man in such a way, as if everything he does must be tainted by his "evilness." This resembles character assassination, not honest intellectual debate, do not import the methods of private political groups into academia, this is unbecoming of you, as a student, and of your organization.
First, I'm progresive and I *don't* think siding with homophobes from abroad is any better than siding with native-born homophobes. The ones who do in the name of being liberal are sickening.
"The last time I checked, there were not instances of it in, say, Belgium, Austria or Israel."
I haven't heard of it in Bosnia, Iran, or Malaysia either. For that matter, I haven't heard of it in China. You don't have to be western and/or non-Muslim to let your daughter keep her genitals healthy!
"It is not uncommon in the Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Mauretania, Nigeria (the Muslim north) and other predominantly Muslim countries."
It's also not uncommon among the Maasai (see http://www.maasaigirlseducation.org/about/index.html ). FGM is horrible, and ought to be condemned wherever it's done instead of just a subset of where it's done.
" No doubt there have been "private" honor killings and attempted or actual murders of homosexuals, but not yet state-sanctioned. That's the way we do it in the USA, or haven't you heard?"
And this kind of fact-based argument is coming from someone who purports to tell us that Massad's thesis is sound and persuasive?
Here is a little bit of verfiable knowledge that might neutralize Jeff's bilious hostility to Israel. But in order to know, he would have to actually click on the link and read it. As we all know, there is an inherent danger in finding out real, credible, recorded factual knowledge. It may work to dislodge some of that metaphysical hatred against Israel, Israelis and Jews.
http://www.glas.org/ahbab/Articles/arabia3.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/homocase.html
I am sorry if my question was somewhat incoherent.
I am trying to put my thoughts together on the "collectivity of Israel lobbying and advocacy efforts." I call these combined activities Judonia on the model of Polonia, which in the past was a term used for similar activities on behalf of partitioned Poland in the 19th century.
Massad's talk and book, which I am reading at present is immensely useful. (See Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society at http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/israel-lobby-and-american-society.html .)
Judonia like Polonia was not particularly static but developed in time. An early project of Judonia was changing how Jews (or specifically ethnic Ashkenazim and other European Jews) talked about themselves -- just as Polonia changed how Poles talked about themselves.
After WW2, Jewish communal organizations, which are heavily involved in (or parasitized by) Israel lobbying and advocacy activities, worked very hard to create a discourse of Judeo-Christianity as a unitary civilization and in opposition in particular to the Arab-Islamic world.
[In the USA marketing Judeo-Christianity predates WW2. The unitary aspect is associated in particular with the American Jewish Committee while the anti-Arab anti-Islamic aspect is associated with American Jabotinskians.]
Judonia works hard to control how Westerners talk about Arabs and Muslims, and I have attended David Project, Harvard and Brandeis seminars that discuss this issue in the context of diminishing criticism of Israel.
Yet because Judonia's discourse can be and has been in conflict with Western or US orientalist discourse, driving Arabists out of the US state department was an early important project of Judonia.
Massad alludes to the discourse associated with Judonia on page 188, but the reality is more complex than he describes because the Zionist pro-gay discourse is often incorporated into the positions of Jews that are critical of Israel.
Because of my work in Arab countries, I have become acquainted with a fair number of Arabs in the entertainment and news industry. There seems to be some and perhaps increasing awareness of the split between Western and Judonia discourse about Arab sexuality.
I am not sure that a study of Western discourse about Arab sexuality and its effect on Arab self-representation can ignore the split between Western and Judonia discourse.
Patai belongs much more to Judonia Orientalist discourse than to Western Orientalist discourse, and he was just as much if not more involved in the effort to control how Jews talk about themselves than in the effort to control how Westerners talk about Arabs.
His primary book aimed at changing Jewish discourse about themselves is The Jewish Mind, which from the standpoint of Jewish studies can only be considered at best misleading. I read another book by Patai on Arabs and Muslims. It was entitled Society, Culture and Change in the Middle East.
Before Neocons became ascendant in Bush foreign policy, I doubt any non-Jewish US government officials read them. Before Amazon, one would probably have to be a visitor at a Jewish book store to have any awareness of Patai.
BTW, I use to term regendering to translate Umgeschlechtung, which I have occasionally seen in German literature discussing Jewish sexuality in the early 20th century. I believe it is modeled on Umvolkung or refolking, which was the term for displacing one population with another. In Zionist Hebrew discourse the term becomes nishul (or eviction).
Go to the Joseph Massad *talk page* on Wikipedia. (His apologists have removed this stuff from Massad's main Wikipedia page, which is why they've been relegated to the talk page.) Look specifically at his hilariously idiotic quotations on the Talmud and at his use of an incendiary false quotation by Sharon claiming that "we, the Jewish people control America." Please spread the word! Should a professor of Middle East studies who uses fake quotations and displays such a horrific lack of knowledge about Jewish history be a candidate for tenure at an Ivy-league university, or invited to the *Harvard* School of Government? What is going on?
I put up a comment on the talk at http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/feb-11-harvard-joseph-massad.html .
Stavis emailed me directly with a reply, which he may or may not have intended to share as a comment, but here it is:
Sorry, but I see no reason to read any further.
Etiquette would suggest, Jeff, that you answer a private e-mail privately, and respond to a public comment publicly.
Did you have a reason for failing to do so, other than a desire to play to the crowd? I'd be interested to hear about it.
In the meantime, I'm thus far not terribly impressed by your logic, nor by your baseless accusations, nor by your manners. Writing 500-word snarky polemics, on someone else's website, may impress your peers... but believe me, you'll get far better results if you can learn to do so politely.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daniel complains that I posted Stavis' "private" email here along with my response.
However, readers should know that Stavis had improperly retrieved my email address from this site (as indicated in the text he forwarded to me). I always assumed that our email addresses here -- as elsewhere among "comments" -- would remain private.
After receiving his first email, I responded directly as follows:
"I posted your comments and my response. Please do not email me directly as I don't see much purpose to private exchanges with you on these issues. Yes, you "know where I live."
Who cares? I should have written "clever". . .
Then he sent me another, very abusive, email, to which I responded:
You are really nuts! Please don't write me again -- or are you a stalker as well as a fanatic?
I leave it to you to determine who violated proper etiquette. Public abuse we can expect here, but are dissenting posters expected to put up with private harassing emails without response?
Oooh, poor Jeff is whining about the breach of his privacy. Well, let's see, Jeff, if I can find your e-mail on the internet in under 10 steps or 5 minutes, whichever is less:
1. Someone who was at the event (and knew you, I guess) told me that your name was Jeff [Edit] or [Edit] -- in fact, I know who you are by face, as I have met you a bunch of times at various events, and have asked you for your name, but you were too chicken to give it to me. Never mind, I can find out who you are w/out your help, thank you very much.
2. A quick Google search for "Jeff [Edit]" israel arab palestine gave me this:
[Edit]
3. Following the link to http://www.adcma.org/calendar.html connected you to the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights;
4. Doing another Google search, this time on "Jeff [Edit]" email "Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights" gave me this:
[Edit]
5. Following the links, I got this:
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/locals/2008-January/002162.html
6. Which, in turn, gives the following:
THIS Thurs/Noon: Protest to End the BLOCKADE OF GAZA
7. Which then gives your e-mail address as Jeff [Edit]
Bingo! Q.E.D.
Hmmm, interesting how the Israel-hating GRP of MA is connected to the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights and the boycotts and protests against Israel. The very same GRP that last ran a very anti-Israel agenda, and was connected to a whole variety of unsavory characters -- you can find all these stories by doing a search on GRP and Grace Ross here, at Solomonia.com -- and how do I know? -- I was there, camera in hand. The very same camera that Amer Jubran's buddy Noah Cohen of the NECDP was trying to hard to break but failed.
Admit it, Jeff, you just hate the Jews, and you hate Israel. Never mind that you might be Jewish yourself (you sure look it, too) -- so is Norman Finkelstein. This excuse doesn't work here, sorry.
After all, that same Noah Cohen hates the Jews, and he also happens to be married to a Jew-hating Lana Habash, a Dr. of pediatrics who, in spite of having given the Hippocrates' Oath, condones the killing of innocent Israeli civilians by her brethren Palestinian Arabs, including the slaughter of innocent Jewish children, the likes of which she may be treating in Boston, for all we know. Strange how it all works out, huh?
Jeff [Edit], a labor organizer turned a Jew-hater. So what else is new or surprising about the activist Left?
Anyway, Jeff, stop complaining, OK? You're out of the closet, I know who you are, as do others, and since you chose to become an activist, don't whine about your privacy, which you yourself have foregone by going to the internet.
BTW, doing some further Googling, I found a few more interesting things about you, which I might share with others at some point. You're a public persona, Jeff -- keep that in mind.
Until we meet again,
Seva Brodsky
Oops, Sol's humane s/w may be trying to peel away the e-mail addresses to prevent spammers, so I'll try to be nice this time.
Take 2:
7. Which then gives your e-mail address as the following: [removed by blog owner -- I've talked to Seva. let's not have the posting of personal emails without consent -S]
Let's see if this works :-)
Since this post was put up by Hillel, he receives all notifications for it, which includes the information a commenter includes like the "handle", email address, web site link (if any), IP of the poster and the comment text. That's pretty standard, and though emails are not published, you should always assume a web site owner gets all the info. Hillel apparently opted to reply to the notification email (which would go to the address Jeff provided) rather than in the comments. That's not very unusual. I receive personal emails all the time in response to comments I leave. Since he's new at this, he may even have thought he was receiving an email directly.
For the record, I am against public exposure of people's personal details unless they choose to give them. Public behavior and record? Fine, but not personal stuff except in extremis.
Seva, a thug as well as a buffoon, has found a welcome home here among people who complain about others' lack of on-line "courtesy."
The original personal email to me from Stavis included a copy of my comment/post along with my email address, indicating he had retrieved it through rights granted to him by the moderator of this site -- not through searching on line.
Thank you Solomon. I sent my comment before reading yours and appreciate your clarification.
I am Anon who posted on Feb 14:
I have to say, I was also disappointed when I received a personal e-mail from Stavis in response, I was also under the impression that our info was not to be released (which, I assumed, meant everybody.)
I did not reply to Stavis, I am not interested in a private correspondence, and he clearly has his own established views on the topic - which I find to be incorrect, but I think I have little chance of convincing him otherwise.
With disturbed (and disturbing) people posting on this site such as the person above (Seva,) it would be understandable why someone would want to remain anonymous, these are not individuals you want in your private life.
For future reference, here's the email I sent in response to Jeff, who asked that I remove references to his last name in this thread. I have done so this time:
"No problem, I'll remove it this time. But generally, I don't consider your name and political activities over the line. You, after all, showed up to the thread and said it was you and someone else knew you. If I were writing up the event I may have used your name. Let's face it, you're quite public with your activities -- "Jeff [redacted]" the political activist is hardly a private personality. It's more personal stuff like email, phone number, address, employer (unless it's relevant) that I consider over the line. I don't want anyone thinking they have personal license to go annoying people at home based on something they read on my site."
Jeff, #14: "Seva, a thug as well as a buffoon, has found a welcome home here among people who complain about others' lack of on-line 'courtesy.'"
OK, now it's getting personal - complete with name calling, insults, etc. It figures Jeff couldn't remain the 'civilized' and 'polite' person he was trying to portray himself as, especially when I blew his cover. Jeff, you are your own worst enemy, and you don't even know it.
This is so typical, and so boooring ... These self-righteous lefties are very indignant, yet are so afraid of being exposed - why did you complain to Sol to have your name and e-mail address removed after I posted it? What are you afraid of? The light of day, I suppose.
Out of sheer curiosity, why did you call me a thug, Jeff? I don't mind being called a buffoon, a clown, etc. - in fact, I enjoy it. But a thug? That's completely not me, as I am against any kind of violence, except for self-defense.
The very same self-defense, btw, which Israel is practicing now against the non-stop missile attacks from Gaza. You were the one who sent out that announcement of "Protest to End the BLOCKADE OF GAZA" -- see above in #10, which allowed me to find your e-mail address, which you so sheepishly requested our generous and kind-hearted Sol to remove.
I don't expect you are also calling for a protest against the valiant warriors of Gaza, who are purposefully and deliberately sending dozens of missiles a day to maim and kill innocent Israeli civilians - men, women, and children? For you don't really care about Jewish lives, do you, Jeff?
#16 Anon: "With disturbed (and disturbing) people posting on this site such as the person above (Seva,) it would be understandable why someone would want to remain anonymous, these are not individuals you want in your private life."
The only reason someone might want to remain anonymous is to preserve and protect their privacy. Public personae, such as Jeff [self-censored for now] cannot expect that. Especially not when they come and start stomping their foot loudly, as Jeff did.
For example, you chose your anonymity, and you weren't loud. Yet, you still chose to resort to name calling in the end. Why? I fail to see the point of this. Whatever ...
Looking around the web, I found this interesting tidbit at http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=15
From: [self-censored for now]
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Harvard Talk
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:11:22 -0500
Dear Norman Finkelstein,
It was a pleasure to hear your talk at Harvard and to chat with you briefly before hand. (I was sitting next to an acquaintance of yours in the audience.) I was impressed by you composure under the attack from Dershowitz's groupies/goon squad. Your arguments and responses were compelling.
Previously, I had become rather bored with the diatribe between you and the despicable Dershowitz, but the smear literature distributed by his acolytes (and the free copies of his books!) inspired me to check again the parts of Beyond Chutzpah that dealt with his pseudo-"scholarship." On second look, his work is even more sleazy and slipshod than I had imagined, his smear quotes against you even more dishonest, and his level of intellect even lower. What a joke that Harvard should make a man of this moral and intellectual character a "distinguished professor." His roll is more like the "Court Jew" of the backward Slavic lands in early modern times. If Harvard had any shame, it would be regarded as a blot against their reputation to have such a man on their faculty.
Despite their transparent falsehood, I know the slanders from hysterical pro-Israel cheerleaders must take their toll personally.
But please keep up your courageous work.
Thanks and best regards,
Jeff [oh please don't disclose my last name!]
Welly-well, this is a treasure trove of goodies, no? Complete with yet more name calling - "Dershowitz's groupies/goon squad"; "despicable Dershowitz"; " his work is even more sleazy and slipshod than I had imagined, his smear quotes against you even more dishonest, and his level of intellect even lower"; "Court Jew"; "hysterical pro-Israel cheerleaders", etc.
Jeff, do you really think that sinking to such a sophomoric level gives you any credit? Are you a mature grown-up? Duh ...
Well, your hero seems to have succumbed to the "Zionist Lobby" and was ousted from DePaul - yihaaa! Long live the Elders of Zion! We rule!
On a bit more serious note, Jeff, your reference (and deference) to Fink's "compelling [] arguments and responses []" and "courageous work" left me scratching my head - you can't be serious, can you? I mean, Fink is a fraud and a liar, and has been proven as such so many times that it's not interesting anymore.
Fink is not, of course, as bright and as skillful at this as Noam Chomsky - that's why Chomsky has his tenure, and Fink is biting his nails. But both are frauds and evil-doers. At least Chomsky has engaged in some serious scientific work decades ago (my linguistics professor friends tell me that his work was not so good after all, and that he personally set the field back a decade or more, but that's a rather different issue).
Anyway, Jeff, I suggest you find some meaningful employment and create some profit instead of engaging in activism, otherwise you become just another revolutionary in search of a cause. Do you have a portrait of Che Guevarra, by any chance?
I have just now approved comments #7 and 8 which were being held for approval but I didn't notice. Sorry about that. Readers will find #8 particularly interesting as Martillo is now developing his own vocabulary. You have to hand it to him. There is at least one antisemite in this thread unafraid to use his last name.