Michael Bérubé - American Airspace

Two completely unrelated things

Thing one: it appears there’s reason to believe that Gary Farber was right all along about the Cheney Administration’s illegal data-mining. Back on January 2 of this year, which is like Chinese Year 34 in blog time, Gary argued that

if you’re doing a multiplexdata-mining pattern analysis on tens of thousands or more people, shifting by possibly tens of thousands of people per day, or more, you can’t get warrants. It’s not humanly possible.

Which, as I keep explaining, only makes the threat exponentially larger than most non-tech oriented left/lib/progressives seem to understand, with this antediluvian focus on “wiretaps” and “why can’t you get a FISA warrant?” That’s a question that was entirely sensible when we all asked it last month. It’s long been answered and answered and answered and answered.

It’s far greater reason for Congress to get the truth out, and possibly impeach, then simple wire-tapping.

So go show Gary some love today.

Thing two: it appears that I owe an apology to David Horowitz. It turns out that there really are a few dangerous, crackpot college professors running around in the United States. Like, for instance, Arthur Butz, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University and world-class Holocaust denier. According to today’s Inside Higher Ed, picking up a report from the Chicago Tribune,

Butz had come to the aid of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been under fire for his assertions that the Holocaust is a myth. In recent interviews with the Iranian press, the Tribune reported that Butz said of the Iranian president and his views on the Holocaust: “I congratulate him on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues and regret only that it was not a Western head of state.”

But wait a second—Butz isn’t on Horowitz’s “Dangerous Professors” list. Golly, that seems strange! Why would that be? Perhaps for the same reason that Horowitz includes crackpot City College professor Leonard Jeffries but not crackpot City College professor Michael Levin (about whom you can learn a thing or two here if you scroll down a bit, or you could consult William H. Tucker’s book on the Pioneer Fund, The Funding of Scientific Racism, which points out that “As a recipient of the fund’s support, Levin conducted no research but focused primarily on criminality, maintaining that blacks were genetically incapable of abiding by ‘white [behavioral] norms’ and even suggesting that ‘free will’ may be ‘correlated with race.’ As a consequence, he proposed a number of blatantly unconstitutional measures, including ‘searches of black males under circumstances in which searching white males would be impermissible,’ treatment of ‘blacks as adult offenders at an earlier age than whites,’ ‘race-based punishment schedules,’ and the requirement for ‘black males to ride in specially patrolled cars’ on the subway").

Oh, well. Never mind about that apology, then.

Posted by on 02/08 at 07:51 AM

Whew, I couldn’t think of any reason you’d owe Horowitz an apology short of treading on his foot.

No, wait. He probably deserves that, too.

Posted by Thud on 02/08 at 10:04 AM
Of course Free Will corresponds with race. It was done by a trio of white Canadians. Two of them, Geddy and Alex, are really white.

Also, I’m wondering how an associate professor of EE works in the concluding phrase “...and that’s why ZOG and the Jew-run media are pushing the Auschwitz hoax!” into one of his normal lectures.

Posted by norbizness on 02/08 at 10:11 AM
The conundrum: we’ve multiplexed and data mined, sifted and sorted, monitored and read, and now we know to the best of our science and knowledge that you know the answer to our question. So you’re picked up, rendered, affixed to the waterboard, whereupon we ask you the question.

You protest, you don’t know the answer. Well, we knew you’d say that. We dowse you in terror, repeat the question. Etc.

Hypothetically, if your “ignorance” exceeds your ability to hold your breath are you innocent or do we tip our cap to your terrorist trainers?

Posted by black dog barking on 02/08 at 11:15 AM
>>It turns out that there really are a few dangerous, crackpot college professors running around in the United States. Like, for instance, Arthur Butz, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University and world-class Holocaust denier.

I hope that was sarcasm, do know really think that Butz is dangerous?

On another note, just musing, why do you thing that American academia, and to mention, mainstream media, are a no show on this Danish cartoon dust-up. You know, all about culture and media sticking it to the man, and that sort of stuff. I guess they picked all the low hanging fruit with piss-Christ (peace be upon him) and dung-Mary (blesed mother), no need to really put your neck on the line.

Posted by on 02/08 at 12:11 PM
Good point, Daniel.

People like Butz are relatively insignificant crackpots: it’s easy to dismiss them. In fact, before reading your post, I was tempted to make a joke about how Alberto Gonzales’ “time” “machine” could really come in handy in Butz’s case--he could take a trip back to Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

But now you’ve got me thinking: why ISN’T American academia saying anything about the Danish cartoons? Foucault says a proliferation of discourse is a sign of cultural anxiety; but what does an *absence* of discourse signify?

Posted by on 02/08 at 12:31 PM
Let me see now—an American professor giving interviews to Iranian media in which he endorses Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s insane remarks on Israel—yeah, Daniel, I think that’s kinda dangerous. Certainly more dangerous than dilating, at any rate.

As for those cartoons, Daniel, everything I’ve seen in this country (and I’ve seen plenty) casts that one in terms of tolerant Western free speech vs. crazy violent Muslims. I’m only just now learning how much of that debacle involves right-wing opportunists reprinting the cartoons again and again over the course of four months precisely in order to inflame Muslims, and right-wing opportunists in Egypt and Saudi Arabia taking the bait in order to deflect criticism of Arab secularists (in Egypt) and deaths during the hajj (in Saudi Arabia). As with the right-wing opportunists in this country who leapt all over Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili for their forms of “blasphemy,” I tend to believe that all these people deserve each other—with the proviso that I think Christian fundamentalist jihadists are, for now, less violent and socially corrosive than their Islamic fundamentalist jihadist brethren, whose forms of protest I do not endorse.

Hypothetically, if your “ignorance” exceeds your ability to hold your breath are you innocent or do we tip our cap to your terrorist trainers?

I don’t know, black dog, I’ll have to ask Michael Levin, whose argument for torture can be found at http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html.

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 12:40 PM
Wow. Butz has been tenured since the mid-70s and is still an associate professor? Maybe he should focus his publication efforts on something a little more germane to his field.

And Daniel, I have to disagree that the mainstream media has been silent on the Danish cartoon issue. In fact, the main headline at cnn.com right now is “Bush urges end to cartoon violence”

Best… Headline… Ever…

Posted by on 02/08 at 12:46 PM
Oh, great, now Bush has come out against Itchy and Scratchy. What’s next? Manimals? Steroids in baseball?

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 12:49 PM
Oh, great, now Bush has come out against Itchy and Scratchy. What’s next? Manimals? Steroids in baseball?

Case in point: you’re dismissing Daniel’s valid question, and trying to undermine his point.

I think he is asking why it is easier to weigh in on the “easy” targets, and to publicize one’s politically-correct views about situations that make *most* people feel uneasy and upset.

Why is it so much harder to deal with situations such as the Danish cartoon situation: situations that make it much more difficult to know how to position one’s self. Do you condemn freedom of speech and say that offensive cartoons should never appear in print? Do you condemn Islamic violence against these offensive cartoons? Do you even KNOW why Muslims were offended by the cartoons?

Posted by on 02/08 at 01:02 PM
So, NY Stdnt, you missed comment 6? I thought I’d already dilated on Daniel’s question.

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 01:09 PM
Sorry Michael,

I didn’t mean to suggest that your present dilations aren’t good enough. You’ve explained the pervasive way the Western media is framing this issue, and the way that people like ourselves are encouraged to understand it. IE: Bad/Crazy Islamists and Good/Understandable Western presses.

But it might be interesting and useful to see a more indepth Michael Berube blog entry on this issue. I personally have little idea why the Muslims are so upset; I haven’t seen the cartoons, and don’t know what aspects of the representations are being contested. I’ve heard that the very idea of Mohammed appearing in *any* format is insulting to the Islamic faith.

Based on the press reports, I’ve also had a difficult time understanding how cartoons that appeared four months ago could still tick people off today. So the points you’ve mentioned above about how these cartoons are being strategically *reprinted* by right-wing extremists are very helpful. More information would be good.

I’m reminded here of a complex situation that arose last year surrounding the intersection of “freedom of expression,” and the need to respect peoples’ religious beliefs.

The first article below offers an initial, “knee-jerk” reaction to an issue that arose. The second one explains the consquences and decisions made in a slightly more complex light. But the issues raised are extremely fraught, and I can understand why American academics might fear to tread into these quagmires.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1378818,00.html

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/theatre/news/article25861.ece

Posted by on 02/08 at 01:33 PM
Did somebody rename this thread “tell the Professor what to write about” while I was away for the last 12 minutes? I can play this game, too:

Blondie v. Garbage. Compare n’ contrast. 3500 words. Now!

Posted by norbizness on 02/08 at 01:39 PM
Heh heh heh heh he typed Butz heh heh heh

/channeling my inner Beavis

Like Norbizness, I think that NY Stdnt is engaging in that most tedious of blog commenters tricks: “Write about what *I* want to discuss, in the manner I want or you’re avoiding the issue/dishonest/engaging in *gasp* Political Correctness”.

Frankly, I’d much rather hear about the status of Michael’s hockey career than have another person weighing in on the cartoon controversy, but I’m not going to take him to task if he doesn’t post immediately about it.

Oh, and Blondie, clearly.

Posted by on 02/08 at 01:54 PM
Hey Henry,

I’m not going to take him to task for it, either.

I didn’t mean to single Professor Berube out as *the* academic blogger who should be trying to analyze this issue. I just suggested that Daniel had a valid point in raising the question of why American academia *in general* is not doing more to try to discuss and understand Islamic concerns. We tend to stick to the things we know; I know I do, at least. It’s partly my own ignorance that’s prompting my interest in Daniel’s comments.

A couple of weekends ago, Michael initiated two threads at the same time: 1) The greatest American band of all time, and 2) What to make of the fact that Osama bin Laden “sounds like” the Democratic party, or is using their “talking points.” Guess how many people wanted to talk about Osama?

All I’m saying is that we create the oblivious environment in which we live; it’s not just the Republicans who control the media, but our own aversion to complexities.

Posted by on 02/08 at 02:10 PM
I miss Al Goldstein, I really do.

>>As for those cartoons..... I’m only just now learning how much of that debacle involves right-wing opportunists reprinting the cartoons again and again over the course of four months precisely in order to inflame Muslims, and right-wing opportunists in Egypt and Saudi Arabia taking the bait in order to deflect criticism of Arab secularists (in Egypt) and deaths during the hajj (in Saudi Arabia).

Michael You are so wrong on this. These cartoons were originally published in October in the Danish newspaper. One reason for their being comissioned was to emphasize the point that Danish book publishers found it impossible to find animators for childrens’ books marketed to muslims. Another, admitted, reason was to make salient points on violent islamism (boy, have they been vindicated). The cartoons were published and that was it, nothing more; it took muslims running off to Pakistan, Palestine, Arabia, wherever.., to work the “muslim street” (and this muslim street has broad support, even among so-called moderate muslims) up into a frenzy that caused the riots, threats, assaults and deaths. Sorry, can’t trace this one to Karl Rove. Tell me, who is reprinting these cartoons in the right-wing media? National Review, Weekly Standard, Fox News? No, they have actually gone along with the (cowardly) mainstream media line that they are not going to take gratuitious swipes at the tender religious sensitivites of anyone, most of all muslims (the very day the NY Times made this claim they reprinted a photo of Dung-Mary (blessed Mother) and show the cartoons, even though now they are certailny a newsworthy matter.

>> As with the right-wing opportunists in this country who leapt all over Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili for their forms of “blasphemy,”

Right-wing opportunists? You seem to be equating florid, septugenarian rosary chanters with murderous terrorists who have already burned 4 embassies, threatened editors, writers and cartoonists with death, and who have been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 5 of their own rioters.

Serrano, NY Times, Brooklyn Museum, Academia, et.al. look pretty pathetic now, don’t they? The left talks a tough game, bullying those who really don’t have the wherewithal to fight back. That’s ok though, this is America, and more than anything we hold our liberties dear. But why doesn’t the left pick on someone who will fight back? Hmmm. Well don’t worry, there are enough of us neantherdal, bigoted, right-wingers who are just waiting to take up and finish this fight, even though punk leftists started it and are now running away.

Posted by on 02/08 at 02:39 PM
Michael, when you’re finished with the cartoons, I have a little dissersomething I’d like you to whip up. It’s about evolutionary theory and American literature and I need it on my advisor’s desk by Thursday. Gracias!

Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman on 02/08 at 02:43 PM
Hey, Daniel, kudos on your bravery—I know you’re risking life and limb by posting on blogs.

You know, it’s funny you mention picking on folks who’ll fight back; Iraq is full of them. I hear there’s some room over there for people as brave as you and your right-wing buddies who are “just waiting to take up and finish this fight.” Godspeed, man.

Posted by on 02/08 at 02:59 PM
Check out today’s *Salon* featured article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/

The simple binary between Western-free-speech and Muslim-close-mindedness doesn’t pan out. Seems that the same Danish media outlets have blocked anti-Christian speech—including one cartoon that dared to represent Jesus—on many occasions in the name of cultural sensitivity.

Posted by on 02/08 at 03:05 PM
"Blondie v. Garbage. Compare n’ contrast. 3500 words. Now! “

I find Blondie to be predictable and outdated. While Blondie has changed with the times and is no longer a “ditzy blonde”, Dagwood is still mired in the 1950s. I want to at least see him update his eating habits. How about instead of those big sandwiches he ate a really big sushi. By “Garbage”, I assume you mean “Funny Garbage”. While they are not a comic strip, they are in the animation business. Their format gives them much more leeway than the standard 3-4 panel comic strip. They are certainly not predictable, but I think they fail to live up to the promise of their potential.

I can now see the brilliance behind requesting this comparisson, as it sheds an obvious light on the Danish cartoon controversy that makes all other arguments moot. Truly, truly, profound.

Posted by on 02/08 at 03:16 PM
Dangerous? He’s got to be kidding. The list, now that I see it, is heavily weighted toward greying has-beens, comrades from DH’s renounced radical youth who have found little perches in academia. Some younger folks like our host are thrown in, but I have to protest the generational bias.

Posted by on 02/08 at 03:40 PM
Luther,

>>The simple binary between Western-free-speech and Muslim-close-mindedness doesn’t pan out.

It does pan out. The cartoons were not mocking in any way, they were political and satirical in manner. I doubt that a cartoon, similar and tone and manner, dealing with Christianity would have been forbidden by the newspaper, but so what if it was prohibited by this paper; the fact that one newspaper or another may show a bias towards Christian sensitivities vs. muslim is not the issue; the issue is an entire media and academic culture that walks on egg-shells around muslim senstitivies. It’s the averages that count. A few years ago a German scholar published, pseudonomously, a well received book calling into question the muslim-percieved historicity of the koran. Of course he had to hide his identity, he risked his life just by bringing this matter up in an academic context. Makes a lot of you all wince with a little embarrasment, don’t it, when you refer to some Rove-Cheney-Horowitz axis of repression in regards to your own position. The frank examination of islamic historicity is near verboten in the west, and the included American academia.

Posted by on 02/08 at 03:43 PM
I’d e-mail you, but I don’t seem to have an e-mail address for you, Michael, and don’t see one on the page, at a glance, although I imagine I could track one down if I’d had more than two hours of sleep with two Ambien, and my brain were presently made of other than mud.

Anyway, many thanks, and I’ve updated the relevant post to note your link. Meanwhile, I shall continue to be a Lonely Prophet In The Desert, trying to get those damned annoying grains of sand, and being ignored, out of my butt.

Posted by Gary Farber on 02/08 at 04:19 PM
"The cartoons were not mocking in any way, they were political and satirical in manner.”

As in, a caricature of Muhammed with a bomb for a head. Brandishing a knife in front of two veiled women. Telling suicide bombers at heaven’s gate to “stop, we ran out of virgins.”
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

I agree, it’s not mocking, not really. A better term would be racist. The outrage is obviously not about some simple blasphemy in depicting the prophet; Muhammed himself is depicted all the time without comment, do a Google search. The outrage is about the implication that being Muslim makes you a terrorist, attached to a ridiculous caricature of Arabs reminiscent of Nazi anti-semitic cartoons, coming from newspaper in a country where the fascist far right has 15% support.

Now, of course this doesn’t justify violence or death threats, and of course the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are being utterly hypocritical in their counter-offensive. But the starting point for talking about this has to be recognizing the unashamed racism in the original cartoons, not bizarre whining about threats to the free speech of those in power (within their countries and globally). Gary Younge in the Guardian:

As a result they are vilified twice: once through the cartoon, and again for exercising their democratic right to protest. The inflammatory response to their protest reminds me of the quote from Steve Biko, the South African black nationalist: “Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1701986,00.html

Posted by on 02/08 at 04:28 PM
I totally agree with Kalkin.

Alas, am kinda starting to regret my eagerness to rush into a conversation on this issue.... but it’s certainly been educational, if not also saddening.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:01 PM
Oh, and just to be a whiny-ass nitpicker, I’ll note that I was writing stuff like this, back on December 18th, 2005:
THE WARRANTLESS NSA EAVESDROPPING. What everyone is asking is “what could the point possibly be, given how easy it is to get a FISA warrant”? Noah Shachtman thinks there’s a tech aspect. This is the most plausible explanation I’ve heard yet, because it’s the only plausible explanation I’ve heard yet.
There’s more in that post. By December 24, I was already going nuts with frustration that left bloggers were still only going on about “wiretaps,” and missing that the switches had been directly compromised (and the right bloggers continued to ignore the whole thing or claim, as they still do, that it’s just all about the terrorist-catchin’, and the President-protectin’-us, of course).
I laid it out at length on December 22nd, and begged bloggers to listen. I e-mailed the link to 30 prominent left bloggers. Not a soul linked.

After that I was just banging my head against the wall every day, because it was more fun than being frustrated about all this.

Even now, I’ve yet to hear a word back from Matt Yglesias (who was eager to ask my advice back when he was still in college), and Kevin Drum responded to my e-mail, but completely give no acknowledgement that he, and Matt, and Glenn Greenwald, and Josh Marshall, and Sifu Tweety of The Poor Man were flat wrong when they said that, well, here is Kevin on January 23, 2006:
Here’s another point related to General Hayden’s admission today that the NSA’s domestic spying program isn’t some kind of dazzling high tech black op, but merely garden variety wiretapping that was done outside normal FISA channels because NSA couldn’t meet the “probable cause” standard normally needed to get a warrantissued.
I have e-mail from Kevin the next day telling me I was wrong, and why we should believe General Hayden. The same for Glenn Greenwald:
Contrary to the excuse offered up by Bush followers that this illegal eavesdropping was all necessitated by some sort of super-complex data mining method which rendered FISA an obsolete relic, Gen. Hayden made clear that this is not the case. Bush’s eavesdropping program entailed garden-variety eavesdropping on telephone conversations - not some new technologically advanced data mining program.
I critiqued this.
Glenn is here in my comments, on January 29th, explaining:
The reason I believe this statement [of General Hayden’s] about data-mining is because it is in the Administration’s interest to claim that they were data-mining. That would make the case more compelling that they had to violate FISA, because FISA warrants couldn’t be issued for that sort of surveillance. Bush followers were making that argument for some time and Gen. Hayden pulled the rug out from under them.

When someone makes a statement contrary to their interest - and that’s how I see Gen. Hayden’s statement that they were not operating outside of FISA due to data-mining - I tend to believe the statement much more. People lie in order to bolster their case, not to undermine it.
I explained why he was wrong. He’s now shown to have been wrong. (He’s busy now, so I hope he will yet address this.) Ditto Matt, whom I wrote each time, but who never even replied. Ditto Josh Marshall, whom I never even bothered writing.
Okay, trying to post this, gets this: “The comment you submitted contains 5710 characters. Only 5000 characters are allowed.” I’ll break it in two.

Posted by Gary Farber on 02/08 at 05:07 PM
Finishing whiny-ass bitching:

Etc., etc., etc. I don’t mind that these guys consistently got it wrong—we all miss stuff, and I have a background, as an amateur, in reading heavily about intelligence matters and related technical matters, going back 30 years.

What I mind is that I called all this to everyone’s attention, and was either flatly ignored, or told I was wrong.

And I mind most of all, that even now, no one is admitting they were wrong. Hey, we knew it was datamining and switch compromising all along!

Yeah, right.

Cranky? Frustrated? Who, me?

Naaaaaaaaah. I’m sure the links from Atrios and Kos and Jeralyn Merrit and Josh Marshall, and so on, will be flooding in any day now.

But I’m not changing my respiration plans. (And then Instapundit will link, and the WSJ, and Powerline! And then the sun will explode!)

Posted by Gary Farber on 02/08 at 05:10 PM
"A better term would be racist.”

Islam is a race?

Posted by Gary Farber on 02/08 at 05:12 PM
Well, Mr. Farber, we would all head to your site and post our heartfelt apologies, but http://http//amygdalagf.blogspot.com isn’t a valid URL. And I removed the Backspace key from my keyboard in horder to hold myseelf to a higer standard/

I don’t know if this will make you feel better at all, but my colleagues and I were getting all upset about data-mining back in the halcyon days of Echelon, let alone when T&A came along. With TIA, we actually even noted how meaningless it was for Congress to say no to the program. It seemed obvious to us that any administration that wanted to put John Poindexter in charge of spying on Americans was brazen enough to simply continue the program without Congressional approval. However, none of us knew that “weblogs” existed, and I for one still don’t have a weblog, or “og”. So our comments received no widespread circulation.

However, I think Mr. Greenwald should indeed “self-correct” on the matter. As you noted, he’s had a bit of a busy week, but I am certainly willing to hound him about this in comments. It would provide a welcome distraction from “bart” proclaiming yet again that the President is our Commander-in-Chief, who can take unilateral action against al-Qaeda agents inside the United States at his sole discretion. Yeah, God bless America. Or at least ship some more brains.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:23 PM
Islam is a religion, but Islamics are also a racialized category of people.

Not all those who practice Islam are from the Middle-East, North Africa, or South East Asia. However, the predominant association that “Westerners” have with Islam is a certain racial profile: dark-skinned men and women who wear flowing robes.

Not all Jewish people are racially identifiable as such. However, during the Holocaust, people who practiced the Jewish faith were also demonized as fitting a certain racial profile.

Physical appearances are often linked to why religious groups get persecuted.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:27 PM
Islam is a race?

Well, according to many right-wing commenters in this country, it certainly is, and the cartoon representations were certainly rather, um, Semitic. So it’s using the language that they already understand. But it’s true, the point was to denigrate a religion, not an ethnic group. Which makes the Danish paper’s policy on not publishing cartoons perceived to mock Christianity more interesting.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:28 PM
Tell me, who is reprinting these cartoons in the right-wing media?

You know what, Daniel? I’ll let Julia tell you:

The talking point of the moment is that the cartoons were mild, not intended to be interpreted as anti-islamic statements and merely a comment on freedom of speech. That is, of course, utter bullshit, as prominent liberal organizations the Vatican and the ADL agree. The ADL, by no means an apologist organization for radical islam, compares the cartoons in matter and intent to antisemitic caricatures in the muslim press, which is a fairly strong statement coming from the ADL. Both agree that the speech should have been suppressed.

That last, of course, isn’t right either.

On the other side of the debate, we have the people represented by the Danish Prime Minister, who believes that the matter is purely a free speech issue and (despite the urgings of 22 former danish ambassadors) has refused to meet with diplomats from muslim countries accedited to Copenhagen to discuss the issue in late December.

This again is bullshit. It is in no way a restriction of anyone’s freedom of the press for the head of government to say that the country, while supporting the right to free speech, condemns the racism and religious bigotry expressed.

It was still a primarily diplomatic wrangle, though, until two Norwegian evangelical Christian magazines reprinted the cartoons a week later with the stated intention of making a comment on Islam and terrorism (are you beginning to notice a common thread amongst the free speech enthusiasts here?) and all hell broke loose.

Well, not all hell - arab groups called for a boycott, there were threats against the newspaper that commissioned the cartoons, protesters burned flags and fired bullets in the air, and islamic countries recalled their ambassadors.

No, full-metal hell didn’t break loose until various newspapers in Europe, giving reasons ranging from support of free speech (see above) to anti-religious principles (France, of course), went ahead and reprinted the cartoons again. One brave soul printed them in Jordan. He’s been fired. The boycott, largely a pipe dream before last week, is now severely damaging danish industry.

Meanwhile, the original newspaper, which apparently has more sense than the Prime Minister does, acknowledged that although the publication of the cartoons was completely legal, they were offensive, and apologized for causing offense. European leaders (with, of course, the exception of Denmark and Norway) have pointed out that while free speech is a basic human right, the material printed in this case was deeply offensive and to be condemned.

No one here mentioned Karl Rove but you, dear soul.

The left talks a tough game, bullying those who really don’t have the wherewithal to fight back.

Like poor helpless Pat Buchanan, Rudy Guiliani, and Jesse Helms, I know. We’re just cowards that way, going after the weak and defenseless.

Now, let me know when you have something to say that doesn’t take the form of “Michael, you brought up this Holocaust denier at Northwestern and this white supremacist at City College, so let’s talk about the cartoon controversy.” Because, you know, I’m finding this evasive strategy almost as noxious as straight-up apologies for Holocaust deniers.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:54 PM
Oh, and one more thing. Blondie.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:55 PM
Kalkin,

>>As a result they are vilified twice: once through the cartoon, and again for exercising their democratic right to protest

Nobody has a problem with protests (take a cue for Catholic septugenarians). We have a problem with embassy burnings, severed heads, suicide bombs and assaultive threat.

The implication of the cartoon is that violent islamists are, well, violent terrorists or at least sympathetic to terrorists. Events of the past 2 weeks have vindicated the opinion of the cartoonists entirely. If the moderate muslim wishes to distance himself from violent islamists, let him do so, loudly, visibly and consistently.

Your argumentative strategy seems to be: “Hmmm. they really got us on this; what, with torching embassies, riotous assault, chilling imprecations… I got it! The race card. Accuse the white man of racism and he’ll scurry back into his cozy insecure, emotional hole, works all the time”. Is that it? Won’t work this time.

>> the fascist far right has 15% support.

Well, you vote for a party that vows to reduce the personal income tax rate from, say, 55% to 45% and there you are a right-wing fascist.

There is a side drama going on here too. What is really sad for the cause of the Palestinian who just wants some peace is the fact that the Palestinians had no better friend, no more consistent ally in their struggle with Israel than the Danes and Norwegians. Consistently Denmark and Norway have appealed to Israel to be just with the Palestinians. Seems the Palestinians figured out (correctly) that Norway and Denmark would never sign onto an agreement that means the extermination of Israel so they had just said ef’m. Unless the Noridics are completely self-loathing masochists I don’t see why they should lift a finger now for the Palestinian cause, considering that some of the most violent outbursts have occurred in Gaza.

As far as racism and racist opinion go, too effn bad; that is in the zone of expression and we hold that dearer than anything. Extremist muslims rattle on about how their religious pride means more to them than their own lives, how they welcome death in defense of it if necessary, well there are alot of westerners - even some who are lefties - who value free, unfettered expression more than anything, and will defend it with their lives. Get used to it. If you are going to live in the west, this if your future.

Posted by on 02/08 at 05:57 PM
Okay, so now I’m roped in with holocaust deniers, but they are probably more correctly labeled holocaust mollifiers (that point will probably piss you off more.) For the record, I couldn’t care one whit what a holocaust denier, mollifier thinks about anything; his concern is too trivial for my concern.

Apologists for muslim rioting are grasping for straws when they point up right-wing groups in the nordic countries as provocation. C’mon, we are talking about the Nordic countries here; these people considered Bill Clinton a right-winger.

Posted by on 02/08 at 06:19 PM
>>The implication of the cartoon is that violent islamists are, well, violent terrorists or at least sympathetic to terrorists.

No, the implication of the cartoon is that all Muslims are violent terrorists or at least sympathetic to terrorists--indeed, that Muhammed himself, the founder of Islam, is a terrorist or inciter of terrorists. See the difference?

>>>> the fascist far right has 15% support.

Well, you vote for a party that vows to reduce the personal income tax rate from, say, 55% to 45% and there you are a right-wing fascist.

That quote wasn’t referring to the United States, Daniel. Nor do I recall that there were riots in Palestine over the cartoons, but you just go on muddying the waters.

Posted by on 02/08 at 06:24 PM
I believe in Free Speech. 100%. You and anyone else has the right to say virtually any dipshit thing you take it into your head to say, in cartoon form or otherwise, and in the West, that is your right, and God bless you.

However, i don’t have to agree with the things you say. I don’t have to agree that it was smart to say it. I don’t have to participate in your stupid, insensitive, inflammatory, wrong-headed speech act. No one is saying that newspapers shouldn’t be *allowed* to print these cartoons. Just that it wasn’t a very good idea to have done so.

Posted by Zenji on 02/08 at 06:48 PM
Okay, so now I’m roped in with holocaust deniers

Just deflecting attention from them, for reasons that (fortunately) elude me.

There’s a particularly sharp essay on the Mohammed cartoons controversy at OpenDemocracy—that is, right here.

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 07:09 PM
Jensen has a response to DaHo today for being included in the great book. I am guessing that DaHo is hoping against all hope that the book becomes some prof’s required reading down the road, evidencing a period of time when truthiness forced facts to capitulate.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Jensen07.htm

Posted by on 02/08 at 07:34 PM
Michael,

The essay from OpenDemocracy is the lamest I have yet read on the matter. Did you reason with it at all?

>>I may have the right to throw away a cigarette near a pile of leaky petrol drums, but I will probably choose not to do so, and will be held criminally responsible for a conflagration. Publishing insulting cartoons of Mohammed at a moment haunted by suicide-bombings, fanatical murder and American-led war or threats of war in Muslim countries was an act of that kind.

A lefty showing his true impulse; makes a moral equivalence between arson and speech. There you have it people what more do you need to know. This lefty would criminalize speech, all for your own good, of course. Oooh, if it weren’t for those horrible right-wingers.

>>Jyllands-Posten suggests that its main concern has been for freedom and democracy. I doubt that. It has certainly damaged both of them.

Sounds like you are blaming the victim her. “Hey, the bitch deserved the beating.”

>>Millions of peaceful Muslims, small farmers in Sumatra or Bengali waiters in European cities, are now inclined to listen more respectfully to those who tell them that the west and its leaders intend to exterminate Islam by slander and humiliation as preludes to war.

Again, it was a cartoon. A cartoon. Are these muslim small farmers and waiters that fucking stupid, or does Ascherson have such contempt for their sense of humane civility?

>>Millions of Europeans, reading posters …. are reluctantly wondering if any compromise is possible between democracy and the religious dogmatism of a minority

Well, there isn’t any compromise between democracy and religious dogmatism of a minority. None. We don’t yield an inch.

>>The fatal element was the insistence of the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen,… He brushed the protests from Danish Muslims aside. He then refused to receive the ambassadors of Islamic nations, who were demanding the prosecution of the newspaper.

It would be more fitting and just if Rasmussne apologized to the Danish people for a rainy and cool August than to even spend 2 minutes worrying over what a free, independent newspaper published or did not publish. What is it about free, unfettered, expression that muslims, Ascherson and lefties don’t get?

>>Late last year, a delegation of Danish imams, variously described as “extremist” or “conservative”, left for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with a portfolio of “blasphemous” Danish cartoons, including some pornographic images which nobody in Denmark could remember seeing.

Nobody could remember seeing them because they were not published in the newspaper (though, maybe they should have been published in some newspaper. One of the pictures had an image of a pig screwing the so-called prophet muhammed . Where are you Al Godstein?). The shifty imans made these salacious images up themselves and tried to pin them on the Danes.

>>More diplomatic protests were ignored in Copenhagen
Sigh……

>>Was this a genuine moral contest between free expression in democratic societies and Islamic intolerance?
That is exactly what it is.

>>These were intolerable slogans, especially in Britain where – astonishingly – not one single newspaper has so far republished the cartoons

Like their Anglophone brethren across the ocean they are justifiably concerned for the physical safety of their employees or they are moral cowards.

>>But is this anxiety really about Islam, its dislike of criticism or resistance to Enlightenment liberalism? Or is it, at root, no more than the hostility of a tightly-knit community to strangers who have arrived to share the family home

There have been waves of immigration flowing over western and northern Europe for the better part of the 20th century. First we had greeks, spaniards, portugese, russians, jews, outlanders from the receding colonial empires, none of whom were the cause of concern by the host countries. These immigrants blended in and became one with the hosts. The singular problem is with muslims, muslims of many different races and nationalities, their inability and/or reluctance to assimilate into the host society. It’s a fact. Only the muslim cannot integrate. Maybe you don’t have a problem with that, but 10’s of millions, 100s of millions of Europeans do.

>>Anyone who can read knows that portrayals of the prophet, even without insult, are profoundly upsetting to pious Muslims who are not necessarily at all “extreme” or “Jihadist”.
Who gives a flying f**K. He’s not my prophet, just another desert bandit to me.

>>But in both countries it’s argued, paradoxically, that anti-immigrant policies are actually a defence of tolerance. Islam is presented as inherently intolerant, and therefore incompatible with Dutch or Danish values.

The only sensible thing he wrote in the essay. Good night

Posted by on 02/08 at 08:00 PM
But back to the lovely professor Butz (snicker). I see that he is an electrical engineering associate professor. How lovely for the young engineers-in-training! And I bet his colleagues just love him in the break room! I wonder if D’ho is investigating whether he indoctrinates his students.

Captcha word: taken

Posted by on 02/08 at 09:45 PM
"Case in point: you’re dismissing Daniel’s valid question, and trying to undermine his point.”

Well, “F**k me Freddie!” as a Stephen King character is fond of saying.

The next time I open up my big mouth accuse Michael Berube of dismissing someone’s “valid questions,” or of dismissing their points, just reach through the computer screen and strangle me.

Posted by on 02/08 at 09:50 PM
Good night

The first sensible thing you’ve written, Daniel. Good night to you too. Because when you find yourself writing things like

First we had greeks, spaniards, portugese, russians, jews, outlanders from the receding colonial empires, none of whom were the cause of concern by the host countries.

-- you know you’re up way past your bedtime.

As for me, I’m going to stay up late with my friends from the Dartmouth Review and run an issue that features a picture of a lynching over the caption “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” or something like that. Who gives a flying f**k? Free, unfettered speech uber alles, you know.

And yes, Ascherson was indeed implying that the pornographic images were fabricated by the imams. I don’t want to make any untoward insinuations about your reading comprehension or anything, but that one was pretty clear.

Sleep tight.

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 10:21 PM
yeah, I had Michael Levin for my philosophy professor as an undergrad at CCNY - “The Rational Animal” - a required course. Basically intro to philosophy. Among other things that summer, he attempted to convince our (mostly black, working class) class that:

there is no such thing as sexism;
homeless people are homeless because
they’re lazy;
racial profiling is a good idea; and
America is the RICHEST and the BEST
country in the world (his exact words and
his emphasis on this last item).

Well then.

All in all, it was an excellent class, because it forced me to flesh out and articulate my own beliefs (and the justifications and practical applications of them) to a much greater degree than I’d ever done before. After a few initial classes of furious sputtering and pointless rambling, I began to come to class prepared for battle. I think the only valuable lesson Levin taught me was the value of always being prepared to present and defend my point of view. I believe he saw me as intelligent but sadly misguided. My opinion of him was not so kind.

Posted by on 02/08 at 10:31 PM
After a few initial classes of furious sputtering and pointless rambling, I began to come to class prepared for battle. I think the only valuable lesson Levin taught me was the value of always being prepared to present and defend my point of view.

Of course, there’s a sound practical/ pedagogical rationale for that, Sarita, and I’m sure it was an excellent class. More than this, I’m glad to hear you’re battle-hardened, to abuse an oft-abused phrase. But I imagine that it must have been something of a psychic drain for some black, working-class students to come to class with the knowledge that they had to defend not only their own “point of view” (every student should expect as much) but their very right to be in the class (which seems to have been implicitly challenged by Levin’s beliefs about race, class, and criminality).

Thanks for your comment—and your perseverance.

Posted by Michael on 02/08 at 11:46 PM
Oh, and just to keep the pot bubbling -

A professor bites back - Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:37 PM
Print this entry
Email to a Friend
Send to a friend
Send a comment to David

Is it typical for professors of literature to “review” books based on fund-raising literature? Apparently it is if they’re progressive. Michael Berube—one of the professors profiled in my new book—has written a lengthy blog about the book but using a fund-raising letter the Center sent out as a text. This leads Berube to attack the inclusion of Robert Reich among the profiles. But Robert Reich is not included among the profiles—this was a mistake made by author of the fund-raising letter. On the basis of another leftists “review” on Amazon, Berube thinks the book is “apparently just a bunch of reprints of David’s DiscoverTheNetworks pages. Sorry Michael it’s not. Berube’s blog also notes that Professor Ron Karenga is included (and he is) and is described as a “torturer and the inventor of Kwanzaa” which he is. Berube’s retort: “most of David’s readership thinks torture is just fine.” Thanks Michael for justifying your inclusion in a book about what’s wrong with the university.

Of course the fact he is only reading a fund-raising letter (avoiding therein the stress of reading a 112,000 word book) doesn’t prevent Berube from prouncing The Professors an “outrage.” I consider that an medal of honor Michael. Now why don’t you try actually reading the book Herr literature professor and writing a real response. If you have intellectual fortitude to do this, I’ll post it and answer you.

PS: The book is only a stressful read for radicals; for the others it’s a gas.
Sign Up Today and Have Every Horowitz Blog Dropped Into Your Email So That You Don’t Miss One!

Posted by Chris B on 02/08 at 11:46 PM
Berube’s retort: “most of David’s readership thinks torture is just fine.” Thanks Michael for justifying your inclusion in a book about what’s wrong with the university.

Holy Jesus. He has developed the power to selectively quote from texts that are about his propensity to quote selectively. It’s like meta-cherry-picking. Next he’ll be quoting you as saying: “when I have my pruning knife… I’ve...jeopardized the life of another human being....I’m that dangerous.”

Mercy.

Posted by on 02/09 at 01:23 AM
Meta-cherry-picking is a time honored tradition in some circles, and comes highly recommended for vilifying anyone, no matter what their race, creed or gender.

Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman on 02/09 at 01:36 AM
Daniel says,
“The singular problem is with muslims, muslims of many different races and nationalities, their inability and/or reluctance to assimilate into the host society. It’s a fact. Only the muslim cannot integrate. Maybe you don’t have a problem with that, but 10’s of millions, 100s of millions of Europeans do.”

The above is real stereotypic nonsense and ignorance. The West got a lot of basic scientific information and Ancient Greek books from the Muslims.

First Daniel insults Muslim’s ability to asimilate in the West and then he calls Muhumammed “another desert bandit.” You’re really Mr. Tough Guy, aren’t you. You certain know how to use your free speech to be rude, insulting and spew ignorance.

Yeah, the Danish newspapaer had a right to free speech. But if they use the right to be really offesnive--as they did--then people have every right to peacefully protest--as the huge majority of Muslims have.

Posted by on 02/09 at 01:37 AM
umm...let me just clarify. I guess sarcasm wasn’t a good idea for my first post to this blog. It wasn’t really an excellent class - it was horrifying! It was totally frightening to listen to this man deliver these complete lies to a group of people who, for the most part, had nothing to say in response. Of course, it must have been extremely degrading to my black and hispanic classmates to hear this insulting drivel coming from a dude who’s getting paid to teach them philosophy. Being one of the few white people in the class as well as one of the few people to ever challenge him was part of what made the class so difficult to be in. I couldn’t understand why the people who were so much more the targets of Levin’s attitudes stayed silent.

Anyway, just wanted to clear that up. The (only) way in which Levin’s class really was excellent was, as I said before, that it forced me to clarify my own beliefs. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Posted by on 02/09 at 07:34 AM
Thanks again, Sarita. Levin does indeed sound horrifying, but yeah—I didn’t get the “excellent” bit the first time around. Glad you came back to clarify.

Posted by Michael on 02/09 at 08:50 AM
Daniel, i have to say, you are right about one thing: In a western country, freedom of speech does trump religious sensibilities.

American Christians had to put up with the Piss Christ and the Dung Madonna, and they didn’t like it one bit, but they had to put up with it, because in the West, that’s how we do things. Even the religious sensitivities of a majority don’t trump constitutionaly guaranteed free speech.

but your whole attitude towards the Muslims reeks of conservative cultural chauvinism, agressive disregard for the sensibilities of others, and a total, typically conservative lack of empathy or understanding.

when it is YOUR values that are being shit on in a cartoon ("a cartoon! are [they] really that stupid?” as if a cartoon cannot offend by its nature, a patently ridiculous notion) or other medium, oh then you, or your ilk, are up in arms and aghast. For example, the republican party regularly sponsers anti-flag burning amendments, and the right wing does get up in arms about a piss christ ("a piece of wood in a tank of urine! A piece of wood!” to paraphrase) or similar thing.

But when someone else has offended sensibilities it is all “We don’t yield an inch” and “Who gives a flying f**K. He’s not my prophet”.

No serious liberal is saying that we should outlaw this form of speech. The article in question explicitly states “Freedom of expression has to be fought for and defended, in every European generation”, a far cry from your characterization of the speaker’s position, which was “This lefty would criminalize speech”. Again, typical of a right winger to set up a straw man.

Your point is taken: free speech trumps religious sensibilities in a western nation.

How about the true liberal point, then: Respect for others is an important part of getting along in a heterogenous, civil society?

Posted by Zenji on 02/09 at 10:40 AM
Daniel

See, you say this:
Nobody has a problem with protests (take a cue for Catholic septugenarians). We have a problem with embassy burnings, severed heads, suicide bombs and assaultive threat.
... and then you go on to talk about “muslim rioting” and how “muslim small farmers and waiters” who are offended by the cartoon are “fucking stupid.” And how “the Palestinians figured out (correctly) that Norway and Denmark would never sign onto an agreement that means the extermination of Israel so they had just said ef’m.” And on and on…

The implication of the cartoon is that violent islamists are, well, violent terrorists or at least sympathetic to terrorists.

So Muslims who respect Muhammed are necessarily violent islamists? This is supposed to dispute my point?

Events of the past 2 weeks have vindicated the opinion of the cartoonists entirely. If the moderate muslim wishes to distance himself from violent islamists, let him do so, loudly, visibly and consistently.

It’s a pretty little recipe.
(1)Insult a group of people.
(2)Predictably, some react violently.
(3)Demand that each and every member of the group distance himself “loudly, visibly, and consistently” from the violence, because otherwise it’s proof that they’re all violent, and the insult was justified.
Congratulations! You’ve now created your new justification for “you’re with us or against us,” now’s the time to pick a side, “extremism” or “Enlightenment values,” here’s a “clash of civilizations"… which is in turn is your apology for imperialism. Sanctions on Iran!

Your argumentative strategy seems to be: “Hmmm. they really got us on this; what, with torching embassies, riotous assault, chilling imprecations… I got it! The race card. Accuse the white man of racism and he’ll scurry back into his cozy insecure, emotional hole, works all the time”. Is that it? Won’t work this time.

Yeah. This time, the white man is going to bravely stand up to those other people and their threatening… *duh duh duh* POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! He’ll show them, by God!

Posted by on 02/09 at 12:09 PM
The rolling over has begun

Dihminni watch

EU mulls media code after cartoon protests
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_eu_dc

>>Frattini, a former Italian foreign minister, said millions of Muslims in Europe felt “humiliated” by the cartoons.His proposed voluntary code would urge the media to respect all religious sensibilities but would not offer privileged status to any one faith

Poor little Mehmet, he feels “humiliated”.

For those who are interested, you can pick up a blasphemous anti-muhammed baseball cap from this website. It looks pretty cool. I just orded mine
Put your heart where your head is. Wear your defiance of the mulim terrorsts and their lefty and neo-con enablers.

http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639037

iFraud Islam Muslim Baseball Cap Hat
$15.99
iFraud Muslim (Prophet Muhammed). iPod® Ad Spoof with an Irreligious Twist! This anti-islam, blasphemous message is clear: Muhammed was full of it. Qur’an (Koran) & praying hands accentuated in white.

Posted by on 02/09 at 02:33 PM
“I tend to believe that all these people deserve each other—with the proviso that I think Christian fundamentalist jihadists are, for now, less violent and socially corrosive than their Islamic fundamentalist jihadist brethren, whose forms of protest I do not endorse.”

Really?

You sure about that?

Absolutely positive?

You know how the song goes, “Some rob you with a six-gun, some rob you with a fountain pen"--?

It works with “kill”, too.

Posted by bellatrys on 02/09 at 03:19 PM
I’m sure Daniel doesn’t think there was anything wrong with someone posting this during the Neronian Persecutions, either.

O wait, I forgot, Daniel’s a conservative, which means he has no ethical principles, just ad hoc tribalism and sophistry.

Posted by bellatrys on 02/09 at 03:26 PM
This anti-islam, blasphemous message is clear: Muhammed was full of it

And there you have it folks, conservatard diplomacy in action! Why, with this kind of effort to see eye to eye with our opponents, we’ll have peace and stability in no time!

Hey, what’s the big deal? It’s just a deeply offensive insult to their most sacred precepts, the foundation of thier culture, right? F*ck ‘em if they can’t take a joke! Besides, it isn’t *MY* prophet! HAHAHAHAHA.

*sigh*.

Posted by Zenji on 02/09 at 03:43 PM
Bellatrys,

I have no problem with anti-Christian grafitti or polemic, its feeding-to-the lions, decapitations, burning-at-the-stake, strangulation, etc.. against Christians or anyone, for that matter, that I have a problem with. You see the difference polemic vs. violence? There is an important distinction.

Zenji,

I don’t know for sure but I will bet that the people who run and own cafe press are blue state Gore, Kerry, Berube supporters all the way.

Posted by on 02/09 at 04:08 PM
There’s a nice “I [Roman Lion] Xians” hat for you too, then, Daniel. It’s not actually feeding you to the lions, it’s just wishing, desperately, that you’d find yourself in a large arena, dying at the hand of an angry lion in front of tens of thousands of cheering onlookers. See the difference, polemic vs. violence? I don’t own a lion.

All kidding aside, how does an annoying right-wing troll like Daniel totally dominate a comments forum conversation by changing the subject to deflect attention from dangerous right-wing professors?

Posted by Chris on 02/09 at 04:34 PM
>>All kidding aside, how does an annoying right-wing troll like Daniel totally dominate a comments forum conversation by changing the subject to deflect attention from dangerous right-wing professors?

Yikes, you are right. I have work to do. Bye.

Posted by on 02/09 at 04:49 PM
Here’s an important article that was posted to one of my school list servs (an Islamic Law students’ list, not that I happen to be Islamic or a law student). But they’re looking for people to help get this message into the Muslim presses, so if anyone can help publicize this message, please feel free to circulate it and spread the word.

Thought you all might be interested in reading this…

-----

Dear Friends,

The following Op-Ed piece is published in this week’s Jewish Week
(http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=4825). If
any of you have ideas for how to get this into the Muslim press please
let’s talk. It makes me proud as a Jew that Jewish Week, the largest
Jewish newspaper in America, published this article reaching out to
Muslims. It would be good to deliver the message in the Muslim press
so that they hear our message.

Regards,
Ed Miller

Posted by on 02/09 at 08:15 PM
I will bet that the people who run and own cafe press are blue state Gore, Kerry, Berube supporters all the way.

Hey, this makes me the presumptive nominee for 2008! Move over, Tom Vilsack, I’m-a comin’ after you.

Posted by Michael on 02/09 at 10:47 PM
of course, the political leanings of the people who run cafe press are completely irrelevant. There is no way that they monitor all their customers’ postings for political correctness, and even if they did, i said i agreed with you about freedom of speech, and they undoubtedly do too. The person i blame is the person who DESIGNED AND RUNS THE CAFEPRESS STORE THAT ACTUALLY SELLS the offensive paraphanalia, not the people who designed and sell the cafepress service...oh, and i blame you too for posting it as worthy of approval. But that’s a separate issue.

Posted by Zenji on 02/10 at 12:25 PM

Next entry: Why disability studies entails the study of everything else

Previous entry: Gonzales explains "electronic surveillance" remarks

<< Back to main

Two completely unrelated things

About Michael Bérubé

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries

Syndicate