Good post that added value to the discussion. I agreee with your final point. We all need to have a deeper and broader discussion of our support for Israel. This book could be a good starting point. I hope Bob will follow up with a variety of educated opinions on this topic.

thprop: [NB: Thanks to thprop for correcting me -- I had said "Walt" instead of "John" in the original posting of this comment. I have edited this post to address that error.]

Ultimately disappointing. I don’t think Bruce Feiler was the man for this job. His style of personal narrative just kept getting in the way.

I agree. Two other complaints: First, I thought he interrupted too much (although John deserves some blame for not insisting that he be allowed to finish some of his points). Second, I found his style of asking questions more of an interrogation than an interview -- he often did not acknowledge answers and frequently seemed to jump to unrelated topics without any sort of conversational transitions.

... small points that irked him – like stating foreign aid on per capita amounts rather than in total dollars.

I take your larger point, but on this specific example, I disagree. I haven't read the book, but from the way it was described in this diavlog, it did sound like Bruce had a legitimate complaint that John was using a little statistical sleight of hand. I did not find John's response to this particular criticism adequate. I also agreed with Bruce's point that a lack of charts in what purports to be an academic book is off-putting. You can spin the data all you want, but you have to show

Quoting bjkeefe: thprop:
.... First, I thought he interrupted too much (although Walt deserves some blame for not insisting that he be allowed to finish some of his points).

...that Walt was using a little statistical sleight of hand. I did not find Walt's response to this particular criticism adequate.

... Walt's book, especially in this country, and that this is a conversation that we should be having.

The person in the diavlog was John Mearsheimer - not his co-author Stephen Walt. Mearsheimer is an academic - he engages in academic debate not the personal narrative that Feiler spins. If you read the book, there is no statistical sleight of hand. Mearsheimer and Walt go in depth about all the aid Israel has received from the US over the years - $154 billion. They go over the economic aid for about ten pages in the beginning of chapter 1 - The Great Benefactor. One paragraph (page 26) states annual aid to Israel in per capita terms - and compares it to not only Egypt but also to Haiti and Pakistan. There is no sleight of hand. I am not sure what charts Feiler wanted. You could do even more sleight of hand with

thprop:

The person in the diavlog was John Mearsheimer - not his co-author Stephen Walt.

My bad, and thanks for correcting me. I will update my post to reflect this. I somehow got it in my head that his name was "Walt Mearsheimer," which I think is a name from somewhere in the annals of sports, although I've lost patience trying to verify this by sifting through Google results. I can't respond adequately to the rest of your post, about how the data were presented in the book, since, as I said, I haven't yet read it. All I can say is that Bruce's criticisms sounded valid and John's defense sounded weak. I'll keep your argument in mind, though.

Mersheimer, who admits that he is without religion since childhood, overlooks the essential nature of Islam. Go ahead, tell me all about the educated Muslims who want the same things that we do, modernity, freedom, personal fulfillment. The problem is that none of this is consistent with the Islam of the Qur'an. Go ahead, dismiss the Qur'an as a book of fables, just like the Bible. Muslims believe that it is the literal Words of Allah. It is not a "personal" religion like evangelical Christianity. It is a "way of life" affecting every aspect of living. Hitler himself, in his after dinner conversations, lamented that Europe developed without Islam, which he called a "fighting faith," rather than Christianity, which he regarded as a "religion of weaklings." The conflict with the West has always been there. Islam initially expanded by the sword and came within a turk's whisker of conquering Europe at Tours and later at Vienna. Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates? The West became powerful and colonized the Arab World. Even 100 years ago, when the Islamic World was weak, Churchill warned us about it. Now, the Arab World has a torrent of Western oil money to finance a renewal of

jm: Why don't you create a web page somewhere, call it "My usual anti-Islam rant," and just make your sig link to that page. This would save everybody a lot of time.

I do not understand the nature of your complaint. Are you saying that my so-called rant about Islam is untrue? That should make is easy for you or Mersheimer to point out where I have misunderstood the faith. If I am accurately reporting on Islam, are you just not wanting to hear about it? Does that better equip you to confront reality? I called you "inimitable," but now I am not so sure -- if you are avoiding reality.

jm:

I do not understand the nature of your complaint. Are you saying that my so-called rant about Islam is untrue?

No. The validity of your rant is something I've disputed in other places, but what I'm saying here is that you've posted essentially the identical rant about fifty times already, counting the old forums and the new. Is it really necessary to keep repeating the same thing?

I just want to point out that here in Texas many, many Christians believe the Bible is literally the word of God. I try not to hold this against all Christians.

What does the Bible have to say about Islam? Nothing that I have said (sorry to Bjkeefe for all the boring repetition) has anything to do with Bible prophecy. It has only to do with what I have read from Islamic sources. Mrs. Bhutto, in Ayman al-Zawahiri's view, was a "hypocrite" Muslim who could be killed. She was also a disobediant female, who rejected her proper "place" in Islamic society and adopted infidel ways, such as "democracy," or man-made law, no matter how corrupt. Message to Bjkeefe: to paraphase Trotsky, "You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in YOU." Sorry for all the repetition, but sometimes repetition is necessary to get through to slow students.

jm:

Sorry for all the repetition, but sometimes repetition is necessary to get through to slow students.

"Students" implies a group of people who voluntarily attend. It's a more accurate metaphor to think of this forum as a subway car, featuring one crank who is stuck on infinite replay. Some passengers might agree, most don't, and all are getting sick of hearing it.

I find much to object to in this diavlog. I thought Feiler was completely out of a useful element here. Too much attention to ornate and mannered discourse, too much repetition, and an insufficient base to engage Mearshimer on his home ground. I will engage Mearsheimer only on the matter of European anti-semitism. To say there is no such thing, or to downplay it's significance on the ground in the way he did was beyond belief. There is abundant polling evidence and in analyses of incidents of hate crimes to make his position just about beyond belief. He is either a liar or an ignorant fool on this matter.

jazzyd:

I thought Feiler was completely out of a useful element here. Too much attention to ornate and mannered discourse ...

A better way to put it: he talked too fucking much.

I will engage Mearsheimer only on the matter of European anti-semitism. To say there is no such thing, or to downplay it's significance on the ground in the way he did was beyond belief.

Yeah, that one rang false to me, too.

My compliments to you, from one crank to another, especially one who is so unwise as to believe that there is nothing bigger than himself. You have not disputed a single thing that I have to say, only the way that I have said it or the fact that I have said it, in a sense, within your hearing or that I have said it too often. Keep hoping that everyone, even the Islamists, shares your philosophical predilections. You can debate fine philosophical points while the house is burning down around us, and if anyone mentions it, you can call him names or blame Fox News.

I find Mr. Feiler likable and engaging and thought his idea of engaging Mr. Mearsheimer through his "personal narrative" was a good idea although it didn't work out as well as I hoped, to a great extent because Mr. Mearsheimer didn't seem to buy into the idea completely. These diavlogs where they are interviewing someone about their book pose an interesting problem. On the one hand, I think it is interesting and valuable to have the questioner raise points of disagreement and to bring up quibbles that are as specific as possible (like the statistical thing). On the other hand, this can go off the rails and not allow the author the opportunity to focus on what the author really cares about and therefore let the viewer who hasn't read the book get a good handle on what the book is actually saying (See Ms. McArdle's slavery diavlog for the quintessential example of this but as I said its a common problem). I haven't read the Walt/ Mearsheimer book yet so I can't say whether the essential argument and evidences of the book were communicated, but I kinda feel like they

Yeah Brendan, plus this particular crank has adopted the brilliant debating technique of using the fact that most people ignore his rant as evidence of the invincibility of his argumentary prowess. The crank on the train keeps shouting, "I've been shouting at you guys this whole ride and no one has challenged my "argument" so it must be correct!" Ya gotta at least admire his persistence. If us Muslims had the persistence of jm, we would have the world domination thing taken care of already. Sadly, most of us are just regular human beings as much as you may wish to deny it. I think I've asked you this before, jm, but I wonder, do you know any actual Muslims? I mean, like in real life?

Quoting bjkeefe: jm:

"Students" implies a group of people who voluntarily attend. It's a more accurate metaphor to think of this forum as a subway car, featuring one crank who is stuck on infinite replay. Some passengers might agree, most don't, and all are getting sick of hearing it.

Yeah, I find the chart fetish to be a bit bizarre. Since when did charts become the sine qua non of reasoned argument? Do you guys think that Ross Perot and David Petraeus are the most brilliant thinkers of our time because they use(d) a lot of charts.

Quoting bjkeefe: jm:

Why don't you create a web page somewhere, call it "My usual anti-Islam rant," and just make your sig link to that page. This would save everybody a lot of time.

Brendan, He could save himself the time of creating such a page by just linking to lgf, frontpage mag, etc. you know, all the sources that have "taught" him so much about the "true nature" of Islam.

I have not read the book and am not well versed on the subject. Nevertheless, I think Bruce was "over his head" as the one to interview the author Mearsheimer. Ideally, someone like Alan Dershowitz or even the author I have seen on this site before, Gershom (I can't remember his last name) would have been better interviewers than Bruce was. At the end of the interview when the author was hammering home his point of view in a forceful, eloquent manner Mr. Feiler was noticablly silent as opposed to his constant interrupting that was his M.O. during the rest of the diavlog.

jm: Before we get started, are you ever going to learn how to reply in the proper sub-thread?

My compliments to you ... one who is so unwise as to believe that there is nothing bigger than himself.

I hardly think that nothing is bigger than myself. I don't understand why you have this impression of me, merely because I asked you to stop repeating the same rant. I don't think it is egotistical for me to have augmented this request with the idea that my opinion is hardly unique among readers of this forum.

You have not disputed a single thing that I have to say ...

In fact, I have. Too bad the old forums aren't available, or I'd give you direct links. I tried, several times, to address your thesis in a reasoned manner, but you didn't want to hear it. As I recall, you didn't really respond well -- you basically dodged any points I raised and just restated your apocalyptic fears. The same thing happened when other commenters replied to you. Since then, you have posted the same thesis over and over again. My recent tendency to ridicule you comes from the increasingly faint hope that you retain

Abu Noor: Sadly true. However, it assumes he has it together enough to construct a link.

Rather it was an interrogation. Quite a limp one.
Wherever the inquisitor was shot down in flames he ignored his own embarrassment and clanked verbosely (oh sooo verbosely) forward.
Capped off by the usual BhTV inappropriate smirkfest.(yawn)
I'm going back to watch Bob's BDS meltdown again. (It tickles.)

I am sincerely hoping he reponds with, "Some of my best friends are Muslims."

I assume that you are a Muslim or at least grew up in a Muslim home. What have I said that is wrong? If what I say is wrong, point out one thing that is mistaken, not just that with which you do not agree. I feel as though I have crashed a little community of Leftists at Bloggingheads.tv who were very happy to limit the "debates" to those between liberals and leftists. Instead of engaging what I say, you have either ignored it, riduculed it, or said that I repeat myself too often (a clever way to avoid answering the questions). I won't repeat my "rant" again. I will just ask you as a Muslim whether my choices, according to the Qur'an and as in infidel, are either conversion, dhimmitude, or death. Do you accept Qur'an 9:5?

Quoting jmcnulty: I won't repeat my "rant" again.

Noted and bookmarked. We'll see how long this promise lasts.

I have to agree. Feiler spent so much time talking without addressing the main point of the book and attendant controversy that despite the length of the dialog, it seemed like not that much of substance was said. Certainly not much in depth regarding what I gather is the central thesis: that a particular interest group has sufficient influence so as to affect US government action in a way detremental to US interests overall. Given the centrality of that part of the world to current US attention, application of resources, and concern or hysteria depending on your view, I would have appreciated something more informative. Feiler's approach seemed particularly odd given that he claimed to have spent the last week immersing himself in the book and related research. One would have expected this to result in more than quibbling over who should or shouldn't be considered as part of "the lobby", or the absence of graphics. Shades of "if you're a real scientist, why aren't wearing a white lab coat?" in the latter case. As noted in previous comments the expressed outrage over considering foreign aid in the context of population

Quoting jmcnulty: Muslims believe that it is the literal Words of Allah.

Muslim fundamentalists, you mean. No one is going to change your mind about anything, but I would ask how many actual Muslims you've ever known in your life. I've known thousands, with hundreds as friends. And your description of them bears absolutely no relation to reality. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Will this matter to you in the least? No, it will not.

Quoting jmcnulty: Hitler himself, in his after dinner conversations, lamented that Europe developed without Islam, which he called a "fighting faith," rather than Christianity, which he regarded as a "religion of weaklings."

I love how you quote Hitler as if that is supposed to be persausive. Tell me, MCNulty, what did Hitler think of the Jews? What other brilliant Hitlerian insights can you share with us? I love the "in his after dinner conversations." Did you just make that up for flair, or do you have a source indicating that Hitler's lunatic ravings about Islam were limited to "after dinner conversations"?

Quoting ohcomeon: I just want to point out that here in Texas many, many Christians believe the Bible is literally the word of God. I try not to hold this against all Christians.

Exactly. McNulty doesn't understand the concept of fundamentalism. This is the root of his embarrassing ignorance.

Read the book by Hitler's secretary, Trudl Junge, who only recently died, about his after dinner conversations before the war in Bavaria. Also read Joseph Goebbels' diaries for Hitler's views on Islam and Christianity. I don't cite Hitler for authority, it's just something he said. My questions to Abu Noor Al-Irlandee remain unanswered. Surely his knowledge of the Qur'an can be shown to be superior to mine. Message to TwinSwords, who said, "I would ask how many actual Muslims you've ever known in your life. I've known thousands, with hundreds as friends." Whew, for a moment there I thought you were going to say that some of your best friends are Muslims. Wait a minute, I think you did.

Quoting jmcnulty: Message to TwinSwords, who said, "I would ask how many actual Muslims you've ever known in your life. I've known thousands, with hundreds as friends." Whew, for a moment there I thought you were going to say that some of your best friends are Muslims. Wait a minute, I think you did.

And therefore what?

Hey, McNulty, Question for you: Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? How about Hannity, O'Reilly, or other talk show hosts?

I wonder what the point of that question is? I have not listened to either "O'Reilly" or "Hannity & Colmes" in years. I have heard Rush on the radio occasionally. So what? I wish that I was as funny as his parodies. Guilt by association? Isn't there a name for that -- McCarthyism? I wonder when Ann Coulter will be brought up? Have you ever read "Daily Kos" or "Fire Dog Lake"? I have not tried to imply that your arguments are without merit because the same argument might have been made on a contentious Left blog. That's what I love about liberals -- their tolerance and appreciation of contrary ideas. My questions about Islam still remain unanswered. I have never said that individual Muslim are difficult; only that Islam, if you examine it, is. There are "moderate" Muslims, but no "moderate" Islam.

jmcnulty, I find your rants hard to respond to because you make many claims, each of which would require context as well as an agreement on definitions in order for me to label as true or false. As far as I can tell, the underlying message you seem to feel you need to urgently communicate to the world is that people should be afraid of Islam, and therefore Muslims. It is this major message which I believe to be utterly false and if you knew some Muslims (I'm still unclear on your answer to that) I think you would understand why this is false. In this last post, you seem to try to make some distinction between Muslims and Islam, but I thought one of your major points is that "all" Muslims believe this or that... For me as a Muslim I can understand why I believe there is certain things that are truly Islam or not Islam...for you to make the same claim against Muslims who are disagreeing with you about what Islam is...I don't really see on what basis you can do so. As I've told you before I welcome

jmcnulty, Is there a moderate Christianity? Is there a moderate Judaism? What if, as Mr. Feiler refers to in this diavlog the religious authorities in Israel have certain beliefs about what Judaism is that are not "moderate" and that the majority of Jews in America disagree with. These religious authorities believe that the beliefs of these "moderate" Jews is not true Judaism. Why are they wrong, but when it comes to Islam, if I claim that a moderate Muslim's beliefs are not "true Islam" you would agree with me. What if someone said John Kerry is not a "true" Catholic? Do you accept that? Let me just say, jmcnulty, I am not what you or most of the people on these comment boards would consider a "moderate" Muslim. In fact, I've self described myself previously as an Islamist. Does this mean that many people on this board who are atheists or who are leftists or liberals may disagree about some things with me? Definitely. Does it mean that any of them need to be afraid of me? I don't think so.

jmcnulty, Although you've shown no willingness in the past to actually read other resources I've referred you to, your persistence in asking questions as if you really do want to learn inspires me to continue trying to point you towards knowledge. For an answer to some of your concerns that comes from an American Muslim scholar trained in traditional Islamic scholarship and an upholder of mainstream orthodox belief, you can check out "Jihad is not Perpetual Warfare" by Imam Zaid Shakir (May God preserve him) here: http://www.zaytuna.org/seasonsjourna...%20Warfare.pdf

Bruce raised a minor stink re: M&W equating US aid to Israel and other ME countries on a per capita basis. Big deal. Egypt and Jordan need US aid. And the US would be adversely affected if the governments of either of those countries were toppled. Israel on the other hand could easily manage without American handouts. -Steve

M&W focus on the IL's control of US foreign policy. Its control there is significant, but maybe it is the main stream media where the Lobby has its most influence. Have any of the presidential candidates been asked their position on the US backing of the occupationist entity? Even the established bloggers are silent on the subject. -Steve

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Yeah Brendan, plus this particular crank has adopted the brilliant debating technique of using the fact that most people ignore his rant as evidence of the invincibility of his argumentary prowess. The crank on the train keeps shouting, "I've been shouting at you guys this whole ride and no one has challenged my "argument" so it must be correct!"

Ya gotta at least admire his persistence. If us Muslims had the persistence of jm, we would have the world domination thing taken care of already. Sadly, most of us are just regular human beings as much as you may wish to deny it.

I think I've asked you this before, jm, but I wonder, do you know any actual Muslims? I mean, like in real life?

in the northern NJ area in which I work there are large Muslim communities. I have worked at different companies the last few years, meeting people from all over the world. So far not a muslim in sight. It is a little bit troubling. Are muslims integrating into American society to a greater extent than is apparent to me? -Steve

Quoting DenvilleSteve: in the northern NJ area in which I work there are large Muslim communities. I have worked at different companies the last few years, meeting people from all over the world. So far not a muslim in sight. It is a little bit troubling. Are muslims integrating into American society to a greater extent than is apparent to me?

-Steve

Yes, they are. As a lifelong resident of Dearborn, Michigan, I can assure you that Muslims are integrated into American society precisely the same way as Italians, Irish, Germans, whatever. There are a couple of exceptions: (1) Newly immigrated Muslims.
(2) Since 9/11, there has been more white consciousness of the Muslim identity, and the increased right-wing hate speech towards Muslims has, to some extent, worked to de-integrate some Muslims. Please note the use of the qualifier "some" at the end of the preceeding sentence.
As one person said, there are exponentially more American Muslims serving in the US Army than have even been suspected of involvement in terrorism.

I think it would have been fun in a totally incendiary way if Marty Peretz or Charles Krauthammer had been the guy on the left here.

First of all, I've not read the book, and I have only read the original article twice on unrelated occasions when I had to field a few questions about the topic. I don't consider myself a ME specialist, or even enthusiast, but mostly just dabble. I'm an IR student who has read Mearsheimer and Walt often, and used them liberally in papers. I'm also more of an East Asia enthusiast. and I do get annoyed by how ME affairs distracts American foreign policy from East Asia. As an IR student, I'm confused by Mearsheimer's definition of the Israel lobby as a loose collection (not verbatim). My initial thought was that Mearxheimer and Walt (MW) would do a liberal analysis of how interest groups as organizational inputs correlate to policy outputs, especially with the lead-in about the Founding Fathers and interest-group lobbying. But, MW are realists, so I knew that wasn't in the cards. But, realists take states for rational actors for interests that precede human constituencies. realism works systemically, not on the state or individual level of analysis. So, I was confused by that entire part of M's defense and MW's article. Why talk about a lobby at all when interests suffice? After that, it didn't matter

Not that I think Brooks is a fount of wisdom, but this seemed to touch a nerve:

One of the best pieces of career advice I ever got is: Interview three people every day. If you try to write about politics without interviewing policy makers, you’ll wind up spewing all sorts of nonsense. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote an entire book on the Israel Lobby without ever interviewing any of their subjects.

[UPDATE] I removed the second paragraph of the quote after receiving appropriate chastising from Abu Noor.

Quoting Baltimoron: But, realists take states for rational actors for interests that precede human constituencies. realism works systemically, not on the state or individual level of analysis. So, I was confused by that entire part of M's defense and MW's article. Why talk about a lobby at all when interests suffice?

Because M&W are attempting to explain why the U.S. policy towards Israel/Palestine is so contrary to its interests and is un realism. The Lobby, as a loose coalition, is by definition going to be difficult to define and document. The US is damaging its interests, making its people, because of its policy of siding with the occupationist entity, the target of deadly attacks.. Why is it doing that? M&W assert it is the Israel Lobby, acting in its interests, overwhelming the interests of those in America who want to protect their country as a whole.

Quoting bjkeefe: Not that I think Brooks is a fount of wisdom, but this seemed to touch a nerve:

Brendan - It might be useful to actually read the book before commenting further. At least read the original article that started it all. M&W also responded to critics of the article. Anything that appears in The New Republic about Israel should be ignored. Marty Peretz is ardently pro-Israel and an anti-Arab racist. About Jimmy Carter, Peretz wrote in his blog: "That's how he will go down in history: as a Jew hater." Peretz later had that comment taken down but it is easy to find - it is one of the comments on Matt Yglesias' blog. Keep in mind what Eric Alterman says about him:
Trust me, I could go on. As the blogger Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, Peretz's blog is "basically a museum for every anti-Arab/Muslim stereotype and caricature that exists." Nevertheless, as the Prospect's Ezra Klein blogged, "Peretz is rarely held to account, largely because there's an odd, tacit understanding that he's a cartoonish character and everyone knows it." There has been a vastly different reception to M&W in Europe than in the US. From a BBC interview with them:
What

Quoting mvantony: Hey Steve, isn’t calling Israel an “entity”—which you do just like the pros, mind you—a bit too metaphysically committal? I mean, do we really want to grant "it" that much?

Israel was won on the battlefield. No rhetoricist can take that away.

thprop:

Brendan - It might be useful to actually read the book before commenting further.

A fair point. I stand rebuked. I did like Brooks's line, though, and while I was there I figured I'd grab the second paragraph.

At least read the original article that started it all.

That I did. I have to say that it didn't hold my attention, so I only remember having read it, and not the nuances of the argument. I completely agree with you about Marty Peretz. When he was still posting on TNR's blog called The Plank, he drove me away from the site. I think they ended up giving him his own blog, presumably because I wasn't the only one who reacted in this way.

I agree. Very disappointing. I suspect there are lots of grounds on which to criticize Mearsheimer, or at least get into an interesting discussion. Bruce Feiler was out of his depth. He didn't seem to know much about IR theory or about the realist school. He seemed interested in asking why the authors had not addressed such and such topic when, it turns out, that wasn't the point of the book. And when Mearsheimer pointed out, for instance, that this is not a book about Jewish identity or the founding of Israel, Feiler continued to pursue what he thought were interesting points regardless of their relevance. I was really hoping for a vigorous debate, and this was not it.

Brendan, I don't have a problem with you quoting from David Brooks, but Jeffrey Goldberg? You quote from him on this issue without even referencing his disgraceful role as media cheerleader for the Iraq war. Revisit Mr. Wright's dialogue on Slate with Mr. Goldberg before the Iraq war here: http://www.slate.com/id/2071670/ Mr. Wright had the stronger argument at the time, but man does Mr. Goldberg and his ilk look all the more despicable and wrong now that we have the benefit of knowing what happened.

Abu Noor: I must admit I don't know anything about Goldberg. As I said to thprop, I only added the second paragraph as an afterthought, since I was already on the page to copy the line about interviewing people. I apologize for implicitly endorsing something by supplying a link. I am going to delete the second paragraph now.

Brendan, It's all good bro...I don't think you need to apologize, it was just funny that Goldberg was being raised in this context, especially given his history with Mr. Wright. Like a lot of the debate surrounding the Walt/Mearsheimer book that I've seen, I have found it striking how much the reaction that has attempted to challenge the book has been almost entirely a confirmation of the book's central thesis.

I never said that "all Muslims" believe anything. That is the point. A recent survey in Germany found that there were at least 148,000 Muslims in Germany who were active jihadists or willing to support jihadism. I do know Muslims,all of whom are very nice. Sometimes we talk religion. One of my friends amazingly runs a restaurant and goes all day without food and water (working around food) during Ramadan. He is very devout and quite admirable in his faith. I defend Muslim defendants in court. But I am not going to claim foolishly that "some of my best friends are Mulims." Besides, what would that prove? Would anyone credit my arguments if I said that? Judge my arguments as arguments, not because certain people believe them -- or don't. You are right about Jerusalem in a limited sense. The Qur'an does mention the Arabic name for Jerusalam, so you are right about that. But Osama Bin Laden's arguments that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were not Jews, but Muslims, is ridiculous. As I understnad the argument of the Qur'an, the Jews of the Torah are in fact today's Muslims, and today's Jews are imposters who have changed the Torah. No wonder Jerusalem is so important. The problem

Quoting jstrummer: And when Mearsheimer pointed out, for instance, that this is not a book about Jewish identity or the founding of Israel, Feiler continued to pursue what he thought were interesting points regardless of their relevance.

I'm glad that BHTV was able to secure Mearshimer for this diavlog, but agree that Feiler did a terrible job. He obviously had an agenda: He wanted to do his small part to take down Mearshimer and his book. It wasn't even a discussion; it was an interrogation. Feiler had a long list of "gotchas" printed out in front of him — bullet points culled from various right-wing reviews (there is little evidence Feiler read the book) — and he simply marched through his list, one by one, giving Mearshimer 30-60 seconds to respond to each point. Feiler almost never responded to anything Mearshimer said; he simply ignored Mearshimer's responses and moved on to his next plagiarized criticism.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Mr. Wright had the stronger argument at the time, but man does Mr. Goldberg and his ilk look all the more despicable and wrong now that we have the benefit of knowing what happened.

At what point do democrats allow facts to inform and change their opinion? The takedown of the Baathists is developing into a great success for America and the people of Iraq. There is no chance of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq. Kuwait is no longer threatened. The Kurds are free. The Iraqis have a nascent democracy. The decency and competence of the US military has been demonstrated to the people of the ME. America has improved its skills and technology needed to fight back against terror and insurgents. Hip, hip, horray! -Steve

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Israel was won on the battlefield. No rhetoricist can take that away.

Huh? (My topic was your use of the term 'entity'.)

Quoting mvantony: Huh? (My topic was your use of the term 'entity'.)

then it is over my head. I assumed you were refering in some way to a denial that Israel has a right to exist.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I assumed you were refering in some way to a denial that Israel has a right to exist.

Yes, characterizing Israel as a mere "entity" — as do Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Bin-Laden,..., and you, evidently — is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge Israel's status as a legitimate state. It's an attitude, frankly, that I find disgusting.

jmcnulty, You are wrong about how the Qur'an views Jews. How could "the Jews of the Torah be today's Muslims?" What does that even mean? The relationship between Islaam and Judaism actually has some similarities to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Just as Christianity traces its origins to "Jews" Islam also includes in its history the prophets and their followers from the Children of Israel (Israel being another name for the Prophet Jacob). Just as Christians believe that Jewish people should have accepted Jesus (peace be upon him) as the messiah and were wrong not to, Muslims believe that Jewish people should have accepted both Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) as Prophets. Sometimes because of this dispute and sometimes because both Muslims are Jews are humans and can fight or hate for all the many reasons a human can fight or hate there has been some conflict between Jews and Muslims since the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him). In general, as any understanding of history will show you, prior to the 20th century there was much greater conflict between

So, what's the argument here : Actually physically denying the rights of the Palestinian people to a state is fine and dandy but rhetorically denying the legitimacy of the power that is denying those rights as long as it does so is "disgusting." Interesting.

Quoting mvantony: Yes, characterizing Israel as a mere "entity" — as do Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Bin-Laden,..., and you, evidently — is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge Israel's status as a legitimate state. It's an attitude, frankly, that I find disgusting.

DenvilleSteve, What color is the sky in your world?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: At what point do democrats allow facts to inform and change their opinion? The takedown of the Baathists is developing into a great success for America and the people of Iraq. There is no chance of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq. Kuwait is no longer threatened. The Kurds are free. The Iraqis have a nascent democracy. The decency and competence of the US military has been demonstrated to the people of the ME. America has improved its skills and technology needed to fight back against terror and insurgents. Hip, hip, horray!

-Steve

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Because M&W are attempting to explain why the U.S. policy towards Israel/Palestine is so contrary to its interests and is un realism. The Lobby, as a loose coalition, is by definition going to be difficult to define and document.

But Mearsheimer seemed unable to address why a "loose coalition" of people, including journalists, with diverse opinions (some in favor of a two state solution, many, I'm sure, anti-settlements), and who come to the issue from a variety of perspectives are "a lobby." AIPAC, sure, and a discussion of how it works and its influence would be interesting. But in attributing all of the pro Israel sentiment in the media to a lobby, they overreach or at least use terms that are needlessly inflamatory and, of course, led to the response they received in the US. Basically, when talking about the concern that a special interest lobby is causing the US to support policies not in the best interest of the country as a whole, the issue is that a smaller but especially motivated group, with money, benefits from a policy that may not benefit the country as a whole. Agricultural companies supporting farm subsidies, for example, or certain industries

Stephanie, people who have specific interests will always convince themselves that those specific interests are truly in the interest of everybody. Few union members consciously would say I want what's good for me screw the rest of the country, and the same is even true of evil corporate types, or even farm interests. So, unpacking the difference, while important in principle, is in practice elusive. But I don't really understand why it's ok to accuse union members, corporations, and farmers of doing something (putting their own specific interests above that of the country as a whole) but we all must shriek in horror from even the implication of accusing Israel's supporters of the same thing. quote:
-------
But Mearsheimer seemed unable to address why a "loose coalition" of people, including journalists, with diverse opinions (some in favor of a two state solution, many, I'm sure, anti-settlements), and who come to the issue from a variety of perspectives are "a lobby." AIPAC, sure, and a discussion of how it works and its influence would be interesting. But in attributing all of the pro Israel sentiment in the media to a lobby, they overreach or at least use terms that are

In any event, the point Mr. Mearsheimer seemed to be making was that regardless of particular positions they may have on specific issues, the general goal of the "Israel lobby" as he described and analyzed it was to ensure that the U.S. never ever puts pressure on Israel to do something it does not want to do. And, as I mentioned in the last post, I am sure they've convinced themselves that always backing Israel, right or wrong, is somehow "good" for the U.S. While many people subscribe to this definition of loyalty it is not a good one. The issue of the settlements was a particularly good example of this put forth by Mr. Mearsheimer. Even if people believe settlements are not in the U.S. or even Israel's interests, the lobby ensures that the U.S. will never (and have never) pressured Israel's government to stop building them whenever they want to.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: So, what's the argument here : Actually physically denying the rights of the Palestinian people to a state is fine and dandy but rhetorically denying the legitimacy of the power that is denying those rights as long as it does so is "disgusting." Interesting.

Israel is not "physically denying" (whatever that means) the Palestinians a state. The Israeli government is currently negotiating with the PA for a settlement which is to include Palestinian statehood. If there's any denying of statehood going on between the parties, it's the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in any settlement. As an Islamist, Abu Noor, you should be particularly sensitive to the injustice of such a refusal. Of course, even if Israel were denying Palestinians the right to a state of their own (which it isn't), I fail to see why Israel should "rhetorically" (ha!) be called an "entity," when no one calls Spain or Turkey, e.g., mere entities -- countries which are IN FACT denying peoples (the Basques and Kurds) states of their own. Such baseless selectivity smacks of anti-Semitism, and is (to me) disgusting.

Quoting jmcnulty: I am not paranoid about Muslims. But is it paranoid to think people are trying to kill you? Bin Laden is more accurately thought of as a reactionary theologian than as a terrorist. He is preaching the pure, original Islam (or at least says that he is). Tell me where he is wrong. No, all Muslims do not agree with him. But the tidal pull of the faith is there. Is that why "moderate" Muslims are so reluctant, fitful, and grudging when asked to speak out against him? They are either afraid of retaliation or suspect that he may be right.

The thing I don't get about your posts about Islam, jm, is what you are advocating? Let's suppose (to narrow the focus) that we accept that everything you say about Islam and it's adherents is exactly correct. Are you saying US policy should change? Under the long Bush tenure, we've had very aggressive "anti-terror" policies and the "Islamo-fascist" rhetoric of the Bush administration and it's surrogates is continually at a high level. Are you trying to win support for the Bush policies? Are you trying to advocate for support for a more aggressive set of policies vis-a-vis

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: But I don't really understand why it's ok to accuse union members, corporations, and farmers of doing something (putting their own specific interests above that of the country as a whole) but we all must shriek in horror from even the implication of accusing Israel's supporters of the same thing.

I'm actually not suggesting that trying to protect the interests of a particular group in the US is a bad thing. One can believe that protecting jobs in a particular industry is a good thing, even if the overall US arguably pays more for that protection. But surely you can see that it's a much stronger accusation to say that someone is more concerned about the interests of a country not his own than the US -- that is basically an accusation of disloyalty and it's that implicit aspect of the argument which I suspect has led to a lot of the reaction here, and not surprisingly. Moreover, in your statement you assume something yet to be supported (as apparently do M&W). What evidence is there that the members of this "loose coalition" are actually placing the interest

If you read Bin Laden's "message to the American people" he says exactly that: today's Jews are not the "real" Jews, but imposters who have spread corruption (and usury) across the Earth. I do not know how good the authority he cites is, but he and Ayman Al-Zawahiri always cite multiple authority for their propositions including the Qur'an, the sunna and Hadiths of Mohammed, the opinion of the ulema, what various scholars have said (Ibn Tamiya being an example). You are in a much better postiion than I to judge the quality of his authority. There are many things that I admire about Islam. Regarding taking things out of "context," that is pretty funny since you know that the Qur'an has NO CONTEXT and was even assembled not thematically but arbitrarily by length of the suras. I do not favor converting the "War on Terrorism" to a generalized war that will be a "defensive jihad" obligatory on all Muslims. I have said at length what I favor. Briefly, I favor a policy of complete separation and isolation. That would mean no immigration, energy-self-sufficiency, and an end to matierial support to Israel (probably a good idea and better that leveraging our aid to

Have you read Mearsheimer and Walt? I'm pretty sure they do discuss this. (the issue you marked with an asterisk) As I've tried to argue previously, while important in theory, in practice it is a fool's errand to try to determine people's motives. God alone knows what is in the hearts of people, often the people themselves do not even really know.

Quoting stephanie: I'm actually not suggesting that trying to protect the interests of a particular group in the US is a bad thing. One can believe that protecting jobs in a particular industry is a good thing, even if the overall US arguably pays more for that protection. But surely you can see that it's a much stronger accusation to say that someone is more concerned about the interests of a country not his own than the US -- that is basically an accusation of disloyalty and it's that implicit aspect of the argument which I suspect has led to a lot of the reaction here, and not surprisingly.

Moreover, in your statement you assume something yet to be supported (as apparently do M&W). What evidence is there that the

I don't know what you are referring to in regards to bin Laden or Zawahiri. I don't know what "real Jews" means in this context, so I can't respond to that claim. As I stated clearly in my post, Muslims believe that Jews and all people should have accepted Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them as prophets and were incorrect not to do so. This is a religious belief. Muslims also believe that no one should engage in oppression, corruption, or usury (the Arabic word is riba...it is a somewhat complicated concept and debate exists about it in some circles but almost all Islamic scholars believe that any form of what we call interest would be riba and is forbidden by God completely -- anyone who has studied the history of Christianity or Judaism would know that this concept is not unique to Islam)...these are also basic religious teachings of Islam. I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by the Qur'an "not having context." It is true that Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the uncreated literal word of God and valid for all times

I'm sorry: Feiler may have a thesis named after him--"...faster etc."--but, with all due respect to him, he was not up to this discussion. It needed someone stronger, civil to be sure, but stronger. Mearsheimer made some good, provocative points that cut against some pieces of at least my understanding of conventional wisdom. A real debate with a non flame throwing opponent would have been a stimulating pleasure.

There is no problem with having different religious beliefs. It becomes a problem when someone thinks that differences in religion are a suitable basis for killing, instead of letting God sort it out at death. Islam, as you know, is not just a personal religion. It is communal in its emphasis. The umma is very important. I can't remember the last time someone spoke seriously about Christendom. Muslims believe that the Jews ignored the Torah and that Christian monks changed the Gospels. The Qur'an is a document preaching Islamic supremacy. Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are very candid about their eventual goal: a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, with all other religions either destroyed or subjected to Islam. I have great admiration for Islam: its moral clarity, its solidatiry of believers, iits universality, its recognition that we all exist by God's Will, it recognition of the importance of Jesus and Moses. I would like to think of it as a fellow Abrahamic faith. What I do not like is that Islam, no matter how admirable, does not take a live-and-let-live approach to other religions. Those who did -- the Mar'jites -- are considered heretics. There is no context in the Qur'an. One sura has nothing

jm:

I can't remember the last time someone spoke seriously about Christendom.

Did you forget about the recent Pinkercorn diavlog? Here's the relevant segment: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/401...9&out=00:47:00 And here's Jim's related article (NB: cover story): http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_10/cover.html There's also a chance that a few of these 2,860,000 links point to something serious, too. Just guessing.

I have never proposed deporting American citizens or those born here ...

You say that like these are two different categories. In fact, everyone born in America is an American citizen. See the first line of this old thing. And anyway, you did earlier say:

Quoting jmcnulty: Briefly, I favor a policy of complete separation and isolation.

which suggests to me you're looking at a choice of deportation or concentration camps. The craziness continues:

There would be some form of loyalty oath howver ...

You think? And why shouldn't I compel you to undergo this, too? Seems to me you're way more of a threat to America than, say, Abu Noor.

... and close monitoring of mosques.

And churches. Make them stop politicking or take away their tax-exempt status. I also call for immediate arrest of anyone who implies from the pulpit that abortion clinic bombings are good. No more Latin masses, either. That's the way They give coded instructions. And what's up

You do not understande that I am proposing the minimum actions. Wait until New York disappears in a nuclear flash. See what is proposed then. I know that anyone born here is a citizen. That opens up the whole question of so-called "birth right" citizenship, something the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to confer. It was intended only to legalize the slaves after the Civil War, not immigrants. How do you think that would poll today? I do not want to see people locked in camps, but FDR certainly did it with the Japanese, with far less reason (not one incident of Japanese terrorism). In a sense, the Japanese were protected from the larger society. No one has ever questioned whether they were given enough to eat or mistreated. It is a misnomer to call them "concentration camps." We all know what images that calls up: dead bodies being bulldozed into mass graves, not Japanese playing baseball behind the wire. How did the Japanese treat American nationals during World War II? If the next terrorist act kills 100,000 people -- and remember, Bin Laden has obtained a fatwa allolwing the killing of 10 million American civilians -- you will be

jm:

... and remember, Bin Laden has obtained a fatwa allolwing the killing of 10 million American civilians ...

There's little chance of me forgetting, given your tendency to repeat this on a near-daily basis. Nonetheless, I remain hugely unconcerned.

Quoting stephanie: The simpler, less circular answer is that there are a number of groups in the US who disagree with M&W's conclusion that the US's policies toward Israel and in the Middle East are neither in its strategic interest nor morally justified. They might well be wrong and M&W right about what would be better for the US's interests. But the question is how their arguments fail and, perhaps, why they think what they do rather than just assuming that they must not be acting in what they think is the US's interest.

After all, Mearsheimer himself argued that the same policies that he claimed were not in the US's interest were also not in Israel's, so if people could be misstaken (in his opinion) on the latter, why not the former? Why the need to explain it by some undefinable lobby?

Close ties with Israel are in the interests of the United States. Militarily, economically and culturally. But the US can get all of that from an Israel that honors its 67 borders just as much as can be gotten from an Israel that occupies and abuses the neighboring

Quoting stephanie: But Mearsheimer seemed unable to address why a "loose coalition" of people, including journalists, with diverse opinions (some in favor of a two state solution, many, I'm sure, anti-settlements), and who come to the issue from a variety of perspectives are "a lobby." AIPAC, sure, and a discussion of how it works and its influence would be interesting. But in attributing all of the pro Israel sentiment in the media to a lobby, they overreach or at least use terms that are needlessly inflamatory and, of course, led to the response they received in the US.

Basically, when talking about the concern that a special interest lobby is causing the US to support policies not in the best interest of the country as a whole, the issue is that a smaller but especially motivated group, with money, benefits from a policy that may not benefit the country as a whole. Agricultural companies supporting farm subsidies, for example, or certain industries or unions supporting protectionism (depending on one's view on these issues). But with the so-called "Israel lobby," I hope that's not what M&W are trying to say -- that the pro-Israel voices in the press and government believe

We have reached the point where even intelligent people like you find a repitiition of the truth tiresome. I hope that you are right. I would advise living somewhere else other than the New York (the center of "Jewish" world finance) or Wasington (the seat of the infidel government). I understand that you think me obsessed; my kids do too. The difference is that they are too young to realize the implications of what I am saying.

Quoting Sgt Schultz: Not a debate (as misrepresented in the title) Rather it was an interrogation. Quite a limp one. Wherever the inquisitor was shot down in flames he ignored his own embarrassment and clanked verbosely (oh sooo verbosely) forward.

Exactly...

Are you really so dense as to think that abortion bombers (there haven't been any abortion clinic bombings in 10 years) are in any way an equivalent danger with Islamic redicalism? Are born-again Christian suicide bombers prevalent? I am always amazed at not just the opposition to Christianity encountered from a certain kind of atheist, but the actual hostility to and bitterness towards Christianity, as if Christians were burning atheists at the stake (But don't forget, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"), that they harbor. What is the basis of this? Did every atheist have some sort of gastly childhood that causes such anger? Maybe free tickets to the "700 Club" would cheer you up. It always seems to mee like a little child shaking his fist at the heavens: "Take that, God. That'll teach ya."

Are you really so dense as to think that abortion bombers ... are in any way an equivalent danger with Islamic redicalism?

Are you really so dense that you don't understand when someone is using an example to illustrate a larger point? To make the larger point explicit: I am more concerned about Christian fundamentalists than I am about Muslim fundamentalists. Radical Christians negatively affect my life and threaten the long-term health and strength of my country far more than do radical Muslims. The incessant venting of your own personal hang-ups doesn't change my view.

Did every atheist have some sort of gastly childhood that causes such anger?

I can't speak for them all, but I was raised in a fairly strict religious environment, and yes, it was pretty ghastly. That aspect, anyway.

That's interesting, Brendan, because I was raised without any religion, and I think that the radical Muslims represent a much bigger challenge to the way of life of both the U.S. and Europe (particularly Europe) than radical Christians. In case you missed it, Democrats are the majority party in the U.S. now, and Bush has approval ratings below 40%. It might be fair to say that the moment of evangelical Christian political hegemony within the U.S. is over, no? And that the threat of crazy Muslim nutbars blowing themselves up wherever and whenever they can if it will kill people is not going to stop anytime soon, yes?

I still don't get it. So, if a person actively opposes Israeli policy, and that opposition is in the best interest of Israel, isn't that person the true Israeli lobbyist? I thought Feiler did a good job; defining a problem is critical to solving it. And, the admission at the end by Mearsheimer that scoring candidates is impossible because there is no uniform Israel position, well, that kind of undercuts his thesis. He should have written a book on (and titled) "Expansionist Zionists and Their Supporters" if he wanted to focus on the true problem (and followed that book up with one on another problem being Expansionist Islamists).

GC:

... I think that the radical Muslims represent a much bigger challenge to the way of life of both the U.S. and Europe (particularly Europe) than radical Christians.

Europe and the US are two different animals. There is little problem with radical Christians over there, from what I understand, although there are some recent hints of attempts to meddle with education. There also seems to be a problem with larger and less well-assimilated Muslim populations in some European countries. So, comparatively, yes, Europe probably has more to deal with regarding radical Islam. But that's not saying a whole lot. It's just saying one's almost a non-existent problem, and the other is more than that. Not much of a bar to clear.

In case you missed it, Democrats are the majority party in the U.S. now, and Bush has approval ratings below 40%. It might be fair to say that the moment of evangelical Christian political hegemony within the U.S. is over, no?

It might be fair to say it, but I wouldn't agree with it. I'd say it's been knocked back a little bit, but it's very far from being over. Four out of ten Republican candidates for president have been happy

How much progress have we made on resolving the abortion issue?

Last time I checked, abortions were legal throughout the country. There are practical issues in very, very conservatives places (such as I understand that there are so few abortion clinics in the deep south that practical access to abortions may be effectively very little) but I'd bet that for the vast majority of women in this country, getting an abortion is possible. Yes, there is fear that the Christians will win and make it illegal again, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. If I am wrong, I will be more troubled, but I just don't think that there exists the political will amongst most of the population to stand for large-scale restrictions on access to abortion. Tell you what, if abortion becomes illegal again across the country, I'll buy you a coke. The odds that abortion will ever become illegal anywhere other than the reddest of the red states, though, is nil. I think Rochester will be spared.

How much progress have we made on measures designed to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

Again, there are exceptions (pharmacists who won't dispense the pill or

GC:

Last time I checked, abortions were legal throughout the country. There are practical issues in very, very conservatives places (such as I understand that there are so few abortion clinics in the deep south that practical access to abortions may be effectively very little) but I'd bet that for the vast majority of women in this country, getting an abortion is possible.

Yes, abortions are still permitted under the letter of the law, and a hat tip for you for going on to say that availability is not great in all places. However, I think you soft-pedaled that concession: abortion clinics are practically non-existent in several states in the South and the Midwest. If I remember correctly, Mississippi and the Dakotas are all down to one each, for example. Many others are in the single digits. Also, many states have onerous regulations; e.g., 24-hour waiting periods, that compound the travel problems for poor women and single mothers. (There's a nice clickable map here that let's you examine the details on a state by state basis.) Further, thanks to Henry Hyde and his eponymous 1977 amendment, Medicaid may not be used to pay for almost any abortion. Unless the pregnancy results

John is another diavloger who has been in the military. I am always confounded struck by the few people who appear on BHTV who have served in the armed forces.

Bjkeefe said: "I am more concerned about Christian fundamentalists than I am about Muslim fundamentalists." That is exactly the problem. You are worried about Christian fundamentalists who might want "intelligent design" taught in the schools and abortion restricted. On the other hand, you have Muslim fundamentalists, some born in this country, who want to impose Sharia and are prepared to blow you up ("martyrdom operations") to achieve it. Meanwhile, you and John Edwards believe that the "war on terrorism," whatever it should be called, is just a "bumper sticker." No wonder that we have "creeping Sharia" with municipal airport footbaths and Muslim prayer rooms on college campuses (partitioned into male and female sections), when the equivalent accommodations for Christians ("Eucharist rooms" or "Christian witness rooms") would set off a storm of denunciations and warnings that theocracy is just around the corner. The reality is that the Left is in opposition to America -- not the Leftist idea of America, but to the real America as it exists -- and willing to make endless excuses for radical Islam, as a third-world faith, which wants to destroy America and is not reluctant to say it. One can imagine that

jm:

But then again, I do not want to seem alarmist.

Little late for that.

I guess no one likes to be awakened out of a sound sleep by someone yelling "fire." Maybe he just smells smoke?

jm: I don't like to be awakened every five minutes by someone yelling "fire," I'll tell you that. Especially when the smoke is just condensation emanating from said alarmist's overheated orifices.

Perhaps you will feel differently when the next airliner crashes into a skyscraper? Or when someone, as happened at my daughter's university, rams his SUV across a crowded quad for the greater glory of Allah. Or when a Muslim goes around shooting Jews on the streets of San Francisco -- all of which have happened.

jm:

Perhaps you will feel differently ...

No. I won't. I'm not saying there aren't any people out there looking to do crazy shit. What I am saying is I'm not going to let fear of the possibilities run my life. I'm sorry you are unable to attain the same level of maturity.

Before you go around congradulating yourself on your admirable "maturity": Which fear is more realistic -- fear of theoracy, fear of American "faacism," fear of "Christianist" domination, or fear of Islamic supremacy? I don't walk down the street constantly thinking that someone is going to drop a piano on my head, but what if thousands of people around the world think that God commands that a piano be dropped on my head (and they are willing to give up their lives and gain Paradise and the promose of lithesome virgins to do it) and 19 people have already done it and killed 3,000 of my fellow citizens? Is it "alarmist" to point out the danger of it happening? Of course, you would point out how difficult it is to get a piano to the roof of a tall building, that the piano might miss anyway, that we really don't need so many pianos with all the electonic instruments available, that we don't want to hold it against someone because they dropped a piano off a building (it's almost a prank), that we don't want to discriminate against piano-droppers, or suggest that

jm: Excellent job rationalizing your irrational fears. I pronounce you incurable.

Okay, so I am incurable. You are uneducable.

jm:

Okay, so I am incurable. You are uneducable.

My dismissal of your insanity is not a measure of my ability to learn.

You haven't shown any ability to learn so far. Your only responses have been denial and contempt.

jm:

You haven't shown any ability to learn so far.

I haven't bought into your craziness, you mean.

Your only responses have been denial and contempt.

Stop giving voice to your terrified inner child and I might offer something else in response.

Quoting jmcnulty: Maybe free tickets to the "700 Club" would cheer you up.

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever been in the audience at a recording of the 700 Club? Is that a show you watch on television? Are you a Pat Robertson fan?

Quoting garbagecowboy: That's interesting, Brendan, because I was raised without any religion, and I think that the radical Muslims represent a much bigger challenge to the way of life of both the U.S. and Europe (particularly Europe) than radical Christians. In case you missed it, Democrats are the majority party in the U.S. now, and Bush has approval ratings below 40%. It might be fair to say that the moment of evangelical Christian political hegemony within the U.S. is over, no? And that the threat of crazy Muslim nutbars blowing themselves up wherever and whenever they can if it will kill people is not going to stop anytime soon, yes?

GarbageCowboy,
You've said you're a libertarian. Does this mean you are a 3rd party voter? I realize you said you've never voted, but when you do (if you do), will you vote for 3rd party candidates, or Republican candidates? I'm wondering because I want to know if it would be accurate to call you a Republican. Many "libertarians" vote Republican, but dodge responsibility for their actions by refusing the "Republican" label, as if changing the label can absolve the responsibility for how they vote. At the end of the day, how you vote has impact, while

Quoting garbagecowboy: I hear just as scary things from extremists on the left. Sometimes scarier.

Brendan already asked you to clarify what you mean by this, but I will second his query. If you can, please elaborate on the "scary things" you hear from the left — especially the things which are "scarier." Even if this is true, you would certainly have to agree it doesn't reach anywhere near the total saturation of right wing lunacy that blankets the airwaves from (as you pointed out) coast-to-coast. Regarding Democrats being the majority party: They have been the majority of the population since the 1930s, but this has not translated into political power since, at least, 1994. Today, two of three branches of the federal government are controlled not just by right wingers, but extremists who are more conservative than any recent precedent. The right wing faction on the Supreme Court threatens to take us back to a time prior to Plessy v. Ferguson, having already taken the first step in overturning Brown v. Board of Education last term, and working rapidly to erode modern American society in favor of a Republican dystopia circa 1885. The executive branch is in

I agree that Feiler was bad, very bad. How can you discuss this book for over an hour without even broaching the mechanics of lobby influence? And that way of not responding to a response from Mearsheimer was very weird. Feiler's obsession with foreign aid per capita as a distortion is garbage. It's clearly more relevant than the absolute number. Then, Feiler did not ask the obvious question of whether the US would be able to influence Israeli settlement policy, even if it threatened to cut off all aid. Mindblowingly bad. Is it really that difficult to find a competent interviewer of Mearsheimer?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Have you read Mearsheimer and Walt? I'm pretty sure they do discuss this. (the issue you marked with an asterisk)

As I've tried to argue previously, while important in theory, in practice it is a fool's errand to try to determine people's motives. God alone knows what is in the hearts of people, often the people themselves do not even really know.

Just the article -- I'm trying to decide if I want to read the book. The article definitely does not discuss why certain groups within the US read what is either good for the US's interests or morally justified policy differently than M&W. Instead, it assumes that all reasonable people would of course agree with them that our foreign policy approach toward the Middle East cannot be explained by interest or legitimate moral concern -- that our approach has jeopardized our security more than the approach M&W would prefer. I, actually, agree with this in some respects (that our policy has jeopardized our security), but I think it's offensive and false to claim that those who argue otherwise are really putting the interests of the US second to Israel, which is