SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Wiki-Espionage And A Salient Comparison, Except That The...

THE SPINE DECEMBER 4, 2010

Wiki-Espionage And A Salient Comparison, Except That The 1979 Documents From Iran Had Almost Zero Circulation

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The more Hillary Clinton assures us that the deluge of WikiLeaks dossiers and minutes of conversations are no problem, the more we know she is lying. She does that well, of course, and also with a certain confidence. It's home territory to her.

Robert Gibbs has, more or less, confirmed this, although with a hokey statement that confirms the job of the president's spokesperson to be the work for someone confident in dishing out deceit. See Devonia Smith's comments at Examiner.com.

But here's what Gibbs himself said:

I don't think it will dominate the issues. But listen, this is one time I really like seeing what Gibbs did. I wish he would they would have forceful, in respect to policy, particularly America vs China in the currency issue, but he did the right thing

Edward Jay Epstein who knows a lot about secrecy and espionage (in Iran especially) has written a small memo, so to speak, to curious readers about the similarity and differences between the WikiLeaks extravaganza and one of its historical predecessors.

The heart of the espionage business is the theft of secret documents. Up until the computer age, this was usually done either by stealing the documents themselves or copying them,. One of the most massive thefts of top secrets of top secret documents occurred in November 1979 when Iranian students captured the US embassy in Tehran before security officers could destroy the tens of thousands of classified CIA and State Department documents stored there. Even many of those that had been shredded into thin strips were painstakingly pieced together by the Iranian intelligence service. These stolen documents covered a vast range of covert CIA activities over two decades in both friendly and hostile nations, including everything from spying operations in the Soviet Union to the secret CIA and Saudi financing of the Jihad in Afghanistan. They also revealed extremely sensitive US espionage operations against allies including Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait as well as juicy gossip about sex lives of politicians. In 1982, to embarrass the United States, the Iranians published a large number of these stolen documents in 54 volumes entitled "Documents From the U.S. Espionage Den." Despite the revelations they provided about the activities of American intelligence, and their ready availability, no major newspaper in the United States, including the New York Times, lent credibility to them by publishing a single document from them. Nor were there any front page news stories about them. Except for the few scholars who ordered the 54 volumes for $248, this huge archive of top secret documents attracted little public notice.

In 2010, another huge archive of secret documents was made available. These classified documents did not accidently leak onto the Internet through the work of some mischievous Internet hacker. Indeed, they were not even on the Internet. They were intentionally stolen from a private Defense Department network, the so-called “intranet.” The perp allegedly was a 23 year old US Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning, who had the clearances necessary to use this private network. If so, the operation was not conceptually different than that of Robert Hanssen, the KGB mole inside the FBI, who, among other things, broke into the private FBI computer network. Both were break-ins aimed at acquiring state secrets, which is, by any definition, espionage. The US Army intelligence analyst allegedly provided the fruits of his theft to an organization called Wiki-leaks, whose founder Julian Assange termed him a “hero.” Wiki-Leaks, in turn, made the fruits of this espionage available to the press, as had the Iranians with their stolen documents. The difference was that Julian Assange, unlike the Iranians, managed to negotiate arrangements with a number of leading news organizations, including the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and The Guardian in which they would get advance access to the stolen documents in return for not publishing them before a designated date. As a result the Wiki-leaks had simultaneous front page stories in many of the world’s most prestigious publication. Such stories may have had great value to media, and even helped enhance their circulation, but what they were publishing, and lending their credibility to, was not Wiki-leaks but Wiki- Espionage.

The behavior of Clinton and the absence of Obama are both scandals.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 168 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

168 comments

"Such stories may have had great value to media, and even helped enhance their circulation, but what they were publishing, and lending their credibility to, was not Wiki-leaks but Wiki- Espionage." Thank you, this has been my view all along. I hope they prosecute the soldier who stole the secret files. btw: did you expect anyone to confirm that these documents did do us damage? Hillary was right to deny it. Stop dumping on her.

- jdyer

December 4, 2010 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz dumps on Hillary in these circumstances, for doing her job, because Peretz hates America. He would much rather see as much damage done to America as possible if it will serve to discredit Obama and Hillary.

- roidubouloi

December 4, 2010 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Put a sock in it, Roid. No one asked you for your two cents.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, jackasson. I thought you were ignoring me? I win the bet again. What a moron you are. Will you never take the "Kick my fat ass" sign off your back? It appears not.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 12:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ho you are soooo original, Roid. Are you sure no one nominated you for the Nobel prize in un-original temper tantrums.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It isn't necessary to be original, jackasson. It is only necessary to have taken the measure of your target. And I have taken the measure of you.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 12:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The demented one is still here.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: I do agree that the media, even the circumspect Der Spiegel, has been irresponsible in making "news" out of the stolen docs. But, do you really believe 23 year old PFC Bradley Manning is the sole source? Whenever I think that might be so, I get very concerned about how the U.S. expects to deal with cyber-warfare threats. No one person at such a low level should have that kind of access.

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K “jackson: I do agree that the media, even the circumspect Der Spiegel, has been irresponsible in making "news" out of the stolen docs. But, do you really believe 23 year old PFC Bradley Manning is the sole source? Whenever I think that might be so, I get very concerned about how the U.S. expects to deal with cyber-warfare threats. No one person at such a low level should have that kind of access.” I said, whoever did it should be prosecuted. If more than one person did it, they should all be held accountable. And, yes, speaking as a veteran a 23 year old could have been the source. Save the conspiracy theories for later. It’s also not an issue of “should” have access. Some person or persons who had access did betray the trust given them. Also, dealing with cyber warfare is another issue. In any case you can do both, prosecute, and figure out a way of dealing with cyber warfare.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't the Pentagon Papers be a more apt comparison? They were stolen.

- MOLLYSIMON

December 5, 2010 at 1:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"She does that well, of course, and also with a certain confidence. It's home territory to her." Marty, why are you sneering at Hilary for doing her job, and doing it well? If she wanted to be transparent about her personal opinions and sentiments she would have applied for a job at your magazine, not Obama's administration. Why do you hate her so much that it makes you slide into irrelevant nasty asides?

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 8:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I expect Hilary to say what she said about the leaks. That's her job and professional responsibility. American cabinet ministers are expected to be loyal to the President. But I'm more concerned that she has become a participant in Obama's lame Middle East policy-making and evidently shares his outlook. I share K2K's suspicion that 23 year old PFC Bradley Manning is not the sole source. Can security management be that flawed? Information access is usually compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis in corporations and government, especially today with ubiquitous computer networks.

- amidut

December 5, 2010 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The circulation is not so zero anymore, now that the entire 54 volumes of "Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den" have been digitized and placed on Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/DocumentsFromTheU.s.EspionageDen Thanks for the heads up!

- perseus353

December 5, 2010 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My personal experience with classified intelligence material shows that yes, one person could be the sole source particularly if he/she is dedicated and motivated. My only problem with the one source concept is the sheer volume of the material as well as the span of time. This shows incredible neglect of basic security procedures or incompetence of the security services.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 5, 2010 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON “Wouldn't the Pentagon Papers be a more apt comparison? They were stolen.” Yes, there are some similarities, but also some key differences. Daniel Ellsberg released document pertaining mostly to one area of government activity: Viet Nam. The wiki-leaks relate to diplomatic activity all over the globe. Finally, there is another salient difference: Ellsberg did not offer the papers to foreign sources. In the case of the wiki-leak the stolen papers were given to a non US citizen who does not seem to have our best interests at heart. Now, Ellsberg and an accomplice did face trial for espionage and theft but the Nixon administration, as was usual for them, used extra judicial means to get them convicted. When this was found out by the courts, the case was dismissed. I hope in this case that the current administration will not use extra judicial means when they put the culprit or culprits on trial.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi: “Peretz dumps on Hillary in these circumstances, for doing her job, because Peretz hates America. He would much rather see as much damage done to America as possible if it will serve to discredit Obama and Hillary.” This is an unworthy comment. roiduboulo knows that Peretz does not hate America. And roiduboulo knows as well that one can be severely critical of the leaders of a country without hating that country. In fact, roiduboulo offers a pair of incompatible explanations for Peretz’s comment: According to the first, hatred of America leads Peretz to attack Clinton. According to the second, dislike of Obama and Clinton leads Peretz to attack America.

- JPKatz

December 5, 2010 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why do you hate her so much that it makes you slide into irrelevant nasty asides?" This is funny as Peretz's oeuvre consists entirely of irrelevant nasty asides. He doesn't DO anything else, he doesn't say anything else, he quite clearly has no other thoughts in his head.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "This is funny as Peretz's oeuvre consists entirely of irrelevant nasty asides. He doesn't DO anything else, he doesn't say anything else, he quite clearly has no other thoughts in his head." This piece of nonsense should be changed to: "This is funny as roidubouloi's oeuvre consists entirely of irrelevant nasty asides. He doesn't DO anything else, he doesn't say anything else, he quite clearly has no other thoughts in his head." If roidubouloi does say something else it's merely to justify his nasty asides by using insults. At least Marty doesn't try to justify himself. In addition Peretz runs a first rate magazine what does roidubouloi do except boast that he is the smartest most accomplish poster? A boast, btw, that most of his rejoinders disprove. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not incompatible at all. Peretz so hates America that he will attack both Obama and Clinton for so much as trying to do their jobs in the interests of America. AND he so hates both Obama and Clinton that he will attack them both for so much as trying to do their jobs in the interests of America. He is quite catholic in his hatreds. As to why this is so, one can only speculate. However, the best guess is that Peretz does not believe that Americans have a right to expect their government to serve them. He thinks the proper job of the American government is to serve Israel and is deeply resentful whenever it does not do so. And he likely resents that Americans do not have Israel's problems. At least one can so infer from his strenuous efforts to make all of Israel's problems our problems. One might think that this amounts to accusing Peretz of the dread "dual loyalty," but this is not the case. Peretz has no loyalty to America. Hence, he cannot properly be accused of dual loyalty. He is really just an agent of a foreign power, Israel. That he ill-serves Israel is a different matter. That is the result of his mental incapacity and the reason I not infrequently refer to him as a moron. (Should Peretz perhaps be best described as having "dual disloyalty," simultaneously doing his best to damage both America and Israel? Something to think about.)

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I admit to having trouble following Mr. Peretz's argument for a slight reason: his prose is hermetic. Mr. Peretz writes in a tone of private reverie with little apparent concern for clarity. Mr. Peretz infuriates me 80% of the time and yet--and yet--I always want to understand his arguments as clearly as I can because I can't help but take them seriously. I'm exasperated when he makes that more difficult by writing lazily. Other bloggers at TNR avoid such slap-dashery in prose. Mr. Chait and Mr. Cohn, who blog frequently amid other duties, are especially clear. Peretz's continual nasty asides are unpleasant and distracting to read but at least I follow them well enough.

- dmillstone

December 5, 2010 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am flattered, jackson, that you find me so trenchant that you want to quote me, even with the name change. Quoting me has become quite the pastime around here. I must be careful that I don't get a swelled head. Does anyone quote you? Do you know of any reason they should?

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In addition Peretz runs a first rate magazine what does roidubouloi do except boast that he is the smartest most accomplish poster?" Now, jackson, in fairness, I really don't think that calling attention to your bullying nitwittery is the same thing as boasting about myself. If I appear smart and accomplished, it is only by comparison to such as yourself. And that is such a low standard, there is nothing there to be proud of.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid - I'm beginning to think you enjoy and invite the rapid descent into mutual insults. Peretz may be obsessive in his intense dislike and disapproval of Obama and Clinton, but it is a huge and, IMHO, completely unwarranted jump to conclude that he "hates America". It is quite possible to love America and at the same time be sadly dismayed at the actions of the two aforementioned public servants that may (or may not) be ineffective or worse. Also, when jackson responds by telling you "to put a sock in it", nothing requires you to rise to the bait. As someone who appreciates and has learned from your analytical abilities and lucid prose, I can say that you are unnecessarily creating obstacles for readers who might be more interested and attracted to your substantive contributions without having to wade through the invective. You may be entertained by it, but for me it's getting boring.

- JackR

December 5, 2010 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, jack, that gives me pause. Here are the rules of the road that I apply. I don't know whether they appeal to anyone else. Public figures, such as Obama, Hillary, Peretz, Netanyahu, are fair game. That means to me that you can say anything you want about them, with whatever language you want, and it still qualifies as political dialog. Whether the rhetoric is effective or hyperbolic to the point of being ineffective is a somewhat different question. Certainly, one can step on one's own lines and point by being too extreme. Comments about public figures are also fair game. As long as one is commenting on the comment and not on the commenter, that still to me counts as political dialog, even if the comment and the comment is also hyperbolic. On the other hand, I consider comment directed at the poster, or about the poster, rather than the post to be out of bounds. That is, in my opinion, no longer an argument with the thought, but an effort to bully or discredit the poster. Now, obviously, you can read me here doing plenty of that. As I have said, I do it for a specific reason. It is my belief, born of a certain direct political experience, that when one side of the political divide gives itself license to use this sort of tactic and the other side feels bound by rules of civility not to, that the side that gives itself license enjoys a very unfair advantage in debate. I am not at all of the view that this sort of smearing and personal attack doesn't work. It does work, too darned well. Otherwise political combatants wouldn't do it. We might wish for a world in which this sort of behavior were completely self-defeating, but I don't think that is the world we have. As it is not self-defeating, it must be defeated. In the larger political arena, I am quite convinced that the existence of many media outlets in which conservatives engage in this sort of thing constantly, to incredible extremes, and the virtual absence of anything comparable on the left, has a great deal to do with the increasingly bizarre outcomes of our elections. It was not always thus. Endless repetition of lies and smears works. However, if one is willing to get one's hands dirty, it can be defeated or at least fought to a draw. My political mentor taught me that, if you allow this sort of rhetoric to go unanswered, then it is far more likely to succeed. If you respond, and punish the attacker for it, the rhetorical contest is most often fought to a draw and the attacker becomes much more wary about the use of this rhetoric. If there is no downside for them, then they feel no hesitation (since they quite clearly do not feel bound by any moral stricture). With that in mind, I try to be scrupulous about never being the one to throw the first punch at another poster, keeping it civil so long as the other guy does. And when I am feeling in a very expansive mood, I will let the other guy throw a couple before I respond in kind. I cannot claim never to have screwed up and been the one to punch first, but I really do try to be conscious of this, and I think I generally follow my own rule. One way I help myself stick to it is to start with a counter-punch, meaning that I am responding in some immediate and referential way to the punch thrown. That way, I can be sure I am not stepping over that self-imposed line. I will readily admit that there is a gray area in which a comment about someone else's post can slip over the line and be ad hominem even if in form it purports not to be. This is a matter of judgment and it is necessary to be conscious of the problem. So, no, I do not need to rise to the bait. I choose to because I believe that this is a necessary contribution to the balance of debate overall. I also recognize that lots of decent people are unwilling to do this sort of thing, and I do not criticize them for it. I think any decent person should feel reluctant to do this. But I view it as necessary, and I think the extremists depend heavily on the fact that decent people are loath to get into the gutter with them and duke it out. But, unfortunately, that is where the fight with extremists is, in the gutter. That is where they must be fought. It would be great if thoughtful, reasoned responses were adequate to the task. I just don't think that is how political life works. At the same time, it is by no means necessary or desirable that everyone, or even most, do what I do. One of the most important purposes of trying to neutralize the hyperbolic language of the other side is to open up rhetorical space for the reasoned opinion. If someone fends off the bullies, the hyperbole tends to cancel itself out and the reasoned opinion can be heard. It is a version of good cop-bad cop. Someone has to be the bad cop. My experience is that this works. As to the specifics of my response to Peretz, he is, in my opinion, very much the extremist bully. This post by him is largely of that genre. I think it therefore appropriate to match his extremist rhetoric with a response as or more extreme from the other side. This more often than not draws out the posters who applaud Peretz's extremism and think he should enjoy some sort of immunity from the very behavior he engages in. I don't think so. I think attacking Peretz with the sort of language he himself uses draws attention to his extremism and renders both his extremist attack and the extremist response not credible. That is what is meant by fighting it to a draw. In any case, Peretz is a public figure. Just some commenter on the right should be able to call Obama names without then being subject to personal attack, so too Peretz. The right-wingers here make no such distinction between public figures and other posters. It may seem that I relish this, but I don't. I do get satisfaction from doing it well, as I would from any job, however nasty, that I think needs to be done. Personally, I enjoy the analytical and thoughtful discussion when that opportunity arises, such as the occasional extended and serious debate over international law. I would vastly prefer that that were the consistent tone. We don't get Peretz's excess from Chait, Cohen or pretty much any other blogger at TNR, and, mostly, the discussions elsewhere tend to follow suit. Peretz sets the tone. He gets what he deserves. I cannot shed a single tear for him. When and whether too much becomes self-defeating is a sort of artistic judgment. I am always willing to refine the art-form for greater effect.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no one here whose temperment so resembles that of Marty's than Roid. That's probably why he hates Peretz so much.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dmillstone "I admit to having trouble following Mr. Peretz's argument for a slight reason: his prose is hermetic. Mr. Peretz writes in a tone of private reverie with little apparent concern for clarity." I agree. I also feel that Marty is using his blog to communicate with some of his friends who are familiar with the private context of his posts.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even jackson is able to recognize the what I say and how I say it is an analog of what Peretz does and says, its mirror. Unfortunately, because he agrees with Peretz, he is happy to support and applaud Peretz while attempting, in his limited way, to silence me. In this regard, jackson is lacking in scruple. Indeed, jackson resents any response to Peretz that is little different than what jackson himself does in response to thought he does not like. This is what I mean when I say that the right gives itself license that it attempts to deny to everyone else. If if can have its own excesses accepted as somehow an inevitable part of public discourse while denying the same weaponry to its opponents, it wins. They have gatling guns, we have muskets. That's the way they want to keep it. Hence, the attempt to delegitimize the defense by anyone who does just what they do. I ignore that as self-serving and smack them again.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Even jackson is able to recognize the what I say and how I say it is an analog of what Peretz does and says, its mirror. Unfortunately, because he agrees with Peretz, he is happy to support and applaud Peretz while attempting, in his limited way, to silence me…” You are full of shite. I agree with many of your views too. Yes, there many similarities in tone in the posts, but at least Marty doesn’t attack posters here who disagree with him. (He attacks famous people sometime justifiably so, some time gratuitously, often because of a private quarrel. In fact Marty relishes being opposed while you, as the little dictator you want to be, mercilessly attack any one who disagrees with you even in small details. You lose control when any one criticizes you and go on the offensive. You sound like a deranged control freak. You oppose Netanyahu, hence you celebrate the deaths of dozens of Israelis in a horrific fire. This is just one example of your sadistic insanity.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz is a famous person as subject to attack as the people he attacks. He once actually did come back at a post of mine, and I couldn't have been more pleased. Gave me a chance to really lash him. There is no difference in status between the people Peretz attacks and Peretz himself that renders him ethically immune from what he dishes out. You are quite deluded, jackson, in your claim that I either lose control or respond inappropriately to mere argument with my positions. You are just making it up. What you simply refuse to acknowledge is that you are at once one the worst bullies and cowards here. You attack all sorts of people, often including me, but you are a big baby and sissy and cannot handle when it comes back at you. A perfect example of your incontinence is your last paragraph. You cannot of course find anything I have ever said that could possibly be interpreted this way. When pressed, and shown to be the bully and baby you are, you merely invent a slander to direct attention away from your own well-deserved embarrassment at being shown for a fool. Truth is, you are really not much good at your bully shtick, jackson, punching at about a five-year-old level. You only get away with it because most people are just not willing to engage with you in this way. What really fries you as that I can kick your sorry ass any time I want to and I don't even have to break a sweat. Consider that an invitation to behave like a decent human being for a change. Then I won't have any reason to smack you around.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excuses, excuses, nothing but denials, self justification, and excuses.

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah roid, your response with your intense desire to be right in all respects makes me want to give up. You (or anyone else) could reasonably criticize Peretz for for being fanatically pro-Israel, for taking gratuitous shots at Hillary or Obama, for making assertions sans evidence, for criticizing without proposing constructive alternatives, for making irrelevant allusions and wandering off his own points, or for a variety of other deficiencies. Instead, you call him "a bully", which as jackson correctly points out, is just not true: he rarely attacks his numerous posting detractors; in fact it's amazing to me that he can absorb so many slings and arrows (justified or not) without complaint or rejoinder. And unless you are psychic, you cannot authoritatively say what someone else hates. So at least these two of your strictures on Peretz don't make it with me. In another thread, you have read my thoughts on the positive value of "provocability" (citing the Axelrod research) and recommending it to Obama, but to have a hair trigger in a blog seems senseless to me. You seem to have personal dust-ups with almost everyone. By the way, I agree with Molly Simon's comments about jackson. I see him as thoughtful and substantive with a short temper and a propensity for overusing the epithet "antisemite" but otherwise quite possible to have a respectful interchange with. Ditto mrcookie, whom you've also tangled with. You can make everyone else wrong, but sooner or later you have to look in the mirror. All of us are doing our level best, given our awareness. Your strategy of trying to bludgeon fellow posters into enlightenment is not working. (I don't know this, but it may also be feeding your harshness rather than your compassion.) Can you think of another strategy?

- JackR

December 5, 2010 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is no one here whose temperment so resembles that of Marty's than Roid." This almost borders on the slanderous. Marty can be a curmudgeon all right but he is fundamentally decent and fair. He is not beyond asking for forgiveness or correcting his mistakes (even though it's rare but still, the ability is within him). Marty is also very well read and knows a great many interesting people whom he talks about. None of the above can be applied to roi. Even to call him a curmudgeon would be an insult to curmudgeons. "What really fries you as that I can kick your sorry ass any time I want to and I don't even have to break a sweat. " Of course roi also suffers from a delusion of grandeur. He actually believes himself to be all that, and more.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Marty can be a curmudgeon all right but he is fundamentally decent and fair." A ludicrous claim that could only be made by a devoted acolyte.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack, I will take it under advisement, but I must take issue with your statement that I have dust-ups with almost everyone. I have dust-ups with the people who are abusive. They are, thankfully, a relatively small number and even seem to be declining in number. I have no difficulty in disagreeing civilly with those, such as malahat, who disagree civilly with me, and I don't believe I have had so much as a disagreement with Mr. Cookie. We are generally of the same view of things. For what it is worth, I also do not employ invective for the sake of persuading such as you or malahat and fully appreciate that normal people find this tedious and off-putting. That is part of the purpose, to render invective tedious so that it can no longer be used to anyone's rhetorical advantage. If Peretz's rhetoric is acceptable, then it must be acceptable that I employ the same sort of rhetoric upon him. If it is not acceptable, then his defenders ought to criticize him instead of attacking me for doing what he does to other public figures.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid - You didn't find anything in my post that rang true. Up I give.

- JackR

December 5, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack, I certainly accept that you cannot bludgeon anyone into enlightenment. You don't believe that I have no interest in trying to do that. You might take issue with the efficacy of fighting invective with invective as a tactic, but then I would want some explanation of why. I have a clear rationale for why that does work, and not inconsiderable experience with making it work in the political world, of which this is a small corner. I am interested certainly to learn of a better, that is more successful way, but the claim that there is one, standing alone, does not persuade me. You have not offered an explanation as to why invective cannot be fought to a draw with invective. Rather, you argue, along with malahat, that those who are reasonable, civil, and do not themselves employ invective are put off by it. I fully accept that too. I know I will persuade none of them this way, and may lose many or all of them this way. That isn't my objective, as I have tried to explain. You may not accept that I at least have reasons, considered at length, as to just why I respond to different people the way I do -- to malahat one way and to the usual suspects in a very different voice. But I have described those reasons faithfully. Might you take a turn at criticizing "Peretz for for being fanatically pro-Israel, for taking gratuitous shots at Hillary or Obama, for making assertions sans evidence, for criticizing without proposing constructive alternatives, for making irrelevant allusions and wandering off his own points, or for a variety of other deficiencies."? Do you think he might be moved by a moderate tone and argument to modify his rhetoric so that it is more persuasive for those who are themselves civil, reasonable and do not employ invective? As is, Martin Peretz couldn't persuade me that the sun rises in the east. If he said it, I would wonder.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A bit beside your point, but criticizing Hillary for failing, in the critics eyes, to protect American interests is one thing. Criticizing her for doing what any secretary of state would have to do, or be derelict, to protect American interests in the same circumstances is quite another. If Peretz gave a damn about America, and in all honesty I don't really believe he does except insofar as it is important to Israel, he should want the secretary of state to do her job.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12/05/2010 - 12:29pm EDT | jdyer responds to dmillstone "I admit to having trouble following Mr. Peretz's argument for a slight reason: his prose is hermetic. Mr. Peretz writes in a tone of private reverie with little apparent concern for clarity." jackson: "I agree. I also feel that Marty is using his blog to communicate with some of his friends who are familiar with the private context of his posts." K2K: Hmm, I usually think Peretz has had too much Merlot while writing, and has not yet learned the habit of waiting and re-reading before hitting the POST key. For some reason, when I read this post, I thought Peretz had drunk too much Pinot Grigio. More sparkle than mellow in his wording :) Anyway, my main reason for suspecting more than one leaker has to do with the sheer volume, but perhaps Assange and his worker bees handled the document organization by general topic. And, I think, like amidut and makover, that sloppy network security is inexcusable. OTOH, maybe Bradley Manning is a super-hacker on the level of the character Matt Farrell in "Live Free or Die Hard". If so, perhaps he can be rehabilitated while enjoying residence in a very secure facility. 12/05/2010 - 2:36pm EDT | JackR to roid "Your strategy of trying to bludgeon fellow posters into enlightenment is not working." Excellent insight. Certainly has been counter-productive with me since I still see myself as a lifelong Democrat with an independent mind. Roid confessed in the previous post on Turkey that he IS different in The Spine than elsewhere, although his animus towards those he regards as Peretz "acolytes" is carved in granite. Demanding conformity of thought is inherently dangerous. So JackR, valiant effort, wrong venue. Stay warm this week!

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As is, Martin Peretz couldn't persuade me that the sun rises in the east. If he said it, I would wonder." This is a most revealing self-insight from roi. Notice and remember it. He does not differentiate between the messenger and the message. For him, the messenger IS the message. And WHAT the messenger is, HE, roi, is the ultimate arbiter of authority to decide, based on who knows what criteria. Nietzsche said about Jewish scholars that: "All of them have a high regard for logic, that is for compelling agreement by force of reason; they know, with that they are bound to win even where they encounter race and class prejudices and when one does not like to believe them. For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses.. " To extrapolate from the principle endorsed in this tiny passage, roi does not believe in the democracy of logic. He does not weigh and consider what is there; he looks at someone's proverbial nose and decides from that whether such a fact as "the sun rises in the east" is a truth. Never mind that it is a truth known and verified many times over. A nose can be anything that roi takes an aversion to. Even in that he cannot maintain any consistence. Jane Austen in her novels likes to play with her reader's expectations in this way. She places bona fide information in the mouth of less likable characters and the reader is all too ready to accept the distortion this creates in the understanding of reality. And then the moment of truth arrives and the too hasty reader is made to feel mortified, for having fallen into the trap of prejudice rather than remaining alert to the bare facts themselves. JackR has rendered us a good service with his well-aimed questions.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306537.html "A world with no one in charge (The absence of empire)" Robert D. Kaplan perhaps if Peretz read this, he would be less harsh in his criticisms of Obama and HRC. Yeah, too much to ask for, but a good perspective on this time in history nonetheless.

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is no indictment of President Obama's foreign policy. " Nor is it an endorsement of it. Kaplan is not always easily understood. Bill Clinton, having read his book "Balkan Ghosts", was said to have delayed American intervention in Bosnia because of its message. But Charlie Rose asked Kaplan about this directly, in an interview, and Kaplan said that the message from his book should have been the opposite, that intervention was needed, and much sooner. So we can't really determine from Kaplan's words whether he would agree with Peretz or disagree with him. He is only describing, not prescribing.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now START is also a Jewish issue: The Obama administration, seeking to bolster support for Senate ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as START, is privately urging Jewish groups to come out in favor of the treaty, stressing the negative impact that the failure to ratify would have on efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/how-did-new-start-become-a-jewish-issue/67269/

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 5, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"To extrapolate from the principle endorsed in this tiny passage, roi does not believe in the democracy of logic. He does not weigh and consider what is there; he looks at someone's proverbial nose and decides from that whether such a fact as "the sun rises in the east" is a truth. Never mind that it is a truth known and verified many times over." Quelle surprise. Anti-semitic slander from noga. Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work. I thought we had hit a new high of hilarity when jackson claimed to know the difference between an idiot and a savant. But the records are being broken thick and fast. The very notion of noga, who cannot construct a logical argument that extends more than a sentence, cannot integrate fact and theory in any manner whatsoever, understands nothing of logic, formal or otherwise, doesn't even actually know what logic is, opining about anyone else's use, misuse, or appreciation thereof is a the new record holder. Needless to say, having scurried into terrain where she is a certified ignoramus, she hastens to scurry back to safe territory, Jane Austen. In the course of doing so, she fails to note that inductive reasoning (got any idea what that is, noga?) suggests that the veracity of the speaker, or known lack thereof, is directly relevant to whether the speaker's claims are to be given credit in the absence of evidence. Insofar as evidence is what Peretz is never able to find, his justified reputation as a smear artist and serial slanderer (which is of course why noga adores him so, two peas from the same pod) in turn justifies a logical thinker in discounting any claims he may make. As for your advice Jack, I must say that, as long as there is pestilence like noga polluting the public square, I don't in truth see much to discuss. The slime that emanates constantly from her cannot be addressed civilly and I really don't see what purpose would be served in trying. One must just continue to fend off this refuse as one would fend off any other foul presence.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From what I've read and heard, the post 9-11 pressure to share information led to State-Pentagon sharing of databases and access protocols, and probably most of the flow was going one way, State to the military. Thus a junior enlisted soldier with one of 8,000,000 "Secret" clearances was able to access this material, and the lack of an internal tracking system for unusually large downloads finally put the frosting on the cake. Given the scale and type of material, it could certainly be seen as Wiki-espionage rather than Wikileaks but "espionage" implies a party that wants to use the information stolen for their own equivalent purposes, e.g. military or diplomatic advantage, or pure financial profit (that is, the thief or beneficiary would keep the stolen secrets to themselves). To that extent, this seems something more like anarchic sabotage or a similar kind of gesture. Indeed, I've wondered, given the other stuff going on, if Assange isn't a Gatsby-type figure who did all this to impress a girl who won't pay him any attention. But once again, the surprising thing is that we know very little more that we didn't know 10 days ago (or couldn't have made an educated guess about) and the much-invoked "revelation of American hypocrisy" that our adolescent fugitive wanted to achieve seems to have flowed into a recognition that we were doing below the covers pretty much what we said we were about above.

- ironyroad

December 5, 2010 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Roid confessed in the previous post on Turkey that he IS different in The Spine than elsewhere, although his animus towards those he regards as Peretz "acolytes" is carved in granite." You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K, and never have any reason to complain of ill-treatment at my hands. What you and the gargoyle of the Spine cannot expect is to make personal attacks and not then be subject to the same. You have to a large extent cleaned up your act in the recent past (and hence not found yourself much in the line of fire), but you get a little overheated at times when you think that the gargoyle has scored a point and jump on her bandwagon before realizing that 1) you may just not have understood how fatuous her point was and 2) there will be consequences that you don't much like. Noga of course is a different case. She is a profoundly disturbed person, clearly a masochist, who welcomes abuse because at least that way she experiences some sense of recognition, of having an existence. Otherwise, she is left alone with her dementia.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In fairness, K2K, you should report accurately that what I said was the difference between the Spine and other blogs is the presence here of the jackal pack. It is relatively rare elsewhere at TNR that one must either defend oneself or suffer abuse at the hands of other posters. Civility generally prevails. At the Spine, with the jackal pack constantly barking and snapping at anything they don't like, it is a constant. I suppose that is because the Spine is written by the jackal-god and hence attracts this sort of thing.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...nd the much-invoked "revelation of American hypocrisy" that our adolescent fugitive wanted to achieve seems to have flowed into a recognition that we were doing below the covers pretty much what we said we were about above." I posted somewhere an article from a Russian journalist affirming exactly the same. It was translated from Russian by a simple Jew who calls himself "snoopy the goon": http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/12/julian-almighty-and-wikileaks-vs.html "And from the American diplomatic correspondence follows that American diplomacy does exactly what it says. Or don't you know that Qadaffi is mad tyrant who is afraid to fly and to live on the upper floors? Are you unaware that sex maniac Berlusconi is bought by Putin? Don't you believe that Putin is an Alpha Dog? So American public diplomacy doesn't use these monikers in public. So what? If someone records my phone conversations, they can hear what I'm saying on Ekho Moskvy. Only shorter and unprintable. This is not a scandal. It would have been a scandal if Americans wrote in their secret diplomatic mail that Qadaffi is a saint, but as he fights against our bloody American regime, he must be discredited. In fact, this is the main problem for Julian Assange and the extreme left. They always reveal, expose - mostly the bloody American regime, because, firstly, it is perfectly safe to do, and secondly, the bloody regime uses computers. (Tyrants who don't use computers don't deserve Assange's attention.) And it turns out that this [American] regime, no matter how you expose it, looks exactly the same inside as it does from the outside. Inside goals are the same as the outside ones. Inside methods - the same as the outside ones."

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: I'm sure most readers with an average IQ would read my post and understand the point I made in it: That you are incapable of distinguishing the message from the messenger (the blight of bona fide bigots, btw) . So much so that you wouldn't accept even a well-known and easily verified fact such as "the sun rises in the east" if it was Marty who submitted this fact. I'm afraid that you are the one who is incapable of making an argument if all you can say in response to my comment is: "Quelle surprise. Anti-semitic slander from noga. Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work" in many variations. And it takes you almost 400 words to say it. Speaking of boring pestilence. You are not clever and you are not some nimble jiu jitsu semi-politician. You are sad and overweighed with words and irrelevant insults. You are not even capable of admitting what is obvious to all; that when you said: " What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." you thought people would forgive you for making such statements, even if you did not intend it quite like it sounds. You are incapable of admitting you misspoke, made a mistake, had no intention of tarring hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens with this broad and slanderous brush. This is the kind of moral coward you are.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally an overt statement about his not so subtle agenda: "WikiLeaks' Assange Continues Assault on U.S. Officials" "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange continued his assault on U.S. government officials, calling for President Obama to resign if it is proven that he approved of spying on UN officials by U.S. diplomats." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024658-503543.html

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now why would an Australian national feel entitled to demand that the head of State of another country resign?

- jdyer

December 5, 2010 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would hazard a guess that Assange is an anarchist who does not believe in national borders. He is probably counting on and looking to stir up the easily-excitable hostilities of the extreme left (mainly in academia). Has Chomskey opined about the matter?

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My, my, noga. I would have to say that even a reader with a below average IQ, even a reader with your disordered thought, would read my post and understand the point I made, that Peretz is so reliably dishonest that, even were he to repeat something indubitably true, one would begin to wonder about the truth. It is metaphorical speech, you see. Your peculiar delight -- the drooling, dopey delight of someone who actually has nothing meaningful to say, no worthy criticism, no serious argument -- is witlessly to interpret with excruciating literalness metaphorical speech, speech that even a child would understand is not meant to be understood, indeed cannot be understood, absolutely literally. Then you pretend here, and apparently to yourself, that you have made some important discovery, discerned some hidden truth. In fact, all you have done is behave the witless fool, Chauncey Gardner. Because, my dear noga, you are a witless fool. Quoting Jane Austen or Nietzsche does not alter that sad reality a bit. None of their brilliance rubs off on you by association. You are just a ninny quoting Austen or Nietzsche. ________________ Even the point you imagine yourself to be making, of which you are absurdly proud, that only bigots consider the messenger and not the message by itself, is simply wrong. It is the exact opposite of the manner in which evidence is evaluated, not only formally but informally. People get sent to prison based on the veracity of witnesses. We receive vast quantities of information daily that we would be completely unable to interpret sensibly if we did not rely primarily on the veracity of the source of the information, because very few messages are self-proving or self-evident. Hence, we see yet again, for the nth time, that in your struggle to appear erudite, in your relentless zeal for the cheap smear, you succeed only in demonstrating how ignorant you are about virtually everything of practical or pragmatic importance, including logic. You can quote Nietzsche, but you are, to anyone who understands, oblivious to the meaning because you don't even know what logic is. You know, I wouldn't venture to express my opinions about Jane Austen, a subject upon which I know virtually nothing. I have the good sense to know that I don't know. You on the other hand can be expected routinely to demonstrate not only your ignorance, but that you have not the slightest idea that you are ignorant. Hence, you constantly embarrass yourself. In the end, I am sure you don't really care. You are so desperate to succeed with a smear that you will use whatever seems to be near to hand in the hope that maybe, if only be chance, you will land a blow. Not very likely. You don't have the intellectual tools, noga. Not even close. As for my thinking that "I would be forgiven," more groping nonsense. I know that you, in your awful, painful, juvenile literalness, don't even understand the meaning of what I said, whether in its full version or your carefully edited versions. I have no need to explain it to you and no desire for anyone's forgiveness. The audience with the intellect to understand understands. That does not include you. So what?

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, if I can distract you for a minute, I'd be really curious how you see the wiki leaks playing out. I was very taken with Irony's point that this may be sabotage, only without the motives of sabotage. How serious a breach was it? Does the lone gunman theory apply? Does your knowledge of law give you any sense in how will this will eventually prosecuted? When the time comes, what exactly will they say he's guilty of? Does any of this crime fall under international law? Is he, in fact, guilty of anything? There are too many questions up there for you to address, I'm just throwing out a few ideas.

- MOLLYSIMON

December 5, 2010 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, I was just looking for you. Check out Flip Flop and Fly a 40 year retrospective of Downchild. I felt like I was reliving the last 25 years of my life hanging out at Toronto's grungiest, hence best, blues clubs. That aside it's a wonderful account of a great Canadian blues band.

- basman

December 5, 2010 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, This is well outside of my area of expertise. International law itself is mostly about nations in their relations with each other. It only has limited application to crimes in two areas that I know of, war crimes (not relevant) and extradition. Extradition is, I believe, almost entirely a matter of both bilateral treaty and local law. The French, for instance, will not under any circumstances extradite a French citizen (again leaving aside war crimes where different rules may apply). What little I know about extradition I know only from chatting with a friend of mine who happens to be in charge of this for the Department of Justice for a big region of the world. To extradite Assange, the US would have to indict him and then ask the country where he is found to extradite him. Then it would be a question of the crimes for which that country will extradite (usually a limited set) and any other rules in the bilateral treaty. I am pretty clear that the sergeant who took the documents is likely to be prosecuted. If Assange solicited him, or helped him, it might be that there is some conspiracy statute that would apply, or some aiding and abetting law. But those are less likely to be extraditable offenses in whatever country Assange may be found. Extradition more often applies to primary offenses than to collateral offenses. If the sergeant stole them first and then offered them to Assange to publish, not for espionage purposes, my impression, based on the Pentagon Papers case, is that that would be a very difficult prosecution. There are laws against "receiving stolen goods," but I am not at all sure they would apply to information, let alone apply extra-territorially. My seat of the pants reaction is that it is unlikely that the US would succeed in prosecuting Assange and I am doubtful that it is going to try. I think there is maybe a 50-50 chance that they could even extradite him successfully. They are sure going to throw the book at that sergeant though. As to the impact of the whole thing, I think it is pretty much a non-event. Other nations will hardly be surprised that there are unflattering things said about them and their rulers in State Department correspondence. You can be sure that this is commonplace in diplomatic communications and they know it. It is mildly embarrassing, certainly an embarrassment to our security, but I don't think it is going to alter much of anything diplomatically. From the NYT, I get the impression that most of it portrays the Obama administration as tougher and shrewder than it gets credit for in the press. That will probably help our diplomacy overall.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all "No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency"by Raffi Khatchadourian June 7, 2010 interview/profile with Assange that provides insight into his agenda. I read it in June, but I recall he believes the United States is daily committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I assume it is easier to "expose" an English-language country than all the others who daily commit war crimes, e.g., Russia, Sudan, Iran, etcetera, etcetera. Assange's citizenship in Australia is tenuous at best. Quite the post-modern childhood. roid really needs to learn how to read before he tries to write. 12/05/2010 - 8:16pm EDT | roidubouloi [K2K] "Roid confessed in the previous post on Turkey that he IS different in The Spine than elsewhere, although his animus towards those he regards as Peretz "acolytes" is carved in granite." [roid] "You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K," Just because you think I am a Peretz acolyte and a rightwing whatever does not make it true. As to the general civility in other TNR threads? Another figment of your disturbed imagination. Only for those who conform to the groupthink. Roid is solely here to disrupt The Spine. One would think such a polymath would have more useful hobbies than unread rants in The Spine..

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" I know that you, in your awful, painful, juvenile literalness, don't even understand the meaning of what I said": Another post of 550 words of nothing but apologies and self-righteous whining from roi. "[A]wful, painful, juvenile literalness" is a good way of describing the passages I keep quoting back at you, edited or non-edited (which is a risible distinction you keep trying to make, unsuccessfully, as every word you wrote is on parade): "....the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America..." , "PS There are no doubt some reasonable people on the right, somewhere, but they have more or less of the same mythical character as "moderate Moslems"... Hence, we can ignore them as either to few and/or too craven to make a difference. The one righteous person in Sodom." "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." This is exactly the kind of statements that one would expect from a bigot and a fascist, who proudly attests that facts, easily verifiable facts, depend for their veracity and credibility on the person who speaks of them: "As is, Martin Peretz couldn't persuade me that the sun rises in the east. If he said it, I would wonder." You extolling the virtues of International Law is as ethically sound a proposition as Saudi Arabia chairing the committee on universal rights for women.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is that you said about reading before you write, K2K? Here, try again. Then, if you want to say something, make it relevant. "You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K, and never have any reason to complain of ill-treatment at my hands. What you and the gargoyle of the Spine cannot expect is to make personal attacks and not then be subject to the same. You have to a large extent cleaned up your act in the recent past (and hence not found yourself much in the line of fire), but you get a little overheated at times when you think that the gargoyle has scored a point and jump on her bandwagon before realizing that 1) you may just not have understood how fatuous her point was and 2) there will be consequences that you don't much like. * * * In fairness, K2K, you should report accurately that what I said was the difference between the Spine and other blogs is the presence here of the jackal pack. It is relatively rare elsewhere at TNR that one must either defend oneself or suffer abuse at the hands of other posters. Civility generally prevails. At the Spine, with the jackal pack constantly barking and snapping at anything they don't like, it is a constant. I suppose that is because the Spine is written by the jackal-god and hence attracts this sort of thing."

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: I do not know of any EU country that extradites anyone to the United States when the death penalty is involved. Yesterday, I read that AG Holder was still (!) researching legal options. The more interesting question is which country will grant Assange asylum. If he is hiding in England, I think he should stay away from pubs frequented by the Royal Marines. Maybe Obama can lend NATO a predator drone to zero in :)

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Past experience indicates, K2K, that once roi has hit rock bottom in terms of lack of self-control and inflated invective, he takes a break for a few weeks. I think we are more or less at that point now. Let's see if I got it right.

- noga1

December 5, 2010 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid - do not waste any more electrons. Your bait offers no temptation. I know it is best to avoid psycopaths. Maybe you should try high doses of Xanax with your nightly pint of whatever it is you are drinking while typing.

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, every word I write here is completely obvious to anyone who wants to read them. That you have now quoted them, I don't know, 20 times, and think this somehow makes a point, and that you keep counting the number of words I write, probably not half of yours here, and also think this makes a point, is merely an indication that you are an obsessive-compulsive wack-job. A poor, sick demented wretch of a human being. A starved, abused dog with a bone. Your "awful, painful, juvenile literalness" is not a distinction about my writing noga, it is a point about your sanity. Geez, you cannot get even the simplest things straight. Face it, you make one idiotic, inane point after another. I shoot them down like Annie Oakley shooting skeet, "Okay folks, this time, between my legs, with a mirror, while riding upside down, backwards, on a galloping pony," because you are so inane, and then you get even more frustrated and say something even stupider. So, go ahead, make my day. Give us another repetition why don't you, larded with more of your blubbering incoherence. Do you have any idea what a horrid, embarrassing spectacle you are? Does your husband know what you are doing? Shouldn't you ask him for help? Is there no one close to you who can relieve your suffering?

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No such luck, noga. I have holidays coming up so lots more time and no reason to stop slapping you around. I know how you love that. As for you, K2K, I am not baiting you. I am taunting you. I know perfectly will that you poke your little head out of your hole every so often, bite me on the ankle, and then run away and hide. Noga is a beast. You are but a worm.

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: I believe his academic semester is over. As is the Ballet season in NYC, except for The Nutcracker which is running at the David H. Koch Theatre at Lincoln Center. Imagine how problematic THAT would be for someone who sees rightwing conservatives as the enemy - with David Koch also being the "worst" of such plutocrats. "...In July 2008, billionaire philanthropist David H. Koch pledged to provide $100 million over the next 10 years for the purpose of renovating the theater and providing for an operating and maintenance endowment. It was renamed the David H. Koch Theater at the 2008 New York City Ballet Winter gala.[1] The theater will bear his name for at least fifty years, after which it may be renamed; the Koch family retains the right of first refusal for any renaming." from wiki. The Democrats really are having a nervous breakdown. I still can not believe Senators Schumer and Levin leaked their letter calling on AIPAC to lobby for the START treaty. Almost a sign of a psychotic break with reality to write AND leak such a letter. Schumer really misread his re-election.

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NY City Ballet is in a state of decline, as it has been for quite a while under Peter Martins. And I still refer to it as the New York State Theater. They can re-name it as often as they like, it is what it is, Balanchine's theater. I am sure Senator Schumer is waiting to hear from you about the correct reading of his re-election. Don't wait. Call today!

- roidubouloi

December 5, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: it must have been a bitch of a divorce...

- K2K

December 5, 2010 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, K2K, Why bother replying to Roiduchien who is in desperate needs distemper shots? If you don't reply he will eventually go away.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat "And why does he feel entitled to play God with the lives of named informants and sources?" Perhaps because he is a self righteous authoritarian like many people on the far left. They tend like the Romanian Nicolae Ceauşescu or Chavez of Venezuela, to cite a more contemporary example, to lecture anyone and everyone on their right to dictate universal morality. Hard to tell if their self righteousness is the cause of their embracing these leftist ideals or if once they become leftists they also become self righteous. They embrace politics as religion of the fundamentalist kind: it becomes for them a total way of life.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

come on jackson, it is too tempting to push so many buttons on a too-cold weekend :) "...Mr. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens warned that if Mr. Assange were to be brought to trial on rape accusations he faces in Sweden, or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, he would release the encryption key. The tens of thousands of people who have downloaded the file would instantly have access to the names, addresses and details contained in the file. ..." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/ [If this were not reality, it would make a terrific thriller, now that the Saudis are also calling for his capture or death]

- K2K

December 6, 2010 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...[Assange] He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document service has had a profound effect on world history: “I believe geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/ He thinks he is a Hinge of History. Not realizing the result will be more secrecy, less transparancy. sorry - forgot to make sure the URL was not also the view full comment

- K2K

December 6, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why, welcome back to our conversation, jackasson. Seems that not very long ago, you were advising everyone not to pay attention to me. And believe me, I would be happy not to have the attentions of a jackass such as you. But, as ever, you just cannot help yourself. Shall we start your timer running again and see just how long before you cannot take your own advice? Now, what about self-righteous right-wing authoritarians? Don't they get any mention? How long the list: Martin Peretz noga John Yoo Richard Cheney George W. Bush Augusto Pinochet Abdullah Saud Tan Shwe Patrick Buchanan Slew of right-wing talking heads, I choose Ann Coulter as the representative of the class Is their self-righteousness the cause of their embracing fascist ideals or is it that once they become rightists they also become self-righteous? They embrace politics as religion of the fundamentalist kind. It becomes for them a total way of life. _____________ Hey, jackasson, I just quoted you! Your lucky day, you have hit the jackpot. Your 15 seconds of fame.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops. I meant to say that you have hit the jackasspot. Sorry about that.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, what you do is slap yourself around and then brag that you slap other people around. It's an astonishing sight to behold. Would be comical if it were not so tragic. That jackasspot/jackpot mixup is a very revealing Freudian slip. K2K: Do you really believe roi is a student of something or other? I have no doubt roi believes he is a student but from the evidence of the kind of things he says and how he perceives reality, it appears it is just one of his favourite delusional states.

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 7:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He thinks he is a Hinge of History" and "The tens of thousands of people who have downloaded the file would instantly have access to the names, addresses and details contained in the file. ..." It turns out he is just your garden variety blackmailer, a mafioso in anarchist garb. He no idea where his own interest ends and responsibility begins. Just look what can be done by one disgruntled employee and one megalomaniac kid playing on the computer. One good thing to come out of it is that the Far Left's motivations and aspiration to set the standard on universal morality have been discredited and maybe even crippled forever. "Assange is Noam Chomsky with a knack for computers and a determination to do the “American empire” more harm than just lashing out against it in feverish books gobbled up by college sophomores." (Rich Lowry)

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://contested-terrain.net/wikileaks-and-the-conspiracy-theory-of-history/ "Wikileaks and the conspiracy theory of history History is Made at Night noted someone who tweeted that the Wikileaks revelations would prove that geopolitics is not in fact determined by the Bilderberg Group, Masonic conspiracies or the Israel lobby, but in fact confirms the boring old Marxist materialist theory of history (except it was said wittily in 140 characters). For example, Wikileaks shows that it is the Arab oil lobby, not the neocon/Israel axis, pushing military aggression against Iran – small-imperialist power politics, not Jewish conspiracy." Will these leaks drive the final nails on Mearsheimer and Walt's theories or will they become just another "proof" of the conspiracy theory about the long and sinister reach of ZOG?

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 8:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh no, noga, your incessant mewling, whining and bottomless self-pity make it clear that you get smacked around verrrry well. I know that getting smacked silly is therapeutic for you. I am happy to do my part. I see though that you are finally exhausted to the point where the best you can muster is speculation that I am someone other than who I claim to be. That's good. You should titillate yourself in just this harmless way indefinitely. Then you won't be boring everyone to death. Speaking of which, how is your study of logical inference coming along? Making any headway? I suggest you start with Bayes' Theorem. See if you can make sense out of that and move on from there. I very much look forward to the day when we have a new noga who can actually relate one proposition to another without careening off into an abyss. If the day ever comes, you might even be formidable. You have venom and hate enough for a small army. If you had even a rudimentary ability to reason, you might be tough.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For example, Wikileaks shows that it is the Arab oil lobby, not the neocon/Israel axis, pushing military aggression against Iran – small-imperialist power politics, not Jewish conspiracy." Uh oh! One of those small problems of logical inference. Wikileaks might show that the Arab oil lobby advocates military aggression against Iran. It might even fail to provide evidence that the neocon/Israel axis is also pushing military aggression against Iran. In the nature of things, it cannot "show" that the neocon/Israel axis is not advocating military aggression against Iran. The absence of evidence is not sufficient evidence of absence. Indeed, since the neocons and Israeli government openly advocate military aggression against Iran (see, e.g., Martin Peretz), one would have to say that it would be impossible for wikileaks to demonstrate otherwise no matter what it disclosed. You really have to get the hang of this whole evidence/inference thing, noga. Even pre-lingual infants have been shown to have some native understanding of this. I really don't know how you came to adulthood without any apparent ability to make these simple connections.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"One good thing to come out of it is that the Far Left's motivations and aspiration to set the standard on universal morality have been discredited and maybe even crippled forever." The "Far Left" has been discredited for years. I am surprised that you hadn't noticed. The urgent task now is to discredit the Far Right which currently includes the entirety of American conservatism and a large chunk of the Israeli right as well. Then at least we may have enough breathing space without further military misadventures to enable us to set the world back on its axis. (Note to noga: When I say "set the world back on its axis," this does not mean that I literally think that the world has somehow fallen off of its axis of spin. The conservation of angular momentum would make that quite impossible short of a planetary collision. This is what is known as a "figure of speech." These are quite common. They occur constantly in ordinary speech and even small children quickly learn that they are not to be taken absolutely literally. You may want to read (or re-read) the Amelia Bedelia stories for a better understanding of the comedy that ensues when one is as awfully, painfully literal as you are. You are so much like Amelia Bedelia, it makes me wonder. Could you be the love-child of Amelia Bedelia and Chauncey Gardner? Are you sure that your biological parents were Turkish? Is Bedelia possibly even a Turkish last name?)

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

End of the semester and roi is here instead of cramming for final exams and putting the finishing touches to his many papers. "Bayes' Theorem." Is that some pathetic attempt to "prove" that you are indeed a student? Where do you think you are, nursery school? I've seen toddlers act with better self-awareness than you.

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this the only book you ever read, roi, "Being there"? Or did you just happen to pick the name from icarus who likes to refer to it and often? It is impossible not to notice how you "borrow" what you consider "choice terminology" from other posters here. Tell us, what other books you read, if any.

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry I can't hang around and chat, roi. I have to go now but I'll be back. Unlike you, I am not a student and have lots of time to spend on these boards. Just a parting thought: I posted those comments on Assange with some premeditation in mind. I wanted to gauge how far you are going to going with your insanity (wondering whether "the sun rises in the East" sort of thing). And you did not let me down.

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes indeedy, noga. The insanity, as to which, didn't you just assure the readership that I am not in reality a student? Having trouble with keeping your thoughts in sequence? As to the dangers of real insanity, this comes from drofnats over on Dionne's blog. I think it an eloquent short summary of the sheer nuttiness of the right-wing and some of the dangers of trying to accommodate their nuttiness: "Obama and 5-10 Senate Dem DINOs need to be less like Repubs, not more like Repubs. Many of the current problems in the US are basically a macro-economic problem. Economics has finally emerged as a valid science and Keynesian macroeconomics is the only theory supported by the available data. Repubs generally reject data relevant to scientific disputes and opt for ideological or theological slogans-- whether it is climate change, evolution, biological bases of behavior, or economics. The list is extensive. On economics, Obama and a set of Senate Dems are not much better-- they do the equivalent of trying to mix flat earth vs round earth theories. The result is often worse than going with flat earth. Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed." _________________ Now, as for my studies, I don't need to cram. I understand the material. Also, at this level, we no longer take exams where we spend an hour or two frantically answering questions in class. Exams typically take a week or more to write and are done at home. I await the e-mail delivery of my first one. Then I shall indeed be busy for a while. Bayes Theorem is probably the most important theoretical underpinning for logical inference. I first learned about it 40 years ago (not in English literature, mind you) and have been engaged with it one way or another ever since. I make my living by understanding how to draw correct inferences from available evidence. I suggest it to you not to prove anything about myself, but to give you a little head start on your studies in logical inference. After a while, you will perhaps come to understand such things as why the veracity, and even the reputation for veracity, of a speaker are directly relevant to the weight that we ought to give his utterances -- quite contra to the noga theory that one ignores the messenger and just reads the message else one is a bigot. Of course, I don't know for sure that you would actually like to know what you are talking about. Indeed, there is reason to suspect otherwise. But you should at least be afforded the opportunity. Good luck!

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never even read the book, noga. Just saw the movie. But it is such a perfect portrayal of you that one cannot help but think of it often when reading you. It does not surprise me that icarus has noted the same thing. Why, your question itself reminds me of the passage where the Colonel intentionally drops the novel he is reading at Alice's feet so that he may become entangled in her skirts and seemingly accidentally stroke her shoe despite being under the watchful eye of her chaperone, Mrs. Wickleflanche. I am often reminded of that same passage when thinking about the dilemma of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Aren't you?

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: it is a real school, albeit firmly cocooned today as post-modern, transnational, and multi-cultural, despite the intent of the original founders: "...In 1919, a group of unconventional thinkers, including historian Charles Beard and philosopher John Dewey, imagined an educational venue where ideas could be discussed freely, without censorship. ... " http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=9096 "...PhD in Economics The department offers a distinctive PhD program in economics. Required core courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and econometrics are supplemented by core courses in Marxian, post-Keynesian, and neo-Ricardian theory, and two areas of concentration. ..." http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=24270 is the URL for the PhD students, with real names and their email addresses.

- K2K

December 6, 2010 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Never even read the book, noga" Big surprise. "The insanity, as to which, didn't you just assure the readership that I am not in reality a student" Assured the readership? Don't you mean that I cast doubts on your reports about yourself? "Assure" is actually the very opposite of casting doubts. But you wouldn't know that, would you? Too busy casting doubts on the fact that "the sun rises in the east". Are you really so linguistically illiterate or just that deeply unpleasant animal, the malevolent semi-politician serving his gods?? I tend to think the former, when I'm in a charitable mood.

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Chavez starts ordering that all thermometers be set to a certain fixed temperature so that people can't complain that they are freezing in their apartments in winter, that'll be the time to compare him to Ceaucescu. Romania is such an odd place and its political history so tangled that "left" and "right" cease to have much meaning. Although seen by the west as an insane communist leader, Ceaucescu was also seen as a nationalist in Romania, because he had negotiated the withdrawal of Soviet military forces in the late 1960s. By the way, as slight proof of how weird Romania was under Ceaucescu, a guy I knew slightly had the same name (it wasn't a particularly unusual surname), and his father was also, coincidentally, called Nicolai. When his father died, he couldn't find a newspaper willing to accept the death notice because they were all afraid they could get a visit from the Securitate if they printed "Nicolai Ceaucescu, RIP"! Chavez has a ways to go yet.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, every country is an odd and "unique place." What the former Romanian and the current Venezuelan dictator have in common is that they think they have the solutions to every question. They love to teach and their speeches are lectures that they deliver to the "people." (Castro is like that too.) Chavez lectures on Victor Hugo and the Ceaucescus awarded themselves all kinds of degrees including the sciences. Roid has a similar mindest but not the power which is why he goes into impotent rages when he is challenged.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12/06/2010 - 7:43am EDT | noga1 “roi, what you do is slap yourself around and then brag that you slap other people around. It's an astonishing sight to behold. Would be comical if it were not so tragic. That jackasspot/jackpot mixup is a very revealing Freudian slip.” He is also the least original poster here. Being insulted by him is like being buzzed by a fly. You just wave it away without even thinking about it.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, noga, but your command of English as it is spoken by English-speakers is, to be charitable toward you, weak. "I have no doubt roi believes he is a student but from the evidence of the kind of things he says and how he perceives reality, it appears it is just one of his favourite delusional states." This qualifies as your "assurance" as to facts about which you know nothing and your typical assertion of a factual claim that you cannot support. Not to mention that you misuse the word "linguistic." "Linguisitically illiterate?" Huh? Meaning that I do not understand the formal study of language or language skills? Actually, meaning nothing. You are a jumped-up ignoramus, noga, whose idea of literacy is pure cut and paste. That's way the moment you try to express any thought of your own, it runs straight off the rails. In any good high school, the trivial cut and paste exercises in which you engage are good for a D by the time you reach your senior year. You are a drone with a search engine who understands pretty much nothing about anything. Every time you try to say something clever, you only succeed in demonstrating, yet again, how insipid you are. How's the dressing yourself coming along? Boiled any water yet? Do they even permit you to get close to flames or hot surfaces? In all seriousness, noga, are you institutionalized somewhere? From the evidence of the kind of things you say and how you perceive reality, your ignorance of commonplaces of ordinary life, it appears that you are.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see that the pansophical roidurien is still omnisciating.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackasson, I WON MY BET AGAIN! You are supposed to be ignoring me. You keep claiming that that is the thing to do. You keep telling all of your malignant buddies here that that is what they should do. Yet, you are incapable of following your own admonition. What is wrong with you, jackasson? Do you have an obsessive-compulsive disorder like the gargoyle over there? Still, even though you are an jackasshole, I have to admire the originality of your thought. How many people could have come up with this trenchant observation: "Hard to tell if their self righteousness is the cause of their embracing these leftist ideals or if once they become leftists they also become self righteous. They embrace politics as religion of the fundamentalist kind: it becomes for them a total way of life." Not to mention the elegant prose with which you express yourself. Even if you were a human being, rather than a braying jackass, this is the sort of thing that people would be quoting for years. Though you be obnoxious, whiny, cowardly, and a bully, the Spine is blessed to have you here piercing the fog with your keen, original mind.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid - After I suggested that you might try a different strategy, you essentially asked me to sketch out what another strategy might look like, which, as you point out, I have not done. I'm thinking this might require more than a Facebook exchange. Last year you mentioned that you sometimes get to Amherst. (You even offered to buy me lunch.) I think that would be a better venue for our discussion on alternative ways to deal with adverse comments or personal insults. I understand that you do not want to be on the "lose" end of a "win/lose" (your mentor's teaching). The problem is that "win/lose" most often gets to "lose/lose". The real trick is developing the commitment and the skills to get to "win/win". I truly hope we can meet in Amherst.

- JackR

December 6, 2010 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, yes, I stand (well, sit, really) corrected. For some reason I had 1965 in my head but maybe that was because Ceaucescu came to power then. Ceaucescu withdrew Romania from active military involvement in the Warsaw Pact, so I probably mixed up those two separate decisions by the two leaders.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack, I am long overdue for a trip up to the Holyoke Valley and parts east, but it cannot happen before the New Year. I will get on about seeing what I can schedule and get back to you.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As several here noted, Peretz cracks wise unfairly on Hillary Clinton for doing her job. What would you propose Clinton say, Dr. Peretz? Perehaps you would like one of the following, admittedly more truthful, but probably not better, alternatives, e.g.: "Our country's entire diplomatic effort for decades is compromised, and we are now in an unusually vulnerable state.", or, more encouragingly, "If dedicated researchers carefully analyze these leaks, their efforts will be amply rewarded by their discovery of the identities of many of our undercover operatives, worldwide.", or, even cuter, "Gee, most of the first-released items aren't too damaging, but I have no real idea yet of just how bad this massive exposure will be to our national security." Just what would you have her say, Professor Peretz, in the 20/20 clarity of hindsight? (I'm sure many of the wits who contribute comments will have more creative ideas on what Hillary should say; if anyone has some, I look forward to reading them.)

- JBerkowicz

December 6, 2010 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Jackasson, I WON MY BET AGAIN!" The original roidurien does it again. "I WIN, I WIN, I WIN, AGAIN," LITTLE KING RIEN, WINS AGAIN! HOORAY FOR CAPTAIN RIEN HE JUST CAN'T STOP WINNING HOORAY FOR CAPTAIN ROIDERIEN.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Chavez has a ways to go yet." (ironyroad) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L34I7TFws "El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una minoría se adueñó de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata, de los minerales, de las aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas, pues, y han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento de la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza de todo el mundo y a la... más de la mitad de los pobladores del planeta son pobres y cada día hay más pobres en el mundo entero." http://www.gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve/docMgr/sharedfiles/Chavez_visita_Centro_Manantial_de_los_suenos24122005.pdf "The world has goods for everyone, but the truth is that, some minorities, the descendants of the ones who crucified the Christ, the descendants of the same people who outed Bolivar from here and also the same who crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority made themselves the lords of all the richesses in the world, a minority made themselves the lord of all the gold in the planet, of the minerals, of the water, of the good lands, of the black oil, of the richesses, and have concentrated all the richesses in very little number of hands: 10% of the world's population has more than half of all the richesses in the world and more than half of the world' population are poorer and poorer everyday. " (Translation found here: ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/01/hugo-chavez-jews-control-world.html#113624973859653452)

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me, jackasson, or waving your hand at me as at flies? You don't seem to have much in the way of self-discipline, do you.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=24270 is the URL for the PhD students, with real names and their email addresses. JackR: sounds like roid needs geography orientation - first time I ever heard of Holyoke Valley as an alternate place name for the Pioneer Valley. It will take a few more minutes to shake the image of roid anywhere near Holyoke :) BTW, even though I never stop off in downtown Amherst in this iteration of my life, is there any REAL Szechuan Chinese food there? Just asking.

- K2K

December 6, 2010 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another roidurien original post: roidurien: "Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me, jackasson, or waving your hand at me as at flies?" What dazzling originality! Repeating what others say and using cliches is what roidurien does best.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "it is a real school, albeit firmly cocooned today as post-modern, transnational, and multi-cultural, despite the intent of the original founders" ??? Of course, as everyone knows, John Dewey believed that American intellectuals should never, under any circumstances, look beyond the borders of the U.S. for ideas or inspiration.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "Of course, as everyone knows, John Dewey believed that American intellectuals should never, under any circumstances, look beyond the borders of the U.S. for ideas or inspiration." Of course you can say without any doubt that he would have approved of the educational reforms accomplished in his name?

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: my original quote: "...In 1919, a group of unconventional thinkers, including historian Charles Beard and philosopher John Dewey, imagined an educational venue where ideas could be discussed freely, without censorship. ..." The political correctness of today's New School COULD be an impediment "where ideas could be discussed freely, without censorship. ..." e.g., I have no idea if the economic theories of Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek, " wiki: best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought" are taught there in addition to Post-Keynesian and Marxism theories. Ask TNR's resident phD candidate, roid, champion of free discussion here in The Spine (sarcasm intended.) Good night all.

- K2K

December 6, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD, no, not at all. But I was asking a question in a somewhat sarcastic way rather than making a thought-out statement. K2K, I take your point but I was responding to the term "transnational" which appeared to have some negative meaning for you. Given that Dewey was very open to ideas and events elsewhere in the world, I was surprised that you'd think he'd object to that aspect of the NS.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe "transnational" is one of those terms that gets the guardians of political correctness very upset. Why exactly I'm not sure. Here is one transnational influence making its way into American academia: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-lawmakers-concerned-by-professor-s-anti-israel-remarks-1.320700 "Video of a Sept. 3 rally in Washington, D.C., shows tenured literature professor Kaukab Siddique saying Israel must be destroyed, if possible by peaceful means. "We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel--if possible by peaceful means," Kaukab Siddique said. "Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people." "For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up," Siddique warned. "And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism." ______________ "Dewey was very open to ideas and events elsewhere in the world"

- noga1

December 6, 2010 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, Which ballet companies have surpassed the NYC Ballet? I don't know much at all about dance but you've piqued my curiosity.

- MOLLYSIMON

December 6, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not so simple, molly. First, I don't have much opportunity to see companies other than NYCB and American Ballet Theatre, both of which perform regularly in NYC. But I have had some exposure to the Paris Opera Ballet and the Royal Ballet. I was hugely impressed with the Royal compared to NYCB and ABT. Less so with the Paris Opera which is too technically oriented for my taste, without a great deal of athleticism or artistry. Sort of academic. But all of these companies, and some of the smaller ones floating around such as Wheeldon, have different styles and repertory. You cannot necessarily compare directly at this level. ABT dances mostly traditional full-length ballets. NYCB seldom does. It does mostly short works or excerpts and is very eclectic. What I have observed though is NYCB in a state of decline relative to its former self. I have been watching for about 20 years, longer for ABT, and as Balanchine's stars have retired (the only one proximate to his era who I think was a student at the School of American Ballet when Balanchine was still alive is Wendy Whalen who is the best of the best), the current director, Peter Martins, a former dancer, has not sought stars of equivalent talent. He has this notion that the "ensemble" should be the star, which means he should be the star, and the result is that the level of the dancing at the top is simply not the same. I also think that for financial reasons they do not rehearse enough for the size of their rep. The corps can often look ragged. It is up and down. There are still some great moments and great dances, but they are less and less frequent and seldom do you see anything like a performance by Jock Soto, Damian Woetzel, young Darci Kistler or Kyra Nichols, or even Lourdes Lopez who was never a big favorite with critics but whom I always loved to watch. There are a couple of young dancers who may become great, Sterling Hyltin comes to mind. Probably more than you wanted to know. There is a NYT review in the not too distant past of a Balanchine festival in which the NYCB participated along with a number of other top companies. That would give you a good run down. Far more articulate than I. Try googling it.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My own subjective feeling is that "transnational" means something like "globalization for nice people." It seems to be the left's version of it, in some ways. But why "international" has partially given way to this new term makes me curious. I'm suspicious of new words that seem to resolve some problem entirely on the level of vocabulary. In any event, Dewey would have had, I think, no problem with an international or transnational orientation to studying economics at the MA or PhD level, either at the New School or anywhere else.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In any event, Dewey would have had, I think, no problem with an international or transnational orientation to studying economics at the MA or PhD level, either at the New School or anywhere else." How else can one study economics, at the macro level? Even Adam Smith had already written about inter-national trade in the 18th c.

- jdyer

December 6, 2010 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's pretty much what I was saying to K2K.

- ironyroad

December 6, 2010 at 11:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The extremely curt history of The New School being discussed above is a bit ahistorical. From wikipedia: The New School is a university in New York City, located mostly in Greenwich Village. From its founding in 1919 by Fabian Socialists (progressive New York academics), and for most of its history, the university was known as the New School for Social Research. Between 1997 and 2005 it was known as New School University. The university and each of its colleges were re-branded to their current names in 2005. The school is renowned for its avant-garde teaching, housing the well-known, international think tank The World Policy Institute, and hosting the prestigious National Book Awards. Parsons The New School for Design is the university's highly competitive art school. * * * The graduate school of The New School began in 1933 as the University in Exile, an emergency rescue program for threatened scholars in Europe. In 1934 it was chartered by the New York state board of regents and its name was changed to the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science, a name it would keep until 2005 when it was renamed New School for Social Research. * * * The University in Exile was founded in 1933 as a graduate division of the New School for Social Research to be a haven for Neo-Marxist scholars from the Frankfurt School who had been dismissed from teaching positions by the Italian fascists or had to flee Nazi Germany. The University in Exile was initially funded by Hiram Halle and the Rockefeller Foundation. It was later renamed the "Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science", and bore this name until changing to its present one in 2005. The University in Exile and its subsequent incarnations have been the intellectual heart of the New School. Notable scholars associated with the University in Exile include psychologists Erich Fromm, Max Wertheimer and Aron Gurwitsch, political philosophers Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss, and philosopher Hans Jonas. * * * Following the collapse of totalitarian regimes in Europe, the University in Exile was renamed the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. In 2005 the Graduate Faculty was again renamed, this time taking the original name of the university, the New School for Social Research. I attended The New School for Social Research for only a year, but what a year it was. The school and New York itself had become a sanctuary for hundreds of extraordinary European Jews who had fled Germany and other countries before and during World War II, and they were enriching the city's intellectual life with an intensity that has probably never been equaled anywhere during a comparable period of time. —Marlon Brando, actor (former New School student) * * * The New School continues the Graduate Faculty's tradition of synthesizing leftist American intellectual thought and critical European philosophy. True to its origin and its firm roots within the University in Exile, The New School, particularly its Department of Philosophy, is one of very few in the United States to offer students thorough training in the modern continental European philosophical tradition known as "Continental philosophy." Thus, it stresses the teachings of Parmenides, Aristotle, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Arendt, Freud, Benjamin, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, et al. The thought of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School: Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas, et al. holds an especially strong influence on all divisions of the school. After the death of Hannah Arendt in 1975, the philosophy department revolved around Reiner Schurmann and Agnes Heller.

- roidubouloi

December 6, 2010 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only point I was trying to make: "Is the New School still "an educational venue where ideas could be discussed freely, without cencorship"?". I have no issue with "[wiki:]•Transnationalism is a social movement grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the loosening of boundaries between countries" until it becomes a core ideology that the borders of nation-states are meaningless. The reality today is that nationalism and the borders of sovereign nations are proving difficult to erase, e.g. illegal immigration in the U.S.; devolution to more tribal nationalities (Scotland, Belgium, EastTimor, Bosnia); or NGOs trying to erase political borders entirely. Transnationalism is one of the more contentious disputes between the Left and the Right. Is the United Nations truly a transnational institution, or is it a meeting place for those who most fiercely want to protect and strengthen their national identity and boundaries? On a micro level, if a phD aspirant in economics wants to study von Hayek and the power of free market capitalism, I wonder if that person would be socially isolated at the New School. Nothing wrong with any graduate program emphasizing Marxism, but does it remain a place for open and free discussion? Perhaps UofChicago is the New School's alter-ego, far more von Hayek-friendly. Why don't we email every phD student at the New School and ask for their opinion? Just kidding. I thought it irresponsible of the New School to make it so easy to identify their grad students and email addresses. A mini-Wiki-Leaks example of the tension between privacy and transparency.

- K2K

December 7, 2010 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lots of peace in the Middle East: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhNOWVuSXGE&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 7:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is commonplace for the orthodox believers of the right to assume, or hope, that everything that is not them is merely some other orthodoxy, simply less good than their own. This is not the case. The New School is heterodox, which does not mean merely another orthodoxy at some pole to the Chicago and MIT monetarists/neo-classicists. Its dominant theme is skepticism about orthodoxies of all kinds. Within a small department can be found devotés of the Austrian school all the way to people who are still thinking hard about Marx's transformation problem as if it mattered. Everyone there gets a very respectful hearing. There is great comradery. It is a pleasure to be amongst excited, thoughtful, young people, and brilliant, knowledgeable professors, from literally all over the world. I chose the place because it is flexible and I could craft a program that fit in with the other demands in my life. With hindsight, I could not be more pleased that NYU and Columbia were too rigid and inflexible for me to have attended (been to both anyway and wasn't hugely impressed the first time, although I thought a bit more of the program at NYU).

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is great comradery" ??? Tovarish roi. What else.

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understand that human friendship, or simple joy in a shared intellectual enterprise, is completely alien to you, noga. That is your loss and no doubt a lot of the reason that you are so visibly wretched and drenched in spite. As your English is strained, let me help you, comradery (or camaraderie, more directly from the French): 1. Close friendship in a group of friends or teammates. 2. A spirit of familiarity and closeness In turn, "comrade" means "friend", "colleague", or "ally". The word comes from French camarade. In English, we do not take our meaning from the Russian use and its association with Bolshevism and Communism. It is a pity that you have no opportunity in your life to experience this.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It boosts my faith in the spirit of human charity to learn from you that there are one or two persons who can actually act as friends to you. In Jane Austen's world, there are no such monstrous human beings as cannot be somehow tolerated by certain members of society. I do however remain sceptical about your ability to reciprocate or sustain such compassion. There is just so much sawdust one is willing chew ..

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

com•rade: comrade•ship n. “Word History: A comrade can be socially or politically close, a closeness that is found at the etymological heart of the word comrade. In Spanish the Latin word camara, with its Late Latin meaning "chamber, room," was retained, and the derivative camarada, with the sense "roommates, especially barrack mates," was formed. Camarada then came to have the general sense "companion." English borrowed the word from Spanish and French, English comrade being first recorded in the 16th century. The political sense of comrade, now associated with Communism, had its origin in the late-19th-century use of the word as a title by socialists and communists in order to avoid such forms of address as mister. This usage, which originated during the French Revolution, is first recorded in English in 1884.”

- jdyer

December 7, 2010 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

com•rade: comrade•ship n. “Word History: A comrade can be socially or politically close, a closeness that is found at the etymological heart of the word comrade. In Spanish the Latin word camara, with its Late Latin meaning "chamber, room," was retained, and the derivative camarada, with the sense "roommates, especially barrack mates," was formed. Camarada then came to have the general sense "companion." English borrowed the word from Spanish and French, English comrade being first recorded in the 16th century. The political sense of comrade, now associated with Communism, had its origin in the late-19th-century use of the word as a title by socialists and communists in order to avoid such forms of address as mister. This usage, which originated during the French Revolution, is first recorded in English in 1884.”

- jdyer

December 7, 2010 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regardless of the direction in which Austen and her novels weigh in, they are fiction, noga. This is why you are our own Chauncey Gardner. As he was a complete naïf in all matters other than his garden, he could not help but analogize everything to his garden. When he is asked about matters of state, he invariably responds, "In the garden . . . " The hilarity is due to the fact that all of the listeners take this to be a deep insight made by metaphorical reference to a garden when, in fact, Chauncey is talking about his garden. And so you. You seem to believe that Austen is the guide to life, that any question cannot be considered to have been considered until we have considered it by reference to Austen's fiction. "In Jane Austen . . . " They are just novels, noga. Not divine revelation (although there is a remarkable resemblance too between the manner in which divines respond to every question with reference to their particular book of revelation). Despite Austen's magnanimity, one has to wonder whether there is anyone who would tolerate your society. Chewing sawdust is still a lot better than chewing on glass. Better for your health too.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You like chewing on glass, roi? You always respond to my very short comments by long winded invective bombs which fail to launch anyway. Surely your time as an intimate student among other "excited, thoughtful, young people, and brilliant, knowledgeable professors, from literally all over the world." should be spent a little more productively?

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=24270 is the URL for the PhD students, with real names and their email addresses Why don't we email all other phD students at the New School and ask for their opinion on "Its dominant theme is skepticism about orthodoxies of all kinds"? One can wonder when The Spine's resident New School phD student writes that, yet displays no such "skepticism about orthodoxies of all kinds" in these threads. And whether they think it irresponsible of the New School to make it so easy to identify their grad students and email addresses. A mini-Wiki-Leaks example of the tension between privacy and transparency.

- K2K

December 7, 2010 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and btw, compañero roi, is "Being there" the ONLY movie you ever saw? I've seen articles comparing Bill Gates, Ben Bernanke and even Barack Obama to Chauncey Gardiner. What does it tell you about cliches and schadenfreude?

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"irresponsible of the New School to make it so easy to identify their grad students and email addresses" It's probably done with the consent of the students who may have their own reasons for wanting to publish their contact info. A sort of mini linkedin network.

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DECEMBER 6, 2010 "In Jane Austen 2.0, the Heroines And Heroes Friend Each Other. The Young Seek 'Sense and Sensibility' On Dating, 'Crazy Parents' Via the Web." [from Boise to Brooklyn, no less!] By ARDEN DALE And MARY PILON "Ben Kemper, 19, plans to wear a frock coat with cuffs to the annual Jane Austen birthday tea in Boise, Idaho, on Saturday. The outfit will be "the whole shebang," says Mr. Kemper, who hopes to scare up some yard work so he can pay for the new threads. He says his costume may include riding boots, a cane, gloves and a buttoned vest. Mr. Kemper is among an unlikely set of fans of the long-dead Ms. Austen—young people. The English novelist best known for "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility" has been dead since 1817, yet she is drawing a cultish pack of young people, especially young women, known as "Janeites" who are dedicated to celebrating all things Austen. The appeal? Ms. Austen's tales of courtship and manners resonate with dating-obsessed and social-media-savvy 21st-century youths, says Nili Olay, regional coordinator for the New York Metro chapter of the Jane Austen Society of North America, or JASNA. Other renowned English authors aren't so posthumously popular—at least among the Web set. Ms. Austen counts roughly 89,000 fans on Facebook, compared with 45,000 for Charles Dickens, and just 9,000 for the Brontë sisters. Young women, in particular, find meaning in Ms. Austen's work, according to Joan Klingel Ray, author of "Jane Austen for Dummies." They may be "trying to figure out how to find Mr. Right," says Ms. Ray, an English professor at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. "You can almost vicariously experience this through her heroines." Jennifer Potter, 24, a member of JASNA's New York chapter, says Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre" feels antiquated. She finds Jane Austen's writing more relevant to her life. "Marrying for money, crazy parents, dating—these are all basic themes," Ms. Potter said, sipping tea near the sandwich table at a recent Austen meeting that drew 200 members. Lindsey Hanlon, 22, is part of an Austen group at the University of Wyoming, in Laramie, in which members sit for hours over dinner discussing the author's work and give each other quizzes. Earlier this year, during spring break, they traveled to England for a visit of old Austen haunts, including Bath, where some of her characters disported themselves. "Every girl in the world has had a crush on an inappropriate suitor or the man she sees as above her, or even the local bad boy," says Ms. Hanlon. "Whoever you are, there is a love story for you in Austen." Ms. Olay, 66, is trying to tap into that passion to ensure that the Austen Society, formed in 1979, endures. In 2008, at the suggestion of member Cattleya Concepcion, 27, Ms. Olay set up a Facebook page. She quickly found that the Web was already a hotbed of Austen activity. "Using the Web and Facebook, we were able to reach younger members," says Ms. Olay. "They are forming friendships and learning how to plan events." DeeDee Baldwin, 31, of Starkville, Miss., created in 2008 "AustenBook," a Web spoof of Facebook that digitally chronicles the happenings of Elizabeth Bennet and the other characters in "Pride and Prejudice." "When you read her books, you feel like the characters could be with you right now," says Ms. Baldwin. The Austen Society is reaching young people in other ways, too. For the past three years the group has bought space at the Brooklyn Book Festival, making Ms. Austen the only deceased author with her own booth at the ultra-hip event. Jaclyn Green-Stock, 23, co-heads the New York "Juvenilia" chapter of the Austen Society, a 50-member group of Janeites in their 20s and 30s. Ms. Green-Stock is also writing a screenplay about gentrification in New York, using "Persuasion" as her chief inspiration. The Juvenilia members take walking tours in lower Manhattan and gather at each other's apartments to watch DVDs of Austen-themed movies such as a Bollywood version of "Sense and Sensibility" called "I Have Found It." Media companies are tapping into the Austen craze as well. Quirk Books in Philadelphia in 2008 commissioned author Seth Grahame-Smith to write "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies," a work that adds the undead to Ms. Austen's classic novel. The book is slated to become a film next year. The seeds of the Austen resurgence were sown during the 1990s. In 1995 came two big film and TV adaptations: the BBC miniseries of "Pride and Prejudice," featuring actor Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy; and director Ang Lee's "Sense and Sensibility," starring Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant and Kate Winslet. A year later Gwyneth Paltrow starred in "Emma." "Clueless," a 1995 movie starring Alicia Silverstone and Paul Rudd, was a thinly disguised adaptation of "Emma," set in modern-day California. But while those movies stirred young people's passions for Ms. Austen's works, the Web is allowing fans to connect in new ways. Among the Jane Austen Twitter feeds, blogs and chat rooms that have cropped up is "Jane Austen's Fight Club," a faux movie trailer that juxtaposes women in Austen-era frocks with the bruises and blood of the cult classic "Fight Club." There's also dwiggie.com, a hub of fan fiction overseen by Crystal Shih, 29. Ms. Shih and her college roommate discovered Ms. Austen a decade ago and began writing Austenesque prose in their Massachusetts Institute of Technology dorm room. Now her site boasts about 1,000 registered users. Everything from "Clueless" to Colin Firth is fair game for debate. "The movie adaptations created a lot of fanatics," says Ms. Shih, now doing postdoctoral work in biochemistry at MIT. "In some of the forums, there are throw-downs about who is their favorite Darcy…At one conference an 80-year-old said Laurence Olivier was the only one for her, but Colin Firth definitely propagates that Darcy image today." A spokeswoman for Mr. Firth declined to comment. Laurie Viera Rigler has written two Austen-theme novels, "Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict" and "Rude Awakenings of a Jane Austen Addict." In May she launched "Sex and the Austen Girl," a Web series at babelgum.com that plays on the differences between life today and in the Austen era. The two-and-a-half minute webisodes include such titles as "The 200-Year-Old Virgin." Young people, says Ms. Viera Rigler, are deep into Austen's universe and obsessive fandom "is normal to them." "It's true," she says. "We are a little crazy."" Write to Arden Dale at arden.dale@dowjones.com and Mary Pilon at mary.pilon@wsj.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575649041609261602.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_ahed 12/07/2010 - 11:30am EDT | roidubouloi questions why anyone thinks: "...Austen is the guide to life, that any question cannot be considered to have been considered until we have considered it by reference to Austen's fiction."

- K2K

December 7, 2010 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Different institutions have different rules, but it's not uncommon for faculty and grad student email listings -- as opposed to those of undergrads, in many cases -- to be open to all viewers.

- ironyroad

December 7, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't chew on your glass, noga. That would be for your acquaintances. I step on glass. While wearing heavy boots. Then I grind the glass a bit until it is dust-like and less prone to do harm. I have seen a couple of other movies besides Being There, but none even comes close to portraying a character such as you so faithfully. For example, I rather liked The Band's Visit, a movie I am sure you are familiar with, but the people in that movie, whatever their foibles, arouse compassion and a feeling of recognition of and sympathy for human frailty. Hence, no one in the movie resembles you and any comparison would make no sense. No, you are the living embodiment of Chauncey Gardiner. ______________________ "The appeal? Ms. Austen's tales of courtship and manners resonate with dating-obsessed and social-media-savvy 21st-century youths, says Nili Olay, regional coordinator for the New York Metro chapter of the Jane Austen Society of North America, or JASNA." Oh yes, let us allow that Jane Austen's tales of courtship and manners are directly relevant to -- courtship and manners. Gardening is relevant to growing tomatoes too. But dating, courtship, and manners really aren't very useful metaphors for international relations, economic affairs, national security, law, physics, politics, rather a long list of things. Neither is the proper mix of fertilizer for growing tomatoes. One of the key skills that sane, competent adults must learn is what goes with what.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I step on glass. While wearing heavy boots." Clearly the very fact that you debase yourself to this level of discourse, in which you liken yourself to heavy boots stepping on fragile glass is proof of your great rhetorical success. Who do you think you are, Stalin de la shmatte? But your delusions are consistent with the same fascist voice that thundered: "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all."

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, have you ever read Philip Roth's novel "Sabbath's Theater"? It's my favorite of his and has some of the most breathtaking passages in the English language (the best being, I think, Sabbath's trip to what I remember being Atlantic beach, though it may have been the Jersey shore). Anyway, in what I believe was "Sabbath's Theater" (but may have been one of the other dozens of his novel's I've read) he writes a hilariously satiric iff on Austen being the favorite writer an upper-class British dowager. What she appreciates most is that the novels always end both happily and tidily. I'm not doing the quote any justice. It's a long novel and if I have time I will post it later in the day. I count myself an Austen fan, and Austen's appeal and seriousness goes way beyond this. But I did find it exceedingly funny.

- MOLLYSIMON

December 7, 2010 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is your favourite Austen character, Molly? Isabella Thorpe, maybe?

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

English is still a serious problem for you, noga. I did not liken myself to heavy boots. I said that I deal with broken glass wearing heavy boots. If it isn't Austen, are you illiterate or "linguistically illiterate" as you illiterately like to say? Goebbels little girl and anti-Moslem racist is no position to be calling anyone a fascist, although inversion of reality is a standard propaganda ploy of fascists such as yourself. As has been pointed out repeatedly in response to your editing of my words, it is you, not me, who believes that the way you deal with political opponents is to persecute, torture, and murder them. I think you contest with them in the political arena. That is what makes you, not me, a fascist. (Please note, I did my best in the preceding paragraph to weave together all of the ideas in such a manner as to make it difficult for you to edit so as to alter their meaning. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if you were to try. This is the sort of Goebbels-y propaganda trick that you resort to routinely in the absence of any ability to advance a persuasive argument.) __________ Sorry, molly. Haven't read it. My interest in Roth was brief and a long time ago.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... inversion of reality is a standard propaganda ploy of fascists " Which is a principle you have been practicing ad nauseum on this message board. It's very easy for me call you a fascist, considering you wrote this, and refused, repeatedly, to retract your words: " What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." The quotes speak for themselves.

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, the quotes don't speak for themselves because, as you have done before, you have omitted the paragraphs that follow that make it clear that I am speaking only of political and rhetorical contest. I have no reason or need to retract my words as I wrote them, which means all of them together rather then the versions you post, carefully edited by you to alter their meaning. You on the other hand can ask a question such as, "What is to become of Americans who don't share my view of Obama?" indicating quite clearly your expectation that political opponents are to be persecuted. Such a question is preposterous in the context of American political life. But not to you, because you are a fascist. Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/IRS_to_Jewish_group_Does_your_organization_support_the_existence_of_the_land_of_Israel.html?showall "...a letter from an IRS agent to another, unnamed organization that tax experts said was likely outside the usual or appropriate scope of an IRS inquiry. "Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?" IRS agent Tracy Dornette wrote the organization, according to this week's court filing, as part of its consideration of the organizations application for tax exempt status. "Describe your organization's religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel." ...Z Street claims that a different IRS agent reviewing its application for tax exempt status said the agency is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel" and that "a special unit" is determining whether its activities "contradict the Administration's public policies.'" ..." The thin edge of the wedge of persecution...

- K2K

December 7, 2010 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You on the other hand can ask a question such as, "What is to become of Americans who don't share my view of Obama?" indicating quite clearly your expectation that political opponents are to be persecuted. Such a question is preposterous in the context of American political life. But not to you, because you are a fascist." I can't follow the chain of evidence in this comment. Where did I ask the question: ""What is to become of Americans who don't share my view of Obama?" Why does it matter that my views of Obama are not shared by some or many or all Americans?

- noga1

December 7, 2010 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You posed the question, not me. It betrays your totalitarian mindset that you think it a question that needs to be asked or answered. In a liberal democratic society, the question is preposterous.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you don't recall asking it, why just scroll up. You'll find it.

- roidubouloi

December 7, 2010 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I quote you, roi, I've got the link right there. Maybe you are not so convinced of your own grounds, that you can't be bothered proving them. If you don't point to the discussion where this question was asked and why, I have to deduce that it doesn't really serve your case, so you pretend to be non challant about it. As always no courage in your convictions. And how could it be otherwise, when you cannot rationally explain away what you meant by declaring: " What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama... They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/79401/obamas-foreign-policy-needs-reset

- noga1

December 8, 2010 at 7:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, an even more heavily edited quote. If you will quote the my words in their entirely, they need no explanation. The serious question is, what possible explanation is there for such as you?

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems to me, roi, you have run out of things to say. And no edited or non edited version of your words can possibly explain what you mean by: " What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama... They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." Even if you don't have in mind mass genocide or internment. I notice you do not explain how your slander of 150 million citizens of the US as "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." because they disagree with your opinion about Obama's greatness is reconcilable with the rule of law or the principle of democracy. Perhaps you would now like to rephrase your comments? You didn't really mean to say that so many Americans are "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all.", did you? One doesn't make this kind of statement, and excuse it as being 'metaphorical". Would you care to reconsider your characterization of everyone who did not vote for Obama as "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." You have a chance to apologize to all these people and lay the matter to rest.

- noga1

December 8, 2010 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here you go, noga. I have done your homework for you. It seems that, amongst your other problems, is a very short memory about the things you yourself have said. I can understand that. Your endless stream of ignorant, fatuous propaganda and lies quickly blends into a blurred lump. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/79554/if-we-needed-any-more-proof-obamas-courting-turkey-was-another-in-his-string-fa?page=4 Typical of your fascist lies and propaganda -- the very reason I so aptly describe you as a student and acolyte of Josef Goebbels -- is that, yet again above, you delete my words and then substitute your own making it appear as if your words are mine. But of course they are not. I never said anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone, even by a vicious, unprincipled liar such as yourself, as suggesting that loyalty to America and support for Obama are one and the same thing or even have anything to do with each other. ______________ To quote what I said in full: What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right. * * * Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all. I suspect this is the sentiment that noga finds so odious. But, it is true none-the-less. And we know perfectly well where noga would find her political company if she were an American. Time to ratchet up the rhetoric and go hand to hand with these insane sons of bitches in the same hyperbolic terms in which they attack the left. We need open political warfare in America, with two sides engaged, not just one. Then the matter can reach some resolution -- either they are marginalized, finally, or they get a free hand to wreck the place. Appeasement is not an option any longer. PS There are no doubt some reasonable people on the right, somewhere, but they have more or less of the same mythical character as "moderate Moslems" who are supposed to engage and overcome Islamist radicals. If they exist at all, they certainly aren't doing anything much to combat extremism. So too with right-wing moderates. If they exist at all, which is doubtful, they are doing nothing to contest with their dominant extremists. Hence, we can ignore them as either to few and/or too craven to make a difference. The one righteous person in Sodom. _______________ They are traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves not because they do not share my views -- that is the totalitarian spin that you cannot help but put on everything -- but because they affirmatively wish harm to come upon America, as do you, for the purpose of achieving political power or seeing the faction that they support come to political power. That is no longer loyal opposition, it is no longer a disagreement about policy or even ideology, it is being an enemy of the United States. Yes, all of those Americans, and Israelis such as yourself, who wish harm upon this nation are our enemies. The particular reason why they and you wish us harm does not matter. There is nothing metaphorical about that and no need at all to explain or defend that statement. I continue to stand by it. There is nothing that I wish to lay to rest other than this: You are a disgrace to Israel, noga, a thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being. There is nothing that I can see that distinguishes your bloodlust and your racism from the anti-Semites you purport to deplore. You are they; they are you. The only difference is which ethnic label you happen to be wearing.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: YOU are the "thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being.". That you project yourself onto anyone else is evidence of psycopathic bullying, i.e., you believe your own lies, and have zero empathy for other humans. Classic textbook case. Have no idea how your New School colleagues can bear your presence, so I assume you reserve your dark side for The Spine, and particular animus to noga because she is a woman, (and a Canadian citizen?). JackR might want to reconsider his lunch invitation to Amherst. His view of reality is wasted on anyone who so believes his own lies.

- K2K

December 8, 2010 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

adding Mayor Michael Bloomberg to roid's 'enemies of the state': "...“Both parties follow the mood of the moment — instead of leading from the front,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They incite anger instead of addressing it — for their own partisan interests. They tell the world about every real or imagined problem in America, and not what is right with America. Especially in these tough times, we need our leaders to inspire the whole country, not criticize half of it.” ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09bloomberg.html

- K2K

December 8, 2010 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, Bloomberg, except that this is a lie. It is not the case that both parties incite anger instead of addressing it. It is the case that the Democrats try to address it and are met with obstruction by Republicans at every turn, who then whip up anger (there is nothing on the left comparable to the Tea party -- I wish there were) for the failure to solve the problem and then go on to accuse the Democrats of inciting anger. Propaganda. Just propaganda. On the other hand, if people are angry because the Republicans shipped their kids off to fight a useful war or two and crashed the economy, the Republicans say that the Democrats are inciting anger. More propaganda. This is my point about political rhetoric in spades. Reality is irrelevant. It is only the rhetoric that has an impact. Useful lies and useless lies. But only one side really plays at this game, the Republicans, and the political war cannot be fought successfully when one side brings a cannon and other side a knife. If the Democrats continue to allow the right and its thugs (Limbaugh, Beck and all the rest of them) to have a free hand at this, they will continue to get beaten and the public will continue to believe the outlandish claims of the Republicans. _____________ I reserve my animus for noga because she is a thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being" not to mention a liar and vicious propagandist in the mold of Josef Goebbels. There is nothing that she will not pervert to her malign purposes. Thank god, I have never encountered such a person in life beyond cyber-space, certainly not at a place like the New School. The very idea of it makes my skin crawl. You, K2K, don't have my animus so much as my contempt. Noga is a beast, you are a worm who fancies himself a gentleman. You engage in low tactics and then run and hide or try to dissemble your way out of ownership of your own nasty behavior. As I have noted many times before, you administer a bite to the ankle and then jump back in your hole, covering your head with some pieties about proper behavior that you yourself never observe.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"fight a useless ware or two and crashed the economy"

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Typo follows typo. I cannot see in this little box. I don't know why they cannot let us type just as it will appear.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Here you go, noga. I have done your homework for you." No, you haven't. Nowhere did I find a question I asked that you quote as: ""What is to become of Americans who don't share my view of Obama?" ____________ The closest I found was this: "12/04/2010 - 12:39pm EDT | noga1 ....What idea is he invoking by the reference to Sodom? What's to be the fate of all Americans who do not share his faith in Obama?" Notice: "his" refers to roi, not myself. ____________ There is a strange kind of argument roi makes here in trying to establish that it is I who is "thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being." He made these awful comments about all Republicans and those who vote for them as "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America" and "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." I called his out on his fascist language and the hatred it is preaching. Yet the very fact that I noticed these words made by him render ME a fascist. Why? Because only someone who thinks fascistically could possibly accuse innocent roi of such nefarious ends. It's a very convenient defence argument. a NeoNazi skinhead carrying a sign that proclaims: Jews are the vermin of the world. Journalist: What does it mean, the message on your sign? SH: Exactly what it says. Journalist: Don't you think it is a fascist message? SH: No Journalist: How can you claim such innocence? Isn't it the same type of message used by Hitler and Stalin? What is it you advocate here? What do you think has to be done about these Jews that you call "vermin"? SH: I don't advocate anything. I just state facts. It's your own fascist thinking that sees such awful meaning in what I actually said. It's you who are the fascist, the thug, the Goebbles, etc etc etc

- noga1

December 8, 2010 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, you are a fascist because, among other reasons, you have no choice, despite my plain language, to reconstruct, with your own words, my call for political and rhetorical contest as a call for murder, torture, and persecution. As you have made plain over and over again, that's what you think is to be done with an enemy. I don't, but you are desperate to attribute your own horrifying thoughts to me. And then you deplore them. I deplore your horrid bloodthirstiness too. You are also a fascist because you play fascist propaganda games with everything. You want to take issue with something I said? Go ahead. But you are incapable of it. First, you have to invent your own fantasy version of it and then take issue with your own awful invention, as ever trying to attribute your own awful thoughts to me. You even go so far as to try to make your case by intertwining my words with those of Nazis of whom you approve to make it appear that their words and your words are my words. You run the same play over and over again with various edited versions of my words interspersed with words of yours that you endeavor to attribute to me. You have been running the same game on various people, who have complained of it, ever since you arrived here. I can but repeat: You are a liar, a "thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being." Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work. Today is no different. Same lies, different day. That you have a miserable domestic life -- as evidenced by your open yearning for a marriage to a homosexual rather than to the heterosexual to whom you claim to be married (he must be some masochist to be married to you) -- is no justification of your execrable behavior. Perhaps you are morbidly obese and afraid to go out of the house. Got me. But there is something profoundly wrong with you.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because you are such a nitwit, in addition to your other charming qualities, let me help you out of your interpretive difficulties and obscene speculations. The point about the one righteous person in Sodom makes clear to a reader of ordinary intelligence and modest education that, if there are any moderate conservatives who exist, they are far too few in number to redeem the atrocious behavior of the movement as a whole. The sheer number of words you spend over this trivial idea, attempting over and over again to spin it into some version of your own bloodthirstiness, is ludicrous. As are you.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Congressman David Obey, retiring Dem from Wisconsin, said today, [roid] "substitutes hyperbole for thought." Yes, it was fascinating to watch the House debate over why the Senate took more than a year to pass the FDA reform law with significant changes to the original House version that was actually the product of serious bipartisan effort and vote in 2009. Mostly, the GOP members had to explain why they oppose Pelosi's sneaky tactic of including the Senate version of the FDA bill in the Continuing Resolution for funding part of the Federal Government (instead of having the spine to actually pass a budget for FY2011). Sounds like the Dem sneaky tactic of repealing DADT in the Defense Appropriation Bill. I am so looking forward to John Boehner taking the gavel from Nancy Pelosi on January 5. Time for Pelosi to stop playing dirty tricks to make the GOP appear to be obstructionist. I make it a point to avoid any contact with psycopathic bullies like roid. Roid's animus towards Peretz is transferred to noga because she prefers to challenge roid's thuggish, goonish, sick, perverted, enraged, psychotic behaviour towards anyone who disagrees with roid or challenges roid. At that moment, the Other instantly and forever becomes, in the psychotic puddle of cells that is roid's brain, a rightwing idiot not worthy of breathing even the polluted air of Hunts Point, the environmental disaster zone of the South Bronx that also supplies the fresh fish you spend so much money on in roid's Manahttan venues. Now that we know roid's reality identity, one wonders why roid is incapable of stopping his use of electronic means to abuse real humans. So much easier now to give roid that two week vacation roid so sorely needs: Rikers Island. Roid will be surprised at how popular roid will be amongst the part of the Democratic base that roid would never deign to mingle with in the bubble of elitism that roid tries to live in.

- K2K

December 8, 2010 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are what is known as a "blithering idiot," K2K, and a cowardly abusive little prick who spends post upon post explaining why he is not in fact the abusive little prick he quite evidently is. If I were like you and the gargoyle, I would proceed to berate and abuse you for saying nasty things about Pelosi. But I consider public figures legitimate targets and therefore can only take issue with what you say, not with you for having said it. That is a nicety that you and the rest of the goon squad don't observe. As you always do, you invert reality, as it is you and the jackal pack who invariably attack people for expressing opinions you don't like. You are too feeble to do anything else as when you attempt an argument, it is a rambling incoherent mess. See above. Back into your hole, little worm, covering yourself with your usual pieties about good behavior that you never observe. "I am so looking forward to John Boehner taking the gavel from Nancy Pelosi on January 5. Time for Pelosi to stop playing dirty tricks to make the GOP appear to be obstructionist." I think I shall adopt noga's tactic and quote this every time you open your mouth to remind one and all what a boob you are. Unlike the gargoyle, I shall, however, do you the courtesy of quoting you intact. What you have to say is sufficiently embarrassing that it requires neither embellishment nor editing. Much better without.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And is this all?" cried Elizabeth. "I expected at least that the pigs were got into the garden, and here is nothing but Lady Catherine and her daughter..." Winston Churchill: "The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is." http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

- K2K

December 8, 2010 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, truth is a stubborn thing. The pattern here is invariably the same. You and your buddies are the first to employ personal insults and invective. When I respond, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, you whine about being bullied. It was exactly the same on this thread. Let's review the bidding, K2K, since you seem perfectly oblivious to your own behavior and the fact that you are as much they offender as the rest, although you typically wait for them to start in first: 12/05/2010 - 12:01am EDT | jdyer [First remark about another poster, me, draws an immediate response.] 12/05/2010 - 2:41pm EDT | noga1 [String of insults by directed at me by noga, although I have not commented about noga or anything she has said.] Draws only this response from me: "Marty can be a curmudgeon all right but he is fundamentally decent and fair." A ludicrous claim that could only be made by a devoted acolyte. Thereafter follow more insults from noga, increasing in volume and hysteria. 12/05/2010 - 5:16pm EDT | K2K [K2K chooses to make a series of comments about me, although I have not commented about him or anything he has said.] Draws only this in response: 2/05/2010 - 8:16pm EDT | roidubouloi "Roid confessed in the previous post on Turkey that he IS different in The Spine than elsewhere, although his animus towards those he regards as Peretz "acolytes" is carved in granite." You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K, and never have any reason to complain of ill-treatment at my hands. What you and the gargoyle of the Spine cannot expect is to make personal attacks and not then be subject to the same. You have to a large extent cleaned up your act in the recent past (and hence not found yourself much in the line of fire), but you get a little overheated at times when you think that the gargoyle has scored a point and jump on her bandwagon before realizing that 1) you may just not have understood how fatuous her point was and 2) there will be consequences that you don't much like. And In fairness, K2K, you should report accurately that what I said was the difference between the Spine and other blogs is the presence here of the jackal pack. It is relatively rare elsewhere at TNR that one must either defend oneself or suffer abuse at the hands of other posters. Civility generally prevails. At the Spine, with the jackal pack constantly barking and snapping at anything they don't like, it is a constant. I suppose that is because the Spine is written by the jackal-god and hence attracts this sort of thing. [And then you commence with personal insults] 12/05/2010 - 11:28pm EDT | K2K roid really needs to learn how to read before he tries to write. 12/05/2010 - 8:16pm EDT | roidubouloi [K2K] "Roid confessed in the previous post on Turkey that he IS different in The Spine than elsewhere, although his animus towards those he regards as Peretz "acolytes" is carved in granite." [roid] "You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K," Just because you think I am a Peretz acolyte and a rightwing whatever does not make it true. As to the general civility in other TNR threads? Another figment of your disturbed imagination. Only for those who conform to the groupthink. Roid is solely here to disrupt The Spine. One would think such a polymath would have more useful hobbies than unread rants in The Spine. [Draws only this in response from me, affording you an opportunity to return to civil behavior.] 12/05/2010 - 11:34pm EDT | roidubouloi What is that you said about reading before you write, K2K? Here, try again. Then, if you want to say something, make it relevant. "You can be an acolyte all you want, K2K, and never have any reason to complain of ill-treatment at my hands. What you and the gargoyle of the Spine cannot expect is to make personal attacks and not then be subject to the same. You have to a large extent cleaned up your act in the recent past (and hence not found yourself much in the line of fire), but you get a little overheated at times when you think that the gargoyle has scored a point and jump on her bandwagon before realizing that 1) you may just not have understood how fatuous her point was and 2) there will be consequences that you don't much like. * * * In fairness, K2K, you should report accurately that what I said was the difference between the Spine and other blogs is the presence here of the jackal pack. It is relatively rare elsewhere at TNR that one must either defend oneself or suffer abuse at the hands of other posters. Civility generally prevails. At the Spine, with the jackal pack constantly barking and snapping at anything they don't like, it is a constant. I suppose that is because the Spine is written by the jackal-god and hence attracts this sort of thing." [And then you are off to the races, in full blown attack mode.] 12/05/2010 - 11:39pm EDT | K2K roid - do not waste any more electrons. Your bait offers no temptation. I know it is best to avoid psycopaths. Maybe you should try high doses of Xanax with your nightly pint of whatever it is you are drinking while typing. ___________________ It is ever thus, K2K. YOU are a cyber-bully (although a pretty lame one, typically more childish than vicious). As above, you attempt to deflect attention from your bad behavior with pompous posts about cyber-bullying and whining complaints about the response to your instigation and insults. Save your kvetching. Your lies deserve nothing but contempt.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Allow me to say, Lady Catherine, that the arguments with which you have supported this extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was ill-judged. You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be worked on by such persuasions as these. ..." chapter 56, "Pride & Prejudice" "Political Philosophies Explained in Simple Two-Cow Terms: SOCIALISM You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor. COMMUNISM You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk. FASCISM You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk. BUREAUCRACY You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain. CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. CORPORATE You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows, then act surprised when it drops dead. DEMOCRACY You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to pay the taxes to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government." http://www.bullyonline.org/successunlimited/humour/jokes.htm

- K2K

December 9, 2010 at 1:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".... my call for political and rhetorical contest as a call for murder, torture, and persecution." " What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." ___________ BTW, roi, I didn't really mean to suggest you were actually in any position to be a fascist. You just aspire to be one, even if you manage to hide it from your own true self. However, there was a question I asked you asked which you couldn't answer and tried to ignore by turning your hose of dirty sewage water on me. I asked you plainly how such fulmination, that calls your political opponents "the enemies of America" and "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." can coexist with the idea of democratic debate and rule of civility and law. If you uttered these words in public where you could be recognized, you might be liable to be prosecuted for libel, if not hate speech. How would you defend yourself to the judge and jury? Would you say you meant " "the enemies of America" and "Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." metaphorically? Or that all of them were actually

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 6:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"you are a fascist because, among other reasons, you have no choice, despite my plain language, to reconstruct, with your own words, my call for political and rhetorical contest as a call for murder, torture, and persecution. As you have made plain over and over again, that's what you think is to be done with an enemy. " If, as you said, I have made this plain over and over again, you would have no trouble finding a proper quote to support your allegation. So let's have a quote. If you fail to provide such a quote with the proper accurate link to its location, then one may deduce that you are just a liar, a slanderer and worse.

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 6:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"12/05/2010 - 2:41pm EDT | noga1 [String of insults by directed at me by noga, although I have not commented about noga or anything she has said.] " "There is no one here whose temperment so resembles that of Marty's than Roid." Here is the comment that roi characterizes as [String of insults by directed at [roi] by noga" : "This almost borders on the slanderous. Marty can be a curmudgeon all right but he is fundamentally decent and fair. He is not beyond asking for forgiveness or correcting his mistakes (even though it's rare but still, the ability is within him). Marty is also very well read and knows a great many interesting people whom he talks about. None of the above can be applied to roi. Even to call him a curmudgeon would be an insult to curmudgeons. "What really fries you as that I can kick your sorry ass any time I want to and I don't even have to break a sweat. " Of course roi also suffers from a delusion of grandeur. He actually believes himself to be all that, and more." ___________ An intelligent reader might ask: Where is the "String of insults"? Roi doesn't even distinguish between a perfectly legitimate speculation about the source of his pathological break from reality and what is actually a "string of insults". Strings of insults are roi's specialty: ""You are a liar, a "thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being." Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work. "

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 7:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wouldn't even dignify that piece of stupidity with an argument other than to note that the perfectly legitimate conclusion that: noga is "a liar, a thug, a goon, a sick, perverted, wretched, enraged, racist, psychotic shell of a human being. Goebbels little girl. Always hard at work." comes at the tail end of a long series of abusive, pathological posts by her. Noga is either oblivious to her own atrocious behavior or is aware of it and chooses brazenly to lie about it. Either way, she is a uniquely execrable simulacrum of a human being, far and away the worst I have ever encountered, thank god only in cyber-space. In the real world, one would need bodyguards or the witness protection program.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 7:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: quoting Austen to roi is as futile as casting diamonds before swine. He has only contempt for literature and the only movie he quotes from is, most appropriately, "Being There".

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 7:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi declares "I wouldn't even dignify that piece of stupidity with an argument " and immediately follows up on that resolution with a 123 word comment.

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 7:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have only contempt for you, Chauncey Gardiner. Literature (especially Austen) and movies are lovely; they are not a reliable guide to the solutions to economic, political, diplomatic, military, security, legal, engineering, or financial problems. Obviously, literature doesn't even do you any good in composing a domestic life that does not leave you wretched and spitting venom. Perhaps it serves you as a distraction from your pathetic misery. Stick to Austen. At everything else, you are an illiterate and an ignoramus. Discussion of anything other than literature and movies with you is far more pointless than casting diamonds before swine. The swine might at least find those attractive. No, in your case it would be like trying to explain special relativity to swine. The rational thought necessary for even the most rudimentary comprehension is far beyond the realm of possibility. Go home, noga and wallow for a while, as you so love to do. You are fully cooked here.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are fully cooked here." I'll let you have the last word, roi.

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Films, perhaps, show us who we want to be, and literature shows us who we actually are. ..." a rare insight from "Chuck Lorre and the rules of the network sitcom" by Tom Bissell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/06/101206fa_fact_bissell noga: what else can one do when the reincarnation of Lady Catherine, albeit spewing hate speech as no doubt she would in 2010, is in plain view? "And is this all?" cried Elizabeth. "I expected at least that the pigs were got into the garden, and here is nothing but Lady Catherine..." (ch 28) Lady Catherine to Elizabeth (ch 56) "...I am shocked and astonished. I expected to find a more reasonable young woman. But do not deceive yourself into a belief that I will ever recede. I shall not go away..." Elizabeth responds: "...Allow me to say, Lady Catherine, that the arguments with which you have supported this extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was ill-judged. You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be worked on by such persuasions as these. ..."

- K2K

December 9, 2010 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi is hardly a Lady Catherine. Jane Austen's novels do not contain human monsters. roi would be more in place in a Stendhal novel and we must be grateful that we live in enlightened places and times and that he is no more than a figment of his imagination.

- noga1

December 9, 2010 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops. So much for the last word. Your incontinence betrays you, always. I am grateful you are in Canada. Don't visit.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Political Philosophies Explained in Simple Two-Cow Terms: http://www.bullyonline.org/successunlimited/humour/jokes.htm DEMOCRACY You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to pay the taxes to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government." BUREAUCRACY You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain. CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. CORPORATE You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows, then act surprised when it drops dead. ..."

- K2K

December 9, 2010 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In our rush to condemn this egregious outpouring of "private diplomacy," we neglect faulting the real culprits: a totally irresponsible and ill-managed U.S. security regime; and an irresponsible media tribe, whose principal goal is apparently generating readership and advertising revenue, regardless of any public purpose it might serve. Were it not for the laxity of the American government in creating a system under which an Army PRIVATE (Manning), located in a war zone, could actually download, undetected, a veritable storm of diplomatic traffic, none of which was even slightly his business to see, let alone copy, and freely gift it all to WikiLeaks; and a international media hell bent on selling their "services," WikiLeaks would never have accomplished their coupe. It is time to put the focus of responsibility where it belongs. The real issue is not what diplomats, Americans and others, said in the course of their official duties, but rather how and why these conversations became the business of the general public whom they supposedly serve.

- namobo

December 9, 2010 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why are you speaking to the subject, namobo? You apparently do not realize how things work here at the Spine. According to the "usual suspects," the subject is me, not the subject.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close