An Open Letter to Samantha Power, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Barack Obama

Ms. Power:

Your February 18^th interview with Salon.com includes the following passage:

“The Bush administration has a long-standing policy that it doesn’t engage with terrorists or dictators. Is there a time when the United States should?

Absolutely. I’m with Barack on this. But it’s not indefinite. Barack’s point is you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States. So what you do is you meet in order to achieve things. You meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe. You meet in order to get international wind at your back so that America is not seen as the problem — [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is the problem. You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.”

Your response to this question represents perhaps the single element of Obama’s platform that is most abhorrent to many voters who have rejected all possibility of supporting him. I respectfully ask that you elaborate upon what you said here, given the weight this issue holds for many Americans.

A) You mention that an Obama administration would not only be open to engaging with dictators, but also with terrorists. Would you mind naming some of the terrorists you would be advising that Obama meet? Do you wish that he meets with Haniyeh? Bin Laden?

B) You mention that “you meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe.” I am not sure what you are saying here – you either wish to 1) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to “know them”, or 2) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to determine if they are, indeed, your foe.

If you intended the former, what is it you wish to know regarding the intents and motives of, say, Hamas and Al Qaeda? Have they not been clear?

If you intended the latter, what information do you need to receive from any terrorist entity or dictator to further determine if it is a foe? If an entity has committed acts of terror, or has established itself as a dictatorship, are you implying that you would advise consideration of the possibility that this entity could be considered a US ally?

C) You mention that “you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States.”

Can you name some of the entities which would change their relationship with any other entity based upon their meeting with the US? The only ones I can think of are currently designated terrorist groups or dictatorships. Or are Vladimir Putin.

Are you advising that a President Obama, prior to meeting with a terrorist or dictator, somehow negate the concept that establishing relations with the US is “some great reward”, because the US should be concerned that said terrorist or dictator will lose his or her standing among other terrorists or dictators? Why should this be a concern to the US?

And how, exactly, would you advise President Obama establish that meeting with the US is no “great reward”?

D) You mention that “You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.” Are you implying that you would establish a hierarchy wherein one terrorist or dictatorship is more deserving of a meeting with the US than another? If so, what would be your criteria?

Al-Qaida wishes to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate governed by the Koran. Hamas wishes to annihilate Israel so that they may establish a state governed by the Koran. Iran is a state enforcing brutal human rights abuses, with the goal being a state most closely aligned with the teachings of the Koran. You refer to these entities as the “unlike”.

Why are you looking to examine any possible differences between these terrorist groups and dictatorships, without first examining the similarity of which they scream at the top of their lungs?

Best,

David

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/

samantha_power@ksg.harvard.edu

Bizarre Hate Coincidence? UPDATED: All better now! Anti-Semitic comments deleted, Anti-conservative bigotry and rape threat allowed to stay!

(Scroll down for update) 

My previous post, an open letter to the production team of the announced Howard Zinn film and miniseries, asked whether they were troubled by his endorsement of Valdas Anelauskas’ book.

My post just prior to that linked to some shockingly hateful responses to a pro-Iraq op-ed that appeared in the Oregon Daily Emerald.

Now, a poster calling himself “Valdas Anelauskas” has dropped a despicable anti-Semitic rant… on the very same thread at the Daily Emerald.

So…

We’ve either got a moby, who read my blog and decided to paint the commenters in a wholly undeserved light — which I doubt, as I had, oh, maybe 40 hits last week.

Or…

It was me. It was not.

Or…

It’s Anelauskas himself, and we’ve got some stars aligning over crazytown.

http://www.dailyemerald.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=b4266ac5-467e-4e9d-83cd-58a00a387c1b

UPDATE: 2/14, 2:10p 

The Daily Emerald has deleted the anti-Semitic screed from Valdas Anelauskas.

But they also deleted my comment connecting Valdas Anelauskas to Howard Zinn. Other comments attacking Anelauskas were deleted as well.

Fair, as my comment would not have any context without his bile being present? No, fair would be to post “Comment deleted” in place of Anelauskas’ entry, and to leave other comments as is.

Also — hateful comments directed at the writer of the op-ed, who expressed a conservative point of view? Including one comment threatening rape?

Still there.

I would appreciate any help from others in contacting the Daily Emerald: eglucklich@dailyemerald.com, editor@dailyemerald.com

An Open Letter to the Producers and Distributors of “Let the People Speak”

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have just announced plans to develop, produce, and distribute a feature film, plus a four-hour mini-series, based on Howard Zinn’s bestseller “A People’s History of the United States.”

In 2002, Howard Zinn wrote a glowing endorsement of the book “Discovering America As It Is”, by Valdas Anelauskas.

Anelauskas has referred to himself as being a “white separatist and racialist”. In 2006, he gave a talk during which he made the comment, “There’s a lot of truth in Mein Kampf…”.

Anelauskas has given a series of talks for a group called the Pacifica Forum, which made headlines is 2007 for scheduling a two-day Holocaust denial conference on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Zinn wrote of Anelauskas’ book:

“This is an extraordinary book, especially startling not because it is a diligently researched and scathing critique of contemporary America, but because it is written by a Soviet dissident who arrived here with great expectations and discovered a sobering reality. The scope of the book is breathtaking, a sweeping survey, factually precise and philosophically provocative, which deserves to be compared to de Tocqueville’s 19th century classic. I hope it will be widely read.”

Do you feel comfortable continuing on with your project, knowing that Zinn endorsed the work of an acknowledged anti-Semitic, white separatist?

Best,

David

http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0015.htm

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/44328.html

http://www.cinemamanagementgroup.com/contact.htm

http://www.cineticmedia.com/

http://artfirefilms.com/

http://firsttuesdaymedia.com/Welcome.html

Replying to Rage at the University of Oregon

On February 7th, the Daily Emerald (independent student newspaper at the University of Oregon) ran the column “If you go to war only when you have to, it will be too late” by student columnist Deborah Bloom. The column reads as a relatively polite, though not terribly strong, statement of support for the Iraq war. A sample quote:

“I think the imposition of democracy is necessary because our ideology, while not infallible, realizes the need for equality and recognizes the immorality of a murderous and aggressive military dictatorship.”

Sounds like a young, budding, political scientist. Comments? Let’s see…

“Are you on drugs? Do you need a good fuck up the wazoo?”

“Go back to grazing with the other sheepocons, we Americans will get to fixing the problems your kind causes.”

“People like Deb’s parents graze off the misery, suffering and taxes of the American People, and get rich doing it. She is one evil bitch. Heh Deb, are you up for some waterboarding?”

Thanks for the contributions! Especially the threat of anal rape. My comments:

“Tim,

Democracy is not better for everbody? That sounds like you reject the concept of universal human rights, which formerly was considered a bulwark of the left.
You recommend Deborah take a class on Islam — I would gladly go through the Koran, Sira, and Hadith with you and Deborah, line by line. You may choose the translation we use.

Best,
David ”

And:

“Deborah,

Congratulations for thinking for yourself among what appears to be a rather vicious, uncompromising crowd with little interest in dialogue. I suggest calmly replying to those who treat you respectfully, and ignoring the others.

Best,
David”

I’ve already been referred to as being “evil to the core.”

 http://www.dailyemerald.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=b4266ac5-467e-4e9d-83cd-58a00a387c1b

An Open Letter to Dean Smith of Harvard

Steven Caton, Director of Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Shown wearing a kaffiyeh, in a photo from his faculty bio page: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~anthro/social_faculty_pages/social_pages_caton.html

(Scroll down for email responses from Prof. Caton.)

To: mike_smith@harvard.edu

Cc: sroy@fas.harvard.edu

Dean Smith:

Harvard may wish to reconsider its appointment of Sara Roy to the position of “Senior Research Scholar” at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. A researcher should at the very least be accurate when the source is something that he or she has written!

Sara Roy, in an op-ed published in the Boston Globe on 1/26, claims that Gaza needs 680,000 tons of flour per day to feed its population, yet Israel only allows 99 tons per day to enter. About a decade ago, Ms. Roy published a paper estimating Gaza’s daily flour consumption at 275 tons.

Given that the 680,000 figure would mean each Gazan consumes approximately one-half ton of flour daily, I am inclined to believe that Ms. Roy deliberately submitted a slanderous lie for publication.

This is not the work of someone deserving of the title “Senior Research Scholar”. This is the work of a propagandist.

Update — 7:20p, 2/5

Dean Smith’s office responds:
 

I am responding on Dean Smith’s behalf to let you know that the following correction has been published in the Boston Globe:

“Correction: A column on Saturday by Eyad al-Sarraj and Sara Roy incorrectly said that Gaza requires 680,000 tons of flour daily to feed its population. It is 680,000 pounds, which means a reduction of 73 percent, not 99 percent, of flour allowed into Gaza.”

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/26/ending_the_stranglehold_on_gaza/

Best,

Christina McFadden

Credit to the Globe for the correction, and for not referring to it as an “error”. But will Harvard take any sort of disciplinary action against Roy, or examine her related work for other deliberate slander?

Update — 11:02p, 2/5

Dear Ms. McFadden,

 Thank you for the response.

This is a correction issued by the Boston Globe, however — does Harvard intend to issue a response of its own?

Update — 2:15p, 2/8
 
I would suggest that you contact Professor Steven Caton [Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies], as research associate appointments in the FAS are made on the recommendation of the appropriate dept chair or center director. Professor Caton’s email address is: caton@wjh.harvard.edu. 
 
Best, 
 
Christina McFadden 

Dear Professor Caton,

As per my exchange with Ms. McFadden below, will Harvard be issuing any sort of response regarding the Sara Roy letter?

As you are asking for a “Harvard” response, I will have to bring this up with the appropriate authorities. It is not a decision I can make on my own. I will try to get back to shortly.

Regards,Steven Caton
 

Update — 2:15p, 2/13

        Thank you for your patience. Here is my response, as you requested.
        Sara Roy contacted me when she realized her mistake, and at the same time informed me of the storm of criticism with which it was greeted. When asked what
she intended to do about the mistake, she told me that she was publishing a correction and an apology in the Boston Globe. It is my understanding, though I did not hear the program myself, that she subsequently was interviewed on NPR about the matter and repeated her correction and apologies there as well.
        As far as I am concerned, CMES has done what was necessary to attend to
an error and correct it. I am also of the view that Sara Roy has done all that is necessary to rectify what was a regrettable mistake. I consider the matter now closed.

Sincerely yours,

Steven Caton

Dear Professor Caton:

Thank you for taking the time to reply.The Boston Globe ran a correction, but not an apology — and Sara Roy certainly is not mentioned as being the source for the correction.

The concern is with this being referred to as a “mistake.” A mistake in judgment perhaps, but it is difficult to believe that the error was not deliberate, and as such, it is troubling that CMES does not share in the concern that the prestige its employment brings may be being used for activism and propaganda rather than research.

 Best,

David

The Treehugger Project

Essentially, I asked of commenters on Treehugger.com: “What are we talking about when we talk about Global Warming?” On what evidence did you, personally, formulate your opinion?

I fail to see how a person involved in a movement would be averse to speaking about the movement’s — or his or her own — foundation, and I fail to see how my question could be construed as being anything other than a constructive exercise. Either you present the information, an act which directly contributes to your cause, or you realize that you are unable to identify it — “there’s no there there” — and you are aware, objectively, that you have not done enough homework to be an advocate. This is also, generally, a positive development for everyone involved.

Read the thread. I believe its fair to conclude that the majority of posters do not ascribe their beliefs in AGW to anything we can actually print out and discuss. Or, if they can, they haven’t actually read the documents themselves.

This is only a conclusion relating to people who post on Treehugger, and doesn’t bear any weight regarding the strength of anyone else’s arguments.  But I think you will agree its not nothing:

 http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?t=2343