Joel Pollak for Congress

Kat · May 24, 2010

In our congressional district we have a nice young Tea Party endorsed candidate named Joel Pollack running against Jan Schakowsky, one of the most liberal members of Congress. Spread the word and give Joel a donation if you can. Check out his website at http://www.pollakforcongress.com

Here is his song he perfomed at the Chicago Tea Party on April 15th that Michael and I attended.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

.... and a video of him as a student causing Barney Frank to get his panties in a bunch and talking to Greta.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Robert Campbell · May 24, 2010

Kat,

I'd seen that clip of Bonnie Fwank blowing up at Joel Pollak.

I wish him success in his candidacy.

Robert Campbell

Kat · June 5, 2010

Thanks Robert. Joel has quite an uphill climb in this very liberal district running against Jan Shit-kowsky. Now I hear that the infamous Helen ("Jews, get the hell out") Thomas is campaigning for the evil Jan. What's a sweet little Jewish dude from Skokie to do. I really hope he can win this thing. Please help. This is a very important election.

Here's another video.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Kat

BaalChatzaf · June 5, 2010

In our congressional district we have a nice young Tea Party endorsed candidate named Joel Pollack running against Jan Schakowsky, one of the most liberal members of Congress. Spread the word and give Joel a donation if you can. Check out his website at http://www.pollakforcongress.com
....snip video of Barney Frank being his insufferable self in front of an audience......

Barney Frank is such an arrogant ass. Just because he is the only member of congress whose I.Q. requires three digits, he thinks he is the smartest man bird in the world. I used to talk to Barney when he had a talk show on WBZ (Boston). He was arrogant then and he is even more so now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 5, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

Kat · June 9, 2010

Joel's Note on Facebook today...

Government and industry: the division of labor

Last week, a university student challenged me: “You Republicans are against big government, but now you want big government to stop the oil spill!” My answer was simple: a government that tries to more than it should will fail to do the things that it must. It is a question of priority, and capacity--which means that there must be a more effective division of labor between the public and the private sectors in our nation.

At the moment, confusion reigns. President Obama claims he is in charge of everything, but wants responsibility for nothing. One moment, we are blaming BP for the oil spill and for the damage along the Gulf coast. The next moment, we are blaming government for its poor regulation of drilling and slow response to local needs. This is no way to solve a crisis. Unfortunately, it is a pattern we are repeating in other areas of American life.

We ought to begin by acknowledging the limits of each side, the public and the private. The government does not possess the technology to “plug the hole.” BP does not have the ability, on its own, to deploy the oil boom necessary to protect the coastline. That is where the division of labor must begin--with a recognition that only the private sector can stop the spill, and only the public sector can protect the coast as the oil advances.

Likewise, we should recognize that each side has a different core function. The primary purpose of government is to protect our nation from all threats. The primary purpose of industry is to produce wealth. The two are mutually dependent: the private sector relies on the rule of law that the public sector guarantees; the public sector cannot function if there is no freedom for the private sector to innovate, grow, and create prosperity.

At the moment, our government is growing rapidly in areas beyond its core function and competence. It controls significant portions of the banking, insurance, and automotive industries. It is spending wildly on new entitlement programs, yet cutting spending in key areas of national defense, like the Coast Guard. Big government is worse government. And a government that boasts of its “boot on the neck” of anyone is greatly to be feared.

The oil spill presents a tremendous challenge. Yet we can overcome it if we restore the appropriate division of labor between the public and private sectors. I would like to see President Obama setting up a field headquarters in the Gulf, from which to oversee the protection and cleanup efforts. I would like to see BP working closely with industry and academia to solve the engineering problems at hand. There will be time for blame later.

Kat · June 11, 2010

I attended a rally with Joel Pollak this week protesting the bailout of Shorebank, which is politically connected to his opponent Jan Schakowsky as well as Van Jones. I had the opportunity to meet Joel and I do hope he wins this one. Support him if you can... and if you have friends in the Chicago area, tell them about Joel.

Joel's article "Why I'm Running as a Tea Party Republican" in the Wall Street Journal. Here is the article with an updated link that will allow you to read the article without subscribing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222194271251722.html

If you would like to attend Joel's fundraiser in Chicago, Lunch with Joel Pollak and Alan Dershowitz see info on his facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4113090&id=138358479184&ref=mf#!/PollakForCongress?v=app_2344061033&ref=ts

Kat · June 13, 2010

Here is Joel's appearance on today's morning news. They show a clip of the Shorebank protest and I'm on TV for a fraction of a second. :-)

Spread the word about this guy and support him if you can.

Greybird · June 14, 2010

You're saddled with Jan Schakowsky? I feel sorry for you. I used to be. Next to the snowfall, it's one of the things I miss least about Chicago.

Pollak is at least an articulate and fresh face, and would shake up the existing power-brokered relationships. He still won't win, of course, no matter how marginally less intolerable he may be, or anti-incumbent the mood may appear. About 98 percent of all unindicted Congressional incumbents are re-elected. If it drops to even 95 percent this year, I'll be shocked.

Anyway, the fix is always in on Chicago's North Side / North Shore, in every way possible, down to gerrymandering at the back-alley level. 'Twas ever thus, at least back through Sid Yates, Schakowsky's predecessor in abuse of the electorate, and that neatly takes up my entire lifetime.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Greybird

Kat · June 19, 2010

Joel will be appearing on the Hannity show next Thursday on the Great Great Great American Panel.

Go Joel!

Kat · October 2, 2010

The campaign is heating up and Joel does have a fighting chance to win this election against a very evul bearded communist. He needs everyone's support. Vote for him if you are in IL 9th district, and visit his website and donate if you can. Here are his new commercials.

Julia is an amazing woman. I've heard her speak at a couple of events. Here is what she said at the 912 event.

Here is Joel with Isaac Hayes who is running against Jessie Jackson, Jr.

Tell all your friends about Joel and his campaign. This is an important election. The corruption from Chicago is now in Washington and they must be stopped. Please help if you can.

Kat

Edited October 6, 2010 by Kat
technical issues found in video so Joel re-uploaded the videos

Selene · October 2, 2010

Thanks Kat:

I have a tremendous amount respect for Professor Dershowitz. He has an excellent mind on the law and the constitution. I have corresponded with him on various legal issues over the years.

This is his endorsement of Pollak.

This link is to the 9th Congressional District. If you have any friends or relatives in its confines, send them an e-mail about this candidate.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=9

Thanks Kat. I will do what I can for him.

Quite impressive young man.

Adam

Kat · October 6, 2010

Ok, here is the campaign commercial you all have been waiting for. Notice the cute couple in the back that you can't see? LOL

I'm Kat and I approved this message because we need a fresh start!

Selene · October 6, 2010

Kat:

Decent commercial.

What are his internal field polls showing?

Does the campaign have a solid election day operation in the works?

Adam

DavidMcK · October 7, 2010

Kat I went to the website and tried to donate, but I was put off by the fact that they want your name address, etc. and I don't want to be inundated for requests for money...do you know where/how I can make a small donation anon.? I liked the way this guy stood up to Barney Frank too.

Mike11 · October 7, 2010

I guess this proves you can't spell "Tea Party" without the letters "FOX"

Michael Stuart Kelly · October 7, 2010

Joel,

Some people at the Tea Party are tribal, and some people at Fox are. But the majority I have encountered (and watch) are more individualist than anything.

This is what runs tribalists nuts--left, right and libertarian (yes, I have seen libertarian tribalists). They don't grok a mind that is individualist at the root, but agrees with a lot of other people on specific issues.

It's always "us against them" as a group in their way of thinking.

There is a difference between a principle and a group. It's easy and obvious to say that, but I constantly see evidence that many, many people don't understand it except on a superficial level.

For me--and for many--it's easy to spell Tea Party without Fox and vice-versa. Some other folks have greater difficulty with it.

Michael

kiaer.ts · October 7, 2010

Kat I went to the website and tried to donate, but I was put off by the fact that they want your name address, etc. and I don't want to be inundated for requests for money...do you know where/how I can make a small donation anon.? I liked the way this guy stood up to Barney Frank too.

This is due to the campaign finance laws. They have to gather the information. I have given to a few candidates and have never had any spam problems from it.

DavidMcK · October 7, 2010

Thanks for the information.

GALTGULCH8 · October 8, 2010

Joel's Note on Facebook today...
Government and industry: the division of labor
Last week, a university student challenged me: “You Republicans are against big government, but now you want big government to stop the oil spill!” My answer was simple: a government that tries to more than it should will fail to do the things that it must. It is a question of priority, and capacity--which means that there must be a more effective division of labor between the public and the private sectors in our nation.
At the moment, confusion reigns. President Obama claims he is in charge of everything, but wants responsibility for nothing. One moment, we are blaming BP for the oil spill and for the damage along the Gulf coast. The next moment, we are blaming government for its poor regulation of drilling and slow response to local needs. This is no way to solve a crisis. Unfortunately, it is a pattern we are repeating in other areas of American life.
We ought to begin by acknowledging the limits of each side, the public and the private. The government does not possess the technology to “plug the hole.” BP does not have the ability, on its own, to deploy the oil boom necessary to protect the coastline. That is where the division of labor must begin--with a recognition that only the private sector can stop the spill, and only the public sector can protect the coast as the oil advances.
Likewise, we should recognize that each side has a different core function. The primary purpose of government is to protect our nation from all threats. The primary purpose of industry is to produce wealth. The two are mutually dependent: the private sector relies on the rule of law that the public sector guarantees; the public sector cannot function if there is no freedom for the private sector to innovate, grow, and create prosperity.
At the moment, our government is growing rapidly in areas beyond its core function and competence. It controls significant portions of the banking, insurance, and automotive industries. It is spending wildly on new entitlement programs, yet cutting spending in key areas of national defense, like the Coast Guard. Big government is worse government. And a government that boasts of its “boot on the neck” of anyone is greatly to be feared.
The oil spill presents a tremendous challenge. Yet we can overcome it if we restore the appropriate division of labor between the public and private sectors. I would like to see President Obama setting up a field headquarters in the Gulf, from which to oversee the protection and cleanup efforts. I would like to see BP working closely with industry and academia to solve the engineering problems at hand. There will be time for blame later.

Kat,

I have a vivid recollection of Obama giving a speech in which he said and I paraphrase: "The government was not responsible for what happened (the subprime mortgage interest crisis) but it is the only entity which can resolve it."

I hope most of us realize the significant role the government played over the years from at least the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 the gist of which was to virtually compel bankers to offer mortgage loans to those who did not meet their ordinary criteria, to the "government sponsored enterprises" meaning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the complicity of the Federal Housing Administration, and the Federal Reserve System which provided exorbitant funding via its printing press creation of paper currency using its typically obscure devious methods involving entries in regional federal reserve banks reserve accounts and commercial bank reserve accounts magnified by the fractional reserve system by which ten times as much money could be loaned than was kept in reserve.

Consequently Obama, who certainly was aware of this chain of events was lying when he denied the role of the government or was at least disingenuous to be euphemistic.

It has been speculated that Obama has a deliberate intention to cause the economic system to fail by egregious growth of the federal government programs well beyond its ability to afford them, with enormous deficits and national debt exceeding its ability to pay. His goal might be to change our system to a tyrannical totalitarian dictatorship of a socialist/communist variety. In other words he is not simply incompetent, nor does he not know what he is doing. He does know what he is doing and will continue his ruse and public face of calm and superiority and condescension.

There are plenty of leftists out there who "interpret" the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution to mean they can do whatever they want to pass if they can get enough votes. Pelosi was disquieted by a question asking her where in the Constitution she found the authorization for Obamacare. These thugs will stop at nothing to take over every aspect of our lives. In principle there is no limit in their minds.

Here is a link to an article in Reason regarding Bernanke's speech on the crisis:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/05/bernanke-our-public-finances-a

We are on the brink of a systemic collapse and I urge you all to listen to the interviews and read the blogs on www.KingWorldNews.com and www.investmentrarities.com

gulch

Edited October 8, 2010 by gulch8

Selene · October 8, 2010

Strong shots and long shots, cont'd

Posted: 08 Oct 2010 05:05 AM PDT

ScottOur readers continue to point out important races and good candidates whom we have missed. Thanks to all who have written and all our generous readers who have contributed. Please consider supporting the following Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents. The links are to the donation pages of the challengers' sites.

Jesse Kelly against Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona's Eighth Congressional District.

Morgan Griffith against Rick Boucher in Virginia's Ninth Congressional District (via Kimberly Strassel).

Dr. Andy Harris against Frank Kratovil in Maryland's First Congressional District.

B.J. Lawson against David Price in North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District.

Joel Pollak (endorsed by Alan Dershowitz this past June) against Jan Schakowsky in Illinois's Ninth Congressional District.

Beth Ann Rankin against Mike Ross in Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District.

Ed Martin against Russ Carnahan in Missouri's Third Congressional District (our reader cites this article). <<<<I have people working on this one****

Quico Canseco against Ciro Rodriguez in Texas's Twenty-Third Congressional District.

Dr. Donna Campbell against Lloyd Doggett in Texas's Twenty-Fifth Congressional District.

Randy Demmer against Tim Walz in Minnesota's First Congressional District.

Teresa Collett against nonentity Betty McCollum in Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District (St. Paul). Professor Collett is a brilliant teacher at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis. She is a deeply pro-life candidate of complete integrity running in a strongly Democratic district. All she needs is money to make this race competitive.

I will also add the Cardiologist who is running against John Dingle, eighty-four year old, in Michigan's 15th -

http://dingell.house.gov/ <<<<Dingle's site

The Michigan Democratic State Central Committee launched a website this week that attacks on a personal level his Republican opponent, Dr. Rob Steele. It calls the 52-year-old Ann Arbor-area cardiologist a "rich doctor" whose "five-car garage isn't big enough to hold all of his nine luxury cars."

http://www.annarbor.com/news/democrats-say-veteran-rep-john-dingell-plans-to-run-scared-to-keep-his-seat-this-year/

Health care is about "controlling the people" see above link

http://www.robsteeleforcongress.com/ The good Doctor has a chance to beat this fifty-five year fossilized Congressman...YES that is twenty-seven (27) term dinosaur.

kiaer.ts · October 9, 2010

After reading Pollak was endorsed by Dershowitz, friend of OJ Simpson, I looked him up at Wikipedia, which led to my reading of his battle with Norman Finkelstein. The history between the two reminds of the battle between the two monsters in that Japanese Godzilla classic, Sodom versus Gomorrah.

Norman Finkelstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFor the poet, see Norman Finkelstein (poet).Norman Finkelstein

Finkelstein giving a talk at Suffolk University in 2005BornDecember 8, 1953 (age 56)NationalityAmericanEducationBinghamton University (B.A.)

Princeton University (M.A.)

Princeton University (Ph.D.)Influenced byMohandas Gandhi, Noam Chomsky, John Stuart MillParentsMother: Maryla Husyt Finkelstein

Father: Zacharias FinkelsteinWebsitenormanfinkelstein.comNorman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and author whose primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflictand the politics of the Holocaust. He is a graduate of Binghamton University and received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and, most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

Amidst considerable public debate, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year.

Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to deny Finkelstein's tenure bid.^[1] On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms.^[2]^[3] An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, stated that outside influence played no role in the decision, and praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."^[4]

Contents

[hide]

[edit]Personal background and education

Finkelstein has written of his parents' experiences during World War II. His mother, Maryla Husyt Finkelstein, grew up in Warsaw, Poland, survived the Warsaw Ghetto, the Majdanek concentration camp, and twoslave labor camps. Her first husband died in the war. She considered the day of her liberation as the most horrible day of her life, as she realized that she was alone with her parents and siblings gone. Norman's father, Zacharias Finkelstein, was a survivor of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Auschwitz concentration camp.^[5] After immigrating to the United States, his father became a factory worker, while his mother stayed home with the kids. Finkelstein's parents, particularly his mother, had communist leanings, although they never officially belonged to any ideological movement. Both his parents died in 1995.^[6]

Finkelstein grew up in New York City. In his forthcoming memoir, Finkelstein recalls his strong youthful identification with the outrage that his mother, witness to the genocidal atrocities of World War II, felt at the carnage wrought by the United States in Vietnam. One childhood friend recalls his mother's "emotional investment in left-wing humanitarian causes as bordering on hysteria." ^[7] He had 'internalized (her) indignation', a trait which he admits rendered him 'insufferable' when talking of the Vietnam War, and which imbued him with a 'holier-than-thou' attitude at the time which he now regrets. But Finkelstein regards his absorption of his mother's outlook — the refusal to put aside a sense of moral outrage in order to get on with one's life — as a virtue. Subsequently, his reading of Noam Chomsky played a seminal role in tailoring the passion bequeathed to him by his mother to the necessity of maintaining intellectual rigor in the pursuit of the truth.^[5] According to the New York Times, as his career progressed, his mother "came to feel he had taken her too literally and become a 'Frankenstein’s monster' on a path toward self-destruction."^[7]

He completed his undergraduate studies at Binghamton University in New York in 1974, after which he studied at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. He went on to earn his Master's degree in political science from Princeton University in 1980, and later his PhD in political studies, also from Princeton. Finkelstein wrote his doctoral thesis on Zionism, and it was through this work that he first attracted controversy. Before gaining academic employment, Finkelstein was a part-time social worker with teenage dropouts in New York. He then taught successively at Rutgers University, New York University, Brooklyn College, and Hunter College and, until recently, taught at DePaul University in Chicago. According to the New York Times he left Hunter College in 2001 "after his teaching load and salary were reduced" by the college administration.^[7]

Beginning with his doctoral thesis at Princeton, Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy. A self-described "forensic scholar," he has written sharply critical academic reviews of several prominent writers and scholars whom he accuses of misrepresenting the documentary record in order to defend Israel's policies and practices. His writings, noted for their support of the Palestinian cause^[2] have dealt with politically charged topics such as Zionism, the demographic history of Palestine and his allegations of the existence of a "Holocaust Industry" that exploits the memory of the Holocaust to further Israeli and financial interests. Citing linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky as an example, Finkelstein notes that it is "possible to unite exacting scholarly rigor with scathing moral outrage,"^[5] and supporters and detractors alike have remarked on the polemical style of Finkelstein's work.^[1]^[8] Its content has been praised by eminent historians such as Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim,^[8] as well as Chomsky.

Finkelstein has described himself as "an old-fashioned communist". ^[9]

[edit]Academic career and controversies

[edit]On From Time Immemorial

In Finkelstein's doctoral thesis, he examined the claims made in Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial, a best-selling book at the time.

Peters's "history and defense" of Israel deals with the demographic history of Palestine. Demographic studies had tended to assert that the Arab population of Ottoman-controlled Palestine, a 94% majority at the turn of the century, had dwindled towards parity due to massive Zionist immigration. Peters radically challenged this picture by arguing that a substantial part of the Palestinian people were descended from emigrants from other Arab countries from the early 19th century onwards. It followed, for Peters and many of her readers, that the picture of a native Palestinian population overwhelmed by Jewish immigration was little more than propaganda, and that in actuality two almost simultaneous waves of immigration met in what had been a relatively unpopulated land.

From Time Immemorial had been effusively praised in mainstream United States media sources by figures as varied as Barbara Tuchman, Theodore H. White, Elie Wiesel, and Lucy Dawidowicz. Saul Bellow, for one, wrote in a jacket endorsement that:

"Millions of people the world over, smothered by false history and propaganda, will be grateful for this clear account of the origins of the Palestinians."^[10]Finkelstein asserted that the book was nothing more than what he now calls a "monumental hoax".^[11] He later opined that, while Peters's book received widespread interest and approval in the United States, a scholarly demonstration of its fraudulence and unreliability aroused little attention:

"By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had...received some two hundred [favorable] notices ... in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in The Nation exposing the hoax. ... The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax."^[12]Noam Chomsky later reminisced:

"I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you."^[13]In 1986, the New York Review of Books published Yehoshua Porath's review^[14] and an exchange with critics of the review^[15] in which he criticized the assumptions and evidence on which Peters's thesis relied, thus lending independent support from an expert in Palestinian demographics to Finkelstein's doctoral critique.^[13] In the house journal of the American Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, William B. Quandt, the Edward Stettinius professor of Politics at the University of Virginia and authority on Middle Eastern politics,^[16] later described Finkelstein's critique of From Time Immemorial as a "landmark essay" and a "victory to his credit", in its "demonstration" of the "shoddy scholarship" of Peters's book.^[17]

According to Noam Chomsky, the controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research caused a delay in his earning his Ph.D. at Princeton University. Chomsky wrote in Understanding Power that Finkelstein "literally could not get the faculty to read [his dissertation]" and that Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only "out of embarrassment [for Princeton]" but refused to give him any further professional backing.^[13]

Finkelstein published portions of his thesis in the following publications:

"Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The Not-So-Strange Case of Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial." Chapter 2 of Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (1988); and
"A Land Without a People (Joan Peters' "Wilderness" Image)." Chapter 2 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995).

[edit]The Holocaust Industry

Main article: The Holocaust IndustryThe Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering was published in 2000. Here, Finkelstein argues that Elie Wiesel and others exploit the memory of the Holocaust as an "ideological weapon." This is so the state of Israel, "one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [can] cast itself as a victim state" in order to garner "immunity to criticism."^[18]He also alleges what he calls a "double shakedown" by "a repellent gang of plutocrats, hoodlums and hucksters" seeking enormous legal damages and financial settlements from Germany and Switzerland, moneys which then go to the lawyers and institutional actors involved in procuring them, rather than actual Holocaust survivors.^[19]^[20]^[21]

The book met with a hostile reception in some quarters, with critics charging that it was poorly researched and/or allowed others to exploit it for antisemitic purposes. For example, German historian Hans Mommsen disparaged the first edition as "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices." Israeli holocaust historian Israel Gutman called the book "a lampoon," stating "this is not research; it isn't even political literature... I don't even think it should be reviewed or critiqued as a legitimate book."^[22] The book was also harshly criticized by Brown University Professor Omer Bartov ^[23] and University of Chicago Professor Peter Novick.

Finkelstein also had his supporters however. Raul Hilberg, widely regarded as the founder of Holocaust studies,^[24] said the book expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.' Asked on another occasion if Finkelstein's analysis might play into the hands of neo-Nazis for antisemitic purposes, Hilberg replied: 'Well, even if they do use it in that fashion, I'm afraid that when it comes to the truth, it has to be said openly, without regard to any consequences that would be undesirable, embarrassing.'^[25]

[edit]Criticism of Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel

Main article: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affairShortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein derided it as "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense".^[26] During a debate on Democracy Now!, Finkelstein asserted that Dershowitz lacked knowledge about specific contents of his own book, Finkelstein also claimed that Dershowitz did not write the book, and may not have even read it.^[26] Finkelstein noted 20 instances, in as many pages, where Dershowitz's book cites the same sources and passages used by Joan Peters in her book, in largely the same sequence, with ellipses in the same places. In two instances, Dershowitz reproduces Peters's errors (see below). From this Finkelstein concluded that Dershowitz had not checked the original sources himself, contrary to the latter's claims.^[27] Finkelstein suggests that this copying of quotations amounts to copying ideas.^[28] Examining a copy of a proof of Dershowitz's book he managed to obtain, he found evidence that Dershowitz had his secretarial assistant, Holly Beth Billington, check in the Harvard library the sources he had read in Peters's book.^[29] Dershowitz answered the charge in a letter to the University of California's Press Director Lynne Withey, arguing that Finkelstein had made up the smoking gun quotation, in that he had changed its wording (from 'cite' to 'copy') in his book.^[30] In public debate he has stated that if "somebody borrowed the quote without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, obviously that would be a serious charge"; however, he insisted emphatically that he himself did not do that, that he had indeed checked the original source by Twain.^[26]

Dershowitz threatened libel action over the charges in Finkelstein's book, and, consequently, Finkelstein deleted the word "plagiarism" from the text before publication.^[31] Finkelstein also removed the charge that Dershowitz was not the true author of The Case for Israel because, as the publisher said, "he couldn't document that."^[32]

Asserting that he did consult the original sources, Dershowitz says that Finkelstein is simply accusing him of good scholarly practice: citing references he learned of initially from Peters's book. Dershowitz denies that he used any of Peters's ideas without citation. "Plagiarism is taking someone else's words and claiming they're your own. There are no borrowed words from anybody. There are no borrowed ideas from anybody because I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of Peters's book."^[33] In a footnote in The Case for Israel which cites Peters's book, Dershowitz explicitly denies that he "relies" on Peters for "conclusions or data".^[34]

In their joint interview on Democracy Now, however, Finkelstein cited specific passages in Dershowitz's book in which a phrase that he says Peters coined was incorrectly attributed to George Orwell:

"[Peters] coins the phrase, 'turnspeak', she says she's using it as a play off of George Orwell which as all listeners know used the phrase 'Newspeak.' She coined her own phrase, 'turnspeak.' You go to Mr. Dershowitz's book, he got so confused in his massive borrowings from Joan Peters that on two occasions, I'll cite them for those who have a copy of the book, on page 57 and on page 153 he uses the phrase, quote, George Orwell's 'turnspeak.' 'Turnspeak' is not Orwell, Mr. Dershowitz, you're the

Felix Frankfurter

chair at Harvard, you must know that Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase as 'turnspeak'."

^[35]

James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, has defended Dershowitz:

I do not understand [Finkelstein's] charge of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz. There is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources (Mark Twain, Palestine Royal Commission, etc.) [Finkelstein's] complaint is that instead he should have cited them to the secondary source, in which Dershowitz may have come upon them. But as the

Chicago Manual of Style

emphasizes: 'Importance of attribution. With all reuse of others' materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This not only bolsters the claims of

fair use

, it also helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism.' This is precisely what Dershowitz did.

^[36]

Responding to an article in The Nation by Alexander Cockburn,^[34]^[37] Dershowitz also cited the Chicago Manual of Style:

Cockburn's claim is that some of the quotes should not have been cited to their original sources but rather to a secondary source, where he believes I stumbled upon them. Even if he were correct that I found all these quotations in Peters's book, the preferred method of citation is to the original source, as the Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes: "With all reuse of others' materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This...helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism...To cite a source from a secondary source ('quoted in...') is generally to be discouraged...."

...to which Cockburn responded:

Quoting The Chicago Manual of Style, Dershowitz artfully implies that he followed the rules by citing "the original" as opposed to the secondary source, Peters. He misrepresents Chicago here, where "the original" means merely the origin of the borrowed material, which is, in this instance, Peters. Now look at the second bit of the quote from Chicago, chastely separated from the preceding sentence by a demure three-point ellipsis. As my associate Kate Levin has discovered, this passage ("To cite a source from a secondary source...") occurs on page 727, which is no less than 590 pages later than the material before the ellipsis, in a section titled "Citations Taken from Secondary Sources." Here's the full quote, with what Dershowitz left out set in bold: "'Quoted in.' To cite a source from a secondary source ("quoted in") is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and the secondary source must be listed." So Chicago is clearly insisting that unless Dershowitz went to the originals, he was obliged to cite Peters. Finkelstein has conclusively demonstrated that he didn't go to the originals. Plagiarism, QED, plus added time for willful distortion of the language of Chicago's guidelines, cobbling together two separate discussions.

^[37]

On behalf of Dershowitz, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan asked former Harvard president Derek Bok to investigate the assertion of plagiarism; Bok exonerated Dershowitz of the charge.^[31]

Although the plagiarism allegations by Finkelstein received the most attention and attracted a lot of controversy, Finkelstein has maintained that "the real issue is Israel's human rights record."^[28] His bookBeyond Chutzpah counters Dershowitz's claim that Israel's human rights record is "generally superb."

In an April 3, 2007 interview with the Harvard Crimson, "Dershowitz confirmed that he had sent a letter last September to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure."^[38]

In April 2007, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Alan Dershowitz, finding no merit in any single charge, and that, on the contrary, "Dershowitz is deliberately misrepresenting what Finkelstein wrote".^[39] In a follow-up analysis he concluded that he could find 'no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters's From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source', as Dershowitz claimed.^[40]^[41]

[edit]Tenure denial and resignation

In early 2007 the DePaul University Political Science department voted nine to three, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee five to zero, in favor of giving Finkelstein tenure. The three opposing faculty members subsequently filed a minority report opposing tenure, supported by the Dean of the College, Chuck Suchar. Suchar stated he opposed tenure because Finkelstein's "personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, and the holocaust authors Elie Wiesel and Jerzy Kosinski" were inconsistent with DePaul's "Vincentian" values.^[42] In June 2007, a 4-3 vote by DePaul University's Board on Promotion and Tenure (a faculty board), affirmed by the university's president, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, denied Finkelstein tenure.^[43]^[44]

The university denied that Alan Dershowitz, who had been criticized for actively campaigning against Finkelstein's tenure, played any part in this decision.^[44] At the same time, the university denied tenure to international studies lecturer Mehrene Larudee, a strong supporter of Finkelstein, despite unanimous support from her department, the Personnel Committee and the Dean.^[45]^[46] Finkelstein stated that he would engage in civil disobedience if attempts were made to bar him from teaching his students.^[47]^[48]

The Faculty Council later affirmed the right of Professors Finkelstein and Larudee to appeal, which a university lawyer said was not possible. Council President Anne Bartlett said she was "'terribly concerned' correct procedure was not followed".^[49] DePaul's faculty association considered taking no confidence votes in administrators, including the president, because of the tenure denials.^[50] In a statement issued upon Finkelstein's resignation, DePaul called him "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."^[4] Dershowitz expressed outrage at the compromise and this statement in particular, saying that the university had "traded truth for peace."^[2]^[3]

In June 2007, after two weeks of protests, DePaul students staged a sit-in and hunger strike in support of both professors denied tenure. The American Association of University Professors also sent a letter to the university’s president stating: "It is entirely illegitimate for a university to deny tenure to a professor out of fear that his published research … might hurt a college’s reputation" and that the association has "explicitly rejected collegiality as an appropriate criterion for evaluating faculty members".^[51]

[edit]Reception

Finkelstein's books are an attempt to examine the works of mainstream scholarship. The authors whose work he has thus targeted, including Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and Alan Dershowitz, along with others such as Benny Morris whose work Finkelstein has also cited approvingly, have in turn accused Finkelstein of grossly misrepresenting their work, and selectively quoting from their books.^[52]^[53]

Finkelstein's work has attracted a number of supporters and detractors across the political spectrum. Notable supporters include Noam Chomsky, prominent intellectual and political critic; Raul Hilberg, Holocaust historian; Avi Shlaim, Israeli New Historian; and Mouin Rabbani, Palestinian jurist and analyst. According to Hilberg, Finkelstein displays "academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him... I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost."^[8]

[edit]Criticism

Criticism has been leveled against Finkelstein from several angles. The first sources are responses from those whose work Finkelstein has discussed. Daniel Goldhagen, whose book Hitler's Willing ExecutionersFinkelstein criticized, claimed his scholarship has "everything to do with his burning political agenda."^[54] Peter Novick, Professor of History at the University of Chicago and a noted Holocaust historian whose work Finkelstein says inspired "The Holocaust Industry," has also strongly criticized the latter's work, describing it as "trash." Similarly, Alan Dershowitz, whose book The Case for Israel and Finkelstein's response Beyond Chutzpah sparked an ongoing feud between the two, has claimed Finkelstein's complicity in a conspiracy against pro-Israel scholars: "The mode of attack is consistent. Chomsky selects the target and directs Finkelstein to probe the writings in minute detail and conclude that the writer didn't actually write the work, that it is plagiarized, that it is a hoax and a fraud," arguing that Finkelstein has leveled charges against many academics, calling at least 10 "distinguished Jews 'hucksters', 'hoaxters' (sic), 'thieves,' 'extortionists', and worse."^[36]

Israeli historian^[55] Omer Bartov, writing for The New York Times Book Review, judged The Holocaust Industry to be marred by the same errors he denounces in those who exploit the Holocaust for profit or politics:

'It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority... Like any

conspiracy theory

, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious.'

^[56]

In 2003, Finkelstein published a considerably expanded second edition of this book, focusing especially on the Swiss Banks case. He identifies areas where people have attacked the book, but claims that none of them question his actual findings.

Finkelstein has accused Jeffrey Goldberg of "torturing" Palestinian prisoners during his IDF service in the First Intifada. Goldberg referred to the allegation as "ridiculous" and he had "never laid a hand on anybody." Goldberg said his "principal role" was "making sure prisoners had fresh fruit." He characterized Finkelstein as a "ridiculous figure" and accused him of "lying and purposely misreading my book."^[57]

[edit]Denied entry to Israel in 2008

On May 23, 2008, Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because, according to unnamed Israeli security officials, of suspicions that "he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel" including "a top Hezbollahcommander in Lebanon." Finkelstein visited south Lebanon and met with Lebanese families during the 2006 Lebanon War. In the aftermath of the bombed a Qana apartment building, he said:

Hizbullah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland, they are fighting to defend the independence of their country, they are defending themselves against foreign marauders, vandals and murderers and I consider it to be genuinely to be an honor to be in their presence.

Finkelstein visited the location of the bombing, and stated: "I want express my horror and the difficulty it is to be in the presence of people who are the survivors of those who died. And it should be obvious that there are no words to convey those feelings of horror."

^[58] Finkelstein was questioned after his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv and placed on a flight back to Amsterdam, his point of origin. According to The Jerusalem Post, officials said that the decision to not allow Finkelstein entry into Israel was based on security reasons.^[59] He was banned from entering Israel for 10 years.^[58] ^[60]

Selene · October 10, 2010

New poll shows Dingle polling only 39.8%!! Any incumbent who is polling under 50% is in the danger zone.

Health care is about "controlling the people" see above link

http://www.robsteeleforcongress.com/ The good Doctor has a chance to beat this fifty-five year fossilized Congressman...YES that is twenty-seven (27) term dinosaur.

"A shocking new independent poll puts the longest-serving member of House – in history – down four points in his Michigan district to a cardiologist who has never before run for any elected office.

Democrat Rep. John Dingell, 84, the only sitting member of Congress who was elected when a veteran of the Civil War was still alive, who is battling for his 28th consecutive re-election, is losing in a poll for the first time against Republican candidate Rob Steele.

The “robo” poll of 300 people, conducted by Rossman Group of Lansing and Team TelCom, showed Steele getting 43.8 percent of the vote and Dingell getting 39.5 percent of the vote."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/08/shock-poll-democrat-john-dingell-down-four-points-in-michigan/#ixzz11v4TUNPl

Adam

kiaer.ts · October 10, 2010

Trade you my Rangel for your Dingell, and I'll throw in a Waxman for free.

20090619-215507-pic-464156208_s640x422.jpg?64774727792e598fa84bcb8192cb9f66251b00c9

Selene · October 10, 2010

Only if I get two (2) felons to be named later!

Kat · October 13, 2010

The race is tightening up. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, Jan is around 60% but they had their first "debate" and Joel probably picked up some support. I know I'm seeing more signs for him around.

Kat

Joel Pollak for Congress

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in