On April 24, I wrote a post about Juan Cole’s potential appointment to the Yale Middle East Studies dept. stating that the university should go the “Full Monty“of irresponsible- wild-and-woolly-pseudo-leftism and choose Ward Churchill instead of Cole for the New Haven faculty.
I was wrong.
After having read Christopher Hitchens’ criticism of Cole’s arguments about Iran, Cole’s response to Hitchens (in which he accuses Hitchens of drunkenness while writing the piece and/or having someone else write it for him) and Andrew Sullivan’s well-honed analysis of the Cole response, I must formally apologize to Churchill. If Yale is looking for the best example of irresponsible-idiotic-wild-and-woolly-pseudo-leftism, they already had the right choice in Juan Cole. (via HH)
In 1941 George Orwell wrote about the “negative, querulous attitude” of the left wing intelligentsia, who display “the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality.” Cole simply shows himself as the whiny, vituperative, thin-skinned little bitch that is all too representative of contemporary academia.
Does what passes for “the left” have any response to Hitchens other than claiming that he drinks too much? Nothing points out their inability to articulate a position and herd-like behavior more succinctly.
There is one major difference between Juan Cole and Ward Churchill. The latter gentleman is considered to be some sort of intellectual freak by the ìmainstreamî Democratic Party elite. Juan Cole, on the other hand, is held in great esteem. This man is not a marginalized figure.
I dunno, I’m seeing him more at Princeton with Krugman & Cornel West
First a Talib and now Cole. Yeesh!
Shouldn’t there be some national tenured dumping ground where all these morons could get sent to go play while the serious academics get back to real scholarship and their universities to being apolitical. Call it D.C. State. They could live in Washington and chum with John Kerry, Joe Wilson and the press, but no young people would need be harmed by the exposure.
Put it in the Black Budget for National Security. Let them publish their own journal but not teach any classes.
Roger:
Anyone who has read even half of the fanatic Iranian leaders public comments about Jews and Israel can’t help but come to the conclusion that he wants Israel wiped off the map. But Cole goes through linguistic hoops to try to state that in this one comment he was speaking in metaphorical terms rather then in real “kill ‘em all ” terms. If this had been the lone comment to draw from he might have an argument. But this nutter has been so constant in his bloodlust for dead Jews that it seems illogical for Cole to attempt a academic Johhnie Cochran defense for this loon. “Oh, it’s just zionists not Jews’ he wants to wipe out.” I am so sick of this rhetorical dodge. I think the constant “death to Israel’ football chants coming out of half the political leaders in Iran should give us a clue. Yet Cole will go to any length to try to spin away the obvious desires of the mullahs and their lackeys so he can concentrate his hatred back on The U.S. and Israel.
Roger:
I read an anlysis of the big A’s speech by an Iranian and he states the Cole is technically correct when he says “wiped off the map” is not a perfect translation. But then he goes on to shred Cole by examing the whole speech and the other public statements by the big A and states that the mistranslation is only wrong linguistically, not in spirit or intention. He also rips Cole for trying to diminish the qoutes of old Ayatollha K speech’s as trivial. He states that his words and speech’s are treated like a Orthodox Christian treats the bible and when he is qouted you know his words and intentions are considered gospel, not a throwaway line. Cole tries to diminish the statements by narrowing his focus to a line or two and ignoring the totallity of the speech. By ignoring the rest of his speech he can make his “oh, it’s no big deal” argument sound rational.
I have heard about Cole by reading Iraq Pundit. I spend so much time researching, I don’t really have the time looking for idiots. They’re too easy to find.
I hope everything is going well with you. Have a great day.
Since Mr. Simon is deep in some kind of Kennedy Soul search, he might want to take a look at Hitchen’s recent interview with “Radio Blogger.” In a general defence of the comparative excellence of the Bush Presidency, our embedded intellectual informs us that “Robert Kennedy ordered the F.B.I. to send letters to Dr. Martin Luther King; demanding that he commit suicide.”
Now, that is a libelous smear. Even rereading Hitchens previously nasty, improbable reading of the historic record does not back it up. Oh well, you know Bush’s boy when he gets going: Hitch responded to Al Gore and Hillary Clintons objections to the Iraqi invasion by telling another such blogger “They should get degenerative diseases.”
Of course you do not have to go near the bottle to critique the slimy, purile, and revolting mind set of Hitchens. It’s no shock that this latest dust up once again throws light on his gutter ethics. Was Cole writing for publication, or exchanging ideas in a closed web site (akin to someone’s private letters) or not?
And did Hitchens lie about what Sidney Bluemanthal said he told the Grand Jury (as a means of justifying turning his friend into Ken Starr) as reported and unchalleged by Cockburn in The Nation, or didn’t he?
These are always good places to start, and see, I didn’t touch a drop. As for Mr. Simon and the haunted ethics of a generation, well, I see that played out rather more clearly in the sad progressive types who excused, and continue to excuse the lowlife antics of Hitchens.
Hitchwatch says: “our embedded intellectual informs us that “Robert Kennedy ordered the F.B.I. to send letters to Dr. Martin Luther King; demanding that he commit suicide.”"
What an absolutely *bizarre* lie.
I read that interview the other day and I don’t remember anything as shocking as that (it would stand out!!!). Still, maybe I read too fast or something. Well, I just went back to double-check(http://www.radioblogger.com/) and of course Hitchens said no such thing.
Sure enough, this is another invention by a member of the “reality-based community.”
Hint: if you have to lie to win, you’re a loser.
“And did Hitchens lie about what Sidney Bluemanthal said he told the Grand Jury (as a means of justifying turning his friend into Ken Starr) as reported and unchalleged by Cockburn in The Nation, or didn’t he?”
Telling a lie about Sidney Bluemanthal (sic) is almost impossible. Perhaps it wasn’t refuted because nobody bothers to read The Nation anymore.