Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Oppression’ Category

The FTC, and me, and thee

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 8, 2009

Ever notice how some people never pay you any attention at all?  It’s still the high school cafeteria, isn’t it?

I have a decent B-level-blogger existence on the Internet, but it does gall sometimes.  You can’t have all the Instalanches you might like, but I have nothing to complain about; and in general I have gotten my props.  But no question there are some cliques you just aren’t breaking into if you’re me.  There are certain bloggers who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything I write,  or even my existence at all, even when it would appear that, on the merits — for all sorts of reasons that these calculations are based on — they ought to.  I could name them, but dignity does have to step in at some point.

And even then you’ve got other people paying attention to all the wrong things about me altogether!  Can’t win for losing, you know.

Well, Walter Olson (who certainly does pay me enough attention) has rounded up some notable posts, and his own thoughts, on the outrage of the new FTC power grab over blogger “disclosure,” a topic that I first got excited over two years ago by publishing this piece in LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® back before I had this blog and that one had to contain a broader range of topics.  Both Patrick of PopeHat and Glenn Reynolds have seen fit to link back to it, longingly, and as Patrick says, “Ron Coleman called this.”

If only anyone had paid attention to it then!  But, you know… no-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o.

Posted in Medialites, Narcissus Rex, Oppression, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

A shanda!

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 5, 2009

From the Telegraph of London (via Insty):

A photograph of the Iranian president [Ahmadinejad] holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

Oy, not only an antisemite — but the worst kind!  A Jewish one!  And from a family in the shmatta trade, even!

This is only partly funny.  It is also only partly surprising.  Jews do have a way of rising in prominence regardless of where they are.  When they are in the wrong place, unfortunately, their rise … does the Jews, and the world, no favors.  And typically, unfortunately, they assert their purported non-Jewishness very assertively against Jewish values and people, perhaps to “prove” how not-Jewish they are or, perhaps, for more complex moral and psychological reasons.

Which is why they should, you know, be in the right place, by which I do not mean a place found on the map.

And in this case, by the way, what’s the real story?  Well, continue with the article:

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

Well, there you have it.  No wonder they converted — they had a Jew-hating mamzer like this for a kid!

UPDATE:  Glad I got that in before the inevitable debunking:

Professor David Yeroshalmi, author of The Jews of Iran in the 19th century and an expert on Iranian Jewish communities, disputes the validity of this argument. “There is no such meaning for the word ‘sabour’ in any of the Persian Jewish dialects, nor does it mean Jewish prayer shawl in Persian. Also, the name Sabourjian is not a well-known Jewish name,” he stated in a recent interview. In fact, Iranian Jews use the Hebrew word “tzitzit” to describe the Jewish prayer shawl. Yeroshalmi, a scholar at Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies, also went on to dispute the article’s findings that the “-jian” ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews. “This ending is in no way sufficient to judge whether someone has a Jewish background. Many Muslim surnames have the same ending,” he stated.

Turban-tip to LGF.

Posted in Faith and Works, Oppression, Orient, Past is prologue | Leave a Comment »

What the Jewish-controlled media won’t tell you about September 11th

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 11, 2009

First published September 8, 2007.

Instapundit points to this extraordinary article in the Weekly Standard about the Nazi roots of Al Qaeda, by a German analyst:

What ideas propelled [9/11 plotter Mohammed] Atta and the others to act? . . . . One participant in the Koran circle meetings, Shahid Nickels, said Atta’s Weltanschauung was based on a “National Socialist way of thinking.” Atta was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination and considered New York City the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy No. 1. Fellow students who lived in Motassedeq’s dormitory testified that he shared these views and waxed enthusiastic about a forthcoming “big action.” One student quoted Motassedeq as saying, “The Jews will burn and in the end we will dance on their graves.”. . .

Amazingly, neither the American media nor the international press took much notice of this testimony, largely refusing to report on Atta’s and Motassedeq’s explicit Jew-hatred. [I]n this case, involving attackers of Arab background, journalists apparently found the issue irrelevant. . . .

[Similarly,] the 9/11 Commission Report is a case in point. Instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred had reached epidemic proportions in the Islamic world well before September 11, the report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies. . . .

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles.

What’s the explanation for this? I would posit a few possible ones:

  • A completely misplaced desire to avoid offending Muslims, who of course should not be offended, if they are indeed moderate, by accurate descriptions of their extremist brethren
  • A similarly misplaced, though relatively benign, desire to avoid, ironically, “blaming” the Jews for “bringing” this attack “on” America — as if to report this twisted, and objectively preposterous rationale would be to vindicate it
  • A left-wing desire to urge as “root causes” of extremist violence Western policies that are conveniently the opposite of their preferred policy prescriptions, coupled with the fact that describing deep-seated Arab antisemitism as a motivation would undermine those very preferred policies (e.g., more pressure to produce Israeli “concessions” from their friendly neighbors who supposedly desire only to live in peace with the their Jew neighbors)

Mix and match, or suggest your own. But don’t expect to read about this in the New York Times.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, across the Pond…

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores!, Oppression, Orient | 1 Comment »

Stalin lives

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 2, 2009

Uncle Joe

Uncle Joe

The Stalinistic tendencies of the Soviet Russian regime are hardly news.  Neither is the fact that Russia as a whole has never come to terms with Stalinism — not surprising considering how painful it would be, and how many co-conspirators would be implicated by the truth.  After all, it would hardly hurt the West to come to acknowledge, not merely in history books but culturally, the enormity of the evil of Lenin and Stalin both.  And that is never going to happen.

Russia, meanwhile, continues to ramp up its revanchism.  Now a Stalin descendant is bringing a lawsuit in Russia against a Russian paper that dared to mention the historical fact that, well, Stalin killed some people.  I can hardly imagine how Russian law permits defamation against a dead person to be prosecuted by his family, but what do I know about the law in what is essentially a gangster-run society anyway?

There is reason to be hopeful and not all that scared.  Though they surprise us from time to time, the Russians are today a second–class military power, if they were ever anything else.  No less importantly, while there is always ample support in Russia for oppression of the other guy and chest-beating, without the gloss of building a New Socialist Man it is doubtful that there will be too many fellow travelers here, besides that handful of omelet-loving academic russophiles (i.e., defrocked sovietologists) who always have a soft spot for Lenin’s favorite recipe — breaking a few eggs.

Posted in Oppression, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Look in the mirror!

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 23, 2009

Glenn Reynolds cites Matt Welch, to the effect that “The Real Reason Americans Are Angry: It’s The Big Government, Stupid“:

It’s been a hilarious August, watching media supporters of President Obama’s health care package puzzle over the obscure motivations of the noncompliant Americans rallying against it. . . .

While the commentariat’s condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama’s room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren’t very keen about the government barging into their lives. . . . This isn’t about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. A majority oppose Obama’s policies because they fly in the face of this country’s bedrock values of personal liberty and limited government. . . .

Then, gentlemen, who are these angry people angry at?

THESE ANGRY PEOPLE ELECTED A COMPLETELY BIG-GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT.  This “majority” elected Obama and two parliamentary houses full of whores (or worse) while being under no illusions whatsoever as to what “Obama’s policies” were going to be.

Either this is a “different majority” or someone is playing three-card monte here — can we have two 51 percents in the same whole?

We get the democracy we deserve when we vote for it.

And, by the way:  I wonder how many members of this majority sat at home (0r worse) because John McCain’s conservativism wasn’t pure enough for them, and helped us arrive at this state of affairs?

And now these “Americans” are “angry” at Obama — for being Obama?!

Posted in Americana, Oppression, Past is prologue, Sisyphus | 1 Comment »

Academic freedom a queer notion

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 21, 2009

David Lat reports that the NYU community is up in arms over the appointment of Dr. Li-ann Thio,

the NYU visiting law professor whose views on homosexuality have made her the legal academic everyone loves to hate. It’s an online petition, addressed to the NYU law school and university administration, expressing “deep dissatisfaction with New York University School of Law’s appointment of Dr. Thio Li-Ann as a Global Visiting Professor of Law.”

The petition concludes by articulating the belief “that the Administration’s decision to appoint Dr. Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach ‘Human Rights in Asia’ is inappropriate and offensive.” There’s an additional option, selected by many (but not all) of the signatories, calling upon the administration to rescind Dr. Thio’s appointment.

Not all the signatories are quite that crass, or open, about their limited scope of their tolerance for unfashionable intellections as to that moral “human rights” issue regarding which no dissent is tolerable.

This should be interesting to watch.

Posted in Edumacallit, O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Lawlessness as marketing tool

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 3, 2009

Carter nostalgia in Tehran:

After quashing the street demonstrations, Iran’s leadership has been trying to erase any lingering doubts about the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by portraying the unrest as sparked by foreign meddling, not by public anger over the June 12 election, which the protesters said was fraudulent. Prosecuting the detained Iranian members of the British Embassy staff could help boost its case before the Iranian public.

Is it really just me or is there an incredible non-sequitur in the above paragraph, a complete a leap of logic and almost an air of wishful thinking?

Posted in Oppression, Orient | Leave a Comment »

Never mind.

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 29, 2009

The AP reports that it was much ado about nothing:

Iran’s election oversight body on Monday declared the hotly disputed presidential vote to be valid after a partial recount, rejecting opposition allegations of fraud that have set off an extraordinary wave of protests.

Wow.  Imagine our chagrine.  If only we’d known!  Okay, everyone.  You can go home!  No biggie.

Posted in Oppression, Orient | Leave a Comment »

Great minds think alike. But at different speeds.

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 23, 2009

Blogola

Blogola

Glenn Reynolds quotes Shannon Love as follows:

If we’re going to regulate speech based on inducements to bias why stop with mere financial relationships? I think we should require all media sources to reveal all possible sources of bias starting with the political affiliations of the publishers and reporters. After all, the media sells stories they advertise as accurate and objective. Shouldn’t consumers have ready access to the information they need to decide if those claims are true?

Politics is more important than money.  If you buy a toaster based on a biased recommendation, you’re only out the cost of a toaster.  If you vote based on a biased political recommendation, you could lose your freedom.   If the government has both the duty and the ability to protect you against bias in product recommendations on blogs, why doesn’t it have the same duty and ability to protect you against biased reporting on political matters?

Good thinking.  But then, hey, full disclosure, right? — I’m a little biased.  That’s because in January of 2005 I wrote this on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®:

Last week Instapundit took the unusual step of opening comments on the ethics of Blog-payola.  I wrote this:

I am pretty agnostic on this.  I think it is hopeless to anticipate a standard of behavior in Blogovia.  It won’t happen, and I am not sure it should.  No one is free from bias of some sort or another.  Being paid to express an opinion is not so different from being affected by your likelihood of getting tenure, or a promotion, or maintaining your anonymity, or getting a choice committee assignment, or for that matter stroking or offending the right or wrong people in the world of blogs, politics, one’s profession or with N.Z. Bear.

The only real difference I can see is that one form of blogola is liquidated, but the other sources of bias can be and of course are in some cases far stronger.

Consumers of blogs have to simply be skeptics. Those who disclose more, and more accurately, will be more trusted on that account. At the end of the day, all you have is your persuasiveness, your intellectual honesty, and — in my case — a good looking picture at the top of your columns.

Okay, I know — not everyone can have such a picture. But you work with what you have. You get my point?

This line of argument led to the publication of this op-ed by me, now far less agnostic, in the New Jersey Law Journal two years later.  Amazingly, you still can’t see the article for free on the Law.com site, which it explains the time delay:  That’s how long it took Shannon to get the routed copy of the Law Journal out in Chicago!

Posted in Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Inconvenient thoughts on Iran

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 19, 2009

Exciting times regarding Iran, right?

But I keep wondering why everyone forgets that it’s not as if they’re looking to put Shimon Peres on the Peacock Throne here, you know?  Mr. Roach agrees:

I can’t get too pumped about what’s going on in Iran. Perhaps on balance Mousavi would be better for the United States and the Iranian people. It’s hard to say. But lots of angry people in the streets does not mean he’s a great guy with a great plan to support a more liberal and decent regime in Iran. Muqtadr al Sadr used to get the crowds out too. Indeed, so did Khomenei. It’s just as likely, considering the people and history involved, Mousavi would spend much of his energy oppressing his erstwhile oppressors if elected. This is the way politics runs in the Third World.

We are talking about an Islamic poltical party in an Islamic state. Almost no one talks about how Mousavi ran the show in Iran in the 1980s as Prime Minister when Iran was America’s mortal enemy, and his track record then–-when Iran was supporting kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon and attacks on US ships in the Gulf–-is chiefly why the Iranians like him. Why should we think his vague anti-corruption platform means we’ll have a friendly regime there? Why do neocons lose their judgment every time some “color revolution” comes down the pike?

(Via A Guy.)  Well, look, the enemy of my enemy is still my friend.  If nothing is going to help with Iran until something gives, maybe something giving will help.  And it’s not as if the State Department, or the Obama Administration — which are tacitly, and not so tacitly, supporting destabilization of this regime right now — are neocons.  Hardly.

Do we say that we wish the Soviets had not been humiliated in Afghanistan now that we know we ultimately helped build up the Taliban movement by our support?  I am not sure what the answer to that is, but it I think it’s no.

Instability can be a scary place, and sometimes after the fact we wish we could go back to where the trains ran on time and we didn’t have to hear the screaming.  Sometimes — say, regarding Iraq — that wish gets a little too urgent and impatient and is, ultimately, terribly immoral.

You know, to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs, yes?

On the other hand, Roach is right about one thing:  Let’s not get all dewy-eyed about the next Persian prince.  It’s not likely that we’ll be comparing him to Lech Walesa, much less Thomas Jefferson, for all that long after he gets his turn… if indeed it comes to that at all.

Posted in Oppression, Orient, Stragety | 1 Comment »