Re: Ex-President for Sale

<sigh>

As a newcomer to this thread, please allow me this opportunity to post
on two main topics: what I think I've been reading here, and what I
think about it. You can care or not, as you see fit.

First, a note about aliases. You say, correctly, that even if you
used a name we would have no assurance that it is *your* name, that
it was not a fake. However, you are incorrect if you believe that
it makes no difference at all based upon that fact. In the world,
and on Usenet in particular, we rely on polite social fictions in
order to get along. On such fiction is that of identity; while you
have no real assurance that I am truly "Don Levey," it is a
plausible-enough name as to be able to assign it to the entity
sitting behind my keyboard. Until such time as it is demonstrated
that the name is a fake, it provides at the least an *illision* of
honesty if not the real thing. It provides at least the veneer that
I am not *trying* to hide my identity, that I am being forthright.
On the other hand, coming in with a clear alias demonstrates a
desire for an additional layer of remove; it provides the impression
that the writer is NOT being completely forthcoming, and suggests a
sort of "I can see you but you can't see me" attitude which can be
off-putting at best. While I am not trying to suggest that you
reveal your secret identity here, I would suggest you keep in mind
the above as you read not only what I've written below but also how
others react to your postings.

You came to this forum perhaps 5 months ago. I've tried to find your
original posts on Google, but alas I have not, and so an relying on
my recollection (influenced, no doubt, by your subsequent postings).
From what I recall, you came to ask if anyone had read Carter's new
book, and if so, what all the fuss was about. Needless to say, the
reaction you got was a bit predictable; it would have been like
walking into an NAACP meeting asking who had David Duke's new book and
expecting to discuss it on the merits. [Note to non-US posters: the NAACP
is the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, and
David Duke was a former Ku Klux Klan member/leader and erstwhile
politician]

In an ideal world, perhaps, everyone would have infinite time and the
ability to turn off emotional responses so as to study and respond in
a wholly rational manner. Perhaps sadly, this is not the case. We
have but a short amount of time here in this life, and many things which
will fill that time. We must make choices about where we will spend that
time, what we will do with it. And we are able to work co-operatively
as a society, taking advantage of one person's effort so that the rest
need not duplicate it. Indeed, due to that co-operation we have access
to so much more: information, resources, what-have-you - that we as
individuals could not obtain due to location, pre-occupation, lack
of talent, or a myriad of other good reasons. Instead, we are able
to use such resources as newspapers, books, the internet, supermarkets,
concerts, plays... I could go on and on (and probably will). We make
our choices about what we will do for ourselves, and what we will allow
others to do for us. A key element is TRUST: who do you trust to give
you information? Who do you trust to provide you with food? Or
entertainment? Or education?

Trust is built over time, based upon observations of past performance:
someone who has a history of providing rotting meat is unlikely to be
your butcher. Someone who has shown care in handling children is more
likely to be your babysitter. When we can't get direct experience of
the *provider's* trustworthiness, we may turn to our friends: I know,
for example, of a number of friends whose judgement I trust. Were they
to make a recommendation, I would be inclined to follow it. The chain
of trust can get longer and longer.

Likewise, were my friends to tell me that a particular restaurant
was serving tainted food, I would be unlikely to go there. Even if
the Board of Health had not closed them down, I would not go. True,
I had not eaten their food (and gotten sick) myself - but why must
I in order to make that decision? Can I not trust others? I have
limited time, and limited money, with which to dine out. Must I
directly experience something before I make that decision?

And more to the point, if someone asks me about that restaurant, am
I enjoined from stating why I won't dine there? If I am trying to
be diplomatic, I might measure my response so as to communicate
no real information, but amongst friends I see no reason to tell them
not only that I haven't eaten there but that I've received information
from a source that I trust that indicates I should NOT dine there.
Indeed, if I truly trust my sources, I should be free to express that
trust. If I trust these sources, then telling another friend about
the information can save them an unpleasant experience.

So now we (finally) get to Carter's book. Many (but probably not all)
of the people here have had previuous experiences with the man (though
probably not in person). There have been hints and indications for the
past 30 years (if not more) that he harbours some antipathy for Jews.
Whether or not that is truly full-blown anti-Semitism is not something
I can answer. I do agree with you that the term itself can be over-
used, but I think that in this case it is a legitimate point for the
discussion. While I also agree that anti-Semitism is different from
anti-Israel feeling (or even criticism of Israel), many people here
have seen how the two seem to go hand-in-glove. In fact, many true
anti-Semites try to hide their hatred of Jews precisely by explaining
instead their "legitimate criticism of Istael." It is only by digging
deeper that one can ascertain that both feelings are present. Yes,
they are two different things, and do not necessarily happen together,
but likewise one can make smoke without fire, fire without smoke, but
they are most commonly seen in one another's company.

While some (if not many) people in this forum see anything that Carter
does in the light of these past experiences, some I am sure do not.
But again, who do you trust? CAMERA and MEMRI (and other select,
similar sources) have been shown to be trustworthy sources for
information and counterpoint to much of what shows up in mainstream media.
They produce what appear to be accurate translations of Arab speeches
and publications, provide supporting information often lacking in the
stories that we get on TV or in the paper, and what is most important:
they document their sources. Any question as the veracity of their
claims can be researched by the reader him/herself. To do so certainly
takes time, effort, and in some cases a knowledge of Arabic, but it can
be done. That right there raises their level of credibility, because
(like any good scientific experiment) they provide the data for the
reader to duplicate the results. Only if they were _secure_ in the
knowledge that no-one would ever check could they get away with trying
to fake a story or spin facts, because otherwise they would be called
on it *immediately*. I've not yet seen any criticism from a similarly
credible source, so I see no reason not to rely upon them for the moment.

In case you're keeping track here, we've established that:
* Some if not many people believe they have prior knowledge of Carter
that may be used to judge his future output,
* Sources considered trustworthy by many have posited a list of
errors, mischaracterisations, and misleading statements in his
recent book.

Carter himself has made some interesting statements on this book.
As you probably know, he said that he chose the title specifically
to be provocative. I find that curious; either he believes that the
title accurately describes the situation in the West Bank (now that
Gaza is no longer under Israeli control), in which case he could
state that he felt the title was the truth; or he does NOT find that
an accurate characterisation, and that he chose the title not to
reflect reality but to push buttons (or, as some say, to "stimulate
debate"). He has stated repeatedly that he is trying to open debate
on the issue, that he wants to open up dialog. However, he has
steadfastly refused those debates. When confronted with the
possibility that he may need to debate Alan Dershowitz on the issues
Carter himself raised in his book (to provoke debate) he refused
immediately on the grounds that Dershowitz doesn't have access to
the same information. Who, then, does he expect to debate other
than himself? And what sort of a debate is that? Who, exactly, does
he think is stifling debate in the US anyway?

Carter has also pointedly refered to one passage in his book that he
regrets (one that seems to justify terrorism to further political
goals). He has said that he wants that corrected in later editions
of the book; time will tell on that. But he has stated that he
stands by the rest of the book, presumably including the long list
of errata, misrepresentations, and mischaracterisations that are
claimed by others. While one or two errors might be understandable,
one would expect them to be corrected if the author is interested in
truth above all else. When there are many errors in a book, one
begins to question whether the author was not honestly mistaken but
has chosen to represent things in that light. The suggestion is
strengthened when the author refuses to correct them. And what is,
in my mind, damning is that all the inaccuracies, problems, and
issues go in one direction: to make the Israelis look bad and the
Palestinian Arabs look good, look like victims of the evil Israeli
machine. It is certainly possible that there are other errors in
the book that go in the other direction, that make the Israelis
look good - perhaps even an equal number of errors - but no-one has
as of yet come forward with that allegation. The book has been widely
read and celebrated across the world, particularly in leftist circles,
and it is not unreasonable to expect that such errors would see the
light. Until that happens, though, one is left with the inescapable
conclusion that there was a purpose behind such one-sided slams.

With all of that, I have not yet seen any compelling reason why
I should read this book. It appears to be spin and propaganda
masquerading as truth, and as fiction the plotline doesn't seem
to be very satisfying. As fact it challenges meny dearly-held
viewpoints (not a bad thing) with what appear to be distortions
and unbacked assertions (not a good thing).

I'd like to turn, if I may, to the way I see the discussion being
handled here. When you first came and asked your question, a
number of people responded not only that they had not read the book,
but that they were not likely to (and why). These were cogent,
legitimate reasons, based again upon that chain of trust. That
trust is such that those sources were used as references for why
_others_ should not read that book uncritically. You have, to date,
apparently not read or researched those sources, and that is your right.
I've got no problem with that as far as it goes. However, you've taken
it farther, in two directions:

* You have _implied_ that those sources are unreliable (while
denying that at the same time). You have dismissed out of hand
(seemingly) anything but newspaper stories as propaganda. We can
quibble about the exact meaning of that word; the implication of
that word is that propaganda is incomplete and/or misleading
information designed to sway opinion despite the truth. After all,
were it the absolute truth why would it need to be abridged, spun,
or otherwise made unreliable? In particular, you have chosen to
deem the work of CAMERA (and others like them) as less likely to
be believable and thus not worthy of challenging the book. That's
fine, again that's your right, but wait: you don't allow a similar
right to those who are questioning Carter's book. You feel it is
right to criticise CAMERA, but don't extend that right of criticism
against the book. Can you explain how that is not a double-standard?
What's more, CAMERA provides references where their position may
be double-checked. In at least some cases, the references that
Carter used do NOT bear him out. For example, those maps he used
were not his work but someone else's, and that person has stated that
they were misrepresented. Again, I have yet to hear such criticism
of CAMERA's (and others') list, which in and of itself is telling.

* You have also stated that even if you do research those facts
(leaving aside, for a moment, that you need more time for that than
your voluminous posts), you probably won't post your results anyway
because you are concerned that they may receive the "same sort of
treatment" that Carter's book is getting. Do you notice how you're
pre-supposing your conclusion here? It's almost as if your intent is
not necessarily to get to the truth, but to score points against
Israel. If you are honestly trying to get to the truth, to learn
and understand, then I hope you'd be as sure of your conclusions
after research as you are about the things you seem to be posting
off-the-cuff. I would hope that you'd stand by those conclusions
drawn from proper enquiry, at best to educate the others here who
have NOT had the benefit of your process.

Even with that, you seem to suggest that the criticisms others
cite here, the facts that people reference, aren't really reliable
or otherwise useful in refuting Carter's assertions. And yet you
yourself admit that you haven't read them. Since you have
previously condemned others for not reading Carter's book before
commenting, why do you reserve for yourself the right that you
don't grant others?

You've discussed newspapers as if they are subject to strict
fact-checking, yet you've been presented with evidence to the
contrary. In contrast to some of the media that you dismiss,
the Times is under a daily deadline to get stories out, and as
you yourself have admitted mistakes sometimes get made. Sure,
they sometimes get corrected, but that really doesn't matter
because we're talking about the one thing stronger than truth:
perception. The damage is already done. The allegation was
made, for example, on the front page: young Palestinian boy killed
by Israeli fire. The world is outraged, protests ring out
across the world. The correction: he was killed by Palestinian
fire, and pushed into the firefight by his own father. Does
anyone see it? Does anyone pay attention? For all practical
purposes, NO - because the story is buried on an inside page in
small type. Sure, they corrected it, but in peoples' minds the
boy was still killed by those evil Israelis, the perception was
already formed.

There are many examples of such things. Mistakes seen by many,
corrections seen by few. In the aggregate, can we learn anything?
Yes - if there's a pattern to who benefits from the mistakes and
who does not. There does appear to be a pattern there, in my
observation; I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.

Then there are purposeful alterations. Yes, there are the botched
jobs that Reuters published - not just the smoke, but the "bomb
hole" in the roof of the ambulance, the same woman wailing about
several of her lost houses, dead bodies that mysteriously change
clothing, position, etc. Photographers have come back from the
Lebanon War, for example, talking about how they were shepherded
around by Hezbolla members, told what to photograph and what not
to photograph, and shown what they called staged scenes. This is
alteration by one of the parties in the conflict - propaganda, if
you will. Yet even with these allegations, such photos get published.
There are choices about what gets published, and somehow it seems that
the majority of pictures that make it are ones that show poor
Palestinian victims being brutalised by the Israelis. How much do
you read about the rockets being fired daily from the Palestinian
areas? How many pictures do you see of the Israeli funerals? They
don't fire off guns into the air, perhaps it's not considered as
"interesting".

Sometimes a news outlet will purposely alter a photograph to
make a point. Remember OJ Simpson? His picture was on the cover
of either Time or Newsweek, and his face was darkened to look more
scary. Apaprently a darker-skinned black man is more scary to those
editors - and they caught hell for it because they were caught. How
many aren't caught? How many of those pictures we see are cropped,
with important details left out? Just as an example, when the US troops
reached Bagdhad and toppled Saddam Hussein's status, the photos were
cropped to show a tight shot of the statue with some rejoicing
locals. The full frame, however, showed a town square ringed with
tanks, a few locals inside the ring, and the tanks were keeping the
protestors OUT. It presents a different picture. It was exposed
because some of the people there blew the whistle. But what if the
photographer has political sympathies? What incentive do they have
to expose a misrepresentation of their work if that misrepresentation
furthers their political goals? The source *is* important, because
the reader/viewer can judge whether or not that source has anything
to gain by misrepresentation. The latest photo of the boy slinging
rocks is a good example: the source doesn't seem to have anything
to gain by altering the photo, so the motivation would be lower:
we can be more comfortable believing that it is an accurate (and
not just stunning) photo. On the other hand, photos released by the
Hezbolla press bureau are much more suspect because they have more
to gain, they have more of a motivation to alter.

But again, what gets published? Yes, errors are made, yes, bad
pictures make it into the paper. The pattern of mistakes, the
trend of photos, can in and of itself tell a story about the editorial
biases of the outlet. In the US, Fox News is seen with a bias because
of the stories they choose to report and the manner in which they report
them. NPR seems to have a different bias. They have different audiences.
The New York Times is a left-leaning paper (I myself am left-leaning,
in case that makes a difference) in a fairly liberal city. Their
audience is made up of people who are largely anti-Israel, plus a
reasonable minority of pro-Israel people. It's a polarising issue there,
but if they go with the majority, if they go with the people they want
to buy their paper, they'll take care not to be seen favouring
Israel. And it appears that they don't. Rather, from the choices that
they make they cater to the Palestinian side of that equation. Not
always, but most of the time. What they do, more than anything else,
is "crop the picture."

Again, perception is a force even greater than truth. This is equally
important in the words that we choose. Just as a newspaper, even when
they (eventually) correct a mistake, creates a different impression than
the truth, so can we create an alternate impression. While you rely on
dictionary definitions for words like "propaganda" and "advocacy," you
can't escape the fact that there are implications to words beyond their
definitions. When those implications shade your meaning elsewhere,
even when you cite the dictionary the perception you created at the
outset is based upon the common usage, not the technical meaning.
_Technically_ the US has only 46 states, but the common usage and
knowledge is 50 states. You are too smart, and too skilled, to claim
to be unaware of such devices. That makes such disclaimers very
disingenuous, and contributes to an overall impression of you.

You are, as I have mentioned above, willing to engage in double-
standards if they further the cause you seem to have taken up.
You feel free to doubt the sources others trust, but take umbrage
when those others doubt your source. You are willing to ask questions,
but seemingly if you don't get the answers that you want you deny,
refuse, or otherwise ignore them. In furtherance of these things you
seem more than happy to pursue any point down a virtual rat-hole to
demonstrate the apparent bankruptcy of your opponent's position, and
yet demand to direct the conversation when it otherwise suits you.

No, we can't read your mind. We don't know what you're really
thinking - there are a number of barriers between us all, and
purposely erecting more of them does not help the situation there.
All people can do is read the _words_ you put forth, and interpret
them based on each individual's experience and knowledge. That's all
we've got, which is why it is necessary to choose your words carefully
and make sure that they are understood properly. What is a matter
of concern is that you take issue with the way people seem to see you,
and yet your words and visible actions appear to create a consistent
picture - and a picture that is consistent with that image people
have of you. It doesn't matter what you're saying, it doesn't matter
what you mean. What matters in such a forum is how you are coming across
to your readers. My (hopefully) humble suggestion is that you
would do well to take more pains to make sure that you are being
*perceived* correctly, rather than stand on ceremony and demand
a dictionary definition for each word. Better would be to explain
your definitions and ask others how THEY define it; this would
increase understanding and reduce the impression that you are trying
to dictate. I realise that I am probably coming across in a similar
fashion, but I'm willing to risk that.

You have done something I had never thought I'd see: you've united
a fairly large and quite diverse group of posters - against your
posts and the position they seem to take. Heck, Steve and Cindy
are consistently agreeing. I'm hoping that Lisa doesn't chime in
and agree with Steve too; I need to clean my house before Moshiach
comes. Has it occurred to you, even for just a moment, that perhaps
there's a reason for that beyond groupthink? When such a group, which
can barely agree on anything else, can agree on that?

I'm reminded of an old joke:
An old man is having quite a hard time driving on the highway.
His wife calls him on the cell phone to tell him to be careful -
there's a maniac going the wrong way at full speed. "One maniac?"
he says, "There's hundreds of them!" If enerything is going against
you, perhaps it's because you're going the wrong direction.


--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: can we please stop the bickering.
    ... And a little bit of mutual support, even when OT, does help ... build that trust. ... Also such posts tend to be rather more revealing ... But a policeman might take a first-time minor offender to ...
    (uk.adverts.computer)
  • Re: can we please stop the bickering.
    ... And a little bit of mutual support, even when OT, does help ... build that trust. ... Also such posts tend to be rather more revealing ... But a policeman might take a first-time minor offender to ...
    (uk.adverts.computer)