Academic Freedom and the Study of Racial Differences

I don’t like this research. I don’t like these published results.



But I believe so strongly in the strength of the marketplace for ideas that I defend scholars’ endeavours in these areas. I hope the competition ends up proving them wrong.



From Philippe Rushton’s review of Lynn’s book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis [please note that these are averages],

He concludes that the East Asians -— Chinese, Japanese and Koreans -— have the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62).



The lowest scoring are the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

I truly would like someone to present evidence that counters these results, but please no more moral outrage for examining the questions. And please, no firings of professors who openly discuss the question, as happened recently in the UK:

Dr Frank Ellis was suspended from his post as a lecturer at Leeds University pending disciplinary procedures.



… The lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies told a student newspaper there was a “persistent gap” in IQ levels.



… [U]niversity secretary Roger Gair said in a statement that details of the disciplinary process “must remain a private matter” between employer and employee.



But he said three issues were being looked into.

1. In publicising his personal views on race and other matters, Dr Ellis had acted in breach of the university’s equality and diversity policy, “and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values”.
2. He had “recklessly jeopardised” the fulfilment of the university’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
3. He had failed to comply with “reasonable requests” – for example, to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people, or to give an undertaking he would make no further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another “unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds”.

… Leeds University had previously said that those views were “abhorrent” but there was no evidence he had discriminated against students.

Phil Rushton and I are both members of the social science faculty at The University of Western Ontario. We are both members of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, and we are also irregular participants in a group which meets late on Saturday mornings at the the Masonville Starbucks in London, Ontario.



As I said above, I hope someday somebody demonstrates he is wrong.

Freedom of the Press vs. the Alberta Human Rights Commission

This morning I read in the Trono Globe & Mail that the Danish newspaper that published the infamous cartoons is being sued:

A group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations have filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, their lawyer said Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, two weeks after Denmark’s top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings that sparked a firestorm in the Muslim world did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said lawsuit sought $16,100 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

“We’re seeking judgment for both the text and the drawings which were gratuitously defamatory and injurious,” Mr. Havemann said.

Then I checked my e-mail and read the following message from Ezra Levant, publisher of The Western Standard, where I sometimes blog:

Our magazine has been sued for publishing the Danish cartoons, and I need your help to fight back!

As you know, the Western Standard was the only mainstream media organ in Canada to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

We did so for a simple reason: the cartoons were the central fact in one of the largest news stories of the year, and we’re a news magazine. We publish the facts and we let our readers make up their minds.

Advertisers stood with us. Readers loved the fact that we treated them like grown-ups. And we earned the respect of many other journalists in Canada who envied our independence. In fact, according to a COMPAS poll last month, fully 70% of Canada’s working journalists supported our decision to publish the cartoons.

But not Syed Soharwardy, a radical Calgary Muslim imam.

He asked the police to arrest me for publishing the cartoons. They calmly explained to him that’s not what police in Canada do.

So then he went to a far less liberal institution than the police: the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike the Calgary Police Service, they didn’t have the common sense to show him the door.

Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy’s rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. It is truly an embarrassing document. He briefly complains that we published the Danish cartoons. But the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it – that we dared to disagree with him.

Think about that: In Soharwardy’s view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too.

Soharwardy’s complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy’s complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him “humourless” and tell him to “lighten up”. Perhaps that’s hateful. But all of those e-mails were sent to him before our magazine even published the cartoons. Soharwardy isn’t even pretending that this is a legitimate complaint. He’s not even trying to hide that this is a nuisance suit.

Soharwardy’s complaint should have been thrown out immediately by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, just like the police did. But it wasn’t. Which is why I’m writing to you today.

According to our lawyers, we will win this case. It’s an infantile complaint, without basis in facts or law. Frankly, it’s an embarrassment to the government of Alberta that their tribunal is open to abuse like this.

Our lawyers tell us we’re going to win. But not before we have to spend hundreds of hours and up to $75,000 fighting this thing, at our own expense. Soharwardy doesn’t have to spend a dime – now that his complaint has been filed, Alberta tax dollars will pay for the prosecution of his complaint. We have to pay for this on our own.

Look, $75,000 isn’t going to bankrupt us. But it will sting. We’re a small, independent magazine, not a huge company with deep pockets. All of our money is needed to produce the best possible editorial product, not to fight legal battles. This is clearly an abuse of process designed to punish us and deter other media from daring to cross that angry imam in the future.

One of the leaders in Canadian human rights law, Alan Borovoy, was so disturbed by Soharwardy’s abuse of the human rights commission that he wrote a public letter about it in the Calgary Herald on March 16th. “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech,” wrote Borovoy, who is general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Censorship was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons,” he wrote.

Borovoy went even further – he said that the human rights laws should be changed to avoid this sort of abuse in the future. “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation,” he wrote. That’s an amazing statement, coming from one of the fathers of the Canadian human rights movement.

I agree with Borovoy: the law should be changed to stop future abuses. But those changes will come too late for us – we’re already under attack. The human rights laws, designed as a shield, are being used against us as a sword.

We will file our legal response to Soharwardy’s shakedown this week. And we will fight this battle to the end – not just for our own sake, but to defend freedom of the press for all Canadians.

Do you believe that’s important? If so, I’d ask you to help us defray our costs. We’re accepting donations through our website. It’s fast, easy and secure. Just click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

You can donate any amount from $10 to $10,000. Please help the Western Standard today – and protect freedom for all Canadians for years to come.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant
Publisher

P.S. Remember, Soharwardy’s complaint will be prosecuted using tax dollars and government lawyers. We have to rely on our own funds – and the generous support of readers like you.

P.P.S. Please help us now, at http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

It could just as easily happen in any province in Canada.

From the Western Standard’s Blog or see here to read all the comments there as well:

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan of the imam’s complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at info@westernstandard.ca or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way — thanks!

Freedom of the Press vs. the Alberta Human Rights Commission

This morning I read in the Trono Globe & Mail that the Danish newspaper that published the infamous cartoons is being sued:

A group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations have filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, their lawyer said Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, two weeks after Denmark’s top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings that sparked a firestorm in the Muslim world did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said lawsuit sought $16,100 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

“We’re seeking judgment for both the text and the drawings which were gratuitously defamatory and injurious,” Mr. Havemann said.

Then I checked my e-mail and read the following message from Ezra Levant, publisher of The Western Standard, where I sometimes blog:

Our magazine has been sued for publishing the Danish cartoons, and I need your help to fight back!

As you know, the Western Standard was the only mainstream media organ in Canada to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

We did so for a simple reason: the cartoons were the central fact in one of the largest news stories of the year, and we’re a news magazine. We publish the facts and we let our readers make up their minds.

Advertisers stood with us. Readers loved the fact that we treated them like grown-ups. And we earned the respect of many other journalists in Canada who envied our independence. In fact, according to a COMPAS poll last month, fully 70% of Canada’s working journalists supported our decision to publish the cartoons.

But not Syed Soharwardy, a radical Calgary Muslim imam.

He asked the police to arrest me for publishing the cartoons. They calmly explained to him that’s not what police in Canada do.

So then he went to a far less liberal institution than the police: the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike the Calgary Police Service, they didn’t have the common sense to show him the door.

Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy’s rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. It is truly an embarrassing document. He briefly complains that we published the Danish cartoons. But the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it – that we dared to disagree with him.

Think about that: In Soharwardy’s view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too.

Soharwardy’s complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy’s complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him “humourless” and tell him to “lighten up”. Perhaps that’s hateful. But all of those e-mails were sent to him before our magazine even published the cartoons. Soharwardy isn’t even pretending that this is a legitimate complaint. He’s not even trying to hide that this is a nuisance suit.

Soharwardy’s complaint should have been thrown out immediately by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, just like the police did. But it wasn’t. Which is why I’m writing to you today.

According to our lawyers, we will win this case. It’s an infantile complaint, without basis in facts or law. Frankly, it’s an embarrassment to the government of Alberta that their tribunal is open to abuse like this.

Our lawyers tell us we’re going to win. But not before we have to spend hundreds of hours and up to $75,000 fighting this thing, at our own expense. Soharwardy doesn’t have to spend a dime – now that his complaint has been filed, Alberta tax dollars will pay for the prosecution of his complaint. We have to pay for this on our own.

Look, $75,000 isn’t going to bankrupt us. But it will sting. We’re a small, independent magazine, not a huge company with deep pockets. All of our money is needed to produce the best possible editorial product, not to fight legal battles. This is clearly an abuse of process designed to punish us and deter other media from daring to cross that angry imam in the future.

One of the leaders in Canadian human rights law, Alan Borovoy, was so disturbed by Soharwardy’s abuse of the human rights commission that he wrote a public letter about it in the Calgary Herald on March 16th. “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech,” wrote Borovoy, who is general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Censorship was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons,” he wrote.

Borovoy went even further – he said that the human rights laws should be changed to avoid this sort of abuse in the future. “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation,” he wrote. That’s an amazing statement, coming from one of the fathers of the Canadian human rights movement.

I agree with Borovoy: the law should be changed to stop future abuses. But those changes will come too late for us – we’re already under attack. The human rights laws, designed as a shield, are being used against us as a sword.

We will file our legal response to Soharwardy’s shakedown this week. And we will fight this battle to the end – not just for our own sake, but to defend freedom of the press for all Canadians.

Do you believe that’s important? If so, I’d ask you to help us defray our costs. We’re accepting donations through our website. It’s fast, easy and secure. Just click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

You can donate any amount from $10 to $10,000. Please help the Western Standard today – and protect freedom for all Canadians for years to come.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant
Publisher

P.S. Remember, Soharwardy’s complaint will be prosecuted using tax dollars and government lawyers. We have to rely on our own funds – and the generous support of readers like you.

P.P.S. Please help us now, at http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

It could just as easily happen in any province in Canada.

From the Western Standard’s Blog or see here to read all the comments there as well:

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan of the imam’s complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at info@westernstandard.ca or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way — thanks!

Freedom of the Press vs. the Alberta Human Rights Commission

This morning I read in the Trono Globe & Mail that the Danish newspaper that published the infamous cartoons is being sued:

A group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations have filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, their lawyer said Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, two weeks after Denmark’s top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings that sparked a firestorm in the Muslim world did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said lawsuit sought $16,100 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

“We’re seeking judgment for both the text and the drawings which were gratuitously defamatory and injurious,” Mr. Havemann said.

Then I checked my e-mail and read the following message from Ezra Levant, publisher of The Western Standard, where I sometimes blog:

Our magazine has been sued for publishing the Danish cartoons, and I need your help to fight back!

As you know, the Western Standard was the only mainstream media organ in Canada to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

We did so for a simple reason: the cartoons were the central fact in one of the largest news stories of the year, and we’re a news magazine. We publish the facts and we let our readers make up their minds.

Advertisers stood with us. Readers loved the fact that we treated them like grown-ups. And we earned the respect of many other journalists in Canada who envied our independence. In fact, according to a COMPAS poll last month, fully 70% of Canada’s working journalists supported our decision to publish the cartoons.

But not Syed Soharwardy, a radical Calgary Muslim imam.

He asked the police to arrest me for publishing the cartoons. They calmly explained to him that’s not what police in Canada do.

So then he went to a far less liberal institution than the police: the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike the Calgary Police Service, they didn’t have the common sense to show him the door.

Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy’s rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. It is truly an embarrassing document. He briefly complains that we published the Danish cartoons. But the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it – that we dared to disagree with him.

Think about that: In Soharwardy’s view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too.

Soharwardy’s complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy’s complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him “humourless” and tell him to “lighten up”. Perhaps that’s hateful. But all of those e-mails were sent to him before our magazine even published the cartoons. Soharwardy isn’t even pretending that this is a legitimate complaint. He’s not even trying to hide that this is a nuisance suit.

Soharwardy’s complaint should have been thrown out immediately by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, just like the police did. But it wasn’t. Which is why I’m writing to you today.

According to our lawyers, we will win this case. It’s an infantile complaint, without basis in facts or law. Frankly, it’s an embarrassment to the government of Alberta that their tribunal is open to abuse like this.

Our lawyers tell us we’re going to win. But not before we have to spend hundreds of hours and up to $75,000 fighting this thing, at our own expense. Soharwardy doesn’t have to spend a dime – now that his complaint has been filed, Alberta tax dollars will pay for the prosecution of his complaint. We have to pay for this on our own.

Look, $75,000 isn’t going to bankrupt us. But it will sting. We’re a small, independent magazine, not a huge company with deep pockets. All of our money is needed to produce the best possible editorial product, not to fight legal battles. This is clearly an abuse of process designed to punish us and deter other media from daring to cross that angry imam in the future.

One of the leaders in Canadian human rights law, Alan Borovoy, was so disturbed by Soharwardy’s abuse of the human rights commission that he wrote a public letter about it in the Calgary Herald on March 16th. “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech,” wrote Borovoy, who is general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Censorship was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons,” he wrote.

Borovoy went even further – he said that the human rights laws should be changed to avoid this sort of abuse in the future. “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation,” he wrote. That’s an amazing statement, coming from one of the fathers of the Canadian human rights movement.

I agree with Borovoy: the law should be changed to stop future abuses. But those changes will come too late for us – we’re already under attack. The human rights laws, designed as a shield, are being used against us as a sword.

We will file our legal response to Soharwardy’s shakedown this week. And we will fight this battle to the end – not just for our own sake, but to defend freedom of the press for all Canadians.

Do you believe that’s important? If so, I’d ask you to help us defray our costs. We’re accepting donations through our website. It’s fast, easy and secure. Just click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

You can donate any amount from $10 to $10,000. Please help the Western Standard today – and protect freedom for all Canadians for years to come.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant
Publisher

P.S. Remember, Soharwardy’s complaint will be prosecuted using tax dollars and government lawyers. We have to rely on our own funds – and the generous support of readers like you.

P.P.S. Please help us now, at http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

It could just as easily happen in any province in Canada.

From the Western Standard’s Blog or see here to read all the comments there as well:

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan of the imam’s complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at info@westernstandard.ca or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way — thanks!

New Zealand Moves Toward Tradeable Water Permits

Speaking of water, as I did yesterday, from Stuff in New Zealand comes news that at least some people are beginning to consider allowing markets to help allocate water:

Environment Minister David Benson-Pope and Agriculture and Forestry Minister Jim Anderton have prepared a Cabinet paper, which is expected to rule out privatisation but allow limited trading of water rights and establish an economic “price” for water.



… the Government did not want a regime which would prompt users to exploit their full water right, because that might encourage them to use more, not less, water.



One option could be a “cap and trade” system which could allow consent holders to trade a proportion of their water right, but not the full amount.



… The South Island river faces competing demand for hydro-generation, irrigation, industry and recreation, while the available flow is arguably “over-allocated” in dry years.



Existing users effectively have priority, on a first-come-first-served basis, which may not allow for new or more economic uses.

Let’s see, now:

• Well-defined property rights.
• Dramatically lowered transaction costs

It all sounds pretty Coasean/Coasian to me.



[h/t to Rodney Hide]

The Water Shortage in Sussex-Kent.What Will Happen to the Castle’s Moat?

The castle where I will be teaching this summer is in southeast England, in the heart of the region experiencing a water shortage. Hosepipe and watering bans are already in place, long before the real dryness of summer will be upon them.



I bristle every time I read or hear the words “shortage”, “rationing”, and “ban on watering”. I know that any time there is a shortage, the price is below the market-clearing price. There wouldn’t be a shortage if the price were raised (or allowed to rise). I wrote the same thing last month about water in Phoenix, Arizona.



Recently, I asked a person at the castle whether showering had been banned yet and whether the castle would receive special dispensation, allowing them to water their gardens and flowers. She replied,

Water situation is dire – they’re talking about standpipes in the streets.



However we’re all still quite clean here at the moment. I don’t think the Castle will get any special consideration when it comes to watering the gardens.

The Water Shortage in Sussex-Kent.What Will Happen to the Castle’s Moat?

The castle where I will be teaching this summer is in southeast England, in the heart of the region experiencing a water shortage. Hosepipe and watering bans are already in place, long before the real dryness of summer will be upon them.



I bristle every time I read or hear the words “shortage”, “rationing”, and “ban on watering”. I know that any time there is a shortage, the price is below the market-clearing price. There wouldn’t be a shortage if the price were raised (or allowed to rise). I wrote the same thing last month about water in Phoenix, Arizona.



Recently, I asked a person at the castle whether showering had been banned yet and whether the castle would receive special dispensation, allowing them to water their gardens and flowers. She replied,

Water situation is dire – they’re talking about standpipes in the streets.



However we’re all still quite clean here at the moment. I don’t think the Castle will get any special consideration when it comes to watering the gardens.

The Water Shortage in Sussex-Kent.What Will Happen to the Castle’s Moat?

The castle where I will be teaching this summer is in southeast England, in the heart of the region experiencing a water shortage. Hosepipe and watering bans are already in place, long before the real dryness of summer will be upon them.



I bristle every time I read or hear the words “shortage”, “rationing”, and “ban on watering”. I know that any time there is a shortage, the price is below the market-clearing price. There wouldn’t be a shortage if the price were raised (or allowed to rise). I wrote the same thing last month about water in Phoenix, Arizona.



Recently, I asked a person at the castle whether showering had been banned yet and whether the castle would receive special dispensation, allowing them to water their gardens and flowers. She replied,

Water situation is dire – they’re talking about standpipes in the streets.



However we’re all still quite clean here at the moment. I don’t think the Castle will get any special consideration when it comes to watering the gardens.

The Protocols of the Elders of Harvard

About a century ago, there appeared a heinous anti-semitic document called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alleging there was a Jewish plot to take over the world. I wrote about this fraud here.

There is a new document that rivals the Protocols for anti-semitism, only this one is more subtle. Its title is “Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”. BenS calls it “The Protocols of the Elders of Harvard” .

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy [$ Subscription req'd] – James Taranto
The New York Sun reports on a paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Stephen Walt of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an “Israel lobby.” White supremacist David Duke, a one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper “a great step forward.” The “working paper” claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, “pro-Israel” senior officials in the executive branch, and “neoconservative gentiles” including columnist George Will.
Walt and Mearsheimer’s method of analysis presumes Israel’s guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are “understandable.” This approach is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. It is telling that David Duke finds their ideas congenial. (Wall Street Journal)

See also Critics Question Harvard Paper – Meghan Clyne
Marvin Kalb, founding director of the Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, said, “It clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper….It is a rather sensational example of ‘realist’ journalism….Walt would be better advised to stick to scholarship and leave journalism to journalists, who generally check their ‘facts’ before publishing them.” President Clinton’s special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, said the authors displayed “a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject….It is masquerading as scholarship.” (New York Sun)
“The content [of the paper] is not significant,” said the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein. “Those seeking to damage the U.S.-Israel relationship have been saying this for a while. The fact that it carries the imprimatur of the Harvard Kennedy School is. Those that don’t know better would assume it has validity, when it doesn’t.” (New York Sun)

Christopher Hitchens, in Slate, adds

It’s slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don’t understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either.

The essay itself, mostly a very average “realist” and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original.

… Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly.

The explanations for these assertions are in his article. I recommend it.

Addendum: Despite the above criticisms, The Emirates Economist wonders about the exceptionalism in U.S. – Israel relations.

Arguably, self-interest has not always led the U.S. in an admirable or honorable path – numerous alignments of convenience with foreign dictators come to mind. But in general it is hard to argue that it is not right for a country to pursue a policy which aims to ensure its own survival and promote the welfare of its citizens. And that that is exactly what the U.S. has done throughout its history.

It would appear that since the Truman administration, U.S. foreign policy towards Israel is more of an “infatuation” with a “favorite nation.” This seeming departure from a pragmatic approach has been hard explain. And it feeds a theory spun in coffee shops and shisha bars throughout the Middle East; that theory being that the Jews run America. What else, these theorists say, can explain the apparent exceptionalism of U.S. policy toward Israel?

… [Even] If the charges of the critics hold true – … – the exceptionalism question will still remain.

Given the contrasts between Israel and the various countries surrounding Israel, it seems quite reasonable to me that the U.S. would give it special consideration.

What Has Happened to U.S. M3 Growth Rates?

If you’re interested in growth rates of the U.S. money supply (and Fed policy concerning them), you might enjoy this cartoon from the Wall Street Examiner.



For more on The Fed’s decision to stop reporting M3, see this at the Wall Street Examiner.

The Fed discontinued publication of M3 data this week. According to them it was no big deal.



… Translation:



We have given up on reporting M3. We ceased to have any influence, let alone control, over M3 many years ago. It’s embarrassing that no matter what we do M3 just keeps growing faster and faster than the rate at which we are growing our monetary base (printing money), and faster and faster than M2, over which we are also gradually losing control.



Because M3 makes our own impotence so obvious, we are going to pretend that the explosion of the worldwide supply of dollars doesn’t exist, and will only continue to report those measures which don’t make us look like such incompetent wussies, that is, the monetary base, M1, and M2 which includes a few items that are also spiraling out of control. M2’s days are probably numbered, but we will do our best to make it look like we are really doing something.

Macroblog, in its Odds and Ends posting, says,

In the some-think-it-matters-I-don’t category, The Capital Spectator comments on the retirement of M3. So does Tim Iacono. That makes the graphs at Economist’s View on M3 velocity — explained here — somewhat obsolete, but don’t worry — there is still M1 and M2 to absorb your attention.