Remind me never to cross Mark Kleiman, because he just UNLOADS on Juan Cole.
Ouch
by John Cole| 32 Comments
This post is in: Excellent Links
Ouch
Reader Interactions
32Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
[…] Hat tip: Balloon Juice. […]
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.
Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.
The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.
This blog will pay for itself.
You can’t love your country only when you win.
Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.
Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.
Let’s not be the monsters we hate.
Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
The willow is too close to the house.
Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.
Everybody saw this coming.
Battle won, war still ongoing.
Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.
Black Jesus loves a paper trail.
Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.
Consistently wrong since 2002
But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.
Good lord, these people are nuts.
Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?
Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.
Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.
You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.
Veeshir
That’s about the best evisceration of a subject who doesn’t deserve it that I’ve seen in a while.
Not that Juan Cole isn’t a despicable human being or that he doesn’t deserve to be lambasted, it’s that he’s so predictable that paying attention to his bleatings is elevating him above his actual place in the scheme of things.
It’s like blasting Pat Boone for supporting Intelligent Design.
Geek, Esq.
Ouch. That left a mark.
Dave Schuler
No trackbacks, so ping!
BinkyBoy
In short: I’m a wingnut asshole that hates Juan Cole and I’ll drag up any winger belief I can possibly come up with. My head has been so far shoved up my ass I can no longer argue without lying.
Basically, the guy could have debated Juan Cole without bringing up Cindy Sheehan and using a full boldfaced lie to do it. Pathetic and useless after that.
Scarpy
Binkyboy, read Kleiman’s site before you go calling him a “wingnut.” Or can liberals not criticize liberals now?
Funny thing about that word to me–it always implies an equal and opposite “wing” of nuts sticking out on the other side.
Matthew J. Stinson
BinkyBoy, Mark A.R. Kleiman is a wingnut asshole? Man, all these years he had me fooled into thinking he was a principled left-liberal college professor. Cheers for your insight.
BinkyBoy
For a leftist to come up with the argument that Bush hasn’t ever insulted ms. Sheehan’s dead son is a remarkable leap of logic.
It seems to me he only wants to attack Juan Cole, whether out of some spite or for some other deeply personal reason and he will grasp at straws to accomplish that.
Forgive me for my error, but those types of attacks seem to be predominantly from the right.
Moe Lane
Now, Matthew, you know that heresy hunts are a boon for VRWC recruitment drives. Prof. Kleiman will make an excellent addition to the team – if we can stay quiet long enough to let the Other Side do its internal purges in peace, ‘kay?
Peter T.
Actually, I don’t think a fair minded person would reach the same conclusion as Kleiman did after reading the associated documents. How unreasonable is it to read a newspaper report saying two people intended to marry and conclude they were romantically involved? The Telegraph article also says that Vincent and Nour received repeated warnings about their behavior. Cole is not defending Vincent’s assassins; he’s merely blogging off a story in the Telegraph. He had no way of knowing all the exculpatory detail on the relationship that Mrs. Vincent cites. Mrs Vincent’s questioning of Cole’s qualifications are just silly – you can look at his CV on his web site. He has a Phd in Islamic Studies from UCLA. Also, I would interpret Cole’s refusal to battle Mrs Vincent as being more indicative of good taste (given the circumstances) than moral cowardice.
I too found Cole’s reference to Mediterranean culture odd. However, his point is that in Basra at this time casual male/female interaction can’t be undertaken as we do in the west. As to who killed Vincent and why: who knows? Lots of people are dying in Iraq in 2005.
BinkyBoy
I found Mr. Cole’s original post a nice rundown/summary of the Telegraph article with a small amount of person opinion about the culture to be tasteful and well done, even after going over it a second time looking for something to make everyone want to attack him over it.
But then I look at the other blogs calling for Juan Cole’s head and I’m just thinking these guys have sand in their pussies. Mrs. Vincent goes out of her way to insult Juan Cole, but never seems to question the Telegraph article, why not? It seems that it was the Telegraph that insinuated the romantic relationship. Why should Juan Cole pay for it? Besides, his opinion was more about the “Mediterranean” culture, not about Vincent or Nour.
Maybe Mrs. Vincent isn’t really Mrs. Vincent but someone with an axe to grind?
Matthew J. Stinson
Sorry Moe. I shan’t criticize a purge in progress again.
Mark
From what I gather, here is BinkyBoy’s comments in short:
1. Kleiman is a right-wing wingnut asshole who dares criticize the almighty Juan Cole!
2. What, Kleiman is a fellow liberal? Damn. How do I continue to defend Juan Cole?
3. I Know! “Mrs. Vincent” is a fraud! An imposter! There – hang with me, brother Juan.
Phil Smith
Binky, you need to quit while you’re behind.
That’s one display of complete ignorance.
Replace “Mrs. Vincent” with “Mrs. Sheehan” and you’ll see what kind of a sewer-dweller it would take to even think of, much less type, those words.
Reprehensible.
BinkyBoy
Yeah, nice way to attack my argument, which is still:
Why attack Juan Cole when the Telegraph is the one that made the original insinuation that seems to have inflamed so many people?
Or do you just like them attacking Juan Cole? Why gives you the impression I’m jumping to Juan Cole’s defense? Just because I’m not on the JC bashing bandwagon? If he’s wrong, he’s wrong, but his summary was actually a decent writeup to generate interest in the Telegraph’s story, thats all.
Phil Smith
Bullshit. What gives me (and I presume others) the impression that you’re just reflexively defending Cole are statements like “Kleiman is a wingnut asshole” and “Mrs. Vincent is grinding an axe” (as opposed to emotionally defending her husband’s memory, just as one example of an alternate). Those statements are in no way congruent with “I’m not defending Cole, I’m just saying don’t attack Cole, attack the Telegraph”.
Keep digging.
Matthew J. Stinson
Actually, Binky, if you had read and understood Kleiman’s critique of Cole’s “self-defense” against Mrs. Vincent, which I assume you did not because you automatically assigned Kleiman the role of arch-conservative in the political conspiracy drama you’ve attempted to weave in this comment thread, then you would note that Professor Kleiman’s strongest objections to Professor Cole’s
apologia“explanation” for the murder of Steven Vincent come when Cole assumes illiberal positions — namely, a de facto defense of honor killings — thanks to his misguided loyalty to Arab sensibilities.And if you esteemed liberal ideals as much as your anti-war position, you’d realize that, besides the illiberal themes, both of Cole’s posts on Steven Vincent lack the compassion and decency the left has long argued make them superior to the right. (As someone on the right I disagree with this self-conception on the part of liberals, but it is their self-conception nonetheless.) Kleiman, for his part, recognizes the anti-humanist line of thought present in Cole’s writing on the subject and argues against Cole — who is, n.b., more often Kleiman’s ally than foe — not as a “winger” or a “Cole hater” but as a defender of progressive beliefs.
Finally, if the above is incomprehensible in the dichotomous system of political beliefs you seemingly espouse, then please, be my guest, and continue to question Professor Kleiman’s motives.
BinkyBoy
So for Cole to discuss the Vincent murder in a matter of fact way showed a lack of compassion opening him up to attacks from those with more compassion?
So what would you have prefered? That Cole use the Vincent murder to call for the marginalization and destruction of those that believe in honor killings? Maybe Cole should have called for a war against Chad.
But the reason I felt Kleinman was a right wing hack is that he callously used Cindy Sheehan’s son in a further distasteful manner. I’ve never visted Kleinman’s site before, but I did read the article linked, compared it to Cole’s original posting and I find absolutely no reasonable excuse for Kleinman to have gone off like he did. Cole attempts to find a societal reason for the murder, a possible explanation. What motive would Cole have had to apologize for honor killings? Has anything in Cole’s past writings given evidence of his support for such murders? I think not.
Biff
Look, folks, stop piling on BinkyBoy for calling Kleiman a wingnut. He’s realized his mistake and apologized for it.
Here is Juan Cole’s original post. It’s pretty obvious from a fair reading of this that he was NOT calling Vincent’s translator a “slut” or someone who “sleeps around”. He is also clearly NOT excusing the murderers. Hell, he says the practice of honor killing is prevalent among the “uneducated”.
I can understand why Vincent’s widow would be upset at anything that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted, in this case) as negative about Vincent. She’s obviously in an emotional and vulnerable state right now.
There is no excuse for Kleiman’s misreading and attack on Juan Cole, though.
Matthew J. Stinson
Well, then, Binky, since your distaste from Cole obtains from your claim that “Mr. Bush hasn’t insulted Ms. Sheehan’s dead son” is a lie, how in fact has the President attacked the character of the late Casey Sheehan? I ask this because you don’t seem to be objecting to Kleiman’s claim that Professor Cole did in fact insult the late Mr. Vincent.
(Incidentally, your assessment of someone else’s criticisms as “distasteful” would carry more weight if you didn’t call them an “asshole” during said assessment.)
As for why Mr. Cole would defend the Arab practice of honor-killing, you should take it up with him. Kleiman’s point — and remember, it’s Kleiman’s writing you should be addressing — is that no-self-respecting liberal, progressive, or leftist should write, among other things, that Vincent “was egregiously breaking the rules of gender segregation and female honor.”
Matthew J. Stinson
Make that “distaste for Kleiman” above. The typos are kicking in now. Heh.
Peter T.
I have to assume that Cole’s ‘de facto’ support of Vincent’s killers is due to his printing the facts surrounding his murder as detailed in the Telegraph article. Nonsense. If this is so, Mrs Vincent’s heated denial that there was anything physical between her husband and Nour also provides de facto support, by implying that if there had been a ‘romantic’ relationship his killing would somehow have been more understandable.
No matter the status of their relationship, Vincent’s killing and Nour’s shooting were lawless and savage acts. I see no reason to believe that Cole, Mrs Vincent or anyone else involved thinks otherwise. This includes the reporter who wrote the Telegraph article, which after all is the source for Cole’s blogging. I have often read articles on cancer where the author neglects to come out explicitly against the disease, apparently assuming his readership possesses minimal common sense. Not always a safe bet.
BinkyBoy
If the Telegraph piece was true, Vincent was egregiously breaking the rules. Cole says so directly:
No accusation, just an analysis of the situation as he saw it.
And Bush, in saying Ms. Sheehan should “just move on” in the casually flippant manner that he did constitutes an attack on him, as far as I’m concerned. Its far more of an attack than Juan Cole made.
capelza
I was over at Tacitus reading their version of this topic. Wow.
Mrs. Vincent was okay with her husband divorcing her and marrying the young lady in question so the young lady could get out of Iraq. Including the conversion to Islam, going to the UK (but as a US citizen, what good could that do for Noor?). I actually don’t have such a hard time understnading that, but then I’m a liberal. But even then, a divorce in this country is not a simple thing, asset distribution and all. SO I am not actually doubting that Mrs. Vincent would have believed this. But to lay into Cole because he pinted out that Vincent completely misunderstood the Arabic culture seems a little overboard. “Honour” killings NEVER happen there do they?
Slartibartfast
Ah, well, that explains a great deal. Wonder how many pints it took?
capelza
Hahaha…I am the most guilty person for not proofreading my terrible typing. My apologies. That was funny, maybe we all need to “pint out” more often?
Boronx
Kleiman is off base with his criticism of the term “romantic involvement”. In American culture, it usually means sexual relations, but Cole is pretty clear that his intent was to get a sense of Iraqi culture across to his readers.
I do think Cole is unfair in assuming that Vincent was unaware of the taboo. He may have been perfectly aware, but was acting bravely to assist a woman in distress, or they may have been starcrossed lovers who gave everything for love inspite of their probably fate.
Slartibartfast
Or Vincent may have been a space alien, stalking the woman so that he could suck out her brain. You have to consider all possibilities, after all.
SoCalJustice
Who knew Kleiman was a proto-fascist, Zionist, right-wing, Likudnik, neocon who just can’t stand that the perfesser is a frequent critic of “Sharon’s policies”?
I mean, those are the only people who ever deem to challenge the expertise of Juan Cole – at least in his mind – right?
Randolph Fritz
Seems remarkably incoherent to me; maybe Kleinman has a point, but I’m not willing to wade through the logorrhea to get to it. That Kleinman quotes out of context and niggles over definitions doesn’t make me sympathetic.
Damnit, man, learn some critical skills.
All right, that was over the top. But if one wants to understand, rather than echo, one must read carefully. And some sorts of rhetoric–including the out-of-context quote and niggling over definition–are the tools of someone with no substantial arguments. Kleinman may have a point. But I’m not willing to wade through his blither to get to it.
Randolph Fritz
To which I can add: Juan Cole is the only other commentator writing in English who knows Arabic and Islam well. Unless it turns out he is, in fact, incompetent in his academic field–which is not likely–I suggest that people who dislike him read him as a knowlegeable enemy.
Mike
“Randolph Fritz Says:
To which I can add: Juan Cole is the only other commentator writing in English who knows Arabic and Islam well. Unless it turns out he is, in fact, incompetent in his academic field—which is not likely—I suggest that people who dislike him read him as a knowlegeable enemy.”
Dunno about the incompetence part, but yeah, he’s definitely an enemy.