Mark Kleiman delivers a blogging beatdown, and illustrates an old adage - when the facts are with you, argue the facts.
Comments
Sometimes I wonder why Juan Cole still has an audience, then I remember that he knows less than he wants you to believe, that he is blinded by bias, and that he is rude. There is a whole ideology out there now whose adherents are described above. Why shouldn't he have an audience of such adherents?
==============================================
I think Juan Cole could have been a lot more sensitive in what he wrote, but then again that could be said of many others. But not you of course!
One of Mark Kleiman's main points, that Cole insinuated something that the original Telegraph article couldn't support, appears to have been proven wrong though, as Kleiman notes in an update. Also, there is at least http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=66829>one more article from a journalist in Basra that says that one of the theories in Basra as to why Vincent was killed was the perceived relationship.
From the article:
Vincent and Al-Khal were abducted on August 2. An Iraqi journalist who spoke with witnesses reported that the killers were driving an unmarked police car. A member of the Basra police confirmed this to another journalist, but the official statement from the police denies this.
“There are two stories in Basra right now,” said an Iraqi correspondent in the city who asked that his name not be used. “One is that Steven was killed because there was a relationship between him and Nour. The other is that he was killed for writing an article accusing the Sadr office of kidnappings.”
This means that Coile's original point, that Vincent's lack of knowledge or disregard of local customs may be one of the reasons he was killed, remains perfectly valid. You may argue it was in bad taste to post that but posting the truth is many times considered in bad taste.
If there was truth in it it was not as dressed up by Cole. There is the journalistic crime. The rest is just Juan Cole nastiness, though why he is proud to display it, I don't know.
=======================================
Well, Cole relied on the reporting by the Telegraph. Which is what we all do, we read newspapers and comment on that. According top Kleiman's update the original Telegraph article, the one Cole read, very much supports what Cole posted.
Generally, Cole's problem is his usual smirking superiority. Does Cole honestly believe that Vincent was unaware of what Cole characterizes as the "Mediterranean" practice of honor killings? Of course Vincent must have known that there was a risk to his translator and to him, for simple "collaboration" if not for "honor," and of course he knows as much as Cole about the tensions that the relationship might have provoked.
The idea is kind of silly on its face. Cole is invested in proving that he, a man who has never been to Iraq, knows more about "Mediterranean" culture than Vincent did, and will take whatever cheap shots he can to prove it.
Well, Juan Cole Himself manages to make Great Deductions from Single Words:
from Cole's blog:
Note that I {Cole} did not say, as Mrs. Vincent assumes, that he was sleeping with his interpreter, Nur al-Khal. That he was romantically involved with her is obvious from his blog, where he {Stephen} calls her "Leyla". I don't have any interest in their personal lives per se, but this relationship may have had something to do with his death and so is fair game for mention.
So, per Cole, the Stephen's use of the term 'Leyla' to refer to Nur, in and of itself, indicates their romantic involvement.
m'okay.
A quick check of google shows that the term is a name meaning 'born at night' and the name is also featured in a couple of works of literature.
A counter-explanation might be that Stephen used a different name for his translator such that she was not as easily identifiable or traceable to Islamic religious fanatics with guns in a Mediterranean culture of honor killing and 'Leyla' was a better fit than "Juliette" or, say, Gertrude'.
Juan Cole is the illustration of a blogger who needs an editor. A MSM guy would have reminded him of what his Mama would have told him: "Don't speak ill of the dead" and "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all". The man is so tone-deaf to ordinary niceties that it kills his credibility.
Typical bigot. Cultural sensitivity is fine, to a point, but we don't need apologists for murderers. I'm reminded of Sir Charles Napier's famous quote:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
There's no problem with calling it the way you see 'em, and being blunt, when necessary. Problem is, anyone with a nodding aquaintance with basic decency could have seen that it wasn't necessary. Mr. Vincent was a perceptive blogger writing from a dangerous place, but he wasn't terribly important on the ideological food chain. No doctrine -- no view of ultimate truth -- required Dr. Cole to blather his snarky view of his demise all over creation. Frankly, it looked like the good Professor was taking the opportunity to settle a personal score with Vincent after he couldn't respond. The usual word for a person like that is not one I care to type just now.
But whether or not Dr. Cole is crappy human being is immaterial to his blog. What is material is that he is using it to settle grievances and demonstrate -- without much regard to ordinary decencies that restrain the rest of it. And that calls into question what sort of attention we should pay to what he does post? What is he trying to prove? Is he going to distort this bit of arabic literature or that to demonstrate the rightness of his worldview? Or, will he tell the truth?
A man who can't surpress himself do avoid being relentlessly mean to the dead and his grieving survivors isn't somebody I trust to report anything other than the mirror image of his own biases, ego and great thoughts in his blog. A shame, since Dr. Cole gets so much of his information from sources not otherwise available to us f-ing Americans.
You wanna to be mad at me that's fine. But you respond to Juan Cole's knowledge with little more than wounded pride and claims of the right to be both ignorant and moral.
That is a peculiarly American form of argument, and given the circumstances, I find it grotesque. I repeat what I said:
Faith in good intentions got us here to begin with.
(and I'm to old to be a punk)
Being right isn't the same thing as being just. And moral judgment is a component of judgment. If a person appears to have no moral judgment, I do tend to think his other critical faculties might be questionable. Given the sort of fights Cole generates (implying blogging Iraqis might be CIA agents and now this one), I figure he has no concept of the impact of what he does on other people. An odd failing in one who specializes in bringing us the thoughts of a different culture.
By the way, if I remember right. Dr. Cole's argument was that Vincent was ignorant and immoral. I find that grotesque.
Cole has repeatedly demonstrated his untrustworthiness. What is the good of his supposedly unique sources if his transfer of the information warps it?
==========================================
Let's all remember that though the road to hell can be paved with good intentions, so must the road anywhere, for the road paved with bad intentions surely goes to hell.
==============================================
Cole, given the opportunity to show how corrupt the newly installed police in Basra are, as they kidnapped/killed a reporter covering their corruption(-dressed as policemen, or may actually have been policemen)
versus settling an old score with one of his dead critics, chooses revenge.
This story was very disheartening to my chickenhawk impulses, as it came in the same week as the numerous Ohio/marine deaths. The fact that Basra had not been an area of conflict, was under Britsh control, had me believing that things were wonderful, at least there. Cole could have finished me off, by pointing out that the government we are setting up is going to be incredibly corrupt and kill people who speak out-but instead choses to dismiss it as an honor killing.
Not often that you see Cole pass up the chance to throw water on the democritization of Iraq, for the chance to settle a score with a personal matter, but then when you are mentally disturbed...and he is mentally disturbed.
I'm typing this because my glib insult is still annoying me. I let my anger get in the way. I suppose I should apologize but the argument itself stands.
Too much power in the hands of the ignorant.
I sympathize with Cole's frustration.
I read him very day. You should do the same.
"I suppose I should apologize but the argument itself stands."
I find that, as a general rule, when you find yourself thinking "I suppose I should apologize," odds are pretty good that you should. Far from being an admission of defeat, a well-spoken apology actually strengthens an argument. Its absence when obviously warranted certainly weakens one.
On a similar note, if someone finds themselves scoring points off a "colleague"'s death, and his widow calls 'em on it, hey, maybe that person ought to consider apologizing. If he felt the need, he could even restate his argument. (For example: "Although I believe it important to highlight the pitfalls of cultural ignorance, it was insensitive to cite this particular case. I apologize.")
Badgering a grieving widow with inferences about her late husband's fidelity? Good grief! "Poor taste" and "tone deaf" don't begin to cover it--even if he were 100 percent correct on every point he made, he'd still be dead wrong. And if he's not smart enough to figure out that simple concept, why should I trust his opinion on anything more comlicated?
Wierd as hell. It's like Kleinman read five words of Cole's post and went zooming off into outer space. Cole's piece is clearly in the tradition of "when in Rome..." advisories. It's a primer on how not to get your ass in a sling. Like in Mongolia, don't get mistaken for a Christian missionary; don't wear diamond earrings near the clock tower in Kampala; and in the middle east, don't get taken for a horndog. Why is it so hard for Kleinman to conceive that Cole is not judging Vincent's morals? Because no rational person gives a shit whether Vincent was bonking his translator. Perception and risk. The perception is what determines risk.
At worst, Cole is saying, Vincent might have been naive; no doubt he was. Any realistic man would stay the fuck out of Iraq in the first place.Are you really unable to tell the difference between character assassination and a dispassionate postmortem? He can still be your hero... you're entitled to one, at least.
I'm trying hard to find counterposed opinions, but it's just not panning out. You people have not demonstrated an ability to think straight. You obsess about trivia, ignoring the overall picture.
Sometimes I wonder why Juan Cole still has an audience, then I remember that he knows less than he wants you to believe, that he is blinded by bias, and that he is rude. There is a whole ideology out there now whose adherents are described above. Why shouldn't he have an audience of such adherents?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | August 26, 2005 at 07:00 AM
Tom,
I think Juan Cole could have been a lot more sensitive in what he wrote, but then again that could be said of many others. But not you of course!
One of Mark Kleiman's main points, that Cole insinuated something that the original Telegraph article couldn't support, appears to have been proven wrong though, as Kleiman notes in an update. Also, there is at least http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=66829>one more article from a journalist in Basra that says that one of the theories in Basra as to why Vincent was killed was the perceived relationship.
From the article:
This means that Coile's original point, that Vincent's lack of knowledge or disregard of local customs may be one of the reasons he was killed, remains perfectly valid. You may argue it was in bad taste to post that but posting the truth is many times considered in bad taste.
Posted by: GT | August 26, 2005 at 08:28 AM
If there was truth in it it was not as dressed up by Cole. There is the journalistic crime. The rest is just Juan Cole nastiness, though why he is proud to display it, I don't know.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | August 26, 2005 at 08:40 AM
Well, Cole relied on the reporting by the Telegraph. Which is what we all do, we read newspapers and comment on that. According top Kleiman's update the original Telegraph article, the one Cole read, very much supports what Cole posted.
Posted by: GT | August 26, 2005 at 09:04 AM
Generally, Cole's problem is his usual smirking superiority. Does Cole honestly believe that Vincent was unaware of what Cole characterizes as the "Mediterranean" practice of honor killings? Of course Vincent must have known that there was a risk to his translator and to him, for simple "collaboration" if not for "honor," and of course he knows as much as Cole about the tensions that the relationship might have provoked.
The idea is kind of silly on its face. Cole is invested in proving that he, a man who has never been to Iraq, knows more about "Mediterranean" culture than Vincent did, and will take whatever cheap shots he can to prove it.
Posted by: J Mann | August 26, 2005 at 09:19 AM
Well, Juan Cole Himself manages to make Great Deductions from Single Words:
from Cole's blog:
Note that I {Cole} did not say, as Mrs. Vincent assumes, that he was sleeping with his interpreter, Nur al-Khal. That he was romantically involved with her is obvious from his blog, where he {Stephen} calls her "Leyla". I don't have any interest in their personal lives per se, but this relationship may have had something to do with his death and so is fair game for mention.
So, per Cole, the Stephen's use of the term 'Leyla' to refer to Nur, in and of itself, indicates their romantic involvement.
m'okay.
A quick check of google shows that the term is a name meaning 'born at night' and the name is also featured in a couple of works of literature.
A counter-explanation might be that Stephen used a different name for his translator such that she was not as easily identifiable or traceable to Islamic religious fanatics with guns in a Mediterranean culture of honor killing and 'Leyla' was a better fit than "Juliette" or, say, Gertrude'.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | August 26, 2005 at 10:17 AM
Yeah, Leyla sure leads logically to 'obviously romantically involved'. In JuanWorld.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | August 26, 2005 at 11:06 AM
Juan Cole is the illustration of a blogger who needs an editor. A MSM guy would have reminded him of what his Mama would have told him: "Don't speak ill of the dead" and "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all". The man is so tone-deaf to ordinary niceties that it kills his credibility.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | August 26, 2005 at 11:38 AM
"A MSM guy would have reminded him of what his Mama would have told him . . ."
I'd add "don't blame the victim," but other than that, you said it all.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 26, 2005 at 11:42 AM
No kids, Juan Cole is doing just fine.
Faith in good intentions got us here to begin with.
You're all so fucking American
Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | August 26, 2005 at 12:50 PM
You're all so fucking American
Whatever punk.
Posted by: Mac | August 26, 2005 at 01:29 PM
"You're all so ****ing American"
Typical bigot. Cultural sensitivity is fine, to a point, but we don't need apologists for murderers. I'm reminded of Sir Charles Napier's famous quote:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 26, 2005 at 01:40 PM
Seth:
There's no problem with calling it the way you see 'em, and being blunt, when necessary. Problem is, anyone with a nodding aquaintance with basic decency could have seen that it wasn't necessary. Mr. Vincent was a perceptive blogger writing from a dangerous place, but he wasn't terribly important on the ideological food chain. No doctrine -- no view of ultimate truth -- required Dr. Cole to blather his snarky view of his demise all over creation. Frankly, it looked like the good Professor was taking the opportunity to settle a personal score with Vincent after he couldn't respond. The usual word for a person like that is not one I care to type just now.
But whether or not Dr. Cole is crappy human being is immaterial to his blog. What is material is that he is using it to settle grievances and demonstrate -- without much regard to ordinary decencies that restrain the rest of it. And that calls into question what sort of attention we should pay to what he does post? What is he trying to prove? Is he going to distort this bit of arabic literature or that to demonstrate the rightness of his worldview? Or, will he tell the truth?
A man who can't surpress himself do avoid being relentlessly mean to the dead and his grieving survivors isn't somebody I trust to report anything other than the mirror image of his own biases, ego and great thoughts in his blog. A shame, since Dr. Cole gets so much of his information from sources not otherwise available to us f-ing Americans.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | August 26, 2005 at 01:51 PM
You wanna to be mad at me that's fine. But you respond to Juan Cole's knowledge with little more than wounded pride and claims of the right to be both ignorant and moral.
That is a peculiarly American form of argument, and given the circumstances, I find it grotesque. I repeat what I said:
Faith in good intentions got us here to begin with.
(and I'm to old to be a punk)
Posted by: seth edenbaum | August 26, 2005 at 05:38 PM
Seth:
Being right isn't the same thing as being just. And moral judgment is a component of judgment. If a person appears to have no moral judgment, I do tend to think his other critical faculties might be questionable. Given the sort of fights Cole generates (implying blogging Iraqis might be CIA agents and now this one), I figure he has no concept of the impact of what he does on other people. An odd failing in one who specializes in bringing us the thoughts of a different culture.
By the way, if I remember right. Dr. Cole's argument was that Vincent was ignorant and immoral. I find that grotesque.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | August 26, 2005 at 05:59 PM
Cole has repeatedly demonstrated his untrustworthiness. What is the good of his supposedly unique sources if his transfer of the information warps it?
==========================================
Posted by: kim | August 27, 2005 at 10:07 AM
Punk's got something to do with age? News to me.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | August 27, 2005 at 10:15 AM
Let's all remember that though the road to hell can be paved with good intentions, so must the road anywhere, for the road paved with bad intentions surely goes to hell.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | August 27, 2005 at 10:19 AM
Cole, given the opportunity to show how corrupt the newly installed police in Basra are, as they kidnapped/killed a reporter covering their corruption(-dressed as policemen, or may actually have been policemen)
versus settling an old score with one of his dead critics, chooses revenge.
This story was very disheartening to my chickenhawk impulses, as it came in the same week as the numerous Ohio/marine deaths. The fact that Basra had not been an area of conflict, was under Britsh control, had me believing that things were wonderful, at least there. Cole could have finished me off, by pointing out that the government we are setting up is going to be incredibly corrupt and kill people who speak out-but instead choses to dismiss it as an honor killing.
Not often that you see Cole pass up the chance to throw water on the democritization of Iraq, for the chance to settle a score with a personal matter, but then when you are mentally disturbed...and he is mentally disturbed.
Posted by: mark | August 27, 2005 at 11:32 AM
I'm typing this because my glib insult is still annoying me. I let my anger get in the way. I suppose I should apologize but the argument itself stands.
Too much power in the hands of the ignorant.
I sympathize with Cole's frustration.
I read him very day. You should do the same.
I'm out.
Posted by: seth edenbaum | August 27, 2005 at 01:05 PM
Glib or slip? There are so many people who are just so fucking anti-American.
Hasta la buena.
==================================================
Posted by: kim | August 27, 2005 at 01:12 PM
a little html to lose the italics
Posted by: n | August 27, 2005 at 02:28 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_08_21.php#006351
http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html
Posted by: seth edenbaum | August 27, 2005 at 04:29 PM
"I suppose I should apologize but the argument itself stands."
I find that, as a general rule, when you find yourself thinking "I suppose I should apologize," odds are pretty good that you should. Far from being an admission of defeat, a well-spoken apology actually strengthens an argument. Its absence when obviously warranted certainly weakens one.
On a similar note, if someone finds themselves scoring points off a "colleague"'s death, and his widow calls 'em on it, hey, maybe that person ought to consider apologizing. If he felt the need, he could even restate his argument. (For example: "Although I believe it important to highlight the pitfalls of cultural ignorance, it was insensitive to cite this particular case. I apologize.")
Badgering a grieving widow with inferences about her late husband's fidelity? Good grief! "Poor taste" and "tone deaf" don't begin to cover it--even if he were 100 percent correct on every point he made, he'd still be dead wrong. And if he's not smart enough to figure out that simple concept, why should I trust his opinion on anything more comlicated?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 27, 2005 at 08:23 PM
He can't interpret my culture to me let alone someone else's.
===========================================
Posted by: kim | August 27, 2005 at 09:30 PM
Wierd as hell. It's like Kleinman read five words of Cole's post and went zooming off into outer space. Cole's piece is clearly in the tradition of "when in Rome..." advisories. It's a primer on how not to get your ass in a sling. Like in Mongolia, don't get mistaken for a Christian missionary; don't wear diamond earrings near the clock tower in Kampala; and in the middle east, don't get taken for a horndog. Why is it so hard for Kleinman to conceive that Cole is not judging Vincent's morals? Because no rational person gives a shit whether Vincent was bonking his translator. Perception and risk. The perception is what determines risk.
At worst, Cole is saying, Vincent might have been naive; no doubt he was. Any realistic man would stay the fuck out of Iraq in the first place.Are you really unable to tell the difference between character assassination and a dispassionate postmortem? He can still be your hero... you're entitled to one, at least.
I'm trying hard to find counterposed opinions, but it's just not panning out. You people have not demonstrated an ability to think straight. You obsess about trivia, ignoring the overall picture.
Posted by: psh | August 30, 2005 at 07:31 PM