When a think tank sponsors a blog or a twitter account, it is hoping that the blogger or tweeter will publicize the think tank, bring it hits, and demonstrate the organization's thought leadership. If the tweeter or blog were damging the organization's reputation with its donors, the blogger or tweeter would soon find himself employed researching job openings.

So, absolutely, it is fair to hold the think tank responsible for incendiary tweets by people enpowered to speak for it. And if CAP bloggers are criticizing Isreal in their tweets, then that does reflect on CAP. That's simple fairness.

There's work by sociologist Thomas Medvetz of U of California-San Diego that talks about the tensions in the role of a think tank intellectual.
http://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/medvetz.shtml

Henry Farrell also mused about this in a past post:
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2008/02/15/think_tank_sociology/

So liberal think tanks question Israel...

and...?

There are no anti-Israel think tanks in Washington. There are just a few which are less extreme in their support for Israel.

And the only venom and hatred evident in the above article comes from Ms. Rubin with her "sewers", "anti-semitism" and "filth".

Is it really anti-semitism to point out that a lot of people involved in making American policy seem to have a very strong outside loyalty to a foreign country? Ms Rubin and her thought-police would have this observation disallowed.

Israel is the same as Pakistan, Artificial states founded in 1947 based on religious identity, that only stay afloat because of massive U.S. aid. Pakistan actively hate the U.S. Israel is the same, but has to face the fact that every other country in the world hates them except the U.S.

in Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QorJMPtz1Fw

""Animals. Animals. Like the Discovery Channel. All of Ramallah is a jungle. There are monkeys, dogs, gorillas. The problem is that the animals are locked they can't come out. We're humans. They're animals. They aren't humans we are."

Quote from Israeli border guard.

This is what Drezner and Rubin and Goldberg and the rest of our elites support and endorse. The question is why? And how could our leaders stoop so low and betray our values so terribly? If Drezner has any guts, he will respond to this and other even more revolting videos of Israeli soldiers abusing and terrorizing Palestinians in their own land.

I was a little slow to pick up on all the Internet ridicule directed at Camping and his followers. And when I did pick up on it, I confess, I did pile on just a bit. But I mostly went about my business.

Now that the predicted time has come and gone, I’m going to try to walk a fine line. Tell me how I do. I’ll try not to offend anyone’s supernatural sensibilities.

However, if you are in the “bewildered” category above, this may be a difficult post for you to read.

And if you are a bike commuter who is weary of the environmental rationale for cycling to work, hopefully this won’t bore you too much.

I’ve written several posts here under the theme, “What we’re up against.” (Here they are.) In these posts, I explore some of the cultural attitudes about cycling, sometimes expressed in subtle ways, that get in the way of moving cycling forward as mainstream form of transportation.

On Sunday I found myself thinking less about Jesus, and more about James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan.

There are many reasons that people are opposed and/or hostile to environmentalism. And the explicit reasons they oppose environmentalism may mask the true underlying reasons.

James Watt held fairly radical anti-environmental positions, but his positions and rationale were familiar to people who follow these issues. But during his confirmation hearing in the Senate, Watt laid bare his underlying belief on environmental protection:

I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.

Watt brought into focus for me the mindset that says that long-term thinking about society and the environment is a waste of time.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research center in 2006, 20% of Americans believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime.

They may be right. But to me, that’s twenty percent of Americans who are, at best, out of play for any kind of cycling advocacy–particularly the kind of advocacy that proposes cycling as part of long-term solutions to the problems created by a car-centric society. At worst, they are actively hostile to anything that might delay the rapture–you know, like acting toward a sustainable future.

This is what we’re up against.

Now, for those of you who are in the bewildered category, first of all, thank you for reading this far.

I want to believe that some of you in the bewildered group can start to think a little more long-term. Maybe, in time, you’ll be able get on a bike and enjoy the world that–against all your expectations–is still here today.

Some of you gave everything you owned to Harold Camping. The good news is, a bike is really inexpensive and efficient way to experience this beautiful world. You can afford it, and we at Commute by Bike, will welcome you.

And at that, I will step carefully away from the third rail.

thanks

professional web design