MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2023
Obama denounced as disgusting: Batya Ungar-Sargon, age 42, holds a PhD from Berkeley.
For the record, she doesn't hold just any PhD. from Berkeley. She holds a PhD in the 18th-century novel.
Her dissertation was entitled "Coercive Pleasures: The Force and Form of the Novel 1719-1740." As you can see at this link, the 61-page masterwork starts exactly like this:
Abstract
Coercive Pleasures: The Force and Form of the Novel 1719-1740
by Batya Ungar-Sargon
Coercive Pleasures argues that the early novel in Britain mobilizes scenarios of rape, colonization, cannibalism, and infection, in order to model a phenomenology of reading in which the pleasures of submission to the work of fiction—figured as analogous to these other coercions—reveals the reader’s autonomy as itself a fiction. This is a project about the novel but also about the way in which literary forms mediate political models of subjectivity. Literary histories of the novel tend to relate its “rise” to the emergence of a liberal subject whose truth resides in her interior, autonomous and private self. I propose instead that privacy and autonomy are the price rather than the payoff of fiction. With its depiction of invasive and coercive content such as rape, colonialism, cannibalism, and infection, and its self-conscious deployment of forms that coerce absorbed reading, the novel reveals the reader’s consent to read to be part of a structure that infracts both readers’ and characters’ autonomy, producing a particularly modern pleasure...
As you can see by clicking that link, that opening paragraph continues at length from there. We'd be cheating if we didn't let you know how the abstract ends:
Coercive Pleasures argues that the novel intervenes to expose the pleasures of subject formation built on coercive consent. Some early novels identify and coopt the coercive pleasure that contract theory and consent-based models of political subjectivity deploy, while others intervene to disrupt this pleasure, critiquing implicitly, or even explicitly, the fictions of consent.
So the dissertation argues. In accord with the practices of our own imperfect blue tribe, its presentation allowed Ungar-Sargon to be certified as a "highly educated" person.
At any rate, in Ungar-Sargon's view at that time, the early novel in Britain mobilizes scenarios of rape, colonization, cannibalism, and infection in order to model a phenomenology of reading in which the pleasures of submission to the work of fiction reveals the reader’s autonomy as itself a fiction. With its depiction of such content, it reveals the reader’s consent to read to be part of a structure that infracts both readers’ and characters’ autonomy!
On the one hand, it's obvious that Ungar-Sargon produced some solid, thought-provoking stuff in her doctoral dissertation.
On the other hand, very few readers will have any idea how to assess such statements. Her statements on yesterday's Fox & Friends Weekend may be easier to assess.
Back then, Ungar-Sargon was a Berkeley graduate student. Today, she appears on the masthead of the endlessly reinvented Newsweek as Deputy Editor, Opinion.
For the record, three other people are mastheaded that same way. By our count, Newsweek's masthead lists five correspondents and fifty-seven editors, though there may be a very good reason for that.
Back then, Ungar-Sargon was a grad student at Berkeley. Yesterday morning, she was a guest on Fox.
Her dissertation is somewhat hard to parse. Her statements on Fox were substantially more direct.
Ungar-Sargon was interviewed by one of the regular weekend friends—by Rachel Campos-Duffy, who got her start, way back when, on MTV's The Real World. You can watch the four-minute interview simply by clicking here. We offer the following excerpts:
UNGAR-SARGON (11/5/23): Yeah, thank you so much for having me, Rachel. Thank you for your incredible courage at this time, and I also just have to say thank you to everybody at Fox News, every producer, every writer,
You guys have been incredible in a sea of antisemitic media and bigotry. So thank you so much, from the bottom of my heart.
Speaking of signs, I was joking with a friend over Shabbat that the progressives need a new sign for their yard, right? "Black Lives Matter, In This House We Trust Science, No Human is Illegal, and Kill the Jews," right?
I mean, that's what we're seeing.
[Earlier speaker] is absolutely correct that the progressive movement is deeply, deeply antisemitic. Rashida Tlaib out there defending Hamas' chant, "From the river to the sea?" Why would anyone pick that as the hill to die on, I don't know.
But even President Obama, out there with a clip yesterday with absolute moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Absolutely disgusting stuff.
[...]
I feel very sure that this country will not accept this progressive movement with this disgusting antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. and we're going to see the unity of the American people and the good heartedness of the American people prevail.
Needless to say, people are entitled to state their views. Those are among the views the former grad student stated.
Some of her views were surprising. According to the Newsweek editor, progressives need to put signs in their yards which say, "Kill the Jews."
"The progressive movement is deeply, deeply antisemitic," the former grad student sweepingly said. She named exactly one such person—Rep. Tlaib. Or did she mention two?
As we watched, we were most struck by the Newsweek editor's claim that former president Obama had been "out there" on Saturday with a clip which included "absolutely disgusting stuff."
Presumably, Barack Obama is guilty of the "disgusting antisemitism" too. Presumably, he needs a sign in his front yard—a sign which says, "Kill the Jews."
At we watched the interview, we hadn't yet seen the video clip to which Ungar-Sargon referred. You can watch that four-minute clip simply by clicking here.
Tomorrow, we'll transcribe what Obama actually says in that video clip. As for the highly convicted Ungar-Sargon, we would venture this:
She holds a PhD from Berkeley. According to the norms of our imperfect tribe, that makes her "highly educated."
She's also a human being, speaking at a time of war. According to experts, we humans tend to pick a side and start attacking Others during our endless wars.
Also, we tend to limit ourselves to the statements, claims and views which valorize the particular side we've chosen. No other views will be heard!
Yesterday, Fox viewers heard no dissenting view about Ungar-Sargon's controversial claims concerning the early novel in Britain. Nor did anyone critique what she said about the way we progressives, apparently including Obama, want to "[UGLY PHRASE WITHHELD]."
This is very human stuff. Indeed, disconsolate experts have asked us if it's all that different from the recent pseudo-discussions offered on Morning Joe.
Back then, she was a graduate student. Today, she's a human at war.
Tomorrow: Transcribing Barack Obama
Why bother with Zionist drivel at all, Bob? What's next, analyzing articles from Der Sturmer?
ReplyDeleteYeah this is the thing. I don't know about some English major on Fox, but it's been really obvious that the "left" in this country has let a pretty bad cancer grow within it.
DeleteErecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.
ReplyDeleteDo you correct a mistake by making a worse one?
DeleteThere has never been "Palestine" nation. There was the Ottoman Empire in 1516 continuing for 400 years, then there was the Palestinian Mandate, a territory overseen by Great Britain under the League of Nations.
DeleteWhile the State of Israel was established on 15 May 1948 and admitted to the United Nations, a Palestinian State was not established. The remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank - including East Jerusalem- and Gaza Strip, were administered from 1948 till 1967 by Jordan and Egypt, respectively.
The area of Palestine, in antiquity, was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea.
This idea that Jews are interlopers or that the land was taken from Palestinians, is propaganda.
10:48 I appreciate the history you provide, yet your overall theme is deeply ahistorical and false.
DeleteAsserting that without discussion makes you a troll, not a serious commenter.
Delete"Those are among the views the former grad student stated."
ReplyDeleteSomerby doesn't like this woman, obviously. That's why he uses phrases like this one to diminish her accomplishments as an opinion editor for Newsweek. That is propagandizing, not description. After all, we are all former children.
But this obviously contradicts the thesis that all academics must be liberals.
"Some of her views were surprising. According to the Newsweek editor, progressives need to put signs in their yards which say, "Kill the Jews."
ReplyDeleteThis was pretty obviously a nasty remark aimed at progressives who do have lawn signs saying those other phrases. Those who are pro-Palestinian are not saying that Jews should be killed and Somerby knows that. So why does he take a statement calling progressives hypocritical so literally? Such exaggeration helps nothing and will not defuse the arguments between people, as Somerby urges on alternate days. Today he seems intent on inflaming division instead, in service of knocking a woman because she is a twofer, both a journalist and an academic (in the sense that she once wrote a dissertation, as many students do before going on to other jobs).
IMO the comment about the yard sign was just a dramatic way of saying that progressives support antisemitism. Is that a fair accusation? I think it's an exaggeration, but it's basically accurate. The Democrats' failed to censure Rep Tlaib for her antisemitic statements. many progressives echo the Hamas slogan, "From the river to the sea" -- a slogan that actually means getting rid of all the Jews in Israel. And, of course, the Hamas Charter specifically calls for murdering all Jews.
DeleteNo, it is not a fair accusation, David. Some do and some do not, but they all think of such views as supporting Palestinians, not wanting to kill Jews and not as anti-semitic in any sense but anti-Zionism. This is way more complex than the remark conveys and her snark should not have been taken literally by Somerby, who thereby sides with her interpretation of the conflict -- the simplistic conservative views presented by Fox and the right wing.
DeleteHamas is an extremist group that DOES want to kill Jews. Progressives are not supporting Hamas.
It was a vicious comment, and Ungar-Sargon should be ashamed of herself.
DeleteI agree. But not because she wrote a dissertation -- she should be ashamed for what she said on Fox News.
DeleteSince the Hamas attack approximately one month ago, over 10,000 Palestinians have been killed.
ReplyDeleteFox News has not covered the many random attacks on Israelis committed by Palestinian terrorists within Israel (in public places) at a steady rate during 2022, and before. The total numbers killed on each side depends on when you start counting. Israel has the right to defend itself.
DeleteYes, many innocent Palestinians have been killed. This is a war crime by HAMAS, NOT by Israel. It's a war crime to intentionally build one's military targets in civilian areas in order to use your civilians a human shields. Hamas even worked to prevent civilians from leaving the area that was to be a military target.
DeleteErecting a Zionist state on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, between Egypt and Syria, was a mistake.
DeleteObama speech was his usual fecklessness on display.
DeleteObama said, "If you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth. And you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree",
DeleteThis comment is false, offensive and unhelpful. Israel allowed the Palestinians to have their own state in Gaza. They removed all the Jewish settlements. The blame for the attack goes to the Hamas, to the Palestinians and to Iran.
Obama had the idea that if he could see all sides of an issue, he might achieve compromise. It turned out to be wrong because his political opposition had no desire to work with him on any issue. I can't blame him for trying, but I wish he had learned sooner that his approach was not working.
Delete@11:39 -- I might agree with you if the Arab nations had been successful in wiping out Israel in their various wars. Now, I think it is the Arab nations who have been making a mistake by not accepting Israel's existence in an area where Jews have lived since Biblical times.
DeleteNo one in Ireland accepted the idea that it was a mistake to accept Catholicism while so close to Great Britain -- in the early times, both nations were Catholic and Ireland could not have predicted that Henry VIII would break away from the church, then invade Ireland to make it part of their territory. It took centuries but Ireland finally threw off British imperialism (except for a Gaza-style occupied area in the North).
I think your belief that something was a mistake in 1948 is keeping you from seeing the bigger picture.
Leftists accused Trump of equating the white nationalist group in that march in Charlottesville, with the protestors marching against that group and against the Robert E. Lee statue. Trump says that by “fine people on both sides”, he meant the local people who wanted to keep their statues and the locals who were against keeping them.
DeleteHere it’s clear that Obama is equating Israel with Hamas.
he meant the local people who wanted to keep their statues...
DeleteWere there any of those there that day, Cec? I didn't see any myself.
"stand back, and stand by" boys!
"Here it’s clear that Obama is equating Israel with Hamas"
DeleteWhich one of them is supposed to feel insulted? Both, I suppose?
Anonymouse 12:55pm, I don’t know about the day of the March, but there was a local report that I linked here years ago, of some townsfolk being in the park the night before, in support of keeping Gen. Lee.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:55pm, “both” seems to be the talking point.
DeleteEh... what?
Delete11:39 and 12:29 are the only coherent comments here.
DeleteSo says 11:39/12:29
Delete"Yesterday, Fox viewers heard no dissenting view about Ungar-Sargon's controversial claims concerning the early novel in Britain."
ReplyDeleteSomerby of course knows everything about this woman's views solely by reading the abstract of her dissertation. I am absolutely certain he did not go beyond that. Her dissertation covered the period 1719-1740. The first British novel appeared in 1740 and was called "Pamela". It was about the trials and tribulations of a woman who had horrible things happen to her. Does Somerby know that? Has Somerby read Robinson Crusoe or the novel Tom Jones? I'll bet he hasn't. Does he know who was literate in the early 1700s (men, women?) and does he realize that most novels in 1719-1740 were not British at all, the first British novel having been written after the period her dissertation covers?
Somerby finds her dissertation topic odd, but he neither gives her a chance to make her case (skipping the dissertation itself) nor has any context for understanding why people read novels in the 1700s or what their lives were like. He just uses her research to bash her based on her current statements, which he apparently finds deplorable in some way he refuses to articulate. Much easier to complain because early 1700s novels were about rape and cannibalism. She didn't write those novels, you understand. She wrote about them.
But he gets his point across loud and clear -- studying and thinking about past literature is silly and stoopid.
The title character in that book was the first woman ever named Pamela. It then became a fairly common name.
Delete11:00,
DeleteIt's not so much that Bob found her dissertation topic odd, it's that he found it unintelligible.
To wit: the abstract's first sentence, which employs the indecipherable phrase 'to model a phenomenology of reading', and seems built around a dubious and sloppily expressed idea that the novels in question were written not for any artistic or commercial purpose, but to 'mobilize scenarios' in order (here is where the sloppiness peaks) to reveal the reader's autonomy as a fiction.
One suspects Unger-Sargon wants to say it is not the novels, but her dissertation that will do the revealing, but that doesn't seem to be what she said.
How much more of this gobbledy-gook would we would have to work our way through before we'd be entitled to label it for what it is?
For Bob to refer to the dissertation was unfair and nasty. She's an adult. The content of her dissertation is not particularly relevant to her current level of expertise.
DeleteBTW I find the dissertation ridiculous. I am sorry that my taxes help support this nonsense. Nevertheless, it was unfair and underhanded to smear this woman by bringing up the content of a dissertation long after it was written.
Academia is the search for knowledge. Dissertations are required to contribute something new to the existing body of work. The early novel is important to understanding current literature, as well as understanding the people and context of Great Britain. Today's genres of fiction evolved directly out of the time period Ungar-Sargon explored. Certainly the content of such novels is relevant to today's literature. I see nothing ridiculous about this dissertation, although I myself don't much enjoy novels about rape or cannibalism or colonialism (a thing in 18th century Great Britain). There are certainly a lot of such novels carrying on that tradition today (50 Shades of Gray, romance novels, Chronicles of Gor, several popular scifi series). Somerby implies that she is superimposing these themes on the books, but what does Somerby think Robinson Crusoe was about, or Gulliver's Travels?
DeleteSomerby's critique is not only mean-spirited but ignorant. You don't have to read such novels yourself to understand that we have a large publishing industry and a lot of people still like books with such themes.
But beyond that, not every topic explored in a dissertation has to have immediate relevancy or commercial potential. We college knowledge for its own sake, not because of future utility, because no one knows what will be useful in the future. My favorite example is the guy who studied the aplysia (sea slug), wrote a dissertation that sat unread on a library shelf until the 1950s when it became the animal model for studying neuronal systems. Why? Because the neurons could be seen in action with the naked eye.
"In 2000, Dr. Kandel was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his groundbreaking research on the cellular and molecular bases of learning and memory using Aplysia californica."
So, it is wrong to disallow any topic of interest to a researcher on the grounds that it is "ridiculous" to some other person. This is the main difference between academic research and corporate research, which is always done with the bottom line in mind. In my personal experience, there is no learning that is not useful -- we just may not know when we are doing our work HOW it will be become useful in the future, but it seems to always be helpful later on.
Hector, a dissertation is written for other experts, not for Somerby or for you. Somerby quoted the abstract. Major terms are defined, ideas and theoretical perspective are all discussed in the intro section, which I am positive Somerby did not read. You can go there are read it yourself -- he did provide a link. But the paper is aimed at experts in English literature, not people without any background in the subject.
DeleteSomerby makes this complaint a lot. He has whined because Einstein and Godel are difficult to understand without some math background. It takes work to understand what experts write. Even in my own field, I read with a dictionary and look up whatever I don't know, because I will not ever know everything that other people might write about.
An educated person does that. It is part of what a university education should teach undergrads to do. Because knowledge is constantly evolving and if is foolish to think anyone can know enough to immediately understand everything they might encounter -- as Somerby keeps doing with abstruse fields. His solution seems to be to ridicule and ignore whatever he finds opaque. That isn't the way to understand more about our world.
William Proxmire used to give a Golden Fleece award to research he thought was a waste of public money. He once gave one to a mathematical psychology paper written by Duncan Luce, a Presidential Medal of Science winner and member of the National Academy of Sciences. He did that because he didn't understand the content of the paper, but why would he without a mathematical background?
DeleteIt is a mistake to think that only technical fields have a foundational body of knowledge needed for understanding more advanced ideas.
12:22,
DeleteI took your advice and had a look at the introduction, but rather than clarifying definitions, I found sentences like this:
"Early novels that don’t court such depth, like Eliza Haywood’s Love in Excess and Fantomina are not doing so in order to model withholding the pleasures of coercion, thereby exposing the reader’s expectation of depth and absorption, which go hand in hand, and the ways certain forms create coercive yet pleasurable situations."
What dictionary would I consult to better understand this specimen of our evolving knowledge?
I think she’s saying that some novel are read for fun rather than for exploration of complex themes.
DeleteStill, even with these novels, the reader wants to lose herself in titillating experiences and this too is a type of surrender and loss of autonomy.
Or sumpthin.
Anonymouse 12:22pm, one of the complaints Somerby has had with books by philosophers and scientists, or about these people and their works, is that they are billed as being making the concepts understandable to average people.
DeleteCecilia,
Deleteyou could be on the right track, but then the reader's 'surrender' is apparently 'coerced' in some way I haven't been able to figure out.
And then there's 'model withholding of pleasure'. If they want to withhold pleasure, why don't they just withhold it? Why do they only model withholding it?
I think ChatGPT may have gotten a Ph.D at this same school.
Oops. Spelled your name wrong. Sorry.
DeleteHector, you didn’t know that the novel is as coercive as rape, colonization, cannibalism, and infection?
DeleteWhere ya been, boy?
I don't have no fancy learnin' like these college perfessor types. I'm just a good 'ole fanboy.
DeleteSomerby rails against misleading narratives that put their thumb in the scales, yet that is essentially every piece of fiction ever written. It is all psychological and emotional manipulation, culminating in the advertising industry.
DeleteStorytelling can entertain, can provide interesting insights, but more often than not is used as a weapon to maintain hierarchies and dominance.
This is likely what the dissertation was getting at, although it was likely hampered by the author pandering to her committee than being a true believer, or even an honest broker.
Anonymouse 3:10pm, that last paragraph is a foot on the scale.
DeleteHector, come sit by me.
Delete3:10,
DeleteHow do we distinguish between a fiction that is 'used as a weapon to maintain hierarchies and dominance', and a fiction that simply strives to be realistic?
3:10 is nonsense.
DeleteYes, 3:10 is nonsense. Confusing literature with political propaganda.
DeleteBut hey, that did you expect? It's Corby. Corby the adorable.
If you haven’t taken an Intro to British Literature course that introduced you to literary criticism, you are at a handicap but it is your deficiency, not hers. She cites the perspectives she agrees with and the ones she differs with. You could go read those cited sources. One of them talks about what the word coercive means when talking about interiority and subjectivity.
DeleteThanks but I'll skip any additional reading, I've had enough coercive pleasure to last me for a while.
DeleteI'm sorry my taxes help support the insurance industry.
DeleteRight. You don’t care any more about the early English novel than Somerby does. So why bash the people who do?
DeleteAnonymouse 8:15pm, the buzz for anonymices is in the words “hierarchies and dominance”. Talk of the early English novel is just today’s means of delivering that fix.
DeleteSomerby brought it up.
DeleteI do care about the early English novel, which is why I don't waste my time on drivel about 'coercive pleasure' and 'surplus pleasure' and 'teaching the reader her enjoyment' and other nonsensical jargon that has nothing to teach me beyond its own irrelevance.
DeleteDr. Ungar-Sargon did not invent any of that. She is working within a preexisting set of critical theories to resolve a controversy over two competing viewpoints. Calling jargon nonsensical because you are unfamiliar with it is unfair to all involved. It is fine to leave it alone if you don't want to know about it, but attacking it, as Somerby did today and you are doing too, is just ignorant. Yes, it is OK to read novels without thinking about any of this stuff, and no one is saying you cannot do that. Why gratuitously attack a field of study because Somerby doesn't like what this person said about Gaza?
DeleteI haven't said anything personal about the good doctor, other than that I find her dissertation incoherent. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you summarize for us what her dissertation says?
DeleteAnonymouse 9:31am, do you believe that criticizing this blog is unfair?
DeleteIs it unfair to assess a perspective on the world and a particular emphasis on certain human dynamics as being flawed and exaggerated, and to then consider this when examining or interacting with individuals who hold such a viewpoint?
Batya Ungar-Sargon‘s character has been attacked here because she appeared on Fox News and was as rabidly insulting toward the left as you are to the right.
Get off your high horse.
Does Fox and Friends Weekend have the high level of credibility we attach to the regular Fox and Friends?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the pro Palestinian side is obviously being lumped in with the pro Progressive side without much care or intelligence, if you look a little you can see journalism, even corporate TV Journalism, that is doing doing better.
At the London protest for Palestinians, an Antifa member got into an argument with a man holding a sign saying that kids are unable to consent to “gender affirming care”.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Antifa man tries to enlist the help of some Muslim women bystanders (whose cause he supports), hilarity ensues.
https://x.com/billboardchris/status/1720919554593845510?s=42&t=oYvKLjVc8YzJIvwKoQTYBQ
You can't understand anything the women are saying, but the word religion keeps popping up. They keep asking him "what religion are you?"
DeleteDo you find this funny because an Antifa man is being opposed or because Muslim women do not agree with him? I wouldn't have expected them to. What exactly is the joke?
It is nice to see polite discussion of controversial topics at a demonstration.
Nice catch, Cec. So the Muslim woman is just as ignorant and repressive as you and your party of Neanderthals?
DeleteAs religious people in general are, in leftwing playbook.
DeleteThat alignments can get confusing is a point in today’s blog.
You have to admit, religion is behind a lot of war, human misery and suffering.
DeleteOf course, it is. It’s behind improvements too. That’s the way we are.
DeleteAs long as we keep i mind that God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations, it shouldn't be a problem.
DeleteLook where that attitude got the Antifa guy.
DeleteIt is not the way I am.
DeleteMuhammad was a jerk.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:06pm, of course not.
DeleteTo ride a horse you have to break a horse; similarly, to indoctrinate someone with religion you have to break that person. This indoctrination is typically done in childhood, and it is a form of child abuse.
DeleteReligious indoctrination became more pernicious as religion shifted to monotheism and became a tool for controlling a state’s population as well as for colonialism and imperialism; this also correlates with a shift towards a long societal decline.
This shift has been slowing reversing as religiosity has itself been declining over the last 500 years.
Anonymouse 3:21pm, Sunday school and Bible school teachers will kill you.
DeleteIf kids even thought about acting up those moms would take you out, and I don’t mean out of the room.
I agree with @3:21
DeleteSince there is no actual organization known as “Antifa” , there is no way to become a “member.” Cecelia is an inordinately stupid person, and when you sign on for the premise you are headed downhill.
Delete@8:15 AM
DeleteYou are adorable, Corby.
Anonymouse 8:15am, sure, Obi-Wan, these aren't the droids we’re looking for.
DeleteIf you follow the link to the dissertation, you will find this:
ReplyDelete"Committee in Charge:
Janet Sorensen, Chair
Ian Duncan
Joanna Picciotto
Thomas Laqueur"
These people are experts on her chosen topic, selected to guide her work and approve her (1) advancing to candidacy for the degree, (2) proposed dissertation topic, (3) finished work and (4) recommend approval of her finished research and dissertation to her department. She would have been required to make recommended improvements and changes during that process. Then she presented her work to the public in the form of a colloquium to which the entire faculty of her department, other students, members of the wider university faculty, and the broader public were invited. The purpose of that public presentation was to allow others to inspect, challenge and dispute her work. After that, the entire department voted and her research was accept in partial fulfillment of the requirements of her doctoral degree program. If she has published her work anywhere, there would have been an additional peer review process during which a panel of scholars focusing on her specific topic (literature 1719-1740) would have critiqued her work and required changes to her paper.
Somerby says that "Yesterday, Fox viewers heard no dissenting view about Ungar-Sargon's controversial claims concerning the early novel in Britain." As if her work had not been vetted by experts. What would Fox viewers gain from having Fox News dispute her dissertation? Absolutely nothing of value.
An academic's research field has nothing whatsoever to do with opinions on politics or other topics outside of the narrowly defined research area. Feynman was an expert only on physics, although he had opinions on lots of other topics. Similarly, Paul Krugman is an expert on economics, not on 18th century literature, and his opinions on Israel have value only to the extent that they address economic questions. Somerby might have liked Fox to ask Professor Ungar-Sargon about her dissertation but her main qualification for appearing on Fox News was her work as an opinion editor at Newsweek, not her studies at Berkeley. That makes Somerby's jabs at her topic of interest entirely irrelevant to anything, but they do show his animosity toward her and toward literary criticism and perhaps toward early English novels. What was he required to read that has so soured him on literature (except for Homer)? There was plenty of ugly violence and sexual weirdness in the Illiad and the Odyssey (Somerby sticks to the Illiad perhaps because he never read the Odyssey). Sirens and even a cannibalistic giant. Why does that get a pass?
The Odyssey is a Honda minivan.
DeleteI think Bob’s point is that in times of war and of political “war”, the alignments can be surprising and so can the smack talk.
DeleteYou both make inappropriate comments in ad hominem attacks.
DeleteEffective discourse requires integrity and respectfulness.
Delete3:48 your point is well taken.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:19pm, you took critique from Anonymouse 3:48pm in a wonderful spirit of admission and self- correction.
DeleteVery admirable.
One thing brightens up any discourse: a smart attack ad hominem.
DeleteI am not Pamela, I am Corby.
ReplyDeleteUngar-Sargon might benefit from gender-affirming care.
ReplyDeleteAttractive woman via google pics, but the antagonism jumps out at you.
DeleteBatya is just plain looking, with masculine features.
DeleteSome may reasonably find her attractive, others may not; the ugliness comes from her conflating criticisms of Israel with antisemitism.
She’s a puma.
DeletePuma or cougar:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar#/media/File:Mountain_Lion_in_Glacier_National_Park.jpg
Batya Ungar-Sargon:
https://www.ajc.org/bio/batya-ungar-sargon
Puma = party unity my ass
DeleteNo, Batya Ungar-Sargon looks like a puma.
Deletehttps://www.google.com/search?q=puma&tbm=isch&hl=en-US&chips=q:puma,g_1:cat:mkJtCrsSvqc%3D&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS971US971&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaxv_Fo7KCAxUDkokEHeUzD8AQ4lYoAXoECAEQBw&biw=414&bih=716#imgrc=mX54g0Yt9PlSKM
Please remove this commercial spam
ReplyDeleteLiberals are constantly accused of “identity politics” (Somerby is one of the accusers). Here is a prime example of identity politics on the right, where any expression of sympathy with any Palestinian or criticism of Israel or Netanyahu is met with accusations of murderous anti-Semitism.
ReplyDeleteI don’t have faith that Somerby will give a full-throated defense of Obama, but we will see.
It also strikes me that Somerby never did these sorts of posts when the war in Ukraine began. Who knows why?
"It also strikes me that Somerby never did these sorts of posts when the war in Ukraine began. Who knows why?"
ReplyDeleteNo doubt you wish to insinuate that Somerby is on Putin's payroll but are too coy to make that evidence-free, bizarro conspiracy theory explicit. So - you're just askin' questions. Right?
Do you know why?
Delete""It also strikes me that Somerby never did these sorts of posts when the war in Ukraine began. Who knows why?"
DeleteMaybe because no group of Americans came out in support of the Russian invasion or blamed it on Ukraine. Nor did President Obama excuse the Russian invasion. The Palestinians, like the Russians, are the instigators of the conflict. Though, even the Russians did not behave with the disgusting barbarous brutality that Hamas did.
"The Palestinians, like the Russians, are the instigators of the conflict."
DeleteAre Palestinians the same as Hamas?
Read this, David.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
"Are Palestinians the same as Hamas?' Fair question. Hamas is the ruling party of the Palestinians in Gaza. I have seen little evidence that the general populace of Gaza disapprove of what the Hamas subset is doing. In any event, when you're fighting a war against a group, it's normal that a subset of the group were the instigators.
DeleteAFAIK the Russian invasion of Ukraine was decided not by a subgroup, but by a single person -- Putin. Nevertheless, we are providing weapons to help Ukraine fight the entire Russian nation. That's how wars are fought.
BTW we do we not see moaning and groaning over the many Russian lives being lost in this war. On the contrary, most of us are pleased by the many Russian troops killed, even though, for most of them, it was not their choice to fight.
Very few people are happy when someone is killed.
DeleteDavid - you feel like Americans are not sufficiently "pleased" by the many Palestinians killed?
DeleteI don't think you realize how completely fucking crazy that statement is.
Maybe because no group of Americans came out in support of the Russian invasion or blamed it on Ukraine.
DeleteExcept the leader of your party, right David.
David, Ukraine is defending themselves against an invading Russia. Israel is invading Palestine. Is there not a difference?
DeleteIt's very interesting to see you are pleased by all the deaths of the Palestinian children. They deserved it. After all, the pleasing piles of dead children are merely supersets of the instigators! If they had wanted to live, these children should have, as the "general populace", disapproved more! Of course they all need to be killed and Americans damn well all better be pleased about it. That's simply how wars are fought, right?
What you see as normal and pleasing other may see as genocidal bloodlust.
"Maybe because no group of Americans came out in support of the Russian invasion or blamed it on Ukraine."
DeleteWell, afaict a sizable group of Americans blames it on American policy of NATO expansion.
Not that you (or Bob) would know it from the mainstream media, of course, but it's a relatively common view. Try Noam Chomsky, for example.
The commercial spam informs us of lucrative opportunities.
ReplyDeleteYour blog has helped me with detailed information on travel. Thank you
ReplyDeleteSingapore visa for indians
A post about the usual garbage spewed by a nobody from Fox.
ReplyDeleteThis is how Russia-funded troll farms influenced the 2016 election in favor of Trump and how it is currently working to affect the 2024 election (read through until the end):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/6/2203768/-Yes-Russia-likely-stole-the-Election-For-Trump-in-2016?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web