SONGS SUNG BLUE: We thought we heard two songs sung blue...


...and a loud, dumb song sung red: We start with an important question:

What the heck is actually happening on those elite college campuses?

For reasons which ought to be blindingly obvious, we regard that as a very important question. We refer to MIT, Harvard and Penn, the three "elite" universities whose presidents testified before a typically unproductive House committee last week.

As we noted yesterday, Rep. Elise Stefanik emerged as the star of the show, or perhaps as the star of the show trial. More on her rude and inept performance will be offered before.

For now, we prefer to return to that very important question. We do so because we learned so little about that topic in the course of last week's trial by fire.

What's actually happening on those campuses? Yesterday morning, the New York Times published a news report which gave a tiny hint of what a search for an answer might conceivably start to look like. 

We seized upon those tiny glimmers. In print editions, the headline on the news report said this:

So Far, No Major Fallout For President of M.I.T.

According to Jenna Russell's report, the board at MIT "swiftly issued a statement of unequivocal support for its president, Sally Kornbluth" in the aftermath of last week's hearing. 

Personally, we're glad the board did that. That said, we were much more interested in what Russell began to report about student life on the MIT campus. 

What's it been like for MIT's Jewish students in the wake of the October 7 attacks? Is the campus crawling with antisemitism—with antisemitism which may tend to proceed from the top down, as Stefanik doggedly seemed to suggest?

What's actually happening on that campus? In the following passage, Russell reported the tiniest bit of a possible glance at a hint:

RUSSELL (12/14/23): Talia Khan, a graduate student and president of the M.I.T. Israel Alliance, said the group was created in response to surging antisemitic rhetoric on campus following the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel, as well as the administration’s failure to discipline protesters who violated campus rules, or to protect Jewish students who felt threatened.

Ms. Khan described feeling “overwhelming disappointment” as she listened to Dr. Kornbluth’s testimony before Congress and then saw the school’s governing board offer unwavering support.

“They don’t want to believe what’s happening on campus is really happening,” she said. “I know the president, and I think she has a heart, but I didn’t see that in her testimony.”

According to Russell's paraphrase, Talia Khan, a good, decent person, had described "surging antisemitic rhetoric" on the MIT campus. Khan spoke well of Dr. Kornbluth's intentions, but she said that Kornbluth "doesn’t want to believe [that this] is really happening."

Talia Khan is a good, decent person. She's also a graduate student at a very challenging academic institution.

That said, what constitutes "antisemitic rhetoric" in Khan's opinion? In what does that alleged antisemitic rhetoric actually consist?

If Khan had cited specific example, Russell didn't include them. Earlier, though, she had quoted a letter sent by a group of Jewish alumni—and she'd quoted a letter which had been composed by the student group which Khan heads:

RUSSELL: A letter from “a growing group” of Jewish alumni and their allies, sent on Monday to the university’s administration and its governing board, the M.I.T. Corporation, expressed alarm at Dr. Kornbluth’s “disastrous” testimony...

“We are alarmed to observe M.I.T. earning a national reputation for antisemitism on President Kornbluth’s watch, rather than for academic excellence,” said the letter, signed by hundreds of alumni.

It called for “concrete actions” to “right this flailing ship,” including discipline for students who violate university rules—for example, by protesting “in areas that M.I.T. has explicitly said were off limits for protests.” The letter also called for the creation of a task force to ensure the safety of Jewish students.

A second letter, sent to the university’s leaders by student members of the M.I.T. Israel Alliance, also demanded action, including public acknowledgment of an “existential antisemitism problem on campus” and the removal of board members “who support tacitly, or otherwise, the calls for genocide of Jews.”

Are Jewish students actually safe on the MIT campus? For reasons which are blindingly obvious, that's a very important question.

The alumni group suggested that such students aren't safe. In that second letter, Khan's group referred to an “existential antisemitism problem" on the MIT campus—and the group even said that there are board members who support "calls for genocide of Jews.”

On their face, those are remarkable charges. They're the kinds of charges which emerged from Stefanik's unintelligent, scattershot questioning at last Tuesday's hearing.

At any rate, how about it? Do some board members at MIT actually support "calls for genocide?" Is the MIT campus wracked by "surging antisemitic rhetoric?"

Russell didn't include the kinds of specific allegations which would let us know what these observers are actually talking about. And then, she quoted another Jewish student at MIT.

She was one of at least "a few" Jewish students, and she was saying this:

RUSSELL: A few Jewish students at M.I.T. said this week that they believed worries about their safety had been overblown.

“I’ve always felt safe here,” said Gabriella Martini, a graduate student who is Jewish and helps lead M.I.T. Jews for Ceasefire, a campus group that argues that its advocacy for “a free Palestine” and criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza are not antisemitic. “The idea that anything that’s happened here should lead to the resignation of the president, who’s essentially being bullied out by members of Congress who I think have a political agenda in what they’re doing, would set a terrible precedent,” Ms. Martini said.

Gabriella Martini helps lead a different student group. She said that she's always felt safe on the MIT campus. She seemed to have offered a different assessment concerning alleged antisemitic rhetoric.

What's happening on the MIT campus? At this site, we have no real idea! Part of the reason for our ignorance would have to be this:

We've watched the entire congressional hearing from last week, including the utterly worthless reams of "questions" from the widely-praised Rep. Stefanik.

In our view, the performance of the college presidents was strikingly poor that day. In our view, the performance by Stefanik was dumb and dumber and also quite rude, and was substantially worse.

In our view, very few committee members engaged in instructive questioning. Each member received five minutes of fame, and little real insight emerged.

That said, we think we've heard at least two songs sung blue as we've reviewed that hearing.  We'll name those instructive songs below. First, though, we want to do this:

We want to give you one more taste of the kind of "questioning" Stefanik authored last Tuesday. This takes us back to the tiny snippet of questioning we recorded in yesterday's report.

Ninety-five minutes into the hearing, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx finally granted Rep. Stefanik her first five minutes of fame. Below, you see what immediately ensued.

In our view, Harvard president Claudine Gay performed quite poorly in her responses to some of these initial questions. That said, Stefanik's performance was rude and insulting and even dumber. than Gay's 

We think Stefanik was worse:

FOXX (12/5/23): Miss Stefanik, you're recognized for five minutes.

STEFANIK: Dr. Gay, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African-Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?

GAY: Our commitment to—

STEFANIK: It's a yes or no question! Is that corrected [sic]? Is that OK for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard? Is that protected free speech?

GAY: Our commitment to free—

STEFANIK: It's a yes or no question!


Let me ask you this. 

You are president of Harvard, so I assume you're familiar with the term "intifada," correct?

GAY: I've heard that term, yes.

STEFANIK: And you understand that the use of the term "intifada" in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?

GAY: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

STEFANIK: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, quote, "There is only one solution, intifada revolution," and quote "Globalize the intifada." Is that correct?

GAY: I've heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes.

STEFANIK: So based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?

GAY: I will say again, that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

Stefanik started with a pair of instant interruptions, then proceeded to a condescending question about Gay's familiarity with a very familiar term. So it went as this "odious demagogue" (Rep. Torres) conducted her "questioning" through the rest of this long day's journey into babble.

We direct your attention to what followed those opening interruptions. In the exchanges we have highlighted, Stefanik kept asking Gay if she regards a call for "intifada" to be a call "to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally."

Is that what (some) Harvard or MIT students mean when they call for intifada? Stefanik kept asking that possibly overwrought question—and, as you can see from the highlighted exchanges, Gay kept responding with classic non-answer answers.  

Because Gay had kept refusing to answer, Stefanik had been enabled. She now asserted that Gay had accepted that interpretation of that particular term. 

Once again, Gay failed to take her own side in this evolving fight. You'll have to go to the C-Span videotape to see this interaction.

People, how about it? When a group of chanting college students call for an intifada, are they calling for "genocide against the Jewish people globally?" Is that what those students mean?

Whatever you think of some such chant, that strikes us as quite a leap. ("We'd like to see some pro-Palestinian students asked to explain what they mean!)

Stefanik was making a rather large leap. But the college presidents sat mutely by as Stefanik established this shaky premise, and the conduct of this hearing continued downhill from there.

The college presidents have been widely assailed for their performance at this hearing. In our view, their performance was shockingly poor. In fairness, it's hard to testify at congressional hearings, but in the face of Stefanik's blunderbuss, their skill levels were virtually non-existent this day.

Their performance was stunningly poor. In our view, Stefanik was louder and dumber and worse. But as we noted yesterday, many Democrats emerged from the hearing saying such things as this:

KARNI (12/9/23): Representative Ritchie Torres, Democrat of New York, was among the Democrats conceding that Ms. Stefanik was right, but he said it did not change his view of her.

“Even a broken clock is right twice a day,” he said. “She continues to be an odious demagogue.”

Note to Rep. Torres, a good decent person:

"Broken clocks" may be right twice a day, but "odious demagogues" typically aren't. In our view, Stefanik's loud and rude and dumbbell questioning produced volumes of heat and almost no light. It didn't help when a bunch of blue tribunes told the Times that she'd been "right."

Note to blue elites, whose skill levels are often remarkably poor:

When two people or parties get into a fight, neither side had to be "right." There is no need to pick a winner. It may be that both parties are wrong. 

At this site, we thought we heard two songs sung blue as we reviewed that hearing:

We were stunned by the lack of skill put on display by those college presidents. We were saddened by the number of blue tribe elites, from Professor Tribe on down, who weren't able to make this simple statement:

What transpired was the typical congressional hearing. Sadly, three college presidents performed quite poorly. One dumbbell member of the House was rude, condescending and worse.

Alas! We thought we heard two songs sung blue—and a loud, dumb song sung red.

Meanwhile, what's actually happening at those schools? Will some news org try to find out?


  1. The good news about the economy isn't going to ignore itself.

    1. Republicans are bacteriums.

    2. Libs: why doesn't anyone vote for us??

      Also libs: the most eugenics possible statement out of mein kampf

  2. It should have been liberals leading the charge against these equivocating college presidents who are more concerned with some political correctness, not the sleazebag Trumpist Stefanik.

    1. It’s a shame Tom Wolfe is dead.

    2. Tom Wolfe was a dork.

    3. The college presidents responded by laying out clear demarcations of what is and is not allowed.

      The consternation over the college presidents is from those who do not have defensible stances and therefore try to muddy the waters to obscure their lack of coherent standing.

      Oy. The question, for get about intofada and whatever, is whether Penn, or Harvard or MIT sanctions statements about Killing All the Jews. Stefaniak is an ass, but it was a relevant question. And the Presidents failed political correctness 101. It should not be acceptable. Anymore than a similar statement about African Americans or LGBTQ folks or Australian folks. Or Christians. But if directed against Jews, according to the Presidents, it depends on the context. I'm sure the Presidents are all good people --- unlike Stefaniak who is NOT a good person --- but in context, the Presidents were simply WRONG.

    5. If this hearing arose in the context of BLM protests on campus, the university presidents would have said the same thing. But Stefanik wouldn't have made a political issue out of it because she would have nothing to gain. But Somerby would still have chided the college presidents, because they are his target so frequently.

    6. You can't worship a state based on aggression and theft then claim everyone else has to play nice and fair for you.

      Even Jews make fun of it. "Crying and shooting" is originally from Israeli slang.

  3. The complaints by Jewish students at MIT are tracking their political opinions about the Gaza war. Those who support it feel safe, those who do not support it feel threatened. Given the very vocal protesting by those who support Palestinians, it is unsurprising that Jewish students who support Israel would feel more threatened than those who support Hamas, the perpetrators of the violence that initiated this current war.

    Somerby has answered his question and demonstrated that there are Jewish students at MIT who do feel threatened. He doesn't draw any conclusion from it, just repeating the same old stuff he said yesterday and the day before and the day before that, back to the testimony of those three college presidents. So what is the point of his earthshaking question? I don't see one, other than to bash liberals while calling a demagogue, Stefanik, correct in her grandstanding.

    I have yet to see any symapthy expressed by Somerby for those Jewish students who do feel like at least a part of the violence against Israel is also being directed toward them, students who are thousands of miles away from the war and have had no part in it as they go about their studies in the US.

    But sympathy requires empathy and that is in short supply on the right, and also on this blog, where Somerby sides with the right wing if they happen to support his own pro-Palestinian views or say something critical of professors, especially a black female university president such as Gay at Harvard. And thus we see how Somerby's own vendettas, his own grievances, are nearly as durable as those of the Palestinians.

    1. America didn't start respecting the People of the book until they killed Arabs in 1973. Until that point to be Semitic meant you were just nerds.

      The leaders who pleasure themselves to Lady Jerusalem for aipac money are basically playing race politics. Divide and conquer.

      Trail of tears. Nakba. Same chazarah.

    2. Explain to me how the US isn't playing both sides when they have Jeffrey Goldberg writing a beautiful biography of the Saudi prince.

    3. Let's quote from experts:

      1962 First US military aid (loans) to Israel.
      June 1967 Six-Day War. Israel’s main military supplier, France, imposes arms embargo.
      1968 Congress increases aid to Israel 450 percent. Military aid jumps from $7 million in 1967 to $25 million in 1968. US agrees to sell Israel 50 Phantom fighter bombers.
      1970 Jordan’s “Black September” crisis; US sees Israel as means to combat Soviet influence in Arab world, increases military aid from $140 million in 1968-1970 to $1.15 billion in 1971-1973.
      1973 October Arab-Israeli War. Congress passes $2.2 billion in emergency financial aid, increases military aid 800 percent.

      I'll repeat my point, "America didn't start respecting the People of the book until they killed Arabs in 1973."

      The respect was shown in the 800 percent increase in means to violence, which we are always shocked that they must use to subdue the savages.

  4. What are the TWO songs sung blue? I can either count a bunch of them or one song sung by many voices. It would be helpful if Somerby were to tell us which songs are which.

    1. Or what he means by the phrase, referencing a positive song about how singing can lift one’s spirit. While the song is straightforward and simple in its message, it indicates Somerby has terrible taste in music.

    2. What terrible taste? It’s a good song.

    3. It was a Neil Diamond song. He is not to everyone's taste. Back in the day it was fashionable for teens and twenty-somethings to make fun of the little old ladies who are the mainstay of his fan base.

      Once again, Somerby is trampling all over something many of us liked, in order to USE their work to promote his own agenda. He only borrowed this song because it has the word blue in it, and people are right that blue refers to mood in the song, not politics. But when has that ever bothered Somerby?

    4. First, is the university Presidents, and second, a coalition of influential journalists and political figures. The accusation is that these latter individuals have 'picked a winner' in their narratives rather than presenting a scenario that both of these parties were mistaken in their approaches.

    5. "indicates Somerby has terrible taste in music."

      He has articulated an appreciation for Bob Dylan, The Band, and Peggy Seeger, which reflects an exquisite taste in music.

      Wait - why is the Diamond song in bad taste?

      Maybe you're the one with terrible taste in music.

    6. Where is Somerby's argument that the university presidents were performing poorly? As an academic, it seem to me that they were accurately and honestly describing university policies about controversial speech on their campus. Students are not disciplined under campus codes of conduct for expressing opinions, even ugly ones, but for their behavior. That is consistent with respect for the diversity of opinions encountered in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, which is what a campus is for.

      I have heard nothing from Somerby convincing me that they did not clearly describe what is common at many universities and college campuses.

    7. It's understandable that you are unconvinced. It's normal not to agree on everything.

    8. @2:01 --- Somerby doesn't care about the music. He most likely grabbed that song lyric because it has the word "blue" in it. He is using it in ways that do not reflect what the song is about.

      Whether someone likes or doesn't like the song is entirely irrelevant to any discussion here, including Somerby's own points.

    9. 2:04 -
      Stefanik: "'Intifada' equals 'genocide,' right?"
      Dumb Presidents: "Hateful speech is abhorrent."

      Stefanik: "'Intifada' equals 'genocide,' right?"
      Smart Presidents: "No. 'Intifada' refers to the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation."

    10. While a nation is being crushed before our eyes the American mind is twisted into debating terminology of how to describe it for history books later on

  5. "STEFANIK: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, quote, "There is only one solution, intifada revolution," and quote "Globalize the intifada." Is that correct?"

    Why doesn't Somerby consider this evidence of threats against Jewish students?

    Globalize means bring the intifada's violence to other countries, including presumably our own, since that is where the students were marching and chanting.

    Because the targets of that brutal violence committed by Hamas were Israeli and mostly Jewish, it seems clear that those calling for revolution wish to overthrow Israel and not Hamas itself, nor the regime in the other Palestinian areas of the West Bank. Why be coy about who these marchers are calling to be the target of genocide and more violence, including overthrow (revolution) of Israel. Pretending this is not genocide too strikes me as deliberately blind to what students are supporting on these campuses. If they don't mean to incite more violence, they need to be chanting something else. We all have ears to hear what they have been saying.

    1. Anonymouse 11:18am, I believe that Israel is our closest ally. Closest. However, it is not our 51st state.

      For students to side with the Palestinians and issue calls to overthrow the government there is boneheaded, but I’m not convinced it’s inherently dangerous to the U.S. or that out makes things much more dangerous to Israel.

      I think congress needs a better reason for hauling citizens in front of tv cameras and interrogating them. There should be some concrete threats and some actions that indicate that it’s necessary. Explicit threats, violence.

      There should also be some sort of initial fact finding/discovery process.

      This was a dog-and-pony show. This was not fair to the people involved.

    2. To be clear, the students are calling for the overthrow of the Israeli govt, not the overthrow of Hamas (the government of Gaza).

      After 1147 (by their count) Israelis were killed on 10/7, you are not convinced the rebellion in Gaza is dangerous to Israel?

      There have been concrete threats by campus protesters to Israeli and Jewish students. I have posted links here to some of them. But Stefanik doesn't care about Jewish students. This was a stunt to embarrass lefty college presidents and to irritate progressives who support the student protesters.

      Committees do a lot of work that is not obvious to those who only watch the hearings. Somerby is pretending there was no fact-finding and that the 5-minute questioning period is all there is to a hearing, but that is untrue. For one thing, the witnesses submit written statements beforehand and provide written answers to questions after the TV questioning. Committees have research staff members who provide background info to the committee members ahead of the hearings.

      You should not take Somerby's word that no one investigated what was happening on campuses before the public hearing.

    3. Great comment, @11:18! Bob seems to be writing the same post day after day. Each post has the same erroneous thinking pointed out so well by @11:18.

      The fact that Bob can find a non-threatening meaning for "intifada" doesn't mean that others don't find the term threatening. This should be obvious to Bob.

      Bob says it's demeaning to ask a college President the meaning of "Intifada". It would be demeaning, except that these Presidents appear to see no problem with the term being used on their campuses.

      Let's get real. The precise meaning of a word isn't the problem. The problem is that it's completely forbidden to use a single word -- even a pronoun -- that could, by any conceivable stretch, make a trans person or a black person, or a Muslim feel uncomfortable, but it's OK to present entire speeches that directly attack and dehumanize Jews. That is the ugly reality.

    4. Anonymous 2:35pm, I addressed any calls to overthrow the nation of Israel.

    5. David, I don't think it would be OK to make threats against any of those other people either on a campus. It would be OK to give a speech about how being trans is against God's will or is unnatural or shouldn't be permitted by law, but it would not be OK to urge violence and suggest that trans people should be targeted by anyone. The criterion is not whether a statement makes others feel "uncomfortable" but whether it makes them feel bullied or threatened or targeted by violence or other forms of retribution (which would be acts that are against codes of conduct).

      If someone were holding a rally to get the UN to designate Gaza as a nation state, it would be not reasonably be construed as a threat to Israeli or Jewish students. But when they call for global armed rebellion against Israel/Jews, then it is an obvious threat that anyone might feel anxious about. Similarly, if the speech is about blaming Jews for Israel or about Jews being awful people because Gaza is suffering, they are tredding a fine line and may encourage violence in the US against Jews.

      No campus would tolerate a racist or sexist who gave a speech reviling members of those specific groups, as a whole, on the basis of inherent traits, and they should not do so when it comes to Jews either.

    6. There’s a war going on over there and people on both sides are dying. You’re going to have boneheaded college kids call for the downfall of Israel.

      It is ridiculous to think that university authorities are supposed to attempt to stifle that sort of rhetoric in protests.

    7. It is not ridiculous to prevent them from shifting their concerns from Israel (which is part of the war) to Jewish and Israeli students on American campuses, who are not part of the war, have to connection to it, have no ability to affect anything over there, and are just students like themselves trying to get educated. Displacing hate onto innocent people is wrong. That's why so many of us feel outrage that Hamas killed innocent women and children to make a political/religious point. That was wrong.

      Pro-Palestinians, in the same manner as Hamas, seem to think that any target will do if it helps them vent their anger and attain their goals, even innocent bystanders. They are going too far when they call for "global intifada" and "genocide everywhere" which means attack all Jews no matter where they are in the world. I think people are right to be concerned about this. It is what motivated 9/11 when Muslims decided to take their own jihad to the USA where no one had done anything wrong -- the protest was about whether the US should be allowed to maintain military bases in the Mideast, something no one in the Trade Towers had any knowledge or ability to affect. But jihad everywhere was supposed to bring pressure to a very specific complaint. In the same way, when pro-Palestinians encourage attacks of innocent people anywhere, they are no longer activists but terrorists and they are urging injustice and wrongdoing against innocent people. And that is NOT OK.

      It is the reasoning of these students that is problematic and my concern is that it will lead to more violence. I assume that concern is shared by American Jews.

    8. Anonymouse 3:20pm, they didn’t need to put these women in front of tv cameras in order to ascertain if they were being mindful of harassment or threats.

    9. Bingo! So why did they do it?

    10. Anonymouse 3:50pm, because they were grandstanding and prominent people, Jews and non-Jews wanted any protesting to be shut down.

    11. Anonymouse 3:50pm, “Bingo”? I’ve said it was wrong since the first blog about it.

    12. DiC - 'The problem is that it's completely forbidden to use a single word -- even a pronoun -- that could, by any conceivable stretch, make a trans person or a black person, or a Muslim feel uncomfortable, but it's OK to present entire speeches that directly attack and dehumanize Jews. "

      I believe you're mistaken. Here is Harvard's Code of Conduct:

      Here's its discrimination/harassment policy:

      These seem pretty reasonable to me, and their commands protect all - trans, black, Muslim, or Jew.

    13. Thanks for the link, George. The problem is that Harvard doesn't follow their own code. It was virtually perjury for President Gay to testify about this code without observing that that it doesn't describe Harvard's actual conduct. There is a reason why Harvard ranked dead last in FIRE's free speech survey.

    14. BTW Harvard's free speech situation is by far the worst of the 254 colleges that FIRE analyzed. The actual report observes that Harvard actually came out with a negative score. FIRE raised their score to zero in order to not have a negative.

    15. DiC - The FIRE report seems mostly a survey of student opinions. E.g., some students feel violence is sometimes permissible to stop speech. But don’t you feel the same way? The Tulane incident you cited is a perfect example. The Palestinian protester was burning an Israeli flag. This is a form of constitutionally protected speech. The Jewish students tried to rip the flag out of the protester’s hands, causing a melee. Wouldn’t you agree that the Jewish students were morally justified in using violence to stop the protester’s free speech?

  6. In which areas of MIT are protests forbidden?

    1. And what did the protesters do there?

    2. There’s no smoking in the bathroom.

  7. Again, Bob may be saying the right thing for the wrong reason, but he is correct on this one.
    My next question would be how do Jewish people, not just the intellectual ones, feel about this? Certainly the voting patterns of most suggest they see through the Trumpian support they get from people like Cecelia, who support Israel because they want the Jews in the right place so Jesus can send them to hell when the rapture comes.
    Let’s hope there is more push back against the cancelling of the Presidents.

    1. Cecelia supports Israel because she wants to make it easy for Jesus to send the Jews to hell when the rapture comes? Do you have any quotation and citation to support this accusation, or are you just a complete and total kook?

    2. “….Trumpian support they get from people like Cecelia, who support Israel because they want the Jews in the right place so Jesus can send them to hell when the rapture comes.“

      Ask her why she thinks Israel is the gateway to hell.

  8. What "sides", what "fight", what "skills"?
    Ever heard of the Zionist lobby, Bob? It's as if you, Bob, are a recently arrived space alien, having no idea of American politics.

    1. It’s the Blob, man. To the Blob, Zionists are useful idiots.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Anonymouse 11:37am, you’ve got God and me wrong.

      That happens a lot.

      Romans 11:25-27

      (25)I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, (26) and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

      “The deliverer will come from Zion;
      he will turn ungodlessness away from Jacob.

      (27)And this is my covenant with them
      when I take away their sins.”

    4. Cecelia, you’re replying to 11:39, but you’re addressing 11:37.

    5. Only pharaoh thinks in absolute Celia. Use your intelligence.

  9. Somerby is putting his calloused thumb on the scale when he tries to push the narrative that the college presidents did not respond well. In fact they did, clearly stating that speech, including what some might find offensive, is permitted, but that conduct involving bullying, harassment, or intimidation is not permitted.

    Intifada means to throw off, as in to throw off oppression. Historically intifada refers to non violent movements. It has nothing to do with genocide. The student protestors are not calling for the genocide of Jews, it’s a straw man.

    There is a genocide occurring, as Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, which killed less than 1147 Jews (some were friendly fire), has been to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians, so far Israel has killed almost 20k of them, half of whom are children. It’s sickening, disgusting, a war crime, and completely immoral. Palestinians are real people, not subhumans. Those are real little kids being bombed to death.

    1. I think your point about the poor performance of the college presidents (in Somerby's view) may be valid. At least he would be balancing the scale this time.

    2. If intifada does not call for the elimination of Jews, why were those 1147 Jews killed on 10/7?

    3. They can always justify stabbing a few brown people in the back if that's how you get money to win the election. And that means encouraging and provoking attacks against your own side if necessary.

  10. How about those fun-loving IDF soldiers! Boys will be boys!

    1. I've heard that the Hamas fighter who carried out the attack on Israelis were on drugs.

      "Listen to analysis
      3 min
      Latest Developments
      Israeli media reported on October 19 that Hamas terrorists were fueled by the amphetamine-like drug captagon as they rampaged through southern Israel on October 7. The pills were allegedly discovered inside the pockets of deceased terrorists, who used the illicit narcotic to remain calm and alert while attacking Israeli civilians. An Israeli social media account shared footage on X suggesting that the terrorists also traveled with cocaine “to fuel their satanic urge.” Under the influence, the terrorists could sustain their attack over an extended period of time and commit atrocities with a perverse sense of euphoria.

      Expert Analysis
      “The Syrian regime’s trafficking of billions of dollars’ worth of captagon has helped to spread violence across the region; Hamas terrorists’ reported use of the drug only adds to the carnage. Yet for now, the gravest threat to Israel is Hamas’ genocidal antisemitism.” — David Adesnik, Senior Fellow and Director of Research

      “The industrial-scale trade in captagon — for decades a drug widely used in war — has been a lucrative source of funds for the Assad regime and Hezbollah financiers. It makes sense that Hamas would want to use these drugs not only for war but as an additional source of funds.” — Matt Zweig, Senior Director of Policy at FDD Action"

  11. I'm curious: Is there any evidence that any Jewish student at Harvard, MIT, or Penn has suffered any personal injury from Palestinian protestors?

    1. If the answer to your question were "yes," would you then ask how serious the injuries were, so that you could decide how much damage is tolerable in the name of Palestine?

      These are immoral calculations. Why should a student in the US, who has no involvement in anything going on in Gaza or Israel, be made to feel fear, to be humiliated, to be bullied, to be restricted in their daily activities in order to avoid such events, or be in any way threatened by rowdy protesters who cannot tell the difference between a fellow student and Middle Easterners fighting a war.

      Are you seriously implying that there must be broken bones or financial damage before student protesters should be told to respect the rights of those who disagree with them?

    2. "Are you seriously implying that there must be broken bones or financial damage before student protesters should be told to respect the rights of those who disagree with them?"

      No, I'm not implying anything. Duh! I'm simply asking whether any Jewish students have been injured by Palestinian protestors.

    3. You can use Google as well as anyone else here. Why ask dumb questions that you can easily get an answer to, if you are not meaning to imply anything? You question suggested that there has been no real violence and that Jewish students might be making a fuss about nothing. Next time look it up yourself.

    4. That's it? I don't see any report that any Jewish student at Harvard, MIT, or Penn suffered any personal injury.

    5. I predicted you would do this.

    6. I'll take that as your way of admitting that there are no known reports that any Jewish student at Harvard, MIT, or Penn has suffered any personal injury.

    7. I told you — it isn’t up to you to decide what is scary or painful enough to justify complaints.

    8. Yes it is that's what democracy decides

  12. It was a mistake to erect a Jewish state in Palestine.

    1. It is a mistake for you to keep trolling this blog. Go away.

    2. "everyone is closed minded except me" - liberals

    3. “Anyone who disagrees with me is using his lizard brain” — Bob Somerby, over and over again.

    4. I have a mammal brain. I am Corby.

  13. "According to a report from CNN, U.S. intelligence officials are searching for a missing file containing highly sensitive information about Russia as well as information about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    As the report notes, the fact that the file, also containing intel compiled by NATO allies can't be found and was last seen in the possession of former president Donald Trump. That has both senior U.S. intel officials and European allies concerned."

    No one who has something like this hanging over his head should ever be considered as a serious candidate for nomination for reelection. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. Republicans are shameless. They’re bacteriums.

  14. "What the heck is actually happening on those elite college campuses?"

    It is easy to find reports of what has been happening in the media.

    By asking this question, Somerby implies that it was never pursued by the committee. But he presents no evidence that is true. This is all done with juxtaposition. He then ignores his own question entirely and goes on to talk about other things.

    Are we supposed to think that those college presidents don't know what is happening on their own campuses? None of them said so and they were not presented as ignorant based on anything Stefanik asked them. It is Somerby who is hinting (but not saying) anything like that.

    This is how propaganda works. It is how Somerby pretends they are performing poorly (as he puts it) without having to present any evidence whatsoever that such a thing is true. Talk about thumbs on scales!

    1. I've spent a little time looking for reports of violence against Jewish students. Here is what I've found. In Tulane, a student apparently provoked a fight with Palestinian protesters and got his nose broken. In Berkeley, a student was allegedly hit in the head with a metal water bottle, but no injury was reported. That's what I could find, in the entire country.

      Judging from the vehemence displayed by both sides just in this comment section, I'm actually amazed at how little violence has been reported on campus.

    2. Turns out genocide is a touchy subject who knew

    3. George -- I spent a couple of minutes using a search engine and found this in the Washington Post
      Recent days have witnessed what Jewish students and watchdog groups describe as a raft of antisemitic incidents on college campuses. Jewish students at Cooper Union in New York City sheltered in a library as pro-Palestinian demonstrators banged on the glass walls of the building. At a pro-Palestinian protest near Tulane University, at least two students were assaulted in a melee that began when someone tried to burn an Israeli flag. And anonymous posters flooded a Cornell message board with threats, prompting the school’s president to alert the FBI. “If you see a Jewish ‘person’ on campus follow them home and slit their throats,” one message said. Another threatened to “bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig jews.”

      BTW note that the physical and verbal attacks were against JEWS, not just against Israelis. For these bigots, anti-Israel and anti-Jew are one and the same.

      In fact. it may be that anti-Jew comes first. That is, many of Israel's opponents would be anti-Israel no matter how that country behaved, because Israel is a Jewish homeland.

    4. All Jews have the right to live in Israel. That’s why they don’t say what you want them to.

    5. I told you Dogface would dismiss any reports. It is what he does.

    6. If every Jew went to Zion then it would cease being a metaphor and also collapse into a single meaning which would destroy the whole point of the religion.

    7. The only report of any injury that I can see is the Tulane student. And, as best I can tell, he got a broken nose from a fight he started. Point me to any others if you find them.

    8. You don’t get to decide whether other people’s trauma matters or not.

    9. The whole point of a free press in a democracy is so that people CAN decide what matters and who needs to get a life.

  15. If you got an email saying "I'm your dad give me money" you would delete it but they say "no but really I'm with your dad's God so give me money" and America does.

  16. The constitution is wrong. This is a Christian country. Accept Jesus now.

  17. Turn the other cheek idiot