Analysis and Opinion Books

The book provides a wide view of the topic, as useful background information and context for the subject, before focusing on the details needed by the reader for a variety of practical applications. Expert opinion is used by decision-makers, for example, in performing technology assessment to determine the direction of investment in costly research and development. Properly elicited, analyzed, and interpreted, expert opinion - subjectivity - can be as useful as objective data in decision-making for engineers and managers.

Professor Ayyub's book contributes to the literature on expert opinion in several unique ways. First, it is built on the philosophical and epistemological foundations of recognizing and categorizing what is not known. Some may consider this a foundation built on sand. I consider it a foundation based on understanding the weaknesses in knowledge before we build. Only from this perspective can we critically evaluate what we think we know. Second, with the recognition of the wide variety of types of ignorance, one can seek to find the most appropriate mathematical representation for the ignorance. This approach is contrary to the tradition in expert elicitation of seeing all ignorance as representable by traditional probability theory.

These extremely useful books examine the 1975 referendum and look at the EU's economic and political effects. They are not written in EU jargon, unlike most books on the EU, usually semi-official.

The first volume studies the early history of the EU, the referendum itself, and the Labour government's manipulation of public opinion in the referendum campaign. It includes reflections by 16 participants in the Yes and No campaigns, and also copies of the two Yes pamphlets and the one No.

Various contributors point out that the EU is a machine for eliminating popular influences on policy, reversing all our democratic gains over the last two centuries. They show that the European Commission acts for, not against, capitalist `globalization'. They note that Thatcher forced through the 1986 Single Europe Act, which removed many vetoes and gave the EU powers over environment policy, letting the EU use the issue of climate change to add to its powers.

The second volume looks at the role and implications of referendums, and at the EU's effects on the Labour and Conservative parties, on the trade unions and on public opinion. The authors show how the trade unions are becoming incorporated into the EU capitalist state, and how the fraud of a `social Europe' has not saved one British industry or job from destruction.

The authors argue that the alternative to the EU is `the pursuit of Britain's wider global interests.' But the real alternative to the EU's embrace of global capitalism is not to embrace non-EU global capitalism, but to advance the British people's interests - not EU first, not world first, but Britain first.

The authors remind us that in November 2004, 77.9% voted against the EU/Government scheme for an assembly for the North-East region. This was hugely significant, the first time a part of the British people rejected an EU policy.

Last December, Blair pledged to back the German government's effort to resurrect the Constitution, which would destroy our democracy, self-rule and sovereignty. The working class is increasingly anti-EU, and the ruling class is increasingly pro-EU - a growing conflict.

This book was well worth the money. It provides a wealth of information in clear and concise verbiage. This is a must for anyone interested or working in legal processes. I highly recommend this book.

As Jim Moran explains in this fine article, people are being slaughtered in large numbers in Darfur.

Does that mean that we can use the word "genocide?" As far as I am concerned, yes it does.

Should the United States try to help stop the slaughter? I think we Americans have a duty to try.

Still, I do sense that many people who say they are against the mass murders in Darfur would secretly like to see them continue, if the alternative means that the victims will be saved with the help of the Americans. And that truly disgusts me. Suppose someone you knew said that it would be sad if a million people were murdered....but that it would be catastrophic if all those lives were to be saved, if that meant using American power to do so. Wouldn't you disagree? I sure would.

Let's all try to find a way to stop the genocide. Mass murder is bad for everyone.

In this very well written article, Stein and Gal-Or point out that when the topic is Israel, "an anti-intellectual approach that seeks to limit debate, free speech, and academic freedom has been increasingly present on Canadian campuses. It has manifested itself in a number of major strategies: preventing speakers from arriving at their destination, preventing speakers from being heard, restricting opposing views, exploiting emotion and using propaganda, and preventing rebuttal."

The authors note that while arguments on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict have often been "skewed," it is the anti-Israeli camp "that has exceeded the bounds of civilized debate" by using the above strategies. They make the point that students and faculty are supposed to listen to all points of view to form their opinions. They shouldn't want or need others to tell them which speakers are acceptable. And one can presume that those who are against freedom of speech have something to hide, and that facts would discredit their cause.

The authors give some examples of intimidation and harassment on campus. And they insist that pro-Israel speech be given the same protection as its anti-Israel equivalent. That protection ought to extend to grades on papers: the article shows that many students were downgraded on papers that showed Israel in a good light.

This eight-page article makes quite a few good recommendations, but I think the best is the following:

"Although opinions can be held freely, patently false statements of 'fact' should bear some censure in the form of cumulative academic consequences similar to acts of plagiarism or 'cooking of results' in academic experiments."

I would like to applaud Inroads for publishing this article. I highly recommend it.

Fascinating and important stuff. Everyone who sends emails, gets emails, and has heard of email should read this book. Most political campaigns are light years behind the .orgs and .coms. And this writer seems to know the ins and outs better than most!

We had the good fortune to first see Fitzgerald's book while staying at Glin Castle along the River Shannon (Olda Fitzgerald's residence). This garden is one of many spectacular pieces featured. Walking through the actual garden was a walk through a bit of heaven. The photos in the book will serve as a beautiful reminder of what all that rain in Ireland can do to a piece of well cared for earth.

Gardens of Ireland depicts the lush beauty of other places that will take priority on my "must see" list if I'm lucky enough to return to Ireland. Enjoy!

In the 1930s, Kalman Sultanik applied to the British Mandatory Power for a certificate that would allow him to find safe haven in the British Mandate. The British refused, of course, so the author wound up in a concentration camp where he was among the few who survived. He says he has no doubt that if the Jews had won their national independence before the war began, hundreds of thousands of European Jews could have been saved in much the same way that Israel later received hundreds of thousands of survivors.

The author continues by marvelling at the way Islam has become so distorted as to preach intolerance and murder. Actually, that does not surprise me. I'm not particularly enamored of monotheistic religions. But I have to agree with Sultanik that something is wrong when most of the world shrugs at the fact that many Arab countries are Judenrein, having accomplished in their nations no less than the Germans of the 1930s and 1940s attempted to achieve in Europe. They shrug when Arabs ask that the Jews all leave Israel "and take their graves with them." Why? Isn't such apartheid and bigotry worth commenting on? Or are they too busy accusing Israel (of all countries) of apartheid, bigotry, and racism?

The author says that he is concerned about this new antisemitism (by which he means anti-Zionism) in spite of its "modest numbers and the low caliber of its thinkers." After all, the new antisemites make up for this by being energetic. And it is Sultanik's impression that antisemitism is as popular in Arab nations today as it ever was in pre-war Europe. And he calls Israel the "testing ground of world-wide Muslim terrorism." This terrorism, according to the author, "has as its declared objective the destruction of Israel and its Jewish population."

As the author says, many people on college campuses who call themselves liberals are indulging in this new antisemitism, giving "blind support to the most reactionary and oppressive societies in the region that are fueled by medieval notions of hegemony and obscurantist religion." To some extent, this does not surprise me either. Many fascists and racists have claimed to be on the Left, whether they were supporting Stalin, or the Vichy government in France, or the "National Socialists" in Germany, or the anti-Israeli reactionaries of today.

To him, the problem of tomorrow is "Muslim antisemitism, buttressed by a devil's alliance with the Left."

He makes a strong argument for this conclusion.

There are plenty of complaints about infringements of academic freedom, so before even looking at articles on the topic, I think it is worthwhile to be sure what we mean by this term.

Academic freedom is the right to pursue pretty much any topic one wants as a scholarly study. It means being able to, for example, ask if various human traits are genetic or acquired or both. It means being able to look at various "taboo" fields, such as religion, political beliefs, sexual preference, race, gender, human behavior, and so forth. It means being able to do research on such topics, write papers on such topics, and teach such material in the classroom.

There is one other thing that might be covered under the mantle of academic freedom, namely the right to have pretty much any political or religious views one wishes, and to express those views in public on one's own time (although not as a representative of one's university).

But there are limits to what academic freedom enables one to do. It does not allow one to break the law, running experiments that torture people or animals, or put them in great danger. It certainly does not allow one to commit felonies. And it certainly does not allow one to violate academic standards, plagiarizing material, fudging one's data, or making otherwise false claims. In no way is the substitution of crude political propaganda for scholarly work protected under the mantle of "academic freedom."

Now, given all this, what happened to Edward Alexander? He permitted Daniel Pipes to lecture at the University of Washington on "The War on Terrorism and Militant Islam." Certainly, this sort of topic is allowed under the mantle of academic freedom. Professors certainly can sponsor such talks. Anyway, some Muslims were offended by all this and sent Alexander some e-mails saying so. Jeff Saddiqui, from the University of Puget Sound, was one of them. Some very serious complaints were made about Daniel Pipes. He was called "a rabid Muslim/Arab hater" and one who "works for the Israeli Lobby."

Some of the e-mailers requested that Alexander cancel Pipes' lecture, or, failing to do that, apologize for permitting it and as a minimum allow designated people to "answer" Pipes. But Alexander refused, explaining that there is no requirement for a lecturer on religious fundamentalism to be "answered" by a "harangue" at the end of the talk from a religious fundamentalist. Alexander was willing to permit concise questions from audience members but not "speeches from the floor."

As Alexander reports, Pipes said that "the debate over this lecture is a textbook example of militant Islamic methods: an attempt to close down discussion of issues; intimidation; scurrilous attacks; fabrication." Is that true? It sure looks that way. Is this an attack on free speech? Absolutely. Is there a concurrent Islamic attack on academic freedom? I think there probably is. Recently, two people at Yale were able to come up with a draft report about the correspondence of anti-Semitic views and anti-Zionist views. They were not stopped from performing this research. However, I suspect that at many universities, people would have been strongly discouraged from doing this. And I wonder just how easy it would be to do a study on the etiology, nature, and significance of anti-Zionist lies at a top notch American university. Still, I doubt that the example Alexander gives here is a great example of an attack on academic freedom per se.

On the other hand, many of those who are busy substituting absurd political propaganda for scholarly work are trying to defend what they do under the mantle of academic freedom, and I think we all need to reject such arguments.

I recommend this article.

Do not buy this article, borrow it from your library. Thompson Gale are corporate scalpers and I, the author, am not seeing a red cent out of these sales.

Save your money. Go down to your local library and have them get the article by Interlibrary Loan, if they don't have the journal itself already.