http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=376


Town Square

Prof. Beinen's "truthiness"

Original post made by Sheree Roth, Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2006

Don Kazak (Our Town, Aug. 30 Palo Alto Weelky) doesn't consider Stanford professor Joel Beinin as dangerous as David Horowitz does in "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America."

Web Link

I'm with Horowitz on this and wonder if Beinin is so innocent, why he is suing over the use of his photo, as opposed to libel, for being called a supporter of terror.

I always thought that ideally a professor would try to hide his personal bias in the quest for truth in a classroom. Beinin has admitted to letting his politics dictate his teaching. On the Muslim WakeUp Web site — in the section obnoxiously called "Hug a Jew!" — he says: "I lived in Israel in the early 1970s as a member of a Zionist youth organization. I experienced first hand the cruelty of and insanity of Israeli society. In 1973 I left Israel and have been a scholar and activist since, without drawing a sharp distinction between the two."


This doesn't lend itself to truth but to "truthiness" — a word coined by Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central meaning "truth not necessarily backed by facts."


This may explain Beinin being one of the original signatories of a letter released in December 2002 suggesting that Israel was plotting a mass expulsion of Palestinians in the cover of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This clearly didn't happen, nor was there any evidence that there was ever any such plan.


Is this example of "truthiness" dangerous? I believe that coming from an expert Middle East Stanford professor, it is.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert Holmgren
a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 8, 2006 at 5:36 pm

Sheree Roth expresses more truth in her brief letter than contained in Don Kazak's entire column.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 9, 2006 at 9:03 am

Don Kazak's column was not really a piece of journalism--it was more of a fluff piece written by a starry eyed admirer.
There were no real facts in the article--just hearsay by Beinin and positive comments put to paper by the admiring journalist.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marianne
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 12, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Don Kazak is why I no longer bother to read the Weekly. His "stories" are just exaggerated fluff. He's been wrong many times. Why would anyone read his drivel?