Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Bush Lied People Died | Main | Ars gratia artis »

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Close enough?

Mark Steyn (to whom Ezra Levant linked here):

A lot of folks are, to put it at its mildest, indifferent to Jews. In 2003, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the "greatest menace to world peace." Only 59 percent? What the hell's wrong with the rest of 'em? Well, don't worry: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent.

Nope! The survey in question didn't ask anyone which country is the greatest menace to world peace. It didn't even use the word "menace", despite Mark Steyn's quotation marks. Rather, it asked the following (in amusingly stilted English): "For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to the world?"

Still, 74 percent of Dutch people should not think that Israel is a threat to the world, and that's what gets me — the numbers are disturbing enough as they are. When people like Steyn and David Frum misrepresent statistics, they are essentially sabotaging their own writing. It's weird.

(Cross-posted to Tart Cider.)

Posted by Chris Selley on February 26, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Close enough?:


Please check your own facts. This was just one of many quotes I found easily confirming MS's story. Really don't like seeing this kind of sloppy post. Please clean things up in this matter.

"The survey was carried out in October by EOS Gallup. The pollsters asked 7,515 citizens from the 15 EU member states which countries posed the greatest threat to world peace. In the Netherlands (74 percent), Austria (69 percent) and Germany (65 percent) the largest percentage of people said Israel was a menace. Only Italy broke with the trend with less than half of those polled saying Israel was a threat (48 percent). In second place, after Israel, were Iran, North Korea and the United States, which 53 percent of the EU citizens deemed a threat."

Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rdoger Beals | 2006-02-26 10:34:21 PM

Whoopsy Daisy Selley.

Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-26 10:48:57 PM

Well, Roger, the quotation you've offered shows that Steyn was wrong. Change his words from "the greatest menace..." to "a threat..." and he's OK.

Posted by: Taka | 2006-02-26 11:22:13 PM

Again, I see the word menace in the quote I supplied. In searching dozens of stories on the poll I found "greatest threat", "greatest menace". Either way, MS's point was valid and the post by Selley is not. Let's not trivialize an important matter.
Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rdoger Beals | 2006-02-26 11:53:46 PM

Rodger: "Again, I see the word menace in the quote I supplied. In searching dozens of stories on the poll I found "greatest threat", "greatest menace". Either way, MS's point was valid and the post by Selley is not."

What a bizarre idea. So Steyn is not the only person in the media to misrepresent the poll. So what? Just because there are "dozens of stories" that all make the same mistake does not make it any less of a mistake. Selley quoted the ACTUAL WORDING of the poll question. What could be more clear evidence that Steyn and the dozens of others are misrepresenting the facts?

Selley is right. No matter how many stories you can find out there that also get it wrong, Selly is right. Deal with it.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-27 12:57:49 AM

I'll put my money on Steyn any day. I don't know about this piece on stats. Perhaps the questions were a bit twisted, but what about the stats quoted.

And those points are no surprise since it's pretty obvious that much of Europe, all of the Middle East, a good chunk of the rest of the West, does seem to have it in for the Jews.

I have never had anyone explain to me exactly why that is, but they sure have a lot of enemies. That would make any nation a bit tense ... Like the USA is getting to be.

I think there are always many reasons for people to behave as badly as they do, but the one that usually jumps out at me first its plain old ENVY.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-27 1:07:51 AM

Mr. Selley clearly demonstrates here that an understanding of grammar is not sufficient to imply an understanding of logic. Thanks for playing anyway, though.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-02-27 3:36:09 AM

"In 2003, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the "greatest menace to world peace."

A similar poll in Quebec showed 70 percent believed the same thing about both the Jews and the Muslims. They are even closing more and more Jewish synagogues in Quebec too and moving to Florida? where the weather is better.

Posted by: Antivirus protection | 2006-02-27 5:53:38 AM

All I see in this misdirect is a edited poll confirming that Euros are too chicken shit to take risks pacifying fanatical regimes but want their share of the commerce of rebuilding ....the socialist entitlement ethic obviously extends to the spoils of wars they do not participate in.

Gawd I am soooo glad Canada is not under the direct influence of these EU Wankers.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2006-02-27 7:04:34 AM

Steyn usually uses quotes in an idiosyncratic way--that is, it is not the literal phrase. Part of his ironic style I guess.

In any event, menace and threat mean the same thing. Here is Merriam Webster--the noun form of menace means "threat".
Main Entry: 1men·ace
Pronunciation: 'me-n&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin minacia, from minac-, minax threatening, from minari to threaten -- more at MOUNT
1 : a show of intention to inflict harm : THREAT
2 a : one that represents a threat : DANGER b : a person who causes annoyance

Posted by: Murray | 2006-02-27 7:38:59 AM

From what I can find on the web, Steyn is right in his stats reporting. But, a poll is not the same as reality. Surveys are very misleading. The question can 'box in' the reply. Therefore, I think that Chris is right in his concern about Steyn's analysis.

1. The question asked was, from a provided list of countries, which country is a threat/menace to world peace. Remember, the English above is a translation from the various languages used (in 15 countries, I think. So, quibbling over 'threat' vs' menace' is not relevant). Israel was the top selection, over Iran and N. Korea..etc.

I think this is a valid answer.

You are asking the respondent for the location of 'the key trouble spot' on the globe - and most certainly, that area is the major trouble spot - in 2003. When fighting was extremely violent there.

What would be necessary, in a review of the survey, is to see the list of countries that were offered to the respondents, from which they made their selection.

2. Then, you have to understand that the question does not necessarily ask - Who is causing this trouble? It is asking one thing only, and for analysts and reviewers to assert that this also implies intentional causality, is incorrect. That wasn't in the question.

To make any kind of judgment - you have to see the full questionnaire. Again, just to locate the site of active fighting is one thing..and that's what this question did. To move onto intentional causality..is another question.

3. Note also the other questions and the contradictory replies.

Most respondents wanted the EU to manage the rebuilding of Iraq. This - despite the UN's reputation for fraud and corruption..and their Oil-for-Fraud activities in that very same country of Iraq.

As for peacekeeping, 43% want the UN to do this in Iraq, but, 54% don't want to participate in this UN action. Hmmm. Make up your mind. Is the UN some Other Peoples, or is it made up of member states?

Again, one has to see the full set of questions. Did the 'which nation is a threat to world peace' question operate in a set of questions, which explored exactly what was 'unpeaceful' and what was causing that problem???

I think Steyn's stats were OK for this ONE question, but, I think his conclusion is alarmist and possibly ungrounded, for it 'lifts' the question from the context of the full questionnaire. It inserts, quite possibly, something into that question that was actually not in the question in the original.

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-27 7:50:03 AM

Wow. Talk about "quibbling" while Rome burns.

Oops. I mean "fiddling," don't I? I guess the grammar police can now prove that I don't have a point either, huh?

There goes that dastard Steyn, obfuscating the issue again. How dare he call a threat a menace? Everyone knows that it is so much more civil to think of Israel as a threat to world peace, just as it decreases the likelihood of intifada by favoring Fatah over Hamas, right?

This "sloppiness" of Steyn's is beneath the relevance of a typo. That's right. If you need an error spectrum, here you go, from highest risk to lowest:

1. Intentional statement of falsehood.
2. Intentional misattribution of material.
3. Direct plagiarism.
4. Unintentional misattribution of a personal statement.
5. Obvious misstatement.
6. Misleading typographical error.
7. Confusing typographical error.
8. Obvious typographical error.
9. Replaced synonym.
10. Secondary spelling choice (theater for theatre, or vice versa).

7. may warrant a correction, preferably from the source. Anything lower doesn't warrant attention. At all. And shame on anyone who thinks it does.

Posted by: thurston | 2006-02-27 8:00:16 AM

Who the hell is Chris selley anyway?

Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-27 8:33:16 AM

ET- good point ; although I think most people would think menace is little more prejudicial than threat - but the use of the word is consistent with his alarmist world view.

thurston- he put the word in " " 's when that was not the word used in the survey. If one replaces a synonym with in a quote it should be bracketed [ ].

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-27 8:45:33 AM

What a trivial matter . Am i supposed to believe that the difference detracts from the point.

I agree with Duke , who is Chris Selley and what is his point?

Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2006-02-27 8:53:52 AM

Pedantry is not without its uses, though I can't see what they are in this instance. I was in France when this survey came out and was, therefore, translating from the French. In their polling, and original press release, the European Union used the French word "menace".

So did most of the newspaper reports. Le Nouvel Observateur: '59% des Européens pensent qu’Israël est le pays le plus menaçant pour la paix dans le monde. Le Point: '59 % des Européens considèrent Israël comme l'Etat qui constituerait aujourd'hui la plus forte menace pour la paix dans le monde.' I translated the French word "menace" into English as "menace". I regret to say I did this without looking it up. I now see from my Harrap's English/French pocket dictionary (Edinburgh, 1995 edition) that the French word "menace" means in English "threat or menace". I apologise to Mr Selley for this appalling error on my part. Whoops, I see I also have to apologise for using the British spelling of "apologize".

I note that in the PDF to which Mr Selley links the European Union's pollsters manage to misspell menace as "meance". Perhaps he would like to post something arguing that that misspelling "sabotages their own writing", too.

Anyway, I entirely agree with Mr Selley that this completely negates my larger point and is part of a pattern of misrepresentation that has characterised my writing for many years. Anti-semitism is obviously far less of a threat to Europe than anti-semanticism, and I do hope Mr Selley will continue to talk about the latter at great length, possibly in a new Western Standard column that replaces my own.

Posted by: Mark Steyn | 2006-02-27 9:03:24 AM

OK - after some sleuthing, here's the questionnaire. It's in French and English.


There is nothing wrong with the response format of the questions - they are on a five point Likert scale - where you select your opinion on a scale of one to five, with 3 being a 'no firm opinion'.

There was only one question about this issue, which was primarily focused around Iraq post war.

"For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to peace in the world".
Answers in the scale:
Yes, absolutely
Yes, rather
No, rather not
No, absolutely not

Then, came a list of countries, in order:
Afghanistan, Iraq, N.Korea, S. Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, India, Libya, USA, China, Russia, European Union, Israel.

Now - the list SHOULD have been alphabetic. It wasn't; it was, in both languages, as above. That possibly skews the respondent's answer.

But - that was all that was asked, and therefore, I don't think that Mark Steyn's alarmist analysis is justified. If you asked someone for 'hot trouble spots in the world' - you would readily come up with Israel being one of them on the list. Note that the respondents are asked to evaluate ALL countries. In 2003, in the midst of the intifada, Israel was most certainly a country threatening peace in the world.
Note - there is no possibility of excluding the Palestinians from this answer, for they aren't in the list (not being a country?)but they are in the 'hot situation' in Israel.

Is the European Union a country?

Therefore, I think that the question is focusing on trouble spots of war that are affecting the world. At the time - was N. Korea affecting the world? Afghanistan/ Somalia? etc...?

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-27 9:08:51 AM


I usually agree with your writings and opinions but on this subject I do not. Mr. Steyn was simply using the stats to prove a bigger point. To trivialize over it, simply proves his point. While the entire world trivializes the real threat continues to grow.

74% of Danes consider Israel to be the biggest threat? I wonder if these same people were polled in Denmark today, the results would be the same. And in a true twist of irony many of the politically correct left crowd could, and have been making the argument that the Danes themselves posed a threat to the world simply by printing some silly cartoons.

The idiocy of the world these days seems to know no bounds.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-27 10:04:18 AM

Well, deep blue, thanks for your comments, but I think I'll stand by my conclusion. By the way, I think Mark Steyn's columns are tops..but..I disagree with his analysis above ..and also..with his Threat of Islam (a much larger issue..for he sees Islam as unable/unwilling to move out of its fundamentalism, and I see Islam as having, by necessity, to do so.

At any rate - as Steyn points out, the terminology is not relevant. The French most certainly uses 'une menace pour la paix dans le monde'. The English uses 'threat'..and each country is required to translate the questions into their own language...so..who knows.

The focus is on the answer - and, if you ask a Mr./Ms Average that question - I think you'd get an 'image' in their mind of 'active trouble spots' in the world. And, in 2003, Israel was most certainly such an area. That doesn't mean that you can exclude in this answer the Palestinians, it doesn't mean that you can include causality. The question is too simple. To do a thorough study, which enables analysis, you have to move into a next Set of questions..which explore specific causality..eg..
Is it the Israeli gov't that is aiding this threat?
Is it the Palestinian..
Is it both?
Is it the settlements?
Is it the terrorism..
Is it..

Then - you can do the type of conclusion that Mark Steyn came up with. With all due respect to him, I think that the ONE question in that questionnaire, did not provide enough data to come up with such conclusions.

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-27 10:40:42 AM

Hello? Morons? Read the fucking question! They asked "For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to peace in the world." Does it present *A THREAT*, not *THE GREATEST THREAT*. All you need to believe to answer "yes" to that question is that while all the other countries on the list are *FAR GREATER THREATS* to peace, that Israel is *AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF A THREAT*.

It astounds me just how much people here believe what they want to believe even in the face of conclusive proof that they are wrong. Just incredible!

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-27 10:45:28 AM

Thank you, Mark Logan, for slicing to the heart of this matter. Selley was right on. And we see some interesting tactics here: first denial:

Please check your own facts. This was just one of many quotes I found easily confirming MS's story. Really don't like seeing this kind of sloppy post. Please clean things up in this matter.

Then anger:

Who the hell is Chris selley [sic] anyway?

Then bargaining:

Pedantry is not without its uses, though I can't see what they are in this instance. I was in France when this survey came out and was, therefore, translating from the French. In their polling, and original press release, the European Union used the French word "menace".

I'm still waiting for the depression and the acceptance phases to set in, but in the meantime, good for you.

, then anger, then negotiation,

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2006-02-27 11:17:36 AM

Why do posts get so garbled here?

No html tags, I can accept. But the last line there is not mine.

In any case, it occurs to me that I should say a nice word or two about ET. His point in the above is a good one.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2006-02-27 11:20:17 AM

Reality is Europe/Europians tend to be Pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel for whatever reason. Personally I think it is because they are so relieved to be able to say: "look the Jews are bad too, see how badly they treat the ancient Palestinians who had been living there since time immemorial and now those Jews have come and stolen their land." I have spoken with many liberal Canadians who do not think that Israel (or the United States) is our ally. When I heard about that poll I thought of course, they think that if Israel did not exist there wouldn't be so much trouble in the world. People used to believe that the Jews performed deicide - this mythology has been replaced with "the Jews stole the land of the ancient Palestinians". One day it will become clear that this too is mythology. Steyn is not off the mark to point out that Europe still has issues with Jews.

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-02-27 11:32:48 AM

"...although I think most people would think menace is [a] little more prejudicial than threat..."

Hmmm..."Dennis the Menace" versus "Dennis the Threat". Seems like threat is more prejudicial, as menace has the connotation, and denotation as well, of being annoying, in addition to being a danger.

I am also confused by the "greatest" aspect of the survey. It looks like a micro/macro confusion, as it appears that Israel was ranked the greatest threat/menace by the group as a collective, having been named as a threat in x% of responses, with the runnerup being named in x-y%.

Posted by: Murray | 2006-02-27 11:34:11 AM

I like Steyn but I've lost some respect for him here. He's acting precisely like the others in the mainstream media who, when called on it by bloggers, won't admit a mistake.

He and his defenders are making two points. First, that he's right, which he clearly isn't -- as Mark Logan and I have pointed out, there's a difference in the English language between "a" and "the greatest." Ali, for instance, didn't go around calling himself "a" -- it just doesn't sound so impressive. Given the poorly-written news reports, perhaps Steyn made the mistake honestly, but at this point he knows he's wrong and won't say so.

Their second point is it doesn't matter. Well, obviously 74% of Dutch people saying Israel is a threat to world peace is itself a notable and disturbing figure, but it's still quite a bit different from 74% saying Israel is the greatest threat, which is a more shocking statement, which is precisely why Steyn went with it in the first place. But the larger point is, if it doesn't matter, why are they insisting on sticking with the innaccuracy?

Posted by: Taka | 2006-02-27 11:51:41 AM

I was about to fire off a last angry/bargaining/denying (forget what stage I'm in) post moaning (right, that's the stage) about what a waste of time this is, when I read MS's post conceding defeat and admitting that he was guilty of anti-semanticism. I share in his guilt. Another point,I wonder why Taiwan was left off that list; certainly another tiny country surrounded by millions of enemies, every bit the threat/menace as Israel.

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-02-27 12:07:12 PM

Hey Steyn, what I'd like to know is where you got this quote.

"We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law."

You seem to be the one and only source for it. You didn't just make it up, did you?

Allow me to field this for you Mr. Steyn. Yes, it's true: MS as well as most conservative writers routinely make up extreme, world dominating quotes from imagined Islamicists. This is, of course, due to the total absence of such statements.

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-02-27 12:47:27 PM

Hey all of the Jews do now also have a right to live in peace, free pseech, the right to practise their own relgion, but no right minded persons can justify still now the Jews stealing the land from the Palestians to do any of this this.

Psalm 133:1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

Both the Jews and the Arabs are undeniably even from the same Father Abraham, and God still does wants these brothers to live now too in peace even in the Middle east. The fact that Both of these groups do not want to do this is immoral, uancceptable, and the fact that both of these groups wrongfully want the rest of us to take sides, both also now still do escalate their unholy religious wars now is also still immoral on all of their parts.

I still rightfully now do think rather that "Blessed are the peace makers" and that all people should first try Prayer over war. "

(Luke 1:79 KJV) To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

(James 5:16 KJV) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

(Psa 122:6 KJV) Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.7 Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. 8 For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. 9 Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.

(Jer 29:7 KJV) And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.

Posted by: paul | 2006-02-27 1:07:45 PM

Robert McClelland and Rodger Beals - the statement is called 'jihad'. Look it up. The extremists use it to justify their territorial and political expansion. Check out works by Andrew Bostom.

And check out the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which said that Sharia law has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..and the specific proclamaction that god made the Islamic community the best nation..to guide humanity. (D. Littman. Universal Human Rights and Human Rights in Islam. Midstream 1999. Vol 45. Feb-march)

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-27 2:27:22 PM

No Rodger, Allow me.

Now granted that I haven't found the exact quote, but the gist of it can be found here:

Omar Ahmad, an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the leading Islamic organization in the U.S. and an advocate of "respect" for all things Islamic, once stated, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Muslims want the new Caliphate:

"Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad"


"There is no Room for Freedom in Islam"

Here is the last few paragraphs:

"And besides these and other freedoms to steal, cheat, extort etc in the name of ‘interest’ and ‘profit’ we have the famous freedom of speech and expression, boasted and ‘courageously’ defended recently throughout Europe. So what is this ‘great’ concept of freedom of expression?

Strange… upon examination we find that it is nothing more than an excuse to lie, cheat, slander, backbite, swear, insult, mock and even defame all people in the name of this grand privilege to speak your mind. No, there is no room in Islam for this kind of evil concept, there is no freedom to lie, no freedom to slander, no freedom to swear, no freedom to insult any prophet and the prophet (saw) said, “whoever insults a prophet, kill him.”

So we find that the freedom that people worship is nothing more than an excuse to follow desires and corrupt societies, do you not think that Britain would be much better if the people were honest, trustworthy, decent people who did not swear, nor lie, nor slander each other, if they were not drunken rapists, criminals and adulterers like today but instead were sober and faithful HETERESEXUAL husbands and wives? Verily Britain will be so much better when governed under the Islamic rules in the coming days inshaa Allah."

More of the same at http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/

A display of "moderate Muslims" protesting:






Posted by: Warwick | 2006-02-27 2:40:49 PM

Mark Steyn, as always, is engrossing and important.

But the survey IS misrepresented - likely in an honest error.

There is a great difference between "a threat" and "the greatest threat".

His concerns about the survey are valid - I agree.

But Selley is right in his clarification.

Posted by: Jason | 2006-02-27 2:59:13 PM

Sorry, ET, that must have been clumsy sarcasm on my part. I was mocking R. McClelland's post. My point was that it was ridiculous to think that MS would have to fabricate a jihadian statement; they're all over the place. Of course it's also ridiculous to be debating threat/menace while French Jews are afraid to wear their yamukes in public. Selley's little drive-by on David Frum I also found to be cheap and baseless. Been reading Frum for years and always found him truthful. Statscan OTOH is a testament to Mark Twain's genius.

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-02-27 3:00:14 PM

Sorry Rodger, I missed the sarcasm too...

So basically, I posted all that crap for McClellend's benefit. What a waste of time!! lol.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-02-27 3:05:59 PM

No, Warwick - not a waste of time. It's a great collection. Many thanks.

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-27 3:22:16 PM

Mr. McClelland, as guy who likes to cuss and admires a good insult, my hats off to you for the "freeper retards" comment.

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-02-27 5:00:31 PM

"Anti-semitism is obviously far less of a threat to Europe than anti-semanticism'

Mark Steyn, if the pen is mightier than the sword your rapier wit is the ICBM of writing.

Posted by: qwerty | 2006-02-27 6:45:29 PM

I refuse to believe that Steyn actually missed the point of my post that spectacularly. "Threat" vs. "menace" is not the point, as any number of commenters have pointed out. The point, obviously, is the *greatest* threat vs. just *a* threat.

Steyn said 65 percent of Germans regard Israel as "the greatest menace to world peace," and 69 percent of Austrians. Again, that's actually the number who consider Israel a threat, period. So how wrong was he? Well, the exact same number of Germans and Austrians said *North Korea* was a threat — so it's just as correct for me to extrapolate that Germans and Austrians consider North Korea "the greatest menace to world peace." Which is to say totally, utterly, irretrievably incorrect.

Posted by: Chris Selley | 2006-02-27 7:32:26 PM

In an attempt to quantify your degree of pedantry, Mr. Selley I naturally referred to Fowler's Modern English Usage. I quote:
"It follows that readers who find a usage stigmatized as pedantry or purism have a right to know the stigmatizer's place in the scale, if his stigma is not to be valueless. Accordinglly, under headings of various matters in which these propensities may colour judgement, a few articles are now mentioned by referring to which the reader who has views of his own will be able to place the book in scale, and judge what may be of expected of it."
1 Carelessness
2. Choice of Words
3. Idiom
4. Grammar
5. Misuse of Words
6. Pretentiousness
Blah, blah, blah

Take your pick. I think Steyn and most everyone else got your point; we just didn't think much of it.

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-02-27 8:45:12 PM

Rodger Beals does not speak for me! It isn't pedantry to point out something is incorrect.

Nor does Robert McClelland speak for me! He behaves exactly like Summer did tonight on the Apprentice: Instead of shutting up and letting a good point be made against one of his enemies, he speaks up, muddies the issue, shows himself to be the bigger fool, and gets fired by Donald Trump.

This will make no sense to anyone who did not watch The Apprentice tonight. I truly apologize. Why did I even post this?

Posted by: JKelly | 2006-02-27 11:04:50 PM

The point is why does it matter? MS, who doesn't care whether Belgians survive the Islamification of Belgium, constantly berates Europeans for their 'negative' stance toward Israel. Why is he so concerned? If he, flippantly and casually, shows such disdain for the Belgians or any European for that matter, why should it matter that Europeans don't give a toss about Israel. He cares not that Germany or Austria look anxiously upon North Korea, however, he seems to take it personally that Europe does not embrace Israeli policy. Are not Europeans free to think what they want? Draw their own conclusion? Or is that only reserved for Islam?

And Frum is exactly the same. Now why would that be? Hmmm...

Posted by: DJ | 2006-02-27 11:12:05 PM

>Neither Selley's post nor my comment was about the point Steyn was attempting to make in his column, Nestruck. Both are about his shoddy ethics.<

Judging from your blog you are obviously from the left, and although its none of my business I'm sure you voted Liberal.

And you feel you have the right to discus ethics? Now that's funny.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-28 3:02:34 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.