From a Harvard alumni mailing seeking "demographic" information for survey:
Which income range most clearly represents the total annual income of your household?
___$0-$49,999 ___$50,000-$99,999 ___$100,000-$249,999 ___$250,000-$499,999 ___$500,000-$749,999 ____$750,000-$999,9999 ___$1,000,000-$2,499,999 ____$2,500,000-$4,999,999 ___$5,000,000+
Which range most clearly represents the total net worth of your household:
___$0-$99,999 ___$100,000-$499,999 ___$500,000-$999,999 ___$1,000,000-$4,999,999 ___$5,000,000-$9,999,999 ___$10,000,000-$24,999,999 ___$25,000,000-$49,999,999 ___$50,000,000+
RE: "Clearly, Harvard failed me" MY COMMENT: No Phil, YOU have failed Harvard! What an embarrassment you are to them. (LOL!)
Phil didn't say where he is on that. Obviously he's struggling.
We were born at the wrong time. We were supposed to use our newly fought for elite educations to make something of ourselves in the conventional world.
Wow, seriously? I had no idea I was so impoverished.
Did Madoff have a college education from anywhere? Was he born at the right time? How about the greed is good era illustrated by Mike Douglas's movie? Does individual character have anything to do with this?
You also had no idea that you were so stupid. In fact, you have few ideas at all.
Also, it would be far more honest of you to acknowledge that you dived onto to your sword.
Wow, ismail. That's witty (no reference to Richard intended). Do you have more gems where that came from?
Well, this definitely confirms that I was never Harvard material!
From what I know of Phil's career (i.e. what he has posted about it on Mondoweiss), you are correct. However, I think it showed great integrity for him to do so, considering that the alternative would have been to either tactfully avoid the whole Israel/Palestine issue, or carefully and dishonestly toe the lines various editors wanted him to follow simply to continue getting work from them.
He apparently still feels entitled in some way.
Even as the topic tiltle is likely humorous.
You're certainly not smart enough to derive anything, so why bother?
Got the sucker!!!! I am sure Phil is reeling……. >>He "apparently" "still" "feels entitled" in some way.<< Congratulations Richard, THREE put-downs in one sentence is quite an achievement. You usually fit no more than one or two a paragraph. Having said that, you do have a LOT of practice.
My impression is that he quite justly feels that he is suffering the consequences of being honest and principled. Wouldn't most people feel a bit resentful about that?
You don't think Phil was being humorous? You think Phil should be making mid six figures annually. I was staggered when he first told me what he earned for pieces in New Yorker. It was work. He is a good writer. Long pieces. He pursued an elite career for a while, and DECIDED to abandon that for a conviction. Don't make him a romantic object. I did similar. I was an awkward but successful CPA, and left to produce audio books of "A People's History of the US" and "The Jungle" and "Looking Backward", and "A Dry White Season" Phil's only chance of success at this as a writer, is to be rigorously inquisitive, uncompromisingly self-inquiring, conduct thorough research, fully listening to all perspectives, and deeply. To the extent that Phil indulges in personal vanity in any significant way, or adopts any fawning attitude to his heroes (Walt, Mearsheimer, Finkelstein), his honesty becomes compromised. He will know it, and the rest of the world will know it. So, if you wish him success, encourage that.
"adopts any fawning attitude to his heroes (Walt, Mearsheimer, Finkelstein), his honesty becomes compromised. He will know it, and the rest of the world will know it. " Basically you're saying your own evaluation of Phil's "heroes" is correct, and that the "world" shares your evaluation and success in this world depends on how closely a writer adheres to your evaluation. I think there are a lot of different "worlds" out there. Different subcultures, that is. In the US, mainstream liberals shy away from the three you mention because they're afraid that anyone who is too blunt about Israel's crimes will be labeled as an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew. In that world Phil might have some problems.
For instance, try reading the Amnesty International report on the Gaza War that just came out. A few pro-Palestinian types are criticizing it because it criticizes Hamas. The Israeli government dismisses it out of hand because it criticizes them. I've skimmed over it and I can't imagine too many American politicians ever citing it–it's way too honest and hardhitting about Israeli war crimes. In fact, I can't see too many American pundits citing it either, for the same reason. Phil would cite it, but you won't likely find any New Yorker writer doing so.
Phil hasn't failed. He changed goals. His time will come.
In what way? One would like to understand better what you mean. But I have the feeling this repeats other discussions, and what you mean but will not say clearly, because you anticipate a negative response, is that he reveals that which many desire to keep suppressed. You consider arrogant his decision to speak out. One has freedom of choice to engage, or not, with that which drives one's interests. Take that challenge, and one encounters envy, especially from those who fear such choices themselves. You have described yourself as a friend of Phil's; I think you mischaracterize the nature of your relations with him.
Fed up comment beginning "In what…" way was addressed to Richard Witty.
I'm saying that to be intellectually honest, you can't have heroes that you are unwilling to criticize. I've NEVER heard a critical word from Phil of Walt/Mearsheimer/Finkelstein since I've posted. I'm accused of being a "hasbara", but my comments even here in this nest, have included many comments critical of Israeli positions, actions. Not on demand, but accurate and honest personal assessments.
Its an opinion, a legal brief, addressing the events at the scale that they observe. Its likely informative, important, but not authoritative, not international law.
I am more of a friend to Phil than you are. I am a friend that defends his right to speak, write etc where its not SO popular to, and will speak the truth to him and about him to the parallel degree that he poses his willingness to be exposed and criticized.
I am a lifelong friend to him, through thick and thin, unconditional, even if he doesn't know it. But, that does not take the form of pandering, or heroing. It includes respect, but also politically of urging that he actually succeeds in something good in the world, which includes reform of Israeli policies and behavior.
I have my own version of what material gain Phil gave up for something other than the most practical route to lots of money and status quo prestige–further, unlike you or Phil, I have been totally self-supporting since I was age 17. Your comments abstractly critical of Israel on this blog have been totally overwhelmed by your barely integrated (if at all) sub-comments in each of your comments revealing your extreme bias in favor of Israel uber alles, no expense spared. I will maybe assume you are honest, don't think I assume you are aware of your bias. At least with Phil I see constant evidence he is somewhat aware of his own bias, and i see his self-explained struggle to share this with all, towards a better world. What you should learn from Phil is much more than what he needs to learn from you. He grew up in the same environment you did. Ultimately you have not; you choose to paint it nicer than it is–you are part of the problem, not Phil.
To be REALLY intellectually honest, Witty, you have to be able to be objective about the very beliefs you hold dearest. You utterly fail. At least Phil is on this courageous journey, you are not. Your self essentially does not exist as that's a foreign concept to you; you are part of the hive, the liberal bees who pride themselves on wearing not only gray, but maybe blue and red socks. Dig the mixed figures of speech very deeply. Not to worry, I know you will not.
I don't doubt that you defend Phil against overt slurs of self-hating jew; but you do all you can to bring him back to the jewish bee hive. He strives to be a true humanist, you strive to be a true jew. Therein lies the difference. And, no, Witty, you can't be both in the end. There is bi-polar, and there is integrated personality. God chooses nobody or group. Otherwise it's just human ego projection.