Scott Tribe, Jason Cherniak, and the ProgBlog Code of Conduct

I consider most verbal displeasures expressed at ProgBlog symptoms of mainly three “problems”:

- perceived authoritarian behaviour by the ProgBlog moderators
- conservativeness at ProgBlog
- petty partisanship by some of the members

Sure a code of conduct can stifle some of the frustrations by force, but is there really no other way to deal with these problems?

Here are some simple solutions that I came up with:

a. make progblog ultra transparent, as progressives would envision the ultimate transparent and responsible government

b. oust those blogs/bloggers/moderators who continue to adhere to a right of centre political agenda (most obvious by promoting anti-social policies). This could possibly be done through use of a popular vote among the PB members, or some other transparent and democratic form. Perhaps give ousted bloggers the ability to reapply if they still feel they deserve to be part of PB*.

c. exclude members who predominantly post to promote their party (there are other blogrolls for that type of propaganda, not at PB please) and make it mandatory for future moderators be non-partisan (use grandfather clause).

That's about as far as I would go.

The above would make ProgBlog more transparent and accountable (suggested by many), and probably far less combative resulting in a more coherent community of bloggers.

I realize fully well that my suggestions will never be picked up by the moderators. Not that I think that Scott and some of his tribe is not “lefty” enough (Scott considers himself to be on the left side of the Liberal spectrum) but because the chief in question is a partisan Liberal, and partisans by definition are biased and loyal to their party and party members; that's what partisanship is all about.

My proposed code would give ProgBlog members the power to scrutinize and oust blogs (up until now the exclusive right for moderators), likely resulting in the removal of several Libloggers, especially those that daily spout their partisan, right of centre propaganda into the PB blogosphere (no names needed, we all know who you are).

This will prove to be inconceivable to a partisan Liberal moderator. Furthermore, chief Scott owns ProgBlog...

My two cents, for what it's worth.

*I realize that b. Could turn into a cycle of dumping and adding to ProgBlog, but who said that any democratic model would be easy?

My post "ProgBlog's CoC, Tutu and the Right the Offend" also deals with the issue in another light.

- Wiktionary: partisanship
- ProgBlog Proposed Code of Conduct

ProgBlog's CoC, Tutu and the Right the Offend

I apologize to all ProgBlog members for not posting earlier on the Code of Conduct (CoC) but the latest developments in my own personal life have kept me fairly busy (insiders know what I'm talking about).

First of all I want to praise the PB moderators for giving members the ability to contribute to a code of conduct. I do have the following criticism and they deal with the phrase about religion. The following suggestion was made:

A member of the Progressive Bloggers shall be determined to be conducting themselves in an unacceptable manner when they submit material to the Progressive Bloggers, automatically or otherwise, which: [...]
(b) contains [..] religiously offensive language.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the right to offend? Who doesn't remember Salman Rushdie's

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist"

Personally I have no problem with the fact that many religious people conspire regularly (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc.), express their superiority (by those same people or their leaders) over other believe systems, simply because they're the followers of the “right” religion.

I have no problem with religion BECAUSE I'm allowed and able to differ with those particular religious believes.

And the ability to differ HAS to include the right to offend, because “offensiveness” is subjective; it completely depends on the party who receives the comment, in how it will perceive it.

The recent dealings of the St. Thomas University and Desmond Tutu comes to mind. Tutu wasn't allowed to speak, because of a speech he had given several years ago, in which he had compared the powerful Jewish lobby to other major powers that people had to overcome: "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin". Although Tutu's statement is clearly not anti-semitic, the remarks were still perceived as offensive by some Jews (especially the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas) and therefore enough reason for the University of St. Thomas to cancel a planned speech. From a progressive point of view, where the free flow of information is paramount, University of St. Thomas' behaviour is unacceptable.

In a free and progressive society, people have the right to their own believes, including their own religion. But since religion itself can be perceived as offensive (for example: I do find most religions' take on so-called pagans quite offensive), there has to be the right to offend by those of different believes or believe systems. Only then are we, all believers and non-believers, on an equal footing.

- ProgBlog proposed CoC
- Wikipedia: Desmond Tutu
- St. Thomas won't host Tutu
- BBC: The right to be downright offensive

ProgBlog, Cherniak and MMP

For those who haven't been following the latest MMP vs. FPTP battle, Jason Cherniak is one of the few Liberals that does not seem to have a problem with the current FPTP system; on the contrary, he and his cronies claim that FPTP is superior to all other systems. This is how they put it: it's "By the People, Of the People, and For the People... And not for the parties!" Yeah, whatever.

What bugs me most about Jason's position, is that he thinks he can get away with this kind of crap. I mean, if you're a progressive (progressive-bloggers-banner still on Jason's site? Check... he's got two!! he's got two!!), then shouldn't you at least share the opinion that democratic reform is desperately needed? Does democratic deficit ring a bell, Jason?

MMP might not be the best system in the world (I personally prefer STV), but it's at least a BIG step forward from the antiquated FPTP. And, if MMP isn't the right system for you, then what system is in your vision Jason, a better one than the current?

Nothing from Jason and his conservative cronies, no alternatives given. That means that the No-MMP camp isn't really against MMP, but it's against progress. Why? Because they give no other alternatives to the current misere of FPTP.

Isn't sticking with the old stuff, merely because it's NOT the new stuff called conservative? When will ProgBlog finally dump the hypocrite?

UPDATE: If you agree with me that Mr. Cherniak should be removed from ProgBlog, then please send a message to the ProgBlog moderators, as described by Scott in the comment section.

The ProgBLog email-addresses can be found on the home page of ProgBlog (bottom left corner); take action and keep ProgBlog progressive!

- Jason Cherniak: Campaign to defeat MMP
- NO to MMP
- Progressive Bloggers
- Wikipedia: STV | MMP

Liberal Propaganda at ProgBlog - not progressive

Yes, we're back at the very same issue - Liberal bias at ProgBlog. But don't worry I'll take a new angle too.

The PB moderators.
I've recently learned that there's a lot more liberalism at PB than the eye meets. Scott would like to make you believe that, out of seven moderators, only two are Liberals. Well, not so. Saskboy is SK Liberal (check Liblogs - he's still there) and Catnip, she's a very special Liberal, spelled liberal. Then there's Scott himself. Doesn't that make three already?

But there's something else.

During the Polly Jones crisis, one comment lost in all the bickering, intrigued me. Polly asked for a serious discussion on a current topic:

Would it be possible for people to state their positions on the WB? Are people aware of neo-liberalism? Or, do none of you look beyond your own postal code?

No answers, and I have to admit my own silence too. But it did lead me to visit some of my most vocal opponents' websites, trying to figure out what it is they are blogging about. These opponents included Scott Tribe, Steve V. and Jason Cherniak.

Liberal Propaganda
Do the test and decide for yourself (now do it!). Aren't these Libloggers merely Liberal propaganda sites with a "progressive bloggers" logo? By far the majority of their posts is nothing more than partisan BS; not very progressive if you ask me. One wonders, when Liberal party politics is all they seem to care about (along with their obvious party biases), what good it does for the Progressive Bloggers community; couldn't we simply subscribe to Liblogs if we were interested in Liberal junk?

I'm more progressive than you...
I realize all too well that it's hard to describe what progressive means. But it's less difficult to define what it is not;

Blogs continuously spouting petty party propaganda is not progressive.

So can it be done, can we actually blog without overly obvious biases? Yes, we can. And many have. Here's a list of progressive blogs, dealing beyond petty party politics. Yes, some of them are affiliated with political parties, and some aren't. But all have a far wider spectrum than, say, Far and Wide does.
- Buckdog: http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/
- Bill Longstaff: http://blongstaff.blogspot.com/
- James Laxer: http://www.jameslaxer.com
- Political Psychols: http://cycles2k.blogspot.com/
- Marginal notes: http://marginalnotes.typepad.com/

Libs are as progressive as the Cons are green
Some say that the latest spat (or crisis) hasn't much to do with Scott's actions as moderator, but more with his politics. Either way, I take offence in having clearly partisan hacks as our moderators. I hear from many that Scott has done wonderful work for PB, I've no issue with that. He should be praised for his achievements. But when Liberals' only reason for joining PB is infecting us with their obvious biases (also given the scope of their blogs), one has to wonder if the progressive label is nothing more than dress-up. Conservatives have taken on the Green Label, and Scott, your right, their actions are not conform their message. But neither is the "Progressive Bloggers" label very suitable for Liberal partisan hacks. Progressive-Lites would be more appropriate.

Progressive-Lite Logo
I'm sure Joanne can supply you with a new Progressive-Lite button, Scott. Just ask her in a friendly manner, she's quite approachable. I've chosen the other logo below, to let you know where I stand:



Cheers!

Purging is not cool; when will Scott resign?

Scott is out purging, again, well sort off. Polly Jones, one of the (former?) moderators of PB, said:

After I refused to edit or remove my response, as directed by Scott through email, he took the mind-blowing action of deleting all threads in the moderator forum.

But that's not all. Polly:

When Scott re-opened the purged forums to a 'clean slate', I commented that I found his actions odd and promised to "take action" after the weekend. I can assure you that by action, I meant that I wouldn't be silenced on the issue. Scott has, however, used my comment to defend his latest abuse of administrative powers: locking me out of administrative access.

Always nice to know your fellow-moderators support you.
This didn't surprise me either. Polly:

Certainly, when Scott performed his purge of the forums, he notified no one.

Yeah, that's our Scott purging; no-one needs to know.

But (IMHO) Polly Jones was right about this:

Scott [Tribe] defends right-wing ideology. He is uninformed as to his own politial views. [...] I am really bored of people who prop themselves up against the Tories without recognizing they hold the same fundamental ideology.

Isn't it time for progressive change at PB and demand a more progressive Chief -Moderator?

This is how Polly Jones put it (in her comments):

[Scott Tribe] should quit. In fact, I will make the promise that I will quit, if he quits too.

And, if I may suggest, can it be someone that is not affiliated directly to one of the main political parties and/or to Jason Cherniak?

Thanks!

Update: Scott has sent me a personal email to explain his side of the story. Anyone interested in a copy can send me an email

- Marginal Notes: A Dissident Moderator
- Marginal Notes: The Very Dangerous 'Progressive' Mentality
- A Canadian Lefty in Occupied Land: ProgBlogs and Process
- Leonard Jordaan: Scott Tribe at all
- Scott Tribe: Admin Announcement
- Politics’n'Poetry: Dissidence
- Purging is Hot!

Liberal bias at ProgBlog; it just keeps coming

This time it was the "tricky partisan wording" of the latest poll.

Should the opposition parties unite and vote no-confidence on the Conservative government over the Green Plan?

Yes. Take it to the people and let them decide what Green Plan they want
No - do the strategy of the NDP and have the opposition force Bill C-30 to be voted on and passed.

After being criticized by many, this is how the God-moderator responded:

Anyhow, I will not be making polls anymore. If other moderators wish to do so, they can.. but I'll disavow right now that any poll questions come from me.. and I will be formally asking Saskboy to disable poll questions in the new site (unless of course the Moderator Board overrules me, which is entirely possible). I dont need the hassle or the grief.

It looks like the moderator needs to grab some humour. It would help him live longer. :)

ProgBlog Moderator DID get the numbers wrong - will he admit it?

Yes Scott, you did get it wrong. I did have another "Einstein moment" (the second one this week!) and came up with the following numbers:

Libs: 82
Dippers: 50
Green bloggers: 27
Unaffiliated with any political blogging group: 200

Total:359

According to this post at least a few bloggers were unaccounted for. According to Scott Tribe this would only amount to 0.1 percent "others":

And stop trying to paint my motives for not listing the BLogging Tories who are amongst our group. I deemed them such a small percentage I didn’t bother listing them. I didnt bother listing the 1 or 2 sites that put themselves under the banner of the Progressive Canadian Party either, and as in the BT member’s case, it wasn’t out of spite. They were all part of the 0.1% “Other” category.

As I outlined here this could not (and never) be right since a single blogger already accounts for 0.3 percent (My first "Einstein" moment of the week: 1/395 * 100 = 0.3%)

What Scott did was add up the "Others" (read Tories and a bunch of bloggers affiliated to other political parties) with the "Unaffiliated with ANY political blogging group"; not so smart. This, intentionally or not, inflates thes number of "Unaffiliates".

When I called him on it, he had this to say:

You're REALLY splitting hairs Erik if you're trying to attack me over whether my addition is right or not. If you think I made a counting mistake.. its very simple for you to double-check my numbers.

So that's what I just did.
Will Scott admit he made a mistake?


UPDATE: Scott did admit he made a mistake (see comments), but is still unwilling (for reasons unclear to me) to give the exact numbers. Be assured, that the current breakdown is flawed; the "unaffiliates" group is not as large as Scott likes you to believe it is.

Scott Tribe's breakdown doesn't make sense - did he fudge the numbers?

First off; I never was great at math. And I don't have a great sense for stats either. But have a look at this "Membership breakdown at Prog Blog". It doesn't make sense.

He claims the following:

And stop trying to paint my motives for not listing the BLogging Tories (note plural, EA) who are amongst our group. I deemed them such a small percentage I didn’t bother listing them. I didnt bother listing the 1 or 2 sites that put themselves under the banner of the Progressive Canadian Party either, and as in the BT member’s case, it wasn’t out of spite. They were all part of the 0.1% “Other” category.. which I didnt originally mention.

Since there are 359 bloggers (Scott's numbers), some quick math would show that a single blogger = 0.3% of the whole ProgBlog community (1/359 *100). So how does the 0.3% per blogger account for the 0.1% "Other" category?

It doesn't make sense.

Scott writes:

Am I doing something wrong here or is Scott Tribe fudging the numbers? Who's the Lord of Statistics out there? I bet I'm just being too serious.

Scott pisses me off AND bans me from posting on his latest posting (it seems)

I tried to leave another comment on Scott's personal blog, but, too late. Suddenly his post was "Sorry, comments are closed for this item." And that on my birthday!

Well, you don't have to miss my comments. I've left the thing I wanted to add here, and debate is welcome on my blog. Imagine it under the last post:
Membership breakdown at ProgBlog

Update: Scott's math seems to be worse than mine too. Have a look at what's wrong with his presented Membership Breakdown at ProgBlog

-----------------------------------------------------
I already said the reason it was removed..
Yes but you didn't before message 1. of this posting. That's my point. You left a reply saying that I went overboard on the title (so fashionably liberal of you!), but that was all. I had to find out myself I was censored.

One more:
And stop trying to paint my motives for not listing the BLogging Tories who are amongst our group.

Is it unfair to mention that I find it important to see the listings of Blogging Tories in the breakdown as well, for the reason outlined in the post. So where is the paint? Was it the question mark you had trouble with?

The ungrounded accusations, that you seem unwilling to debate, make you look like a bloody biased partisan hack. And I get really tired of arguing with partisan hacks, regardless what party they represent.

How Progressive is ProgBlogs?

According to My Blagh?

PROGBLOGS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

The peril in taking that first step down the authoritarian road is that every subsequent step becomes less difficult to make.

Read the whole story

Purging is HOT!

My latest post got censored by the ProgBlog Moderators. Why? I'm not sure.
ProgBlog moderator Scott did leave a comment saying my post was "incendiary" and that I had "gone overboard on the title". Look for the original post on my blog and decide for yourself.



Jason Cherniak, recently characterized as "the laughing stock of the blogging community", has purged pro-Palestinian blogger "Audacious". Reason? Well, according to Audacious certain ads run on the Audacious weblog didn't sit well with Jason Cherniak.

It's hard to believe that Jason Cherniak, the God of Liblogs, would accuse another blogger of running ads for the NDP when Cherniak does the exact the same thing on his own blog; he even runs ads for the same political party. Maybe a slight difference is that Jason does get paid for the ads (Jason is soo smart), where audacious refrains from accepting money from other political parties.

Anyone who has paid any attention to both blogs will have noticed the different takes these bloggers have on the P/I conflict. Jason's fallacious blog entry "what is anti-Semitism?" shows where he stands; entries by audacious had more of a pro-Palestinian bias. Could this be the reason for the purge? Will we ever find out the real reason?

Purging progressive blogger Robert McClelland from the PB-blogroll is arbitrary, draconian and unfair

I've got serious problem with the latest purge by the moderators of PB. I believe it's anti-progressive to purge a member on grounds of one or two comments which, when taken out of context, can be seen as anti-semitic.

This is what Psychols had to say (I couldn't have said it any better):

Blogging is possible because free speech is an entrenched right in Canada. As moderators you have an obligation to defend it

- not just against government intrusion but against the whims of political correctness. Disagree with Robert, take offense, scream your platitudes and congratulate yourselves on being defenders of “rightful thinking”. Say whatever you want, just try to resist the pressure to define progressive thinking and to ban bloggers who say things that offend you current sensibilities.

Here are some optional responses PB-moderators could have considered before removing Robert:

- Approach Robert (email/ blog) that you find his postings anti-semitic. Talk it out. The web is good for that, so is email.

- Warn him that PB doesn't find his postings kosher. That if he plans to make anti-semitic statements, he should do this at his own blog, not at the PB diaries.

- Take off the offensive comment.

- Lock him out of the PB diaries postings (login), so he won't be able to post on the PB site anymore; but as long his own blog postings are progressive and not explicitly anti-semitic/racial, you will keep carrying his blog on the blogroll.

But no, PB-moderators went for all or nothing. On or off? Let's vote. 5 to 1; off it is. Canada's progressive version of "you're with us or with the terrorists"; forget about nuance.

PB's removal of Robert is draconian. Removing him for a "tasteless" posting is a disproportional response. And just because the decision was made democratically, doesn't make it right. It's democracy abused. Not kosher, "sure as hell isn't 'progressive'".

Canada = Conservative + Authoritarian.
I do think Canadians have a tendency to react more repressive than, say the Dutch, probably due to the more conservative and authoritarian environment Canadians grew up in.

Studies have shown that people who have grown up in an abusive environment, are more likely to become the abuser themselves. This is how a Canadian “fetish for a repressive action” can be explained too. I want to back this up with a little story.

My wife is Canadian and we lived together in Holland for about two years (I've lived there all my life until we moved to Canada together almost 5 years ago). Once we were stopped by the police, about 200 metres from our home. Because I was in a hurry, I had forgotten to bring my drivers license (the Dutch don't have the nifty credit card licenses Canadians have). But I also wasn't wearing my seatbelt; again I was in a hurry and the store was only another 200 metres away.

When the policeman stopped me, he asked for my drivers license and insurance papers. I told him that I had forgotten my drivers license but that I was in walking distance of my home - "I can get it for you right now". He wouldn't have any of it. So I started to argue with him! My wife could not believe what she was getting into; arguing with authority? Because her Dutch is only limited she didn't understand the whole story... the policeman also wanted to fine me for not wearing a seatbelt.

Since this was going to be a really expensive trip, I lied. It told him I WAS wearing a seatbelt, and that I had taken the seatbelt off to show him the insurance papers (those were in the glove-compartment) knowing quite well the policeman had legally not a foot to stand on, because he was on his own and it was going to be his word against my wife's and mine. I ended up paying only for not having my drivers license on me, still an expensive little trip to the grocery store.

The gist of the story? In Holland people dare to speak up to authority (legit or not); in Canada people normally don't.

Hypocrisy
It's the hypocrisy of the PB-moderators that's hard for me to swallow. Yes, Robert should speak up to authority (the Germans) when Jews (or "fags", "sickos" or anyone else who was put into concentration camps by the Third Reich regime) were being purged; not speaking up is considered morally wrong. But when Robert does speak up to authority (PB moderators), unwilling to apologize for a statement he believes is falsely labeled anti-semitic, then PB moderators punish him by removing him from the blogroll. Demanding from him to speak out in 1943 for injustice, but demanding an apology for speaking out 2007 is hypocritical, and the reaction of taking him off the blogroll is called repressive, not progressive.

I AM speaking up, not for myself, but for Robert: "WHAT A SHAME". And I'm truly disappointed in the greater Progressive Bloggers community for not speaking out. Aren't there about 300 people subscribed to PB? I've only heard from a handful.

Inconsistent
Scott, the "The Progressive Bloggers moderation team has voted to remove My Blahg from the blogroll by a 5-1 vote. The decision is final" is authoritarian and repressive, definitely not progressive. I demand that you apologize for citing this; if not, should Scott be purged now?

And "to now be hearing from a very few blogs that we're a bunch of authoritarian ideologues at the site" isn't progressive reasoning either. You know just as well as I, that the opinion of a few can be morally superior to the opinion of the majority; democracy has its flaws. And yes, taking repressive actions is authoritarian.

With regard to the WWII, I wonder what your family, Scott, would have done when they started purging "the Jews". Of course, speaking out ("what a shame") was the right thing to do...but also naive. I've visited several concentration camps in Holland (Westerbork) and France since I was a child; trust me, concentration camps where not the place you or your family would like to literally end up in. And sharing your opinion too freely (muster the "what a shame") would often have meant a guaranteed free trip to Auschwitz. As a matter of fact, the majority of the people (with Jewish neighbours) were NOT able to muster a “what a shame”; they were too afraid...

Dr. Dawg, it is in this light (as described above, imposing on the nuance), that you should be able to see the difference between what Robert said:

“When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”

and what you said:

“If “freedom of expression” is the issue, let me say unequivocally that no one is urging that Robert’s site be shut down. He’s as free as he’s always been to say anything he likes. But he doesn’t get to be on our progressive blogroll if he’s going to defend a vile comment about not giving a crap if they start rounding up Jews. Period. And if you don’t like it, start your own blogroll. No one’s stopping you”

People who mustered "what a shame" paid for it, big time. Dr. Dawg, I find your characterization of Robert's comments defamatory. I demand an apology; should Dr. Dawg be purged now?

Scott has already explained that he doesn't think Robert is an anti-semite, but your comments (Dr. Dawg) make me think you are not so sure. Call Robert tasteless, indifferent, even disguisting, but do you dare to call Robert an anti-semite?

When they come for the Jews I've got no clue if I will be able to muster up a "what a shame"; I’m not planning to apologize; am I going to be purged now?

Jason Cherniak recently called the Jew Noam Chomsky a Holocaust denier (Chomsky clearly isn't). Making defamatory statements about a Jew is anti-semitic; Jason didn’t apologize. Why was Jason not purged?

It is inconsistent to purge Robert McClelland, but not Jason Cherniak. Both made statements that can be conceived as anti-semitic, none of them have apologized.

I'm truly sorry about the actions taken against Robert McClelland, one of our fellow progressive bloggers. I realize some of his postings can be conceived as tasteless, indifferent, even anti-semitic. But part of it is his style, and, when it comes to anti-semitism, some of his remarks were (purposely?) taken out of the necessary context, causing the latest witch hunt.

The response to purge him from the blogroll was inconsistent, draconian, and unfair; there is no reason to single him out.

To apologize or not
I personally don't feel the need for apologies. This is the blogosphere; writers use free speech (an “entrenched right in Canada”) to express their opinions. It’s repressive to insist on an apology for offensive comments, not progressive.

“As moderators you have an obligation to defend [free speech]”, not to suppress it.

Progressive bloggers, we've got to stand up for one another. I ask the PB-moderators to consider putting Robert back on the blogroll, I HOPE OTHERS WILL DO THE SAME. It is not fair to punish Robert any longer for his unwillingness to apologize for a statement he believes is falsely labeled anti-semitic. His opinions are appreciated by many, and, most importantly, progressive.

How progressive is Progressive Bloggers?

I believe in democracy. I think most progressive bloggers do, but I have a problem when people use it to oust others from contributing.
I believe in free speech. Does PB?

At issue: the riddance of Robert McLelland.

Jews are being (pardonne le mot) fucked on a daily basis.
Robert McLelland statement "Fuck the Jews" CAN be conceived as an anti-semitic statement, but doesn't necessarily have to be conceived that way; it all depends on the context.
Here's an (somewhat extreme) example of context: Every day many Jews do get fucked, literally speaking. And, most probably, a lot of them enjoy it quite a bit (I hope), since sex can be a pleasant passing of time :). Theirs nothing wrong about fucking a Jew, just like there's nothing wrong about fucking an Arab, a Canadian, an Israeli or a Dutch person; enjoy fucking!

Clearly this wasn't the kind of "fucking" that Robert had in mind, but it does show that "Fuck the Jews" doesn't have to be an anti-semitic statement.

So what is an anti-semite?
As a matter of convenience let's use the Wikipedia description:

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jewish persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

So discriminating someone solely because he's Jewish is anti-semitic. But, for example, criticising the state of Israel because you don't agree with one of their policies doesn't have to be anti-semitic. Yes, there's a fine line somewhere, but is it up to the "Chief Moderator" of "Progressive Bloggers" to decide where that line is?

I'm Anti-everything
Generalizing is the issue here. Everybody does it, yet it's the root of the problem. When I hear a "State of Union" address by George Bush, my instinct tells me something which comes pretty close to "Fuck the Americans"; all the double-speak and spin, it just makes me sick. But I do realize there are plenty of Americans who are more disappointed in George Bush than I am. That's why you won't (easily) find something like "Fuck the Americans" on my blog.

I also have problems with a lot of the policies of the government of Israel, as you can often read on my blog. Does this make me an anti-semite? NO! If that makes me an anti-semite than we can call pretty much anyone who criticizes a Jew, Jewish Institution, the State Israel etc. an anti-semite.

Jason Cherniak could be considered an anti-semite...
Take Jason Cherniak as an example. He talks about good and "bad" Jews in many of his posts. Is he therefore an anti-semite? I don't think so.

Jason does smear the Jew Noam Chomsky, accusing him of being a Holocaust-denier. As Eugene pointed out (thank you, Eugene) Noam Chomsky is not a Holocaust-denier. Do we consider smearing a Jew with false accusations anti-semitic? Conceivably.

The 5-1 vote; Democracy abused.
Robert's use of language is not my "cup of tea". I don't like his provocative style of writing in a lot of his postings and comments. But this is the Internet! It's free speech, and I'm glad it's here. Love or hate Robert's postings, 95% of what he writes is progressive (and a lot more progressive than Conservative Liberal Jason Cherniak).

The vote to expel Robert does remind me another time and place: Germany in the 1930s. In both cases democracy was implied from the top. I don't remember voting for or against Robert, nor do Germans remember voting for or against extinction of the Jews.

Above all freedom of speech is at the core of a well functioning democracy. I believe most progressive bloggers blog because they are idealists. And to me Robert is clearly one of them. If his postings become anti-semitic of nature, we, as a community of progressive bloggers, should call him on it. But removing him from the PB through a vote from the top is not Progressive.