In a recent post, I asked questions of Beth Krom, who is running for Congress representing Irvine. Yesterday, I sent the text to her campaign website e-mail. The communication requested her position on the on-going controversy at UC-Irvine regarding Israel and the Palestinian question.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/question-for-beth-krom-candidate-for.html
Today, I received a prompt response from Ms Krom. Here it is along with my own response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary,
Thank you for your e-mail. I attended the event at which Ambassador Oren spoke. I will not reference any of the communications I had with community leaders or UCI administration following the event. What I will tell you is that I have great respect for Ambassador Oren and was deeply disappointed that he was not afforded a respectful platform in which to speak. So much of the conflict in the world today is driven by a strategic intention on the part of one party or another to compromise civil discourse in order to control who gets to be part of the conversation.
One of the privileges of representing a district with a great university and a culturally diverse population, is the opportunity it affords me to engage with a multitude of people who respect and value education. It is truly one of most compelling features of this district. As a former teacher and someone who has served in leadership at both the community and municipal level, I look forward to building upon the strong relationships I have built with the university and other significant institutions as well as the community at large.
Thanks again for your e-mail, Gary. I hope we will have an opportunity to meet at some point in the future.
Beth Krom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Krom,
Thank you for your prompt response. I was, however, very disappointed with what
I consider a non-committal position. As I previously stated, I am not interested
in any private communications you have had with UCI. I was more interested in
seeing if you have laid out your personal position on the on-going issue at UCI.
I have been teaching part-time at UCI for 12 years, the last 5 of which, I have
been attending MSU-sponsored events. I was also present at the Oren event.
My purpose for being involved in this controversy is not to bash Muslim students
at UCI. I don't consider them all radicals or anti-Semites. Yet, there is a
central debate over whether anti-Semitism exists on the UCI campus as well as
other university campuses. I believe that many of the speakers who have come to
UCI over the years have made anti-Semitic statements, which are well-documented
on my blog as well as elsewhere. I also feel that responsible figures within the
UC system have not responded adequately to hate speech on campus; that includes
responsible figures within the Jewish community itself. In my view (as a
Christian), I see a world-wide resurgence in anti-Semitism, and in North
America, the focal point is on our university campuses.
It is also undeniable that many of these speakers have railed not only against
Israel, but America as well. I recognize their free speech rights, but the
public has a right to know and express their reactions as well.
You are running to represent the Irvine community in Congress. Within Irvine,
there is a controversy that has damaged the reputation of our university
nationally and internationally,. I think that any person running for Congress
has to take a firm position-one way or the other on this controversy.
Please excuse any typos: I am trying to type with an eye patch.
Sincerely,
Gary Fouse
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Gary, I think I would support your position, IF you dropped the effort to define what is going on as "anti-Semitic," and instead simply focused on a firm (bare-knuckled if necessary) enforcement that nobody gets to interrupt a public forum merely because the disruptor finds the speech offensive. They can picket outside, bear silent witness inside, ask questions when it is their turn at the mic. Disruptors will be dragged away forthwith after one warning - by uniformed personnel, not by a mob. Which prejudice happens to animate the disruptor is, and should be irrelevant.
On that note, I still think that unless you want federal legislation to make this possible, the candidate for congress should not be asked to give opinions on everything going on in the district, but on those things they CAN do something about AS congress rep.
I similarly believe that candidates for president of the United States should neither toss off one liners on issues that would not be in their jurisdiction if elected, nor asked questions about any controversial issue of the day, unless the position they seek has jurisdiction to do something about it.
Beth Krom should get an award for the best "non-committal" statement that I have experienced. I would certainly like to know if she still supports Todd Gallinger (who was on her ticket), a lawyer CAIR, who sued Dr. Steven Choi when he stated that he belonged to a dangerous organization. Todd lost that suit and has lost a lawsuit against Yale University press when he sued them to stop the publication of a scholarly book for Kindercare. I believe there are issues of First Amendment rights to express oneself in that case. I would like to know if Beth Krom supports the replacement of sections of our Constitution with sharia law. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood would like to see sharia in place, as soon as possible. The Obama Administration hired Harold Koh, as an attorney for the Department of State. Koh likes international law, and can see sharia as part of the law of the land for the U.S.
Squid
Siarlys,
Then I wonder why Ms Krom even bothered to respond to me.
Her response reads like a cut and paste job of plain vanilla statements that sound good but are unresponsive.
.
Gary, I wonder too. Or, I wonder why, if she wasn't going to take a substantive position, she didn't say exactly what I just said. You see why I'm not a Democrat? I detest what the Republican Party has to offer, but I can't be a Democrat, they are too spineless and too confused about the constitutional foundation they damn well could stand on.
Siarlys,
You need to check out the demographics of Irvine. Then you'll get it.
Let's see, you are not a Democrat (you say) but you detest what the Republican Party has to offer and the Democrats are too confused (THEY are confused?) about the "... constitutional foundation they damn well could stand on" (?).. what foundation would that be? The Democrats, you must know, are not really big fans of the Constitution. They want it to be pliable and suitable to modern times, in other words, more useful for their big government agenda. They don't like the absolutes so they go around it as best they can. For example, Obama appoints lots of Czars by decree so they don't go through the advice and consent of the congress as required in the constitution. Where does the Constitution provide for a "Pay Czar" for example? They do it anyway. So how can the the Democrats stand on a Constitutional foundation?
See, your posts make no sense.
.
Post a Comment