Already in my criminal law textbook (Kadish, Schulhofer, & Steiker, 8th Edition), there have been two citations to articles authored (or co-authored) by sitting US Senators. This is shocking, since I always sort of assumed that when US Senators wrote articles, they never said anything worthwhile. Yet here they are, apparently key elements of the criminal law.
The one I saw today was written by Jon Kyl (R-AZ), along with Steven J. Twist & Stephen Higgins, On the Wings of Their Angels, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 581 (2005) [pg. 1015 in the book]. At this point, Kyl had already been Senator for 10 years.
But the one I spotted yesterday was, if anything, even more amazing. Found on page 13, it was an excerpt from a book review written by one Arlen Specter (R-PA), cited at 76 Yale L.J. 604 (1967). In 1967, Specter was still a mere district attorney in Philadelphia, embarking on a failed run for mayor of that lovely city. He would proceed to lose re-election for his DA position, lose in a Republican primary for Senate, and lose in a Republican primary for Governor, before finally breaking through to the US Senate in 1980, where he has remained ever since.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Justice as Fairness? Boxing Edition
ESPN reports that Jr. Middleweight contender Joe Greene (20-0, 14 KOs) is out of his title fight with Sergio Martinez (44-1-1, 24 KOs) due to kidney stones. Bad luck for him, and bad luck for us: Greene is an exciting young fighter who deserves the shot and the exposure on HBO.
But still, the date needs to be filled, and HBO is shopping for a replacement. One of the names on the list is Anthony Thompson (23-3, 17 KOs).
This is where my strong sense of fair play clashes, deeply, with my desire to enjoy my life as a boxing fan. Unfairness really bothers me, and I define "unfair" broadly, as basically being deprived of opportunity and/or recognition for reasons outside one's talent or ability. I find it unfair, in a cosmic sense, when a fighter loses a decision they should have won (due to poor judging or referring or whatever), or suffers an injury during a fight causing them to lose a fight they were winning, or even just loses a really close fight and then gets discredited as a pretender in the eyes of the boxing public.
Anthony Thompson, for example, lost a very close decision to Yuri Foreman two fights back. It was "controversial", but in the acceptable way -- it genuinely could have gone either way, and Thompson had the bad luck for it to go against him. In his next fight, Thompson got genuinely screwed: in the course of pummelling a journeyman, Thompson suffered a cut over his eye, and the fight was stopped. The cut was clearly caused by a headbutt, but the referee screwed up, said it was from a punch, and suddenly Thompson's on the wrong end of a TKO loss. All of which makes me want him to get a shot at the title. Karmic justice, chance to prove himself, etc. etc..
But all that gets weighed against the fact that Thompson is dreadfully boring. He is the furthest thing from Joe Greene. It would be painful to watch him fight. Admittedly, perhaps fighting Yuri Foreman (another, shall we say, technician) doesn't bring out the best in him. But Thompson is, to say the least, not known as an action star.
This comes up surprisingly often in boxing. On fairness grounds, I think that both Fres Oquendo and Evander Holyfield deserve rematches for the fights they recently "lost" to James Toney and Nikulay Valuev, respectively. But as a fight fan, both of those bouts were hideously boring and would undoubtedly improve not a whit in the recast (Holyfield/Valuev was worse than boring, it's very creation was an embarrassment to the sport of boxing).
I really don't know what to do about this. Justice and fairness are all well and good. But they can be mighty dull affairs when attached to the sweet science.
But still, the date needs to be filled, and HBO is shopping for a replacement. One of the names on the list is Anthony Thompson (23-3, 17 KOs).
This is where my strong sense of fair play clashes, deeply, with my desire to enjoy my life as a boxing fan. Unfairness really bothers me, and I define "unfair" broadly, as basically being deprived of opportunity and/or recognition for reasons outside one's talent or ability. I find it unfair, in a cosmic sense, when a fighter loses a decision they should have won (due to poor judging or referring or whatever), or suffers an injury during a fight causing them to lose a fight they were winning, or even just loses a really close fight and then gets discredited as a pretender in the eyes of the boxing public.
Anthony Thompson, for example, lost a very close decision to Yuri Foreman two fights back. It was "controversial", but in the acceptable way -- it genuinely could have gone either way, and Thompson had the bad luck for it to go against him. In his next fight, Thompson got genuinely screwed: in the course of pummelling a journeyman, Thompson suffered a cut over his eye, and the fight was stopped. The cut was clearly caused by a headbutt, but the referee screwed up, said it was from a punch, and suddenly Thompson's on the wrong end of a TKO loss. All of which makes me want him to get a shot at the title. Karmic justice, chance to prove himself, etc. etc..
But all that gets weighed against the fact that Thompson is dreadfully boring. He is the furthest thing from Joe Greene. It would be painful to watch him fight. Admittedly, perhaps fighting Yuri Foreman (another, shall we say, technician) doesn't bring out the best in him. But Thompson is, to say the least, not known as an action star.
This comes up surprisingly often in boxing. On fairness grounds, I think that both Fres Oquendo and Evander Holyfield deserve rematches for the fights they recently "lost" to James Toney and Nikulay Valuev, respectively. But as a fight fan, both of those bouts were hideously boring and would undoubtedly improve not a whit in the recast (Holyfield/Valuev was worse than boring, it's very creation was an embarrassment to the sport of boxing).
I really don't know what to do about this. Justice and fairness are all well and good. But they can be mighty dull affairs when attached to the sweet science.
It's All Too Much
Emily Yoffe snaps at her colleague, Christopher Hitchens, for going off the rails and saying it would have been better off if Israel did not exist and that it should not exist now:
Phoebe Maltz continues on the same vein:
This is a point that can easily slide (both in the minds of its proponents and in the interpretation of its readers) into the appalling "Israel should have wiped out/expelled the Palestinians, so we wouldn't have this problem now." That is not what Ms. Yoffe or Ms. Maltz are arguing. What they are saying is that the bar for forming a country in a way such that it continues to deserve existence is not particularly difficult to leap. America crosses it, Pakistan crosses it, Somalia crosses it, European states cross it. All of these countries were formed by and/or continue their existence through a constant shroud of pain and death. This includes expulsions, genocide, terrorism, and warfare far beyond anything Israel can reasonably be said to have done. None of these countries, though, seem to be existentially indicted by it.
In all the places Jews have historically lived -- Israel, North Africa, the Middle East -- there seems to be very little recognition that, to a large extent, the current state of affairs was built over and on top of the backs of (among others) Jews. It's not like we weren't there. We're obviously aware of the brutality latent in the history of these places, because often times we were the victims of it. For these people to turn around after their own experiments with genocide and accuse us of being uniquely and paradigmatically demonic, and expect to be seen as credible, is unbelievable.
It's not that Israel can't be criticized. But history has told us what crimes deserve the punishment of state-destruction, and it's beyond apparent that Israel's actions don't fit. The speakers don't have credibility, and have ulterior motives besides. So when the criticism branches off into that territory, it's facial evidence that we're no longer in the realm of fair-minded moral critique. We're now in the business of bashing the Jews. Because if there are two things that stand out in the history of the Gentile view of the Jew, it's (a) they can't stop us from having our way with them, and (b) they deserve whatever we mete out.
For most who wish to see the elimination of the state of Israel, it is not sympathy for the Palestinians that drives them (Where were the voices asking Hamas to stop its daily rockets into Israel so that this incursion could have been prevented?)—but a lust for the end of the tiny Jewish state. Pakistan, which was founded just about the same time as Israel, can hardly be called a success. It is a corrupt nuclear state with regions run by terrorists. But I have yet to hear anyone suggest the founding of Pakistan was a mistake and it should be wiped off the world map. Somalia became independent in 1959. It is now an anarchic terrorist redoubt whose main export is pirates. Again, no one is saying Somalia was just a mistake and let's get rid of it. For some reason, Israel seems to be the only country whose very existence can be casually dismissed.
Phoebe Maltz continues on the same vein:
It's amazing how many commentators, not just Christopher Hitchens, have used the latest Middle East conflict as a reason for why Israel ought not to have existed in the first place. This always makes me think of all the other countries founded on someone else's land (I'm sitting in one such country as we speak). What, other than our forebearers' successful all-but-elimination of the Native Americans, gives the US the right to exist? It makes me think of how Europe could kill off the Ashkenazi civilization, then say 'Oops, our bad,' and can now claim the moral high ground in international debates. So basically, had Israel just wiped out or expelled the Palestinians, then said, 'Oh, we're so sorry for the genocide, we'll never do it again, we promise,' the Jewish state would be in the clear. That this didn't happen, it seems, is why Israel's existence can still be questioned.
This is a point that can easily slide (both in the minds of its proponents and in the interpretation of its readers) into the appalling "Israel should have wiped out/expelled the Palestinians, so we wouldn't have this problem now." That is not what Ms. Yoffe or Ms. Maltz are arguing. What they are saying is that the bar for forming a country in a way such that it continues to deserve existence is not particularly difficult to leap. America crosses it, Pakistan crosses it, Somalia crosses it, European states cross it. All of these countries were formed by and/or continue their existence through a constant shroud of pain and death. This includes expulsions, genocide, terrorism, and warfare far beyond anything Israel can reasonably be said to have done. None of these countries, though, seem to be existentially indicted by it.
In all the places Jews have historically lived -- Israel, North Africa, the Middle East -- there seems to be very little recognition that, to a large extent, the current state of affairs was built over and on top of the backs of (among others) Jews. It's not like we weren't there. We're obviously aware of the brutality latent in the history of these places, because often times we were the victims of it. For these people to turn around after their own experiments with genocide and accuse us of being uniquely and paradigmatically demonic, and expect to be seen as credible, is unbelievable.
It's not that Israel can't be criticized. But history has told us what crimes deserve the punishment of state-destruction, and it's beyond apparent that Israel's actions don't fit. The speakers don't have credibility, and have ulterior motives besides. So when the criticism branches off into that territory, it's facial evidence that we're no longer in the realm of fair-minded moral critique. We're now in the business of bashing the Jews. Because if there are two things that stand out in the history of the Gentile view of the Jew, it's (a) they can't stop us from having our way with them, and (b) they deserve whatever we mete out.
The Second to Last Laugh
As shown by this post, it really is rather amazing the way in which Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) managed to completely out-maneuver Senate Democrats even while in the depths of career-destroying scandal. The vote by the CBC urging that Roland Burris be seated will be the final nail in the coffin. And the upshot is that this process became about as embarrassing, drawn out, and politically damaging to national Democrats as possible.
Blagojevich won't have the last laugh, because while the Democratic Party will recover, he'll be spending some quality time in prison. But still -- well played, soon-to-be-ex-governor.
Blagojevich won't have the last laugh, because while the Democratic Party will recover, he'll be spending some quality time in prison. But still -- well played, soon-to-be-ex-governor.
One More Football Followup
After this post and this post, a friend of mine sent me this article from ESPN, reporting that being in an interracial marriage is a barrier to Black coaches seeking top jobs in college football:
The same article reports that Turner Gill, the Buffalo coach who was the primary subject of my last few posts, also is married to a White woman.
- Florida Gators defensive coordinator Charlie Strong believes race is a reason he hasn't been offered a head-coaching job during his 25 years in college football, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Strong, a 48-year-old black man, shook his head affirmatively when an Orlando Sentinel reporter asked him if his interracial marriage was a factor in getting passed over for jobs, including one at a Southern school a few years ago. Strong, whose wife is white, said he heard that too many times for it to be rumor.
"Everybody always said I didn't get that job because my wife is white," Strong said at media day Monday, as the Gators prepare to face Oklahoma in the FedEx BCS National Championship Game. "If you think about it, a coach is standing up there representing the university. If you're not strong enough to look through that [interracial marriage], then you have an issue."
The same article reports that Turner Gill, the Buffalo coach who was the primary subject of my last few posts, also is married to a White woman.
Boycotts Hop the Pond
Readers might recall my post last month on Ottawa-PIRG's (a campus-based progressive activism group) refusal to associate with the campus organization of Hillel, on the grounds that Hillel is too close to "apartheid Israel" and "Zionist Ideology does not fit within OPIRG's mandate of human right's (sic), social justice." Now it looks like OPIRG was just the tip of the Ontario iceberg engaging in wild, hyperbolic condemnations of the Jewish state. The Ontario arm of the Canadian Union of Public Employees has announced it will propose "a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities," unless they specifically condemn Israel's activities in Gaza (via).
The precipitating event was Israel's attack on Islamic University in Gaza, which Israel claims is Hamas-linked. Personally, that wouldn't be enough on its own in my view to make it a legitimate target, though if the university was being used to store weapons or was a sanctuary for terrorists (neither of which is particularly unlikely), that would be a different matter. As is per usual, the lack of knowledge of the relevant facts isn't stopping anyone from going insane:
Now, I'm no history major, but I'm pretty sure the Nazis did a few other things that are the primary basis of their historical condemnation -- though it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Ryan found those activities to be a lot less worthy of his attention (UPDATE: Fair is fair: Mr. Ryan has apologized for the Nazi comparison, though he has not backed down his original demand for the boycott).
In any event, the academic boycott movement had previously been waged primarily in the UK -- it is not a positive sign that it has hopped the pond to Canada. This "ban", particularly", is especially repugnant to academic freedom, as it prohibits Israeli professors from doing any work in Ontario unless they agree to espouse a particular position -- for many, on a topic that is far outside their area of expertise (what does a Chemistry Professor know about the complex array of military, humanitarian, moral, and legal considerations that should all form a part of our individual judgment of the Gaza operation?).
The precipitating event was Israel's attack on Islamic University in Gaza, which Israel claims is Hamas-linked. Personally, that wouldn't be enough on its own in my view to make it a legitimate target, though if the university was being used to store weapons or was a sanctuary for terrorists (neither of which is particularly unlikely), that would be a different matter. As is per usual, the lack of knowledge of the relevant facts isn't stopping anyone from going insane:
"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan said last night. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did."
Now, I'm no history major, but I'm pretty sure the Nazis did a few other things that are the primary basis of their historical condemnation -- though it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Ryan found those activities to be a lot less worthy of his attention (UPDATE: Fair is fair: Mr. Ryan has apologized for the Nazi comparison, though he has not backed down his original demand for the boycott).
In any event, the academic boycott movement had previously been waged primarily in the UK -- it is not a positive sign that it has hopped the pond to Canada. This "ban", particularly", is especially repugnant to academic freedom, as it prohibits Israeli professors from doing any work in Ontario unless they agree to espouse a particular position -- for many, on a topic that is far outside their area of expertise (what does a Chemistry Professor know about the complex array of military, humanitarian, moral, and legal considerations that should all form a part of our individual judgment of the Gaza operation?).
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Why Quiet on the Northern Front?
An interesting non-development Matt Yglesias points out today is that things are quiet on Israel's northern front -- that is, Hezbollah hasn't decided to take advantage of the Gaza chaos to open up a new war front against Israel. Abu Muqawama speculates on some reasons why that might be:
Of course, contra Matt, reason #2 is consistent with Hamas* and Hezbollah being closely tied to Iran and being at least in part extensions of Iran's regional policy towards Israel (admittedly, it does disprove some of the more zombie-like arguments wherein Iran single-mindedly pursues Israel's destruction and Hamas and Hezbollah have no independent agency). Fortunately, reason #1 strikes me as the most likely option. Reason #3 is undoubtedly true as far it is goes, but there is no question in my mind that Hezbollah -- if it set its mind to it and didn't care about the inevitable Israeli response -- could wreak some serious havoc right now even without something as ambitious as its 2006 operation.
* Do people view Hamas as an arm of Iran? I would have thought that the Sunni/Shi'ite split would make that rather difficult. I have no doubt that Hamas and Iran have contacts and connections, but I can't imagine Hamas going so far as to render itself an Iranian client organization.
1. Like Hamas (and unlike, say, al-Qaeda), Hizballah has a constituency for which it is responsible. Were Hizballah to attack Israel, it would not want to do so as the result of a hasty decision-making process. Although Hizballah indeed attacked Israel in 2006 at the same time Israel was active in Gaza, that was an operation that had been planned (and attempted, unsuccessfully) for some time. Were Hizballah to attack Israel now, the IDF -- with its ground forces still engaged in Gaza -- could still make life miserable for the Shia population of Lebanon. Keep in mind that in 1993 and 1996, Israel was able to displace well over 100,000 Lebanese from the south on each occassion solely through the application of air power and artillery. In 1993, over 6,000 homes were destroyed. In 1996, more homes than that were leveled -- along with four civilian power plants. So were Hizballah to attack Israel, that would probably be the result of a very deliberate and calculated decision. Because it would be understood that the Israeli response could be devastating.
2. It is possible that Hizballah would very much like to attack but has been counseled by either Iran or its Lebanese political allies not to do so. Again, why this would be the case remains a mystery to me -- and would to all but a handful of Iranian and Hizballah decision-makers.
3. Although the IDF is busy in Gaza, I am quite sure their defenses along the Blue Line are on full alert and expecting an attack of some sort. Could Hizballah launch a few rockets south? Of course. But I think they might have more difficulty pulling off a more spectacular operation like the one on 12 July 2006.
Of course, contra Matt, reason #2 is consistent with Hamas* and Hezbollah being closely tied to Iran and being at least in part extensions of Iran's regional policy towards Israel (admittedly, it does disprove some of the more zombie-like arguments wherein Iran single-mindedly pursues Israel's destruction and Hamas and Hezbollah have no independent agency). Fortunately, reason #1 strikes me as the most likely option. Reason #3 is undoubtedly true as far it is goes, but there is no question in my mind that Hezbollah -- if it set its mind to it and didn't care about the inevitable Israeli response -- could wreak some serious havoc right now even without something as ambitious as its 2006 operation.
* Do people view Hamas as an arm of Iran? I would have thought that the Sunni/Shi'ite split would make that rather difficult. I have no doubt that Hamas and Iran have contacts and connections, but I can't imagine Hamas going so far as to render itself an Iranian client organization.
It's Optimific All Over Again
I used the word "piker" today in Contracts class, to denote a person who was below-average or mediocre at their avocation. The professor had never heard of it -- she asked if it was football term. After class I asked around: most people hadn't heard the term; one person who had defined it as someone who was a cheapskate or who gambles only for small amounts of money. Wiktionary verifies their definition, as well as my own through the third definition, an "amateur".
Is this word very uncommon? It didn't occur to me when I said it I was saying anything regional or obscure, but I gather than it's not a well known term.
Is this word very uncommon? It didn't occur to me when I said it I was saying anything regional or obscure, but I gather than it's not a well known term.
Property Class Win
"I, O, do hereby brynde Blackacre to A & A's heirs."
This statement was up on the board at the beginning of our Property class today, and our professor immediately asked for volunteers to tell the class what it meant.
Five people raised their hands and failed before someone had the good sense to ask "what does 'brynde' mean?" Which, of course, gets to the real point: "brynde" is a made-up word, and thus it (and the sentence) mean nothing. But five law students attempting to skirt that and pretend like they "knew" the word and thus the sentence.
I shouldn't be too harsh. Not only is there a lot of pressure in law school not to admit you don't know something, but this particular professor "speaks middle ages" as he would say (he has a Ph.D. in medieval history) and thus might very well have dropped in some obscure old English phrase on our unaware heads.
Even still: Professor 1, pompous law students, -5.
This statement was up on the board at the beginning of our Property class today, and our professor immediately asked for volunteers to tell the class what it meant.
Five people raised their hands and failed before someone had the good sense to ask "what does 'brynde' mean?" Which, of course, gets to the real point: "brynde" is a made-up word, and thus it (and the sentence) mean nothing. But five law students attempting to skirt that and pretend like they "knew" the word and thus the sentence.
I shouldn't be too harsh. Not only is there a lot of pressure in law school not to admit you don't know something, but this particular professor "speaks middle ages" as he would say (he has a Ph.D. in medieval history) and thus might very well have dropped in some obscure old English phrase on our unaware heads.
Even still: Professor 1, pompous law students, -5.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Cute Cute Cute
Since nothing bad happened and the kids were quickly returned to their parents, I can say that this is totally adorable.
"Robinson Rule" Followup
Apropos my post a few weeks ago on the dearth of Black coaches in NCAA football, the Sports Law Blog has a fascinating post delving into even more detail and giving some excellent context to the situation (via).
One interesting factoid was that, of the seven Black coaches in the NFL (out of 32 total positions), four of them were listed by players as among the top five coaches they'd like to play under (Tony Dungy (1st place); Lovie Smith (2nd place); Herm Edwards (4th place); and Mike Tomlin (5th place)). There are several ways to interpret this data, but my intuition would simply be that -- even in the NFL, which has made strides at diversifying its coaching ranks -- if Black coaches want to get and keep a position, they better rock peoples socks off. There is no room for average when you're African-American.
One interesting factoid was that, of the seven Black coaches in the NFL (out of 32 total positions), four of them were listed by players as among the top five coaches they'd like to play under (Tony Dungy (1st place); Lovie Smith (2nd place); Herm Edwards (4th place); and Mike Tomlin (5th place)). There are several ways to interpret this data, but my intuition would simply be that -- even in the NFL, which has made strides at diversifying its coaching ranks -- if Black coaches want to get and keep a position, they better rock peoples socks off. There is no room for average when you're African-American.
Bizarre Headline of the Day
CNN: "Study: Teens on MySpace mention sex, violence".
*GASP*
The article seems to be saying that teens mention their own (often false or exaggerated) exploits with sex, drugs, or violence, which I guess is problematic. Though the Orwellian measures the researchers recommend to parents as a response are more than a bit creepy as well.
*GASP*
The article seems to be saying that teens mention their own (often false or exaggerated) exploits with sex, drugs, or violence, which I guess is problematic. Though the Orwellian measures the researchers recommend to parents as a response are more than a bit creepy as well.
Hearing Voices
The somewhat infamous Stephen Walt (of, with John J. Mearsheimer, "The Israel Lobby" fame) has a blog on the Foreign Policy website. I don't have a problem with this per se. Walt is an important thinker, albeit one I disagree with rather stridently on a few choice issues (fun fact: posts like this really reduce the credibility of posts like this). And, as Matt Yglesias says, it's probably a good thing to get a few more neo-realist voices into our foreign policy discussion.
But -- always a but -- let's not get too excited. Yes, "The sort of 'realist' perspective that Walt comes from (and helps define) is definitely one that looks better in light of the past eight years worth of events." But recall why realism spent some time in the IR doghouse in the first place (not much -- it is and always has been the dominant player in international relations theory): Because it was massively, dramatically, and embarrassingly wrong in predicting the 15 years prior to that: both missing the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then not really knowing how to handle either the rise of multilateralism in the Clinton administration or the emergence of non-state actors as serious players in the international sphere (Cf.).
That isn't to say it deserves permanent exile: it remains the dominant player, and with the utter collapse of neo-conservatism and with neo-liberalism remaining on shaky territory, it has done a nice job stepping into the gap. I'm just trying to keep folks from jumping on the neo-realist bandwagon too quickly. It deserves attention -- not blind obedience (not that I think Matt is doing that, but I just wanted to give his post a little bit of historical perspective).
But -- always a but -- let's not get too excited. Yes, "The sort of 'realist' perspective that Walt comes from (and helps define) is definitely one that looks better in light of the past eight years worth of events." But recall why realism spent some time in the IR doghouse in the first place (not much -- it is and always has been the dominant player in international relations theory): Because it was massively, dramatically, and embarrassingly wrong in predicting the 15 years prior to that: both missing the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then not really knowing how to handle either the rise of multilateralism in the Clinton administration or the emergence of non-state actors as serious players in the international sphere (Cf.).
That isn't to say it deserves permanent exile: it remains the dominant player, and with the utter collapse of neo-conservatism and with neo-liberalism remaining on shaky territory, it has done a nice job stepping into the gap. I'm just trying to keep folks from jumping on the neo-realist bandwagon too quickly. It deserves attention -- not blind obedience (not that I think Matt is doing that, but I just wanted to give his post a little bit of historical perspective).
Kagan and Johnsen to DC
Elena Kagan, one of the hottest young stars in the legal profession, will be leaving her position as Dean of Harvard Law School in order to become Barack Obama's Solicitor General, where she will be the first permanent female appointee to that position. Congratulations! Joining her in DC will be Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen was a part of the Clinton administration, and also was the former legal director for NARAL. She currently teaches at the University of Indiana-Bloomington Law School.
Congratulations to both!
Congratulations to both!
The Best Posts of 2008
I really should toss a link to Jon Swift's "Best Blog Posts of 2008 (Chosen By The Bloggers Themselves)", which is a really cool idea which he's decided to now make an annual occurrence. Head on over, and see what looks cool.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Sunday Clearinghouse
Getting some tabs off my girlfriend's computer before I leave for Chicago tomorrow.
Reversing its previous stance, AirTran has apologized to a Muslim family kicked off a plane for discussing where the "safest" place was to sit. The family was cleared to fly by the FBI, but AirTran still refused to rebook them.
There are a bevy of international law analyses floating out there of Israel's Gaza operation: An overview written prior to the attack by Avi Bell and Justus Weiner, Eric Posner, Kevin Jon Heller, and Marko Milanovic. The most important things you can draw from them, collectively, are:
Norm Coleman is not thrilled with how the recount is progressing.
The Worst Americans of 2008.
Massachusetts police are balking at enforcing the state's newly relaxed laws on marijuana, which make it only a civil offense. The reason appears to be less a belief that pursuing marijuana users is a waste of police time, and more a protest against the new lenient law, which they view as fatally flawed.
Reversing its previous stance, AirTran has apologized to a Muslim family kicked off a plane for discussing where the "safest" place was to sit. The family was cleared to fly by the FBI, but AirTran still refused to rebook them.
There are a bevy of international law analyses floating out there of Israel's Gaza operation: An overview written prior to the attack by Avi Bell and Justus Weiner, Eric Posner, Kevin Jon Heller, and Marko Milanovic. The most important things you can draw from them, collectively, are:
(1) The legality/morality of Hamas' attacks on Israel have little bearing on the legality of Israel's response, and vice versa;
(2) Most lay commentators don't know what "proportionality" means in the context of international law; and
(3) Determination of whether Israel is, in fact, violating international law in the current operation depends on a lot of facts that most of us simply do not possess. Speculation on either side of the question tends to simply mirror pre-existing political commitments and works to obscure more than it illuminates.
Norm Coleman is not thrilled with how the recount is progressing.
The Worst Americans of 2008.
Massachusetts police are balking at enforcing the state's newly relaxed laws on marijuana, which make it only a civil offense. The reason appears to be less a belief that pursuing marijuana users is a waste of police time, and more a protest against the new lenient law, which they view as fatally flawed.
No Space for Apostates
I read this article by Jeffrey Goldberg, about the most extreme, fanatical wing of the Israeli settler population. Though published in 2004, I have no doubt many of these people are still alive today and have not moderated their views in the slightest. As I read it, I found myself disturbed, quite a bit more so than I expected, and I tried to put my finger on why that was.
Obviously, a big part (and the part that was quite "expected") was the simple fact that these people are, in the name of Judaism, advocating policies that are sick, brutal, inhumane, and -- flatly -- evil. Let's be blunt: by the time you get to this end of the settler movement, these people are just as bad as Hamas. I don't make that statement glibly. Why is Hamas bad? Because they see it as their religious obligation to murder all the Jews, whom they see as sub-human scum. And the settlers? They say the same thing about the Arabs -- calling them "Amalekites". That's a statement fraught with implication: Biblically, Jews are commanded to exterminate the Amalekites, wiping them clean from the face of the earth. The near-universal rabbinical rule for centuries has been that there are no more Amalekites, and thus the commandment is moot. But several settler leaders have tried to argue that the Palestinian people are Amalekites, and are explicitly urging Israel to commit genocide (the only thing they're pulling back from is outright extermination, but genocide, definitionally, includes efforts to eliminate a group "in part").
Beyond that particular statement, there is plenty else to detest about the settler movement: the harassment of Arab children, the violence and property damage put out against Palestinian homes and farms (in direct violation of Jewish law), the anti-democratic desire to impose a Biblical theocracy, the honoring and praising of Jewish terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, the cavalier way they are willing to martyr their children in pursuit of their agenda -- it'd be easy to go on. The point being this: Read the words of these settlers, and there is nothing distinguishing them from a group like Hamas. They are equally theocratic, equally colonial, and equally genocidal. As Jews, we need to be willing to say that forthrightly, or else we have no moral credibility to criticize Hamas or anyone else.
Now obviously, that should be distressing for anyone to read. But to note the existence of these people isn't to say they're mainstream. Goldberg's article focuses on the most radical fringe, but he also points out that just how much of a minority they are. 75% of Jewish settlers, Goldberg claims, have primarily economic motivations: they liked the open space and the tax breaks they got from the Israeli government (arguably the #1 all-time bone-headed Israeli government decision). Though generally solid conservative voters, they are not fanatics and their attachment to the West Bank and Gaza (this was prior to the pullout from the latter) is not ideological. By contrast, 25% of the settlers (about 50,000 people) are where they are for religious reasons. And of these, only a medium amount are "fanatics" in the sense that they subscribe to the above views. Given that the Israeli settler population is itself only a small fraction of Israel's Jewish population, which in turn is only a portion of the overall global Jewish population, and you get some perspective back. These groups do have outsized influence in Israeli politics, true, but that's more a function of them being very well organized and mobilized, and the coalition nature of Israel's parliamentary system which benefits small, cohesive interest groups.
So, if these folks are really just a tiny minority, what accounts for that extra dose of distress I felt upon reading the article? It's not that I'm under the delusion that their views are shared by the majority of Jews (inside or out of Israel) -- I know they're not. Rather, it's because I'm not convinced that these radical men and women would be wholly without a place in the American Jewry. They wouldn't be agreed with, most wouldn't even sympathize with them -- but they wouldn't be kicked out. They could still make it in the front door. And that alone is intolerable.
These radical settlers -- for all their Bible thumping and theological fury -- are insults to the Jewish religion. They spit upon holiness and make a mockery of Jewish tenets. They are heretics. And the Jewish community needs to treat them as such.
Obviously, there is very little I can do to affect this. I'm not even sure how the Jewish practice of excommunication works, and I'm reasonably confident that it's not a lay endeavor anyway. Plus, I'm a Conservative Jew -- a "Hellenizer" as they would say -- I don't carry any theological credibility. Indeed, I doubt that Jews -- excuse me, pseudo-Jews -- of this caliber would even pay much attention to the modern Orthodox movement in America.
Even still, the symbolism would matter. At this point, it's not about convincing these fanatics that they are "wrong". As I've been told so many times and in so many words, it's impossible to negotiate with terrorists such as these. The goal isn't even to make them question whether or not they are acting "Jewishly". They are sure they are, I am equally sure they're not, and neither of us are likely to budge.
The objective is to make a clean break. These people are not part of my community. They can't be, if we're to make any claims of being a community worth associating with. Part of belonging to any community group is defining who you're not. There's a reason Jews are so vigorous in asserting that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish. As far as we're concerned, definitionally you can't be Jewish and believe that Christ is the Messiah. It doesn't matter that only a few people believe that, and they won't be convinced by our protestation. The symbolism matters.
I think that, likewise, we need to assert that definitionally, you can't be Jewish and believe that it is justified to slaughter the Palestinians wholesale, or keep them in a perpetual state of colonial subjugation where they can't vote or even move freely. It doesn't matter that only a few people believe that. The symbolism matters.
With due pardon, I have no intention to stop being Jewish. He, on the other hand, is free to leave any time he desires.
***
Some selected excerpts from the article:
Obviously, a big part (and the part that was quite "expected") was the simple fact that these people are, in the name of Judaism, advocating policies that are sick, brutal, inhumane, and -- flatly -- evil. Let's be blunt: by the time you get to this end of the settler movement, these people are just as bad as Hamas. I don't make that statement glibly. Why is Hamas bad? Because they see it as their religious obligation to murder all the Jews, whom they see as sub-human scum. And the settlers? They say the same thing about the Arabs -- calling them "Amalekites". That's a statement fraught with implication: Biblically, Jews are commanded to exterminate the Amalekites, wiping them clean from the face of the earth. The near-universal rabbinical rule for centuries has been that there are no more Amalekites, and thus the commandment is moot. But several settler leaders have tried to argue that the Palestinian people are Amalekites, and are explicitly urging Israel to commit genocide (the only thing they're pulling back from is outright extermination, but genocide, definitionally, includes efforts to eliminate a group "in part").
Beyond that particular statement, there is plenty else to detest about the settler movement: the harassment of Arab children, the violence and property damage put out against Palestinian homes and farms (in direct violation of Jewish law), the anti-democratic desire to impose a Biblical theocracy, the honoring and praising of Jewish terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, the cavalier way they are willing to martyr their children in pursuit of their agenda -- it'd be easy to go on. The point being this: Read the words of these settlers, and there is nothing distinguishing them from a group like Hamas. They are equally theocratic, equally colonial, and equally genocidal. As Jews, we need to be willing to say that forthrightly, or else we have no moral credibility to criticize Hamas or anyone else.
Now obviously, that should be distressing for anyone to read. But to note the existence of these people isn't to say they're mainstream. Goldberg's article focuses on the most radical fringe, but he also points out that just how much of a minority they are. 75% of Jewish settlers, Goldberg claims, have primarily economic motivations: they liked the open space and the tax breaks they got from the Israeli government (arguably the #1 all-time bone-headed Israeli government decision). Though generally solid conservative voters, they are not fanatics and their attachment to the West Bank and Gaza (this was prior to the pullout from the latter) is not ideological. By contrast, 25% of the settlers (about 50,000 people) are where they are for religious reasons. And of these, only a medium amount are "fanatics" in the sense that they subscribe to the above views. Given that the Israeli settler population is itself only a small fraction of Israel's Jewish population, which in turn is only a portion of the overall global Jewish population, and you get some perspective back. These groups do have outsized influence in Israeli politics, true, but that's more a function of them being very well organized and mobilized, and the coalition nature of Israel's parliamentary system which benefits small, cohesive interest groups.
So, if these folks are really just a tiny minority, what accounts for that extra dose of distress I felt upon reading the article? It's not that I'm under the delusion that their views are shared by the majority of Jews (inside or out of Israel) -- I know they're not. Rather, it's because I'm not convinced that these radical men and women would be wholly without a place in the American Jewry. They wouldn't be agreed with, most wouldn't even sympathize with them -- but they wouldn't be kicked out. They could still make it in the front door. And that alone is intolerable.
These radical settlers -- for all their Bible thumping and theological fury -- are insults to the Jewish religion. They spit upon holiness and make a mockery of Jewish tenets. They are heretics. And the Jewish community needs to treat them as such.
Obviously, there is very little I can do to affect this. I'm not even sure how the Jewish practice of excommunication works, and I'm reasonably confident that it's not a lay endeavor anyway. Plus, I'm a Conservative Jew -- a "Hellenizer" as they would say -- I don't carry any theological credibility. Indeed, I doubt that Jews -- excuse me, pseudo-Jews -- of this caliber would even pay much attention to the modern Orthodox movement in America.
Even still, the symbolism would matter. At this point, it's not about convincing these fanatics that they are "wrong". As I've been told so many times and in so many words, it's impossible to negotiate with terrorists such as these. The goal isn't even to make them question whether or not they are acting "Jewishly". They are sure they are, I am equally sure they're not, and neither of us are likely to budge.
The objective is to make a clean break. These people are not part of my community. They can't be, if we're to make any claims of being a community worth associating with. Part of belonging to any community group is defining who you're not. There's a reason Jews are so vigorous in asserting that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish. As far as we're concerned, definitionally you can't be Jewish and believe that Christ is the Messiah. It doesn't matter that only a few people believe that, and they won't be convinced by our protestation. The symbolism matters.
I think that, likewise, we need to assert that definitionally, you can't be Jewish and believe that it is justified to slaughter the Palestinians wholesale, or keep them in a perpetual state of colonial subjugation where they can't vote or even move freely. It doesn't matter that only a few people believe that. The symbolism matters.
I suggested that he try to imagine himself in the place of a Palestinian. “You’re a Palestinian, you’re here, you have your farm, your grandparents are from here, and-“
But Moshe interrupted me. “Stop being Jewish!” he yelled. “Stop being Jewish! Only a Jew would say, ‘Imagine yourself as a Palestinian.’ Could you imagine a Palestinian imagining himself as a Jew?”
With due pardon, I have no intention to stop being Jewish. He, on the other hand, is free to leave any time he desires.
***
Some selected excerpts from the article:
Two Arab girls, their heads covered by scarves, books clutched to their chests, left the Cordoba School, and were walking toward the yeshiva boys.
“Cunts!” one of the boys yelled, in Arabic.
“Do you let your brothers fuck you?” another one yelled. I stopped one of the students and asked why he was cursing the girls. He was red-faced, and his black hair was covered with a blue knit skullcap.
“What are you, a goy?” he asked.
[...]
I asked her how she could let her son play amid the barbed wire and soldiers and barricades, and with snipers in the hills above.
“Hebron is ours,” she said. “Why shouldn’t he play?”
“Because he could get killed,” I said.
“There’s a bullet out there for each one of us,” she said. “But you can always die. At least his death here would sanctify God’s name.”
[...]
Cohen brought up the story, from the Second Book of the Maccabees, of a God-loving mother of seven boys, partisans in the Jewish revolt against Hellenistic rule twenty-two hundred years ago. The boys were called before King Antiochus, who ordered them to eat swine, as a loyalty test. The sons refused.
“Do you know what the Greeks did to these boys?” Cohen asked. “They ripped out their tongues and boiled them alive.”
Just before the last son was martyred, the mother gave him a message to deliver in Heaven: “Go and say to your father Abraham, ‘Thou didst bind one son to the altar, but I have bound seven altars.’ “
After the seventh son was killed, the mother threw herself off a roof. The Talmud says that, on her death, a voice was heard from Heaven, singing, “A happy mother of children.”
[...]
In 1988, Levinger killed a Palestinian shoe-store owner in Hebron. Levinger told the police that he was defending himself from a group of stone throwers. He served thirteen weeks in an Israeli jail for the killing. He told me once, “I’m not happy when any living creature dies-an Arab, a fly, a donkey.”
In the Israel he envisaged, Levinger said, Arabs would be allowed to stay only so long as they “behave themselves. Foreign residents”-Levinger’s designation for Arabs-“will be allowed to stay in Israel if they follow our laws and don’t demand privileges.” He added that they might vote “for mayors and such” but not for Prime Minister. He did not believe that the Arabs would acquiesce to such an arrangement, and that is why he advocated “transfer”-a euphemism for mass expulsion. “Whoever hurts Jews will be expelled,” he said.
[...]
Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement and heads the Jewish Leadership bloc within the Party-he controls nearly a hundred and fifty of the Likud central committee’s three thousand members-believes that the Bible, interpreted literally, should form the basis of Israel’s legal system. “Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?” Feiglin said to me. “For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them.” In any case, Feiglin said, “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.”
[...]
I asked who was destroying the olive trees. The destruction of fruit-giving trees, even those belonging to an enemy, is considered a grave sin in Judaism. But the only subject that concerned Liebman was Joseph’s Tomb.
“What is an olive tree compared to the burial place of Joseph, the son of Jacob?” he said.
To the farmer who supports his family with the tree, I said, the tree is important.
“But the farmer is an Arab,” Liebman replied. “He shouldn’t be here at all. All this land is Jewish land. It is meant for the Jews by God Himself.”
[...]
In “War and Peace,” a book about the senior Rabbi Kook’s beliefs, Rabbi Samson wrote:When the day comes for Israel to radiate its full power, there will be no room for usurpers who try to push the Jewish people aside… . All of the masqueraders who claimed to possess a monopoly on truth, whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, communism, capitalism, and all of the rest, will be exposed as empty flasks. When Judaism reaches its historical maturity with the return of the Kingdom of Israel, its holy culture will dominate the entire world psyche.
[...]
We sat for a while on the rocks. Orange-winged starlings flew above us. “God won’t allow a Palestinian state to come into creation. And, if it does, He’ll destroy it. God has placed the Arabs in the way of the Jews to test our resolve.”
Israel’s problem today, Rabbi Samson said, is that its Army refuses to fight in the manner of the ancient Jewish generals. “The Torah doesn’t see a difference between civilians and the military. Until the Jewish people realize that we are fighting a nation that has vowed to destroy us, our mission won’t be completed. If we were willing to kill their civilians, this war would be over in a week.
“I don’t think mercy is playing its correct role here,” he went on. “If the military operated without consideration for civilian deaths, think about how many lives would have been saved! In any case, their children are born with Molotov cocktails in their hands. These are a people as unfeeling as jackals.”
[...]
Some settler leaders see in the Palestinians the modern-day incarnation of the Amalekites, a mysterious Canaanite tribe that the Bible calls Israel’s eternal enemy. In the Book of Exodus, the Amalekites attacked the Children of Israel on their journey to the land of Israel. For this sin, God damned the Amalekites, commanding the Jews to wage a holy war to exterminate them. This is perhaps the most widely ignored command in the Bible. The rabbis who shaped Judaism could barely bring themselves to endorse the death penalty for murder, much less endorse genocide, and they ruled that the Amalekites no longer existed. But Moshe Feiglin, the Likud activist, told me, “The Arabs engage in typical Amalek behavior. I can’t prove this genetically, but this is the behavior of Amalek.” When I asked Benzi Lieberman, the chairman of the council of settlements-the umbrella group of all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza-if he thought the Amalekites existed today, he said, “The Palestinians are Amalek!” Lieberman went on, “We will destroy them. We won’t kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism.”
I heard similar talk from Effie Eitam, a hard-edged former general who leads the National Religious Party, a coalition partner in Sharon’s government. Eitam, who is Sharon’s housing minister, said, “I don’t call these people animals. These are creatures who came out of the depths of darkness. It is not by chance that the State of Israel got the mission to pave the way for the rest of the world, to militarily get rid of these dark forces.” Eitam told me that he believes there are innocent men among the Palestinians, but that they are collectively guilty. “We will have to kill them all,” he said. “I know it’s not very diplomatic. I don’t mean all the Palestinians, but the ones with evil in their heads. Not only blood on their hands but evil in their heads. They are contaminating the hearts and minds of the next generation of Palestinians.”
[...]
“The situation of Hanukkah is with us,” Haetzni said. Hanukkah, it should be remembered, commemorates not only the Jewish defeat of Israel’s Greek overlords but the defeat of Hellenized Jews by the Maccabees. “Now the clash is very, very near,” Haetzni said. “The battle is about Jewish identity. The battle is about Judaism.”
Friday, January 02, 2009
We're Coming For Ya'
The Washington Post has an article up detailing the "concern" conservative activists have over Barack Obama's advisers. You see, they're liberal. And that's scary. To conservatives, anyway.
Steve Benen complains, saying that the real story is "Barack Obama is actually going to have liberal advisers", not the mundane point that Roger Clegg finds them "disturbing". I dunno -- from a liberal perspective, it'd be tougher to get a better endorsement of Obama's picks than "they make Roger Clegg unhappy".
"It is disturbing," said Roger Clegg, a conservative opponent of Lee's appointment who is now watching the Obama advisers at the Justice Department. "The transition team as described to me was made up of nothing but people on the far left. Though Obama is more moderate, that makes you wonder what kind of advice the president is given, and what range of choices he'll be given when it comes time to make appointments."
Steve Benen complains, saying that the real story is "Barack Obama is actually going to have liberal advisers", not the mundane point that Roger Clegg finds them "disturbing". I dunno -- from a liberal perspective, it'd be tougher to get a better endorsement of Obama's picks than "they make Roger Clegg unhappy".
Who Knew?
One of the more appalling anti-gay memes put out by "pro-family" (gag) groups is the idea that homosexuality causes mental health problems. Of course, many of these groups refuse to accept that being gay isn't itself a mental illness. And they try and buttress this point by noting that gay teenagers have a significantly higher risk of, among other things, drug addiction and suicide.
Now, those of us with pulses could guess that an alternative hypothesis might explain this correlation: teenagers whom society says it is okay to hate are probably more likely to be depressed or suicidal. You treat people like second-class citizens, subject them to daily harassment, make their very name a synonym for something stupid or worthy of scorn, and, yeah, that's going to play tricks with a kid's head.
And lo and behold if a new study in the journal Pediatrics found that suicidal tendencies in gay, lesbian, and bisexual teenagers and young adults are strongly correlated to high levels of rejection by family members. Tolerance, it shockingly appears, is the best antidote to the mental health problems associated with being young and gay:
Of course, the obvious corollary appears as well. The message groups like the FRC put out daily is a message that kills young men and women. I merely emphasize that to explain the searing antipathy I feel towards groups like this. They wield "morality" as a weapon, and they don't seem to care how many bodies they leave behind. It's sickening.
Via AAB
Now, those of us with pulses could guess that an alternative hypothesis might explain this correlation: teenagers whom society says it is okay to hate are probably more likely to be depressed or suicidal. You treat people like second-class citizens, subject them to daily harassment, make their very name a synonym for something stupid or worthy of scorn, and, yeah, that's going to play tricks with a kid's head.
And lo and behold if a new study in the journal Pediatrics found that suicidal tendencies in gay, lesbian, and bisexual teenagers and young adults are strongly correlated to high levels of rejection by family members. Tolerance, it shockingly appears, is the best antidote to the mental health problems associated with being young and gay:
"A little bit of change in rejecting behavior, being a little bit more accepting," says lead researcher Caitlin Ryan, "can make a significant difference in the child's health and mental health."
Of course, the obvious corollary appears as well. The message groups like the FRC put out daily is a message that kills young men and women. I merely emphasize that to explain the searing antipathy I feel towards groups like this. They wield "morality" as a weapon, and they don't seem to care how many bodies they leave behind. It's sickening.
Via AAB
Claiborne Pell (1918-2009)
Former Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell (D), author of the famous college loan program that bears his name, died last night at age 90. A scion of one of New England's most prominent political families, Pell was nevertheless one of America's great advocates for persons of all backgrounds, classes, races, and orientations. He was a model for the best kind of Senator, and he will be missed.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Updates Ahoy
Hey all. Blogging probably will continue to be sporadic until at least Monday, when I'm settled back in at Chicago. But good news! I may have some exciting blogging information to share with y'all soon. So stay tuned, and have a happy new year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
