David Hirsch asks kindly: "Do not confine Jews to the couch".
A therapist guides us on a journey to the frightening places inside ourselves and helps us to find ways to live with our demons. While we might do well to examine our own crazinesses with our therapists, we do not expect to have to answer for them in public and we expect our therapist to be on our side. Philosopher Michel Foucault warned that the sciences of the mind are also techniques of power and they have hostile as well as healing potential. [...] I think critics of Israeli policies should make their arguments politically and with reasons. They should avoid ascribing to Jews collectively a pathological inability to act rationally. Israel is a state and acts according to what its leaders and its electorate calculate to be its national interest. Israel may be wrong. It may even be very wrong. But making peace with its neighbours is a matter for politics, not for therapy.
I actually am somewhat conflicted on this. I agree with Mr. Hirsch that we should not ascribe "to Jews collectively a pathological inability to act rationally." And I agree that some branches of the "psychoanalytic" critique of (Israel? Jews?) walks into this territory. Certainly, we should not confine Jews to the couch. There is more to this story than merely mind games and hallucinations.
However, I believe that psychology matters, particularly when we recognize that certain resposnse mechanisms are rational responses to abuse and oppression. Growing up Jewish, with all the opportunities and burdens that represents, makes certain outlooks of mine vis-a-vis non-Jews rational and reasonable.
It is reasonable for me, for instance, to not assume that any random person off the street is an ally of Jewish liberation. I'm under no obligation to assume that non-Jewish speakers -- even ever-so-progressive ones, even ones with Jewish friends -- know what is required to put Jews in a position of equality, or even particularly care about it. To some extent, this is "psychology" -- it is a schematic construction I use to order the world in absence of complete information, based on how I perceive my position and standing as a Jew in it. But I don't believe that is an illegitimate social behavior on my part.
Still, Hirsch is correct in referencing Foucault and noting the potentially pernicious power of this sort of analysis when it is being used to inferiorize. The discourse becomes not a tool of healing but a weapon of war -- a justificatory mechanism for viewing the target class (in this case, Jews) as morally and mentally defective, removed from the realm of rational discourse and consequently ripped from the fabric of normal societal norms and boundaries. Our beliefs on how to relate with the other are premised on the idea that she is a rational creature. When dealing with others who are not conceded to have that property, well, we can hardly be faulted for resorting to "the type of language she understands", which is to say, either force or none at all. This is fundamentally dehumanizing.
No, I'm just not surprised. The FRC's Tony Perkins condemned the Vermont passage of a same-sex marriage bill (which overrode the governor's veto with a 2/3 majority in each house), as well as a DC vote recognizing gay marriages performed out of state, as something that would "destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."
We all knew that the FRC's purported concern about "judicial activism" was a pure front that can be modified at will when it conflicts with its substantive political agenda of bigotry and intolerance. The same thing applies to its calls for maximum democratic ratification of policy decisions on gay marriage.
In other words, they're hacks. I'll tell you, even if I was ambivalent on the subject of gay marriage, I'd be cheering these developments just to watch the FRC lose.
Via (Engage), the NYT has an article about the Bahrain government's efforts to secure the state's Jewish population (right now standing at 36), and attempts to get emigres to return. I feel bad reading it with such a cynical eye, but I am. Between the head of the Bahrain Human Rights Society, who believes "America is governed by the Zionist lobby," and "The media and the money are all in the hands of the Jews", and the university professor who says it is easy to like one of his Jewish friends -- so much so that "I don't feel he is a Jew", well, they may have come a long way, baby, but they still got quite some space to go.
(And that's aside from whether this whole thing is a facade to distract attention from the state's continued repression of its Shi'ite population).
“In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I have seen in this case,” Sullivan said. “Again and again, both before and during the trial in this case, the government was caught making false representations and not meeting its discovery obligations.”
No objection from my end. It was clear from the start that this prosecution team was the gang that couldn't shoot straight, and I'm as pissed as anyone given that it cost the United States the conviction of a man who I remain convinced is guilty of corruption. The only thing I find unfortunate is that I doubt this precedent will extend to cases of prosecutorial misconduct in situations where the defendant is not politically well-connected. Ted Stevens deserves justice and a fair trial just as much as any other accused criminal, but I worry the upshot of this move will not be to increase fairness but persuade DOJ attorneys to focus their shenanigans on defendants who don't have the pull to fight back.
The Forward has nice biographical snaplet of Jewish lesbian poet Adrienne Rich, on occasion of the publication of her new book, A Human Eye: Essays on Art in Society, 1996-2008.
Vermont made history today as the first state to legalize gay marriage through legislative means, overriding Republican Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. I look forward to hearing how getting a 2/3 majority in both state houses is insufficiently democratic.
And while I want to reiterate my congratulations to Iowa, I have to say that it is New England which is really representing on this issue. Half the states in New England (Connecticut and Massachusetts are the others) have now legalized gay marriage.
"We're disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship," [Palin family spokeswoman Meghan] Stapleton said. "It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well-being of the child."
Because clearly this tirade is helping tons in terms of creating a solid and supportive family environment.
A group of Carleton College students, including the lovely Jill, have started a new blog: Happy Bodies, promoting body positivity.
We began to talk about bodies. We wanted to talk about our own: what they look like, what they do, what we think about them. And we wanted to talk about all our bodies: health and positivity, discrimination, sexual violence, and power.
We wanted a space to talk about bodies. So, here we are.
The student did learn some useful information though. If she had showed up to school high on heroin, she would only have been suspended five days. Live and learn, I guess.
The National Journal reports that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not happy with the Latino community, whom he views as betraying him by giving 2/3 support to Barack Obama in spite of his strong support for immigration reform legislation:
"He was angry," one source said. "He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn't even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset."
McCain's message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama's pace on the issue. "He threw out [the words] 'You people -- you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,' " the source said. "It was almost as if [he was saying] 'You're cut off!' We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that."
In 2006 and 2007, McCain was a leader on immigration, but his efforts ran aground largely because his legislation included what many Republicans derisively characterized as "amnesty," a pathway to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants if they took a series of steps to earn legal status.
Having stuck his neck out in the past, McCain apparently is in no mood to do so again for an ethnic group he seems to view as ungrateful. On NBC's Meet the Press on March 29, McCain repeated his message that the ball is in the Democratic president's court. So far, the senator said, he has not seen much on immigration from the Obama White House, although the president recently met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and set the goal of launching the debate in the fall, a senior administration official said.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Latino voter to say "John McCain bucked his party to support a position I care intensely about, and thus I'm voting for him." It would be equally reasonable for that voter to say "I'm glad John McCain voted the way he did, but that's one issue and on a host of others, we have fundamental disagreements. At the end of the day, I'm closer to Obama than McCain." It'd also be reasonable to say "I like McCain fine, but the Republican Party has gone crazy and I'm not comfortable putting them into power -- even with McCain as the leader." The notion that they owe him something is ridiculous.
I'm a big fan of J Street, and that hasn't changed. But Mira Vogel of Greens Engage writes something that I have noticed and does bother me: J Street is awfully mushy on the topic of anti-Semitism.
This position on Caryl Churchill is a manifestation of an aspect of J-Street that makes me uncomfortable. It’s not the entirety of J-Street - it’s the part which tries to fend off antisemitism with appeasement. “They say there’s a Jewish lobby? Well, we’ll show them a second Jewish lobby which speaks against the one they hate. We’ll be seen to criticise Israel. We’ll be recognised as US patriots. And then they’ll leave us alone”. The pathos is acute.
It's the good Jews all over again. With the prevalence of the Livingstone Formulation amongst the left-wingers that they wish to convert, J Street seems to think the best way to counter is by studiously refusing to call anything anti-Semitic (except, presumably, the most obscene cases). This is how one wins credibility on what passes for today's left; or it would, if it works. And I'm not sure it will -- Mr. Livingstone's fellow travelers are quite adept at recasting any criticism of leftist orthodoxies on Israel as knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism.
But to an extent, this is besides the point. Since I don't think a genuine left can take such a blase attitude towards resurgent anti-Semitic attitudes (even when they don't rise to the level of murderous violence), J Street's approach is more than just aggravating: it's an indictment of its professed political position. If J Street is going to be what it aspires to be, it can't take the easy way out. It might look more difficult to build a genuine pro-peace alternative to AIPAC without this form of appeasement. But I think J Street will find the people whom it thinks it is appealing to through this tact will not be true friends when push comes to shove. In any event, if J Street wanted to do things easy, it could have merged with AIPAC. There's a reason I and many others are looking for an alternative, and it isn't because we're just looking for another set of cliches to jump to.
People get known for the randomest things. At the law school, I've developed a little bit of a reputation for wearing college t-shirts -- both the frequency of wearing them and the variety of schools represented (particularly given that I have little to no linkage to many of them). So I thought to myself: what exactly is my inventory of various higher-education shirts? Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to check, so this is by memory:
Carleton College (2x) University of Virginia (2x) University of Chicago (2x) UC-Berkeley UC-Santa Barbara Columbia Yale Arizona State (MIA) University of Miami (MIA)
It doesn't look like that much, but when you think about it, that's enough to get me through two school weeks wearing nothing but various university shirts. Impressive, I think.
Incidentally, I'm wearing UVA today, and wore UC-Berkeley yesterday.
This weekend was just an orgy of good things for the boxing fan.
First, Friday Night Fights got a knockout of the year candidate with Randall Bailey's (39-6, 35 KOs) vicious destruction of Francisco Figueroa (20-3, 13 KOs).
(Go to 2:13)
Then, Golden Boy Promotions put on a great PPV card Saturday with its "Lightweight Lightning" quasi-tournament. Everything about this card was done right. The original lineup of fights was spectacular; with injury dropouts, it stepped downwards merely to excellent. The price was $40 -- very reasonable for four legitimate lightweight battles. And the fans were not disappointed. In the first fight, which might have looked to be the least competitive on paper, late replacement Rolando Reyes (31-4-2, 20 KOs) turned on the heat in round five to take out former titlist Julio Diaz (36-5, 26 KOs). Reyes has been laboring as a fringe contender for awhile now, and this vicious KO of a legitimate top-10 guy may finally give him that big fight. He's calling out the other J. Diaz, Juan "The Baby Bull" (34-2, 17 KOs), and I for one like it. It's a good payday and step-up for Reyes, and it is a legitimate and live bounce back fight for Diaz, who is coming off a KO loss to division champ Juan Manuel Marquez (50-4-1, 37 KOs).
The next fight pitted Vicente Escobedo (20-1, 12 KOs) in a major grow-up fight against former titlist and Salvadorean national hero Carlos Hernandez (43-8-1, 24 KOs). Escobedo, who represented America in the Olympics, was a highly touted prospect whose career momentum stalled out after split-decision loss to Daniel Jimenez. Hernandez, the first person of Salvadoran descent to win a world title, had said he had to win this bout or retire, and he fought like it, putting forward every ounce of grit, veteran savvy, and determination to put Escobedo in the trenches all fight long. Escobedo, who is more known as a lanky boxer, rose to the occasion, matching Hernandez shot for shot on the inside and knocking down the veteran twice in rounds one and two to get the decision victory. If this is it for Hernandez, what a way to go -- he surely covered himself in glory.
The co-feature put action star Michael Katsidis (25-2, 21 KOs) against comebacking former titlist Jesus Chavez (44-5, 30 KOs). It may have been the least exciting fight of the night -- but that isn't saying much. It was a back and forth brawl for the first several rounds before Katsidis began to impose his will on the older, oft-injured fighter. Katsidis (and perhaps more importantly, Katsidis' corner) needs to learn that he is not a boxer. He is a brawler. He wins when he gets in his opponent's grill and wails on them. Chavez quit/retired at the close of the seventh round. It wasn't completely out of line -- Katsidis had seemingly turned a corner and was landing many hard shots on Chavez, but it still didn't look like the hometown fighter was completely out of the fight. But Chavez -- who has battled injuries throughout his career, not to mention the Leavander Johnson tragedy -- was bothered by a cut all fight long and seemed to definitively lose his focus. It may be time for him to call it a career as well.
Finally, we saw the headliner -- and by this point, the promoters had long since earned my $40. Antonio Pitalua (46-4, 40 KOs), who burst onto the lightweight scene with an upset KO victory over Jose Armando Santa Cruz (whom many thought should have been the lineal champ when he was robbed of a victory over Joel Casamayor), got the honor of fighting YouTube sensation (and 70s porn star look alike) Edwin Valero (25-0, 25 KOs) -- the Ring's #1 Jr. Lightweight contender who possesses frightening power. But this was the first time he has fought in the US (licensing issues due to a brain bleed in a non-boxing related accident). Valero was moving up in weight to fight Pitalua, whose power isn't too shabby itself (14 straight knockouts since his last lost in 2001).
Let's put it this way -- Valero is for real. Pitalua is a durable fighter, if a bit of an unknown quantity. In round two, not only did Valero knock Pitalua down, he did so with a hook on his heels. And it still had Pitalua on queer street. Pitalua managed to get to his feet, but it was only a matter of time, and referee Laurence Cole waved the fight off as Pitalua went down for the third time in the round.
Meanwhile, Showtime had its own card going on. I missed Librado Andrade (28-2, 21 KOs) cruising to a decision over Vitali Tsypko (22-3, 12 KOs), but from what I've heard it was a typical Andrade victory: marching forward with a terrifying imperviousness to punishment and progressively breaking down a game Tsypko. This sets up a rematch with Lucien Bute (now 24-0, 19 KOs), who controversially defeated Andrade after the referee gave him a little help and extra time allowing him to survive a 12th round knockdown. Bute, who is originally from Romania, has been adopted by Montreal as one of their own (which has lead many to speculate about the motives of Montreal-based referee Marlon Wright). But after two fights in Montreal, now Andrade has also seemingly been accepted as a local there, which will make for a fabulous fight scene when the two meet up again in what is rapidly establishing itself as one of the premier fight cities in the world.
The main event was a unification bout between Patterson, New Jersey based Kendall "Rated R" Holt (25-3, 13 KOs) and California-representing Timothy Bradley (24-0, 11 KOs). In the first round, Holt put Bradley down for the first time in his career (amateur or professional) with a huge right hand. It is testament to Bradley's incredible conditioning that he was able to rise at all, and he had the state of mind to walk to his corner and then take a knee to make sure he was all gathered up before rising again at 8. From there, the fight was a textbook Kendall Holt evening: the ability to control the fight, and persistent refusal to do so. Holt's jab was giving Bradley fits when he used it, but that wasn't often. His work rate was low throughout the fight but particularly in the middle rounds, when Bradley put round after round in the bank. Holt woke up a little towards the end of the fight, but even in the 12th round, when he actually scored another knockdown after Bradley's gloves touched the canvass, there was never any sense of urgency. It cost Holt his belts in a unanimous decision that could have gone either way (Bradley was clearly worried as the scores were being announced).
Holt wants a rematch. It isn't the most unreasonable request in the world, but really, Holt's got nobody to blame but himself for his loss. When he lets his hands go, uses his jab and keeps the workrate up, he really is a special talent. But in fight after fight (even some of his victories), he's demonstrated serious focus lapses, and at some point you have to wonder if it is something he'll ever overcome.
But that's a downer note to end this post on. The point is, I got to watch six genuinely wonderful fights this weekend. That is a great thing, and I am grateful to the fighters and promoters for putting these shows together and giving all of us fans such compelling performances.
Mr. Perkovic and other former classmates said they were surprised by this morning's events. Mr. Perkovic said Mr. Poplawski was opposed to "Zionist propaganda" and was fearful that his right to own weapons would be taken away but he wasn't a member of an organized group or militia.
"He always said that if someone tried to take his weapons away he would do what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself."
Another friend, Aaron Vire, 23, said he'd helped Mr. Poplawski and Mr. Perkovic with a radio show they'd broadcast on the Internet, discussing "politics, girls and life."
Mr. Poplawski had supported Republican candidate John McCain in the presidential election and had "very spirited debates" about Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Vire said. Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama's election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.
"He wasn't a racist but thought some of his amendments were overlooked," Mr. Vire said. Even though Mr. Vire is black and Mr. Poplawski is white, the debates over President Obama did not hurt their friendship, he said.
Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.
"He said he'll be ready if there's ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."
Dave Neiwert already has the goods on how Mr. Poplawski was probably stoked by right-wing extreme paranoia about Obama, liberals, and guns. Today, three Pittsburgh officers died because of it. But it's worth noting the usual right-wing intersection between anti-state violence and anti-Semitic attitudes.
Believe me, I know enough to worry about left-wing anti-Semitism. But in this country, it remains right-wing elements which are most likely to provoke and implement violence against me and my family. When Beck, Limbaugh, et al launch their rants and ratings calling for violence and insurrection, that gets pointed directly at me, because I'm contained on the list of legitimate targets by the folks with the gun. And it's something I keep in mind about anyone who supports or apologizes for these inflammatory thugs.
Breaking the stereotype of the radical settler are an increasingly vocal number of families in certain communities who want to leave voluntarily, driven by motives ranging from personal security to wholesale political U-turns. Bound together in wanting out of the West Bank, they are campaigning for government assistance to enable them to move out of their homes, which in some settlements have plummeted in value. But their potential lifeline, a law compensating those who voluntarily evacuate, is now facing an uncertain fate, with a new right-wing government and the most liberal US administration Washington has seen for years.
For those of us who think that arresting the growth of the settlements is one of the crucial stepping stones to reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict, this is an important instinct to nurture. A goodly chunk of the settlers recognize that their presence is an obstacle to peace, and they are willing to leave, so long as there are feasible alternatives (hell, even Avigdor Lieberman has placed himself in this camp, albeit in his case only as part of a negotiated resolution to the conflict rather than in response to a proposed resettlement program). I'm more than willing to support an Israeli law compensating those who resettle in Israel proper, and I believe the US should throw its own diplomatic muscle into getting it passed (hell, why not bundle it into our own financial aid package that goes to Israel?).
The article notes that a large portion of the settler community, far from being the stereotypical religious zealots, are more akin to American exurban families. They were drawn to the West Bank because of the open space, the potential to have a bigger house than reasonably available in Israel's core, even superior schools. To be sure, it was Israeli policies which made that dream realizable in the West Bank (like the United States, which very deliberately constructed the conditions which allowed what we know as suburbia to flourish). And, again like the United States, many of these policies were at the very least spectacularly short-sighted, if not wholly disconcerned with the way they affected political outgroups. We shouldn't overstate: there is still much hostility directed toward the people within the settlement community leading the calls for evacuation. But their presence in neither minuscule nor trivial, and is something that committed actors have a chance to build upon.
It may be this article is overly optimistic. Nonetheless, once we get past the idea of all the settlers is irrational nutjobs motivated by hate, it is possible to create and implement a pragmatic peace agenda that can get them out of the West Bank. Every settler that we can get out of the West Bank and back into Israel is one less irritant blocking the resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. But even those settlers who personally desire to leave and are even ideologically aware of the implications for regional peace and justice are going to hard pressed to register support for any evacuation if they don't know where they're supposed to land after they're pushed. It doesn't do any good to yell and wave signs about ending the occupation if you're not thinking about what happens the day after.
Last night's episode of Dollhouse might have been the best in the series. The twists were well executed, we got a much better look at Topher and Dr. Saunders, and an inside look at the personalities of some of the main dolls (Sierra, particularly, got fleshed out excellently). This show has really found its voice over the last few episodes, and for that I'm really happy.
Meanwhile, I was listening to the latest Linkin Park album, and it occurred to me that one of their songs seems to fit perfectly with the theme of the show (this is a program which managed to make Lady GaGa's Just Dance fraught with meaning, so Linkin Park isn't much of a stretch).
I dreamed I was missing You were so scared But no one would listen 'Cause no one else cared
After my dreaming I woke with this fear What am I leaving When I'm done here?
So if you're asking me I want you to know
When my time comes Forget the wrong that I've done Help me leave behind some Reasons to be missed
And don't resent me And when you're feeling empty Keep me in your memory Leave out all the rest, leave out all the rest
Don't be afraid I've taken my beating I've shed but I'm me
I'm strong on the surface Not all the way through I've never been perfect But neither have you
So if you're asking me I want you to know
When my time comes Forget the wrong that I've done Help me leave behind some Reasons to be missed
Don't resent me And when you're feeling empty Keep me in your memory Leave out all the rest, leave out all the rest
Forgetting all the hurt inside You've learned to hide so well Pretending someone else can come And save me from myself I can't be who you are
When my time comes Forget the wrong that I've done Help me leave behind some Reasons to be missed
Don't resent me And when you're feeling empty Keep me in your memory Leave out all the rest, leave out all the rest
Forgetting all the hurt inside You've learned to hide so well Pretending someone else can come And save me from myself I can't be who you are I can't be who you are
Now, former candidate and all around nut Gary Bauer has a column up entitled "Muslims in the White House?", raising the terrifying specter that Obama, who "says he's a Christian", may still appoint some Muslim persons to various jobs in the White House.
This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.
Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.
I genuinely wonder whether King hates the "gay marriage" or the "Mecca" part of that statement more.
In my readings on the effects of diversity in social institutions, there have two distinct and seemingly contradictory findings that have emerged. The first, more pessimistic, is exemplified by Robert Putnam's study which found decreased social cohesion in diversified communities, particularly in the form of greater withdrawal from the public sphere. The second, indicated by Samuel Sommers, provides data which shows that diversified institutions tend to out perform their homogeneous peers.
It may be, though, that far from being a contradiction, these effects are two sides of the same coin. A new study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin argues that we see improvements in institutional performance through the addition "Socially Distinct Newcomers" in tandem with increased discomfort by the "old-timers" at their presence. From the abstract:
The impact of diversity on group functioning is multifaceted. Exploring the impact of having a newcomer join a group, the authors conducted a 2 (social similarity of newcomer to oldtimers; in-group or out-group) x 3 (opinion agreement: newcomer has no opinion ally, one opinion ally, or two opinion allies) interacting group experiment with four-person groups. Groups with out-group newcomers (i.e., diverse groups) reported less confidence in their performance and perceived their interactions as less effective, yet they performed better than groups with in-group newcomers (i.e., homogeneous groups). Moreover, performance gains were not due to newcomers bringing new ideas to the group discussion. Instead, the results demonstrate that the mere presence of socially distinct newcomers and the social concerns their presence stimulates among oldtimers motivates behavior that can convert affective pains into cognitive gains.
This is definitely an interesting study -- the finding that the increased performance gains were not due to the unique ideas of the out-group. That's in itself counter-intuitive and deserving of further study. But the overall observation of the paper -- that the discomfort in-groups feel about diversity (that Putnam observes) actually translates into concrete performance gains (Sommers) has many important implications for policy-making in the context of meritocratic structures (i.e., ones where "performance" matters).
***
Katherine W. Phillips, Katie A. Liljenquist, Margaret A. Neale, "Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 3, 336-350 (2009) (via)
This Ha'aretz article, reporting on the appointment of Jewish South African judge and prominent international law expert Richard Goldstone to lead a probe into war crimes allegations stemming from Israel's Gaza operation claims that Goldstone's mandate includes both Israeli and Palestinian violations. This is a break from the UNHRC's historical practice, and conflicts with other sources I've read which say Goldstone only has jurisdiction over Israeli activities.
This AP article seems to catch the heart of the dispute:
According to the mandate, the investigation should focus on Palestinian victims of the three-week war between Israel and Hamas earlier this year.
But Goldstone, a Jewish former judge of the South African constitutional court, said his team would investigate "all violations of international humanitarian law" before, during and after the conflict that ended Jan. 18.
"It's in the interest of the victims. It brings acknowledgment of what happened to them. It can assist the healing process," he told reporters in Geneva. "I would hope it's in the interests of all the political actors, too."
Martin Uhomoibhi, the council president, explained the apparent contradiction by saying the mission always intended to evaluate the proportionality of Israel's response, which requires that acts of both warring parties be examined.
It will be interesting to see a) how vigorously Goldstone pursues his claimed mandate over violations committed by both sides and b) how the UN bodies will react if Goldstone does do more the engage in a pro forma critique of Palestinian human rights violations.
The most laughable aspect of America's long war against racism, is the justification racist would always trot out--the specter of interracial union. I can remember being a kid and reading about black folks struggling for some small right, that, these days, we take for granted. So you'd have some black dude who'd been born a slave, in some one room shack, but had risen to become a lawyer, arguing for, say, school funding for black kids in rural Alabama. And then you'd see some bigot responding with, essentially, the following, "If we give the nigras school funding, they'll take our women! Do you want a nigra marrying yer daughter?!?!?"
I would read that and think, "What? The dude just wants some textbooks, WTF??" There's this great riff in Wattstax where Richard Pryor talks about Southern whites accusing a black dude of raping some white guy's wife. The guy brings out his wife and says something like, "The nigger raped her!" The assembled black folks look at the guy's wife who, let's just say is not Scarlett O'Hara, and go, "You sure??"
But in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman. And white women, of course lacking any real agency in the narrative, joyfully go along. Or are forcibly carried along. From that perspective, white racism really is a fear of a black planet--and (paradoxically) of white women.
Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational. To go back to Chuck D, perhaps he was too cold when he said, "Man, I don't want your sister." But there was deep truth in it, the idea was, "Fool, this ain't about you and your fucked-up sexual hangups." In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."
Coates mentions anti-Semitism, but making it more explicit, much of anti-Semitism rests on this idea of Jews as hyperpowerful -- pulling the strings of the entire world; an insidious cancer which if left unchecked will corrupt and destroy modern society.
I'm sorry to say that for the most part, Jewish lives are considerably less dramatic. We want the same things as most other people do, and live the same lives that most other people do. But the conceit is always there: the 1% of the population that was Jewish has always been seen as an existential threat to Christianity; and now is seen as an existential threat to humanity itself. And, again I hate to be this blunt but: Get over yourself.
Here's a PDF of the opinion, which just came down. I'm not sure which is more surprising: that it was Iowa, or that the opinion was unanimous. Pam has snippets. I, personally, can't wait for Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) reaction, which I'm sure will be priceless. I'll have more commentary later in the day -- I'm particularly pleased to see that the Iowa court recognized that laws which discriminate against gay and lesbian persons should be met with, at the very least, heightened scrutiny.
But seriously -- congratulations to Iowa for this great step forward towards equality, and to the gay, lesbian, and straight citizens of that state.
Alaska GOP calls on Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) to resign, allowing for a special election "allow[ing] Alaskans to have a real, non-biased, credible process where the most qualified person could win, without the manipulation of the Department of Justice."
This is becoming a near-daily occurrence. I wonder what that means.
The Forward obits Janet Jagan, former President of Guyana, and one of two Jewish women to lead a modern nation (the other was Golda Meir).
Also in the Forward, Rep. Keith Ellison (R-MN) "walks a tightrope" as he tries to craft a stance on Israel/Palestine that is genuinely pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and pro-peace. I'd say he's doing a darn good job so far, and has seemingly maintained the support of the local Jewish and Muslim communities (both of which were early backers of our nation's first Muslim congressman).
UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay is worried that the Durban II conference may get hijacked by the same elements who poisoned Durban I.
At a Norwegian dialogue on hatred, one speaker helpfully explained to his audience "Why I hate Jews".
A 13-year old boy was axed to death and a seven-year old wounded in a terrorist strike on a West Bank settlement. Though Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack, a Hamas spokesperson praised it, saying "This attack was committed in the framework of the resistance .... We are a people occupied, and it is our right to defend ourselves and to act in every way and with every means at our disposal in order to defend ourselves."
New Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman continues his zig-zag tacking, renouncing the Annapolis agreements while simultaneously criticizing his predecessors for refusing to evacuate settlement outposts. He said, however, that there must be "reciprocity" from the Palestinians when Israel follows the 2003 U.S. "roadmap" for peace.
Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad distressingly echoed Lieberman's claim that "If you want peace, prepare for war," arguing for his part that "The Israeli will not come by his own will, so there is no alternative but for him to come from fear."
Justice Thomas delivered the keynote address to a group of high school students who won an essay contest sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute:
Thomas touched on familiar themes of responsibility and self-reliance. In the current economic crisis, Thomas said it is remarkable how many people think that "each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living." But his own upbringing taught him that prosperity is not a constant, and he recalled a time when "air conditioning was the ultimate luxury." Laughing, he added, "I'm one of those who still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle," which he said explains why "I like to load it" at home.
Likewise, Thomas said the proliferation of taken-for-granted rights has led to the "virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances ... Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our bill of obligations, our bill of responsibilities?" Thomas did say that rights were important, and he extolled the 14th Amendment as the source of many of them.
I don't really have a comment on this; I just like collecting statements by Justice Thomas. He really is one of the more fascinating legal actors I've come across in my studies.
I wonder how often it is that professors are teaching at a school which, at some point in their academic careers, rejected them? E.g., John Doe is teaching at Harvard University, when Harvard rejected him as an undergraduate (or better yet, for the Ph.D. program in the department he now teaches in).
On the one hand, that must be the ultimate feeling of vindication. On the other hand, I feel like I, at least, would have trouble with an inferiority complex if I taught at a law school which had rejected me as a law student. After all, I'd basically be looking out on a group of individuals who -- according to the value system I've enmeshed myself into -- are considered to be qualitatively smarter than I am. That makes it tough to project that scholarly authority thing.
I meant to flag this post earlier, but I forgot. Ta-Nehisi Coates has a trenchant observation on why Booker T. Washington's self-uplift program for Black empowerment was such a resounding failure.
Washington basically said to the white South in 1895. "You win. We don't want the right the vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you'll here no more of this voting or integration business." You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington's speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.
The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who'd elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn't want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we'll let you be.
In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn't that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn't simply burn down the "morally degenerate" portions--they attacked the South's burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It's one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It's quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter. These days, it's popular to bemoan the fact that Washington has fallen into disfavor. But it wasn't blacks who proved the Atlanta Compromise fraudulent--it was the whites of that era.
You must understand the chilling effect this had to have on black people. To actually concede to all the racist propaganda out there, and then to be rewarded by hooligans burning down your community must have been psychologically devastating. People wondering why the GOP can't get a foothold in the black community, need to not just think about Goldwater and Nixon. They should think about Du Bois telling black men to go fight in The Great War, and then having those veterans come home to the Red Summer of 1919. They should think about the pogroms that greeted Booker T's compromise. There's a lot of hurt out there. A lot of ancient hurt. A lot of it, even in these times, quite deep.
This is important history to remember. And it's the reason I trace a direct line to Black Power and Black Nationalism from Booker T. The Black Power ideology was also about self-uplift. It just added a spin, learned from Washington's experience: "And this time, if you fuck with us, we're firing back."
John J. Mearsheimer, guest-blogging at Stephen Walt's place (good to see the old gang back together), has a post up which demonstrates quite clearly that he really doesn't understand the dynamics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It's not that his predictive analysis is wrong -- he is quite right that if Israel pursues a "Greater Israel" policy unchecked, it will mean the eventual demise of the state. But beyond that, he ... how to put this gently? He doesn't know what he's talking about.
First, neither Ehud Barak nor Avigdor Lieberman "are committed to creating a Greater Israel." Barak proved his two-state bona fides at Camp David and Taba, and his Labor Party has been the primary mover in making the two-state solution official Israeli policy for nearly two decades. We can debate whether Barak should have brought Labor into government absent a commitment by Netanyahu to a two-state solution (one he wouldn't get), but there is no reason to believe that Barak will affirmatively use his position to try and create a "Greater Israel" that he has spent his entire political career trying to undermine.
Lieberman may be a racist, fascist thug, but Mearsheimer clearly doesn't know anything about his specific and peculiar brand of politics. Lieberman is most certainly not an advocate of "transferring" Palestinian Israelis (Israeli Arabs) out of the country -- a term which has a very specific meaning (essentially, expelling them). Lieberman wishes to redraw the borders of Israel so that predominantly Israeli Arab villages are incorporated into a new Palestinian state (and, in exchange, primarily Jewish settlement blocs are kept by Israel). This policy is inherently impossible to achieve without creating a Palestinian state. It is true that Lieberman doesn't see the creation of Palestine to be the immediate item on the agenda, but that's not because he's pursuing a "transfer" policy domestically.
Finally, Mearsheimer also doesn't understand the politics of the American pro-Israel community. He asks why "Israel's Jewish backers" think "Greater Israel is good for the Jews." Well, there's a simple answer to that: We don't. The settlements and the idea of Greater Israel are not particularly popular amongst American Jews. And even many (not all) of the more conservative Jewish organizations are not affirmatively in favor of Greater Israel or pro-settlement. They just either don't see the settlements as that big a deal, or think of them as a distraction from the "real" issue of Palestinian terrorism and Israel's security.
What American Jews tend to battle over is the degree to which settlements should be a primary item on the agenda. There are many Jews who will say that the settlements are a bad thing, but we have to deal with the problem of terrorism first. I think that's short-sighted -- I think the settlements are a major issue that has to be dealt with now, because they are continually aggravating the conflict, don't make Israel safer, represent an injustice to the Palestinians, and constitute a ticking time bomb on Israel's ability to maintain itself as Jewish and democratic. But that's the axis where the debate is.
I think the resistance many Jews have to putting the settlements front and center is the degree to which this conflict has been moralized into a game of "who is the worse evildoer." In the discursive climate we have, where there is nothing stupid, only something evil, saying the settlements need to be one of the primary items on the agenda table is read as saying that they are equally morally wrongful to, say, a Palestinian rocket attack on Sderot. Whether they are or not, though, is immaterial to Mearsheimer's completely correct observation that they still are a "remarkably foolish" policy. But until we can talk about Israel that way -- until not everything about the conflict is collapsed into this moral gamesmanship -- I think this debate will still be live.
But that's neither here nor there. At least in my lifetime, it hasn't been Greater Israel versus two-state solution. On that question, Greater Israel is in the definitive minority. The big debate is whether the degrees to which we should direct our energies towards pressuring Israel over the settlements versus pressuring Palestinians on terrorism and extremism. It's a debate I'm committed to winning, because like Mearsheimer and former PM Olmert I think the path Israel is going down with the settlements is suicidal. But Mearsheimer doesn't help his case when he fundamentally misunderstands the mindsets of the relevant players.
The NY Jewish Week reports that Jewish groups are "not going to the mattresses" over America's decision to try and rejoin the UN Human Rights Council. The UNHRC is well reviled in the Jewish community for (a) engaging in one sided and hyperbolic criticisms of Israel and (b) doing very little else. But nonetheless, while some groups are more cautious about the decision than others Jewish groups by and large are adopting a wait-and-see approach. After all, maybe we can change the group for the better on the inside. Or maybe we can't. But the point is, contrary to some popular conceptions, the Jewish community is not some crazed animal which catches a whiff of something arguably anti-Israel and launches into a coked-out frenzy.
Citing major prosecutorial misconduct by the Justice Department attorneys who led the case, the Obama administration has announced it is dropping all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and will not seek a new trial. Unfortunately, this is hardly surprising given the rather relaxed standards of competence the Justice Department enjoyed over the last eight years.
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), of course, couldn't stop talking out of both sides of her mouth even if one was glued shut, released a statement bemoaning Stevens' treatment and the "frightening" misconduct he was forced to endure. "It is unfortunate that, as a result of the questionable proceedings which led to Senator Stevens' conviction days before the election, Alaskans lost an esteemed statesman on Capitol Hill. His presence is missed." Of course, after his conviction she was singing a different tune, criticizing him for failing to resign his seat and saying "Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress."
There are very few things I agree with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on, but I do think he's done some genuinely good things in pressing for reforms in the sport of boxing -- a fanship that he and I both share. Now I see that along with Rep. Peter King (R-NY), McCain is pushing for a posthumous pardon for Black heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, convicted of violating the Mann Act in a racially charged and motivated case (Johnson was reviled in White America for not only being a nearly unbeatable boxer, but also for openly having relationships with White women).
Today, we learned that asking which professor your fellow students have for Civil Procedure II becomes far more perilous when the choices are (Adam) Cox and (Diane) Wood.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is supporting some draconian restrictions on women's rights. Women can't go outside the home without their husband's permission, can only get work, education, or see a doctor with their husband's permission, and can't refuse them sex.
But don't worry! It's actually pro-women's rights!
Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras. But he said the law actually protected women's rights.
"Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."
Akbari said the law gave a woman the right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was unwell or had another reasonable "excuse". And he said a woman would not be obliged to remain in her house if an emergency forced her to leave without permission.
How generous. These "protections", incidentally, are all clearly linked to the purported strength of men and weakness of women. You don't see how that obviously counsels giving husbands a presumptive right to sex with their wives (subject to "reasonable excuses")?
Sometimes lawyer, sometimes law professor, all the time awesome. Associate Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School.Follow me on Bluesky: @schraubd.bsky.social
"This is a weblog that is truly welcome in blogtopia — a new blog doesn't seem to be frantically trying to score points for any party. That does NOT mean it's afraid to take a stand or be critical....You really can't predict exactly where The Debate Link will come down on all issues. It's not chanting anyone's mantra." --The Moderate Voice
"[A]n emerging genius in legal scholarship and commentary." --Jim Chen
"It's on my 1st cup of coffee rss feed." --Hanno Kaiser
"I heart this blog.... he referenced Wittgenstein, and it was entirely appropriate and non-pretentious." -- kath.A.rine
The postings on this blog are not legal advice, and should not be construed as such or in any way indicate that the reader and I have formed an attorney/client relationship.
