NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sick of guns finding their way onto his streets, launched an undercover operation regarding the gun show loophole. The loophole exempts private sellers at gun shows to sell weapons without conducting the normal background check. However, the law also stipulates that they can't make the sale if they have reason to believe the buyer would fail the check.
Bloomberg's agents, skipping subtly entirely, simply told the sellers they'd fail the background check. And wouldn't you know it if most of the sellers didn't care a whit!
Steve Benen compares this to the ACORN videos and asks when we're going to see 24/7 Fox coverage and Congressional hearings. I'll tell you when: it's when a Democratic Congressman (Alan Grayson?) gets on TV and says "the next time your Grandma is afraid to walk home at night because of some thug patrolling the street with a pistol, remember that House Republicans think the real outrage would be if that criminal was unable to buy it."
Unfair? Sure. Symmetrical? Definitely.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Do We Want That?
Apropos yesterday's post, Hamas has indicated that reconciliation with the PA -- negotiations over which had been recently progressing at an impressive clip -- are now off the table unless Abbas apologizes for not supporting the Goldstone report. The problem is, I forget if that's a good thing or not.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
No Thanks
Mark Lynch has a sobering post up at the consequences of the Obama administration blocking the Goldstone Commission report before the UNHRC. The thought process behind it seems to be restoring some credibility with an increasingly skeptical Israeli population which, not unjustifiably, despises the committee with a fiery passion. Unfortunately, it appears to have backfired dramatically. The pressure Obama put on the PA to withdraw its support for the report has decimated their popular credibility with the Palestinians, dramatically enhancing Hamas and other dissident radicals in the process. At the same time, Obama appears to have gotten virtually no credit for the action by the Israeli people, who seem to feel entitled to the American shield in this regard.
And perhaps they are, in the sense that the US should act to shield all peoples (including Jews) from being unfairly targeted and singled out by biased international bodies. But when the US does that, it deserves to be recognized for it. Many Israelis seem to want to have their cake and eat it too -- continue to view Obama as some sort of anti-Israeli zealot while still viewing American protection of Israeli interests as par for the course. They can't have it both ways -- and when they try, it makes it virtually impossible to do the parallel work of building American credibility with the Palestinian people.
And perhaps they are, in the sense that the US should act to shield all peoples (including Jews) from being unfairly targeted and singled out by biased international bodies. But when the US does that, it deserves to be recognized for it. Many Israelis seem to want to have their cake and eat it too -- continue to view Obama as some sort of anti-Israeli zealot while still viewing American protection of Israeli interests as par for the course. They can't have it both ways -- and when they try, it makes it virtually impossible to do the parallel work of building American credibility with the Palestinian people.
Homeless TV
A cool story about a Minneapolis program that gives homeless people job skills by having them produce a local-access television program. The show, in turn, raises visibility about the plight of the homeless and helps give them a voice. Synergy: it's a good thing.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Badass of the Week
Rukhsana Kauser, for "having the first Die Hard movie localized entirely within the confines of her living room" via fighting off six terrorists who came to her farm with just a hatchet (and the assault rifle she wrested away from one with her bare hands, natch).
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The All-Stars
The Israeli government is upset at a Norwegian public academic institution for sponsoring a lecture series on Israel that only invites its most strident critics to the stage (including several boycott advocates).
Professor Walt, of course, has a blog, so I'd be fascinated to hear his thoughts on why he agreed to participate in this lecture series.
The other part of this, of course, is the academic freedom element. I tend towards a pretty strong stance in favor of academic freedom, extending not just to the ability to tackle controversial subjects, but perhaps even to tackle them in a completely biased and one-sided manner (though that is a closer call). If pressed, I would say that the organizers of this lecture series should not be obligated as a matter of law to give Israel a fair hearing, to tell both sides of the story, to give a forum to mainstream Jewish and Israeli voices (of which Prof. Pappe is certainly not). Of course, I'm immediately skeptical of the pure academic credentials of someone who alleges Cast Lead killed hundreds of thousands -- one hundred times higher than any credible estimate -- and academic misconduct, particularly in the pursuit of prejudice, should not be tolerated. But in general, I don't think the state should intervene just because even a public academic institution is sponsoring a biased presentation that is wrongful and hurtful to a vulnerable class of people, promulgating hate and prejudice, even (indirectly) threatening lives.
What we can do, and indeed are obligated to do, is call out the seminar for it is: prejudiced. We absolutely should not acquiesce to their framing that this is a dispassionate, "scientific" inquiry -- which implicitly indicates the old frame that the broad Jewish community lies outside universalist rationality, a parochial holdover from pre-scientific times that can and ought to be ignored in search of the bigger truth. Likewise, when someone partakes in a series such as this, they are signaling their disdain for the Jewish and Israeli community. They are indicating that they don't respect as humans or equals. They are, in a phrase I will defend, behaving in an anti-Semitic manner. And it is no violation of academic freedom to challenge them on that grounds.
People have the right to sponsor anti-Semitic events. We have the right to challenge them and call out their anti-Semitism, and that of the participants.
The seminar, whose first session took place last month, includes lectures by Ilan Pappe, who accuses Israel of perpetrating an "ethnic cleansing of Palestine" and by Stephen Walt, the coauthor of a controversial study on the effect of the Israel-lobby on U.S. policy. It has been described by prominent scholars as anti-Semitic.
Other speakers invited by NTNU Dean Torbjorn Digernes include Moshe Zuckermann, who in a January interview for Deutschlandradio - a widely-heard German program - said that operation Cast Lead cost hundreds of thousands of Gazan lives.
The members of the seminar's organizing committee - Morten Levin, Ann Rudinow Saetnan and Rune Skarstein - have all signed a call for an academic boycott of Israel. They also brought a few Norwegian speakers, famous for their critical view of Israel.
"There's no one on the panel with a neutral view of Israel, let alone anyone to advocate its position," a source from the Foreign Ministry said. "Usually we do not get involved with academic forums of this sort because it's a freedom-of-expression issue, but this all-star team of Israel-haters crosses a line," the diplomat added.
"The overwhelming majority [of Israeli academics] oppose Pappe and Zuckerman and are rarely if ever found in seminars in Norway," Ivri wrote.
Morten Levin from NTNU - a state-funded institution - replied to Haaretz's query on the allegations by saying the objective of the lectures is to "communicate to a broad audience a deeper research-based understanding" of the situation.
"This requires a critical and careful scrutiny based on standard scientific methods," he added. "Neither the Israeli state nor the Palestinian authority or Hamas will be defended. None of the lecturers will question the right of the Israeli state to exist."
Responding to speculations by pro-Israeli scholars that the seminars will be a prelude to a call on NTNU to boycott Israel, Levin said: "The organizing committee of the lecture series has no formal connection whatsoever to the organization working for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions."
The university's dean - who has called the seminar "praiseworthy" - did not reply to Haaretz's request to interview him.
Professor Walt, of course, has a blog, so I'd be fascinated to hear his thoughts on why he agreed to participate in this lecture series.
The other part of this, of course, is the academic freedom element. I tend towards a pretty strong stance in favor of academic freedom, extending not just to the ability to tackle controversial subjects, but perhaps even to tackle them in a completely biased and one-sided manner (though that is a closer call). If pressed, I would say that the organizers of this lecture series should not be obligated as a matter of law to give Israel a fair hearing, to tell both sides of the story, to give a forum to mainstream Jewish and Israeli voices (of which Prof. Pappe is certainly not). Of course, I'm immediately skeptical of the pure academic credentials of someone who alleges Cast Lead killed hundreds of thousands -- one hundred times higher than any credible estimate -- and academic misconduct, particularly in the pursuit of prejudice, should not be tolerated. But in general, I don't think the state should intervene just because even a public academic institution is sponsoring a biased presentation that is wrongful and hurtful to a vulnerable class of people, promulgating hate and prejudice, even (indirectly) threatening lives.
What we can do, and indeed are obligated to do, is call out the seminar for it is: prejudiced. We absolutely should not acquiesce to their framing that this is a dispassionate, "scientific" inquiry -- which implicitly indicates the old frame that the broad Jewish community lies outside universalist rationality, a parochial holdover from pre-scientific times that can and ought to be ignored in search of the bigger truth. Likewise, when someone partakes in a series such as this, they are signaling their disdain for the Jewish and Israeli community. They are indicating that they don't respect as humans or equals. They are, in a phrase I will defend, behaving in an anti-Semitic manner. And it is no violation of academic freedom to challenge them on that grounds.
People have the right to sponsor anti-Semitic events. We have the right to challenge them and call out their anti-Semitism, and that of the participants.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The Peaceful Place
This NYT article, about a man who went from Somalia to Minnesota back to Somalia to basically become governor of a local tribal area, is absolutely fascinating. Hurray for technocracy (and Minnesota's reputation as a "peaceful place")!
Weekend Roundup
I've been doing a cite check this week, which has been a huge time suck. Fortunately, I was assisted by the fact that I am a known expert on regulatory affairs, with a particular emphasis on the economic impacts of arcane environmental regulations. So that helped.
* * *
Jews continue to have disproportionately high approval ratings for President Obama. They're only equaled by non-religious Americans, and dwarf Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons (Muslims were too small of a sample to be measured). Fun fact: Jews are the only religious groups to register higher approvals for Obama from non-Hispanic Whites versus people of color (though -- with apologies to Aliza Hausman -- I can't imagine the sample size for the latter was that big).
Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, one of the leading scholars in the field of sexual orientation and the law, claimed in Congressional testimony that he was denied tenure at UVA due to anti-gay prejudice. Via.
Are women better judges? Eric Posner and friends run the data and make the case. Their findings are that female judges tend to have worse formal credentials (elite law schools, judicial clerkships) upon appointment, but are as productive, influential, and independent as men once on the bench. Indeed, on the independence side, women actually outstrip men.
The Second Circuit may have just raised and then killed the prospect of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute.
Sudan continues to blame the Jews for Darfur. It's a refrain we've heard before.
American mayors are sick of illegal guns plaguing their streets.
Sarah Palin's book was ghost-written by a White supremacist affiliated author?
I never understood these things when I was in middle school. And I was a good student, too.
I think the right-wing hit job onKen Kevin Jennings is absolutely despicable, but what can you do? They have no shame. The CNN piece is a good start, essentially noting that all their claims are lies. But it would be nice for them to say it directly: instead of writing "Conservative groups charge that Jennings, who is openly gay, condoned statutory rape and child molestation," try "Conservative groups falsely charge that Jennings, who is openly gay, condoned statutory rape and child molestation." Why is that so hard?
* * *
Jews continue to have disproportionately high approval ratings for President Obama. They're only equaled by non-religious Americans, and dwarf Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons (Muslims were too small of a sample to be measured). Fun fact: Jews are the only religious groups to register higher approvals for Obama from non-Hispanic Whites versus people of color (though -- with apologies to Aliza Hausman -- I can't imagine the sample size for the latter was that big).
Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, one of the leading scholars in the field of sexual orientation and the law, claimed in Congressional testimony that he was denied tenure at UVA due to anti-gay prejudice. Via.
Are women better judges? Eric Posner and friends run the data and make the case. Their findings are that female judges tend to have worse formal credentials (elite law schools, judicial clerkships) upon appointment, but are as productive, influential, and independent as men once on the bench. Indeed, on the independence side, women actually outstrip men.
The Second Circuit may have just raised and then killed the prospect of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute.
Sudan continues to blame the Jews for Darfur. It's a refrain we've heard before.
American mayors are sick of illegal guns plaguing their streets.
Sarah Palin's book was ghost-written by a White supremacist affiliated author?
I never understood these things when I was in middle school. And I was a good student, too.
I think the right-wing hit job on
The Meaning of Haj Amin al Husseini
Daniel Schwammenthal has an interesting column up about a German exhibition that was to note Nazi sympathy in the Arab and Palestinian community (expressed notably, but not uniquely, by Haj Amin al Husseini), as part of a broader exploration of "The Third World in the Second World War". The exhibit was canceled, the column indicates, because the curator of the center did not like the indication of potential Arab complicity in the Holocaust.
Norm Geras takes issue with the opening of the piece, which reads as follows:
Geras responds:
I think Geras is mistaking what's going on here. It is quite true that whatever role the Palestinian political community did or didn't play in the Holocaust has nothing to do with what the Palestinians have lost in this conflict. But Geras is wrong to say that noting the vibrant enactment of Arab anti-Semitism in that time period is to treat Israel like a punishment. It is true that anti-Israel zealots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad try to promote that framing as a turn against the Holocaust-justification, so they can then say that Israel should have been established in Germany. But they miss the point because, as usual, they categorically refuse to center the focus on Jews as moral beings of worth and dignity. It makes the center of the story the Germans, (one of) the perpetrators, rather than the Jews, the victims.
When people cite the Holocaust as a reason for creating Israel, they're not saying Israel was a punishment against perpetrators. They're saying Israel was protection for a victimized group, with the Holocaust being a particularly dramatic instantiation of that victimization. Noting the eager willingness of many Arab leaders to partake and promote in that atrocity demonstrates that the need for this shelter did not exist merely in Europe, that essentially where ever Jews lived -- be it Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East -- the prevailing powers could not be trusted to protect Jewish lives. Israel was established, fundamentally, because the rest of the world had proven itself impossible to trust. Haj Amin al Husseini is a demonstration that this was as true of the local Arab political class as it was of the contemporary European political class.
As I've written before, when dealing with sustained and ingrained systems of discrimination, like racism or anti-Semitism, I'm less interested in "getting the bad guys" than I am in making sure that the disadvantaged group has access to what they need in order to live fulfilling lives in an egalitarian social sphere. Sometimes, that means retribution against discrete perpetrators -- I don't want to minimize that -- but it is a severe misunderstanding of justice to think that's all that it means. It is only when we have these blinders on that restrict "justice" to "punishment" that we view the justice of establishing Israel as making sense only within a frame of punishment, rather than in a frame of securing equality and equal global citizenship.
It doesn't have to be about punishment. Indeed, it shouldn't be about punishment. It's about giving Jews what they need in order to be equals in global society.
Via.
Norm Geras takes issue with the opening of the piece, which reads as follows:
One widespread myth about the Mideast conflict is that the Arabs are paying the price for Germany's sins. The notion that the Palestinians are the "second victims" of the Holocaust contains two falsehoods: It suggests that without Auschwitz, there would be no justification for Israel, ignoring 3,000 years of Jewish history in the land. It also suggests Arab innocence in German crimes, ignoring especially the fascist past of Palestinian leader Haj Amin al Husseini, who was not only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem but also Waffen SS recruiter and Nazi propagandist in Berlin.
Geras responds:
It is true that Israel's existence has a justification that is independent of the Holocaust (though it is not inconsistent with the justification due to the Holocaust). But Arab and Palestinian collaboration with Nazism has no bearing on what the Palestinians lost or what they have suffered because of Israel's creation. To maintain the contrary is to make every Palestinian responsible for Haj Amin al Husseini. It is also to treat the existence of Israel as a form of punishment - punishment on account of Husseini and other Arabs who were complicit with Nazism.
I think Geras is mistaking what's going on here. It is quite true that whatever role the Palestinian political community did or didn't play in the Holocaust has nothing to do with what the Palestinians have lost in this conflict. But Geras is wrong to say that noting the vibrant enactment of Arab anti-Semitism in that time period is to treat Israel like a punishment. It is true that anti-Israel zealots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad try to promote that framing as a turn against the Holocaust-justification, so they can then say that Israel should have been established in Germany. But they miss the point because, as usual, they categorically refuse to center the focus on Jews as moral beings of worth and dignity. It makes the center of the story the Germans, (one of) the perpetrators, rather than the Jews, the victims.
When people cite the Holocaust as a reason for creating Israel, they're not saying Israel was a punishment against perpetrators. They're saying Israel was protection for a victimized group, with the Holocaust being a particularly dramatic instantiation of that victimization. Noting the eager willingness of many Arab leaders to partake and promote in that atrocity demonstrates that the need for this shelter did not exist merely in Europe, that essentially where ever Jews lived -- be it Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East -- the prevailing powers could not be trusted to protect Jewish lives. Israel was established, fundamentally, because the rest of the world had proven itself impossible to trust. Haj Amin al Husseini is a demonstration that this was as true of the local Arab political class as it was of the contemporary European political class.
As I've written before, when dealing with sustained and ingrained systems of discrimination, like racism or anti-Semitism, I'm less interested in "getting the bad guys" than I am in making sure that the disadvantaged group has access to what they need in order to live fulfilling lives in an egalitarian social sphere. Sometimes, that means retribution against discrete perpetrators -- I don't want to minimize that -- but it is a severe misunderstanding of justice to think that's all that it means. It is only when we have these blinders on that restrict "justice" to "punishment" that we view the justice of establishing Israel as making sense only within a frame of punishment, rather than in a frame of securing equality and equal global citizenship.
It doesn't have to be about punishment. Indeed, it shouldn't be about punishment. It's about giving Jews what they need in order to be equals in global society.
Via.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Something Completely Different
Kos endorses the Republican in the NY-23 special House election. The reasoning is a mix of two factors: a) the Republican genuinely does seem more liberal than the Democrat (such that there is a "Conservative Party" candidate in the race who is actually competitive with the field), b) overflowing spite towards "blue dog" Democrats, of whom this Democrat would undoubtedly become a part of if elected.
Still, intriguing.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, significant portions of the GOP apparatus are getting behind said Conservative Party candidate over their own nominee. So Democrats are supporting a Republican who they think is more liberal than the Democrat, while Republicans, noting this, are supporting a third-party candidate firmly in tea bag territory, thus throwing the advantage to ... who, exactly? I have no idea.
Still, intriguing.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, significant portions of the GOP apparatus are getting behind said Conservative Party candidate over their own nominee. So Democrats are supporting a Republican who they think is more liberal than the Democrat, while Republicans, noting this, are supporting a third-party candidate firmly in tea bag territory, thus throwing the advantage to ... who, exactly? I have no idea.
Poorly Drafted
Eric Johnson takes a look at one of the more sloppy documents in the American legal repertoire: the Constitution.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, completely meaningless.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, completely meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
