Mal Voyage

Greetings from Portland!

That's not a sentence I wanted to write. If things had gone to plan today, Jill, Nathaniel and I would be en route to Paris right now. But a delay on our first flight meant we were going to miss our connection in Chicago, and from there the day devolved into three hours of camping in front of an American Airlines agent as she strove unsuccessfully to find us any alternative flights. 

There were several occasions where we almost got booked on a flight to London, but then we kept being kicked out. But the most comical sequence came in attempting to get us on a flight to San Francisco (to London, to Paris). The timing was tight, since by the time we got around to that solution the flight was leaving in forty minutes (of course, we had been at the airport for almost two hours at that point). So the gate agent told Jill to get in line at the United booth so we could check our bags immediately in the event she was able to get us on the flight. Which she was able to do ... until she wasn't ... and then she was again ... and then she wasn't ... and then she was. And I have a corresponding text chain with Jill where I tell her to come back ... no stay in line! ... wait, no, come back--DON'T COME BACK GET BACK THERE!

And after all of that, the San Francisco flight was delayed too, so we wouldn't make the London connection.

After three hours, we gave up and rebooked a flight tomorrow evening to London and then onward to Charles de Gaulle, which will get us in a scant thirty hours later than scheduled. Huzzah.

A few bits of silver lining. 

1. We'll be able to sleep in tomorrow morning.
2. We've actually done this Portland --> London flight before, and Nathaniel did great on it. To be sure, five months old and seventeen months old are very different in terms of travel experience. But Nathaniel is a phenomenal sleeper and the flight is a red-eye, so we're optimistic.
3. And speaking of Nathaniel, he did pretty great all told. Most of the time we were at the airport, he was cheery and climbing around and generally a happy camper. By the end -- when we had blown past lunch time (we gave him snacks) and nap time -- he was understandably starting to get a bit cranky. But he instantly fell asleep on the Lyft ride home (which again augurs well for sleeping on the plane).

Anyway, the trip is off to an inauspicious start. Here's hoping tomorrow goes better.

First Last Day of "School"

It was Nathaniel's last day of school today.

Now, there are a lot of asterisks around that statement.

First, he didn't attend for the full year. He started in January, and didn't move to his current class for a few months after that.

Second, he's not even 18 months. What is "school", compared to "daycare"?

Third, he's coming back to the same place for summer camp in a few weeks. And related to the above, for an 18-month old, what is the difference between "school" and "camp"?

But even with all of those caveats, I am verklempt. He is positively thriving, and it is a joy to see. He's confident and he's active and he's learning and growing at an incredible rate. Picking a preschool/daycare felt extremely high stakes -- probably higher than it actually is -- but to the extent there was a "right" choice, boy did we ever make it.

And yeah, sometimes he’s a bit tuckered out. But that’s okay too.

So pride of my guy!

The Candidate of Their Choice

Before it was butchered by the Roberts Court, a key purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to ensure that, where cohesive minority communities exist, they would have a reasonable opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice.

For Black communities, this often understandably meant electing a Black representative. But not necessarily.

For example, the Tennessee congressional district that until recently was anchored around Memphis is a majority-Black district represented by a White man, Steve Cohen. Why does Cohen represent that district? The same reason anyone represents any district: the majority of voters in his district like him, he's earned their trust, so they keep reelecting him. Periodically during his tenure he would draw an African-American challenger, often to much fretting and teeth-gnashing from the national media, and each time he would absolutely flatten them, because again, Steve Cohen was well-liked and trusted by the voters in his district. That he kept winning, and winning handily, in a majority-Black district was not a failing of the Voting Rights Act. Neither would it have been a failure of the Voting Rights Act if Memphis decided to vote differently. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to give cohesive minority communities, like that which exists in Memphis, the ability to elect the candidate of their choice. If they choose someone like Steve Cohen, that's their prerogative.

All of this is introduction to the fussing that's surrounding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's decision, in the wake of Florida's latest round of partisan gerrymandering wrecking her current district, to run for re-election in the safely-blue and majority-Black 20th district (just north of, but not encompassing, her current turf). The complaint is that, with the evisceration of the VRA already signaling a cataclysmic drop in Black representation (particularly in the South), Wasserman-Schultz's bid will necessarily come at the expense of one of the few districts where a Black Democratic representative might have shot at winning.

But again: the point of the VRA is to permit minority communities to elect the candidate of their choice. And either they'll choose to elect DWS or they won't. If they do, that's their prerogative. If they don't, that's also their prerogative. It's not a foul for Wasserman-Schultz (or any other politician) to try to win the support and backing of another political community, any more than she is entitled to the support of a community. Again, either she wins or she doesn't, but that's a decision that can and should be made by the voters of the district.

I'll give this Mo Tkacik column an inch of credit for at least gesturing at a more viable basis for complaining at DWS' choice: that she should have run in the 22nd district (where she lives) because with a strong candidate it represents an at least outside chance at a Democratic victory and Democrats need to expand the playing field as far as possible. Sure, she'll probably lose in the 22nd. But she might not, and she'll give team Blue a better chance than any other candidate. Meanwhile, a Democrat will represent the 20th district no matter what. So DWS is placing her own self-interest in trying to occupy a safe seat over the party's interest in winning as many seats as possible.

Maybe. It's not exactly clear to me why DWS is the only strong candidate Democrats could possibly run in the 22nd district -- a depressing thought, if true. And this being Mo Tkacik, by the end of the column it dissolves into rambling about AIPAC and some real old-school classics about how DWS rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton against Bernie. Aside from its nostalgic value, though, that last part again speaks to this very frustrating tendency in some segments of the Democratic Party (and, to be sure, all segments of the Republican Party) that losing an election under via normal political contestation must be cheating.

On that note, there's chatter that some of the Black candidates running in the 20th District have held a meeting to see if any will drop out, in the hopes that this will consolidate the Black vote and make it more likely one of them will win. Under "Bernie was robbed" logic, non-viable candidates dropping out and endorsing a remaining candidate is, of course, the most abusive act of rigging imaginable. Under actual, normal politics, there's no problem here and such a decision is their prerogative as well. Once again, DWS is not entitled to this seat, and she is not entitled to have the political factions which oppose her just roll over and clear a path for her. If at the end of it all she wins, good for her. If she doesn't, good for whoever does. Either way, the most we can hope for is that the voters in one of the apparently few remaining majority-Black districts are able to elect the candidate of their choice.

SovCit Therapy

My current algorithmically-fed guilty pleasure is watching clips of "Sovereign Citizens" losing in court.

"Sovereign Citizen", for those who don't know, is an umbrella term capturing believers in an array of pseudo-legal gibberish that they think provide, more-or-less, a get-out-of-law-free card. There are probably infinite permutations of SovCit "theory", many of which these days don't use the term "sovereign citizen" (as they've gotten wise that this has become the generic term courts use when rejecting their nonsense). But if you've ever heard someone talk about how we're actually under Maritime Law or how the courts are actually bondholders, or offered to give some magic words that discharge your car payment or mortgage without actually paying for it, you've probably encountered a SovCit.

In various corners of the internet, SovCit peddlers confidently declare that they've cracked the code of U.S. law and so are immune to normal rules and regulations (like needing a driver's license to use a car, or being subjected to the criminal jurisdiction of their county judge). Once they're haled into court, however, they're frequently outraged and dismayed to find that their legal incantations have no effect. As in any conspiracy theory, the proponents always have an explanation for why it didn't pan out, usually taking the form either of (a) you didn't use the right magic words or (b) the judges/police/bailiff/everybody is corrupt and treasonous. And so the theories remain resilient in spite of loss after loss after loss. "As oft as reason is against a man, so oft will a man be against reason."

So why are these videos grabbing me right now? Well for one, in spite of their widely-acknowledged fringe status, I have to ask just how long it is before one of these cranks makes it onto the bench or some other position of substantial legal influence. After all, just how distant is their crackpottery from the crackpottery that dominates the MAGA movement? Are we really relying on the vetting capacity of this administration to keep them at bay? They're of a kind! One can very easily see how the sovereign citizen's self-serving assertions about the fictitiousness of pretty much all contemporary "law" -- as much as they are gibberish -- would hold appeal for a movement that fundamentally is about making up new law as they go in order to serve their own self-interest.  If anti-vaxx nuts can worm their way into top healthcare postings, I don't think we can be sanguine about SovCits finagling their way into the DOJ.

But leave the doomsaying aside. I think the main reason I'm enjoying these videos, as a law professor, is because right now there is something deeply cathartic about watching bad legal arguments lose. In a world where the highest court of the land acts in increasingly arbitrary and lawless fashion, to see a domain where law matters is a form of escapism. No, I'm not saying that an opinion like Callais is (quite) sovereign citizen caliber. But as a law professor, it genuinely and sincerely hurts to see how weakly rule of law constrains those actors constitutionally empowered to declare what the law is.

And yes, I can hear the tutting from a section of the bleachers that it was naive to ever think that law was anything other than dressed-up politics or judicial preference. But as popular as that line is (and as much as its proponents are now, with some justification, crowing with vindication), I still don't fully believe it. The late Fred Schauer's insight about "easy cases" -- the fact that most legal disputes are not in fact seriously contested and are the subject of massive intersubjective agreement from judges of wildly different social and ideological priors -- continues to carry weight. More importantly, the notion that most of the time legal questions should have relatively reliable answers is an important one. There is little point to the existence of the legal profession if the answer to every legal question posed by a client is "I dunno -- depends on the judge." We believe and we have to believe that there are cases -- a lot of cases, most cases -- where one can answer a legal question with a reasonably confident legal conclusion.

The SovCit smackdowns speak to that. They are dramatic, albeit in many stylized, illustrations that law is what it is even in the face of very loud yelling and screaming and dancing to try and incant it into something that it isn't. In a time where it sometimes seems as if force of political will alone can convert gibberish legal arguments into binding precedent, it is nice to watch brute insistence crash against actual legal reality.

The Submission is the Point, Part II

The Rome Pride Parade has banned Keshet, Italy's LGBTQ Jewish organization from having a float in their parade. They say it's because Keshet failed to "distance" itself from the "ongoing genocide in Gaza." Specifically, they did not expressly use the word "genocide" to describe what was happening in Gaza.

Before we proceed further, let's read what Keshet did say while under lying under the gaze of Rome Pride.

They said that, as a Jewish (not Israeli -- Keshet has no affiliation or connection to the Israeli government) organization, "the conflict in the region is not our area of expertise." Nonetheless, they said they "feel close to the suffering of the Palestinian people." However, they also explained their hesitation around using the specific word "genocide", including their experience with how those using that word frequently ended up targeting the entire Jewish, not Israeli, community for culpability: 

We are especially concerned with the sentence that we keep on hearing that ‘the Jewish people are carrying out what they were subjected to,' a sentence that does not just refer to a conflict or a government but ends up connecting what is happening to the whole Jewish people.

Agree with Keshet's stance or not, this hardly seems like the sort of intractable political gap that should make them personas non grata. If it were the case that Rome Pride was hoping to find a mutually acceptable arrangement with Keshet; a way that they could stand together even if they didn't fully agree together, this would seem to more than satisfy that.

This is a critical point to make. I don't doubt that there are differences in how the leaders of Rome Pride and the leaders of Keshet perceive what is happening in Israel and Palestine. And sometimes differences are simply too large, and the gulf is too wide, such that there is no hope for reconciliation. But there is a distinction between how a group acts when it views its interlocutor as a partner whom it hopes to be able to stay in fellowship and community with, with whom it would be terrible and agonizing if it were forced to cut ties with, versus when it sees the other as an enemy, to either be placed under vassalage or  be met on the battlefield. In the former case, you look for how you can harmonize, for how differences and distinctions can be absorbed in the spirit of a broader common ground. In the latter you desire disagreement; you try to throw up as many redlines as possible, you are excited to find a reason to say "no".

And it's very clear how Rome Pride saw its relationship with the LGBTQ Jews. What they wanted out of Keshet was not something that could be mutually acceptable. What they wanted was submission. Knowing why Keshet didn't want to use that specific word, knowing that its demurral had nothing to do with refusing to extend care and concern for Palestinians or even with expressing solidarity with Israel and everything to do with their specific experiences as Jews and how they were being actively marginalized -- that only made the prospect of submission all the more alluring. They wanted Keshet to bend before them, and if they didn't bend, they were happy to see them break. JTA reports that Rome Pride announced Keshet's exclusion within 15 minutes of the end of the two parties' meeting. That is not a timeline that speaks to an organization that was earnestly attempting to find common ground and would only announce exclusion as the last resort of completely irreconcilable differences. That is the timeline of a group that was ready and eager and excited to righteously announce their expulsion.

All of this is familiar. And again, it is not about finding common ground; it is entirely about asserting dominance. Two years ago, I wrote about the Israeli artist showing at the Venice Biennale, who elected to close her exhibit until "a cease-fire and hostage release agreement is reached." You might have thought those protesting her presence would be elated, that she was publicly taking a stand against the war. They were in fact furious. They hated that the artist (a regular presence at Israeli anti-war demonstrations) did this voluntarily, of her own accord, when what they wanted was for it to be wrested from her. Nothing would satisfy them unless they felt that their target was beaten and broken. What might appear to be a mutually agreeable resolution is despised not in spite of but because of its mutuality: "if they agree, then it was not imposed, and if it was not imposed, then there was not truly submission."

Rome Pride says they are "fully capable of distinguishing between the Israeli government and the Jewish community." But they also hold Keshet "responsible for having failed, and continuing to fail, to distance itself from the ongoing genocide in Gaza," Which raises the question: why should they need to "distance" themselves? What makes them so close?

It is, of course, because they're Jewish. Keshet's concern -- that the term "genocide" was being used to demand collective responsibility and collective culpability from Jews, not Israelis -- was entirely vindicated. They understood the game. All Jews understand the game. How many years ago did Steve Cohen write this immortal passage?

Every Jew on the left will know that terrible syndrome whereby, whatever the context and wherever one is, we will be tested by being given the question "what is your position on Zionism?" Wanna support the miners—what's your position on Zionism? Against the bomb—what's your position on Zionism? And want to join our march against the eradication of Baghdad, in particular the eradication of Baghdad—what's your position on Zionism? And we all know what answer is expected in order to pass the test. It is a very strong form of anti-Semitism based on assumptions of collective responsibility. Denounce Zionism, crawl in the gutter, wear a yellow star and we'll let you in the club.

Cohen's insight is that this practice is not about ensuring overlapping values or common interests. It is about domination. That's why Cohen, who is in fact anti-Zionist, is deemed to fail the test -- he does not abase himself enough; he does not make it clear that he acknowledges being beneath those demanding his supplication.

And so too here. Leave aside the fact that last year's Rome Pride march saw the Jewish marchers attacked and harassed in despicable fashion. That is more standard-issue thuggery, albeit thuggery that is rightly viewed as part of the context for Rome Pride's decision this year. This year, Rome Pride demanded a show of self-abnegation from the Jews. The Jews refused to give them one, and Rome Pride deemed that unacceptable. That's what happened. Do not get caught up in thinking that there is some deeper or more essential ideological gap here. The submission was the point.

Rage Induced by the Machine

I don't really use Facebook anymore. It's an open tab and an app on my phone, so I check it periodically out of habit, but it's not part of my basic rotation.

I'm a millennial, so I started using Facebook in college, when it was limited to college. I didn't at all mind it expanding to "everyone" -- hey, I was graduating too -- and for quite some time it did exactly what I wanted it to do: served as a convenient vector to keep up with friends who had flung themselves around the country. And that would still be a nice use today -- I'd love to know what people are up to these days. So many cute babies!

But alas, these days Facebook is essentially worthless. No, that's too tame -- it's actively malignant. When I open Facebook, it defaults to an algorithmic feed that maybe shows an actual friend's post once in every half a dozen. The majority of posts are either AI slop history lessons or, more often, polarizing political ragebait. The irony is there isn't a clear side to the ragebait, though for me it's mostly Israel- and antisemitism related. But it's invariably someone angry about something and expressing their position in the most inflammatory way possible. Every time I click through to read more, I feel myself becoming a worse person.

And that's not even the bottom of the pit. God help me if I read comments. Even on the rare occasion I get a basically neutral news article or press release, the comments are just full of people being their absolute worst selves. In the wake of the San Diego shooting, here are some of the comment categories that stood out to me as repeated themes:

• On posts by Jews or Jewish institutions condemning the shooting, ostensibly Jewish people blasting the condemnation because Muslims have it coming and Jews should never defend them even from terrorist violence.
• On posts about how the shooter harbored antisemitic views, non-Jewish people blasting Jews for "making it all about you" (what?).
• On any post by anyone, saying this all traces back to Israel.

Again, these were not isolates -- these were categories. I'd see comment after comment like this. The inescapable feeling was grief, anger, and despair over how awful my fellow humans are. It took effort to remind myself that this is not in fact all humans, it is a very limited and non-representative subset. But it was, again, damaging me to keep reading these. When one is swamped with instances of people being terrible, it makes you more terrible too. Even though I know that most people's responses to San Diego shooting are normal, it hacks your brain into thinking that this is how the world is.

That's what Facebook is these days -- an algorithmic machine that tries its level best to make people the worst versions of themselves because that sort of person will engage more. Such a price would be too much to pay even if Facebook was useful as a catch-up tool with old friends -- which it isn't.

And sure, to some extent this is a problem with all social media. But not like this. I actually like Bluesky, and Reddit has been decent since I stay away from politics. Facebook really seems to be in a category of its own (perhaps along with X/Twitter, which I don't use at all anymore) in terms of the intensity with which it pushes awful messaging.

(It's one saving grace right now is that my reel algorithm is mostly handing me standup comedy clips from comedians I actually like. But to by honest, I suspect most of those clips are stolen bot reposts -- not the least because they're increasingly cutting off before the actual joke gets told. Even when you find something good, Facebook finds a way to make it awful).

Galindo Goes Down

There's plenty to talk about regarding tonight's election results in Texas. We won't have "Big John" Cornyn to push around for much longer, as he was smashed by hyper-corrupt Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. This maybe gives Democrats a shot at the Texas seat -- Paxton is generally viewed as a weaker candidate against Democratic nominee James Talarico -- but regardless I shed no tears over Cornyn's defeat. He was a far-right Republican for his entire career, and a leopard ate his face. And even though Paxton is (somehow) objectively "worse" than Cornyn in every respect, it also scarcely matters in the Senate -- either man would be a lockstep vote for the GOP agenda. Cornyn reaped what he sowed, and he career ended without dignity. He deserved nothing better.

But given my interests, I want to talk about the results of Democratic runoff in the San Antonio-area 35th district, where Johnny Garcia, a moderate Democrat and sheriff's deputy, defeated antisemitic extremist Maureen Galindo by about a 64/36 margin.

On the whole, this is good news. No margin is wide enough not to be a little disconcerting when it comes to a candidate who proposed creating "castration centers" for "American Zionists" and ranted about Jewish/Israeli/Zionist control of the world, but approaching a 2:1 margin (which has been widening over the course of the evening) is pretty emphatic for a candidate who won a plurality in the opening round and at least initially carried the endorsement of the other two runners-up. And one doesn't know how much of even Galindo's residual support came from people who still hadn't heard much about antisemitic views or assumed it was the usual contretemps over Israel. Galindo is orders of magnitude worse than Graham Platner, Nazi tattoo and all. But most of Galindo's most offensive remarks didn't really come to public attention until after the initial round of voting, and as much as coverage seemed ubiquitous to someone like me with my media diet, I cannot stress how much of an outlier I and every single person reading this blog is when it comes to the amount of attention we're paying to this race. That Garcia's margins have climbed over the course of the evening suggests that later-deciding voters -- who had more time to hear about what Galindo was about -- broke against her.

Overall, given the end results it seems clear that Galindo benefited from being seen as "the progressive fighter" in a context where many Democrats want that over all else (even as that presentation was aided by GOP money). Once people started learning about who this woman was with more specificity, a lot of that support melted -- and that's a good thing, since a big fear many of us have is if Democratic voters follow in the GOP footsteps of just voting for whatever avatar best is perceived as channeling incandescent "anti-establishment" rage. Where that sort of outlook drives voting behavior, antisemitism becomes not a burden but a boon -- further proof that one is sticking it to Power (where Jews are inherently associated with capital-P Power). The resounding rejection of Galindo suggests that is not where we are as a party, and that's a very good thing.

Credit also should go to the progressive elected establishment for being absolutely clear they'd have no truck with the likes of Galindo. The rapid mobilization against her from more moderate Jewish Democrats like Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer was one thing. But Talarico immediately disassociated himself from Galindo, AOC gave a no-holds-barred denunciation, and Greg Casar publicly backed Garcia. This matters because on his own merits Johnny Garcia, a Blue Dog sort, is not the type of Democrat these Democrats tend to promote, and one can imagine a universe where they just try to skate past Galindo's "rougher edges" given the overwhelming importance of kneecapping Democratic moderates. That didn't happen here. A few gadfly commentators aside, nobody was treating Galindo as anything other than despicable.

Having said all of that -- and all of that is reason for good cheer -- I think we would be foolish not to recognize that there is a real appetite in some progressive circles for what Galindo represents, which is to say, for overt and uncompromising antisemitism dressed in the barest fig leaf of "anti-Zionism". It is not a majority, it is not even a large minority, but it isn't entirely trivial either. Whether this appetite is first-order commitment to Jew hatred, or whether it flows indirectly from a more inchoate lashing out at anyone and anything associated with "the establishment", I'm not sure. But we shouldn't pretend that this is not a force moving through American politics, and we shouldn't pretend it has no traction in Democratic circles. It does, and that's why it was so important -- and again, so heartening -- to see the party rally against it without reservation and turn it back. 

Once again, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't that they have cranks and we don't. The difference is that our cranks lose in our primaries, and theirs become presidential nominees. Let's keep it that way.

We Hate To Do The Number Limbo

I was just a bit too old to have ever been into Barney. It came out in 1992; I was born in 1986 -- six years old is right at the edge of its target audience. For some reason, though, the opening riff to "The Number Limbo" has stuck with me as I round forty years old, periodically popping into my head at random intervals like a parasitic ear worm. I actually didn't even know it was a "Barney" song until I googled it last night. It is a mystery how it burrowed into my subconscious, but it has found its place and it will not be dislodged.

I was born too late to be into Barney itself, but I was also old enough to remember the absolutely mass social hatred people had for Barney. I'm not talking about six- and seven-year-olds performatively rejecting Barney to prove they're not babies. That's at least developmentally appropriate -- though the dirty secret they don't tell you is that this sort of performative rejection is actually a sure-shot indicator you're still a kid. One of my firmest beliefs about human development is that teenagers reject all their "kids" interests to prove they're adults because they're nervous they're not -- then they go off to college and realize the one thing they can be sure they have in common with their new roommate is that they both loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a kid. Actual adulthood is reached when one doesn't feel the need to prove it.

Anyway, I digress. The Barney-hate we all saw was not the kid-appropriate version; it was society-wide and very much an adult phenomenon. And this practice -- I dunno. I don't like it. A society-wide propensity towards hating things whose primary sin is that they make a lot of people -- here, small children -- happy is not a phenomenon we should be proud of.

Perhaps with Barney young parents have an excuse for the haterade. Nathaniel isn't quite at the age where he's consuming children's media, but I can imagine in a few years after hearing the theme song to Bluey or whatever for the 9554th time I will laugh bitterly at my "who is it hurting" naivete. But this phenomenon is larger than Barney or children's media. The exhausted young parents story doesn't explain why we all decided to hate Anne Hathaway for awhile. Or Guy Fieri. Or Richard Simmons (okay, homophobia can explain that last one pretty easily).

The reality is, we do seem to pick out random pop culture figures who've done nothing wrong but be too earnest in making people happy and decide we're going to enjoy ourselves by collectively hating them. It is a society-wide digression towards adolescence and bullying behavior, styled (just as with actual adolescence) as a form of sophistication. We should be much more ashamed than we are of indulging in it.

The Honorable Jo Perini-Abbott

 

There are bigger electoral fish to fry tonight, but I do want to give a congratulations to my friend and colleague Jo Perini-Abbott, who looks set to win a seat on the Multnomah County Circuit Court. While we'll be sad to be losing her at Lewis & Clark, she will make a fine addition to the bench.

I also want to give a quick shoutout to her opponent, John Casalino. By all accounts (including Jo's), he is a fine attorney and also would have made a solid judge. While I supported Jo, I cannot tell you how nice it is to fill out a ballot when the race isn't "Norma Reasonabola versus Dixie McRapist in a nail-biter!" There are three other local contested judicial elections this cycle, and in at least two of them there were a multitude of really strong candidates to choose from (those two races are heading to a run-off). 

The third race is a bit of an odd duck with an incumbent facing controversy (it's ... a long story), but the challenge to her doesn't seem especially ideologically-motivated. The incumbent, Judge Adrian Brown, has clashed with our local DA, but her challenger is a public defender who suggested that frustration with Judge Brown is present on all sides of the bar. In any event, Brown appears to be losing by a very wide margin.

But I don't want to focus on that. I want to focus on a great candidate notching a win, in an election that speaks to the depth of respected and diligent public servants we have in our community. How lucky I am to live in such a place.

Congratulations!

Magic Words in Malign Times

You've probably heard of the shooting at a San Diego Islamic center that killed three people, along with the two shooters (who reportedly killed themselves). Early reports suggest that this was a White Supremacist attack.

I have little to say about this save the obvious -- that this is a despicable act of Islamophobic terror and that it flows directly from the cavalcade of anti-Muslim rhetoric and action that has emanated from the top levels of our government and society. That the perpetrators will never face true justice only underscores their monstrosity. Whatever comfort and support I can give to the victims and their loved ones, I extend it, even as I know I can do little.

I do want to note one other thing. I read the statement on the attack from my local Jewish Federation. It is, of course, horrified -- there was never any doubt of that. But it does not say the word "Islamophobia" or "Islamophobic".  In fact, other than naming the site of the shooting, it doesn't mention "Islam" or "Muslim" at all. The shooting is presented as emblematic of "the threat facing religious communities in America"; it underscores the need for "security funding to help protect all houses of worship and faith-based institutions nationwide."

I am not one to police statements such as these to see whether they have or omit certain "magic words". The tenor of the JFed's statement is clear enough; and if it speaks in universal language, well, I'm not a cheerleader for the overextension of the "all lives matter-ing" complaint. However, there are others out there who do make a habit out of scouring for magic words, and who work themselves up into very high dudgeon when a statement that seems on face perfectly appropriate doesn't use a certain specific word or phrase or framing. 

If such individuals wish to be truly equal opportunity in their critique, then they should have no problem with anyone who rakes the JFed over the coals for its omission. But if they think that would be unreasonable, and that the JFed deserves better than that, then I hope they'll consider extending similar grace to others in turn.

Of Course Dobbs Didn't Completely "Return Abortion to the States"

After a brief delay, the Supreme Court stayed (over dissents from Justices Thomas and Alito) the latest Fifth Circuit gambit to try and take mifepristone off the market. There's plenty to talk about, and plenty of others will talk about it. But I did want to flag one talking point in the dissent that stood out to me for its hackishness.

Justice Alito described the Dobbs decision as having "restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders." Allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail, consequently, "undermine[s]" the Dobbs ruling insofar as it permits abortion medication to be sent to states that have sought to ban it. The immediate problem with this logic is obvious: Dobbs did not completely "return abortion to the states." Dobbs held that there was no federally-protected constitutional right to an abortion. But there could be myriad ways the federal government might pass regulations on abortion -- for example, via its power to regulate the safety and distribution of pharmaceuticals.

This point is not novel. Scott Lemieux wrote today that "making mifepristone available through telehealth 'undermines' Dobbs only if the holding was not that the Constitution was silent on abortion but that the Constitution is hostile toward abortion. Louisiana has never had any jurisdiction over the federal drug approval process."

But what I haven't seen flagged yet is just how quickly the dissenters abandon this farkakteh position that they obviously don't believe in the first place. Because you know far you'll have to look in U.S. Reporter to find a Dobbs Justice emphasizing ongoing federal authority on the subject of abortion? Approximately one page, to Justice Thomas' dissent, where he contends that the mailing of mifepristone is illegal nationwide under the Comstock Act! Whatever else one might say about that argument, it is precisely an assertion that federal law continues to have a say on abortion. Which -- of course conservatives believe! There's never been any doubt of that! Or more precisely, there's no doubt of that in circumstances where the federal government might seek to assert authority to limit abortion access, rather than protect it.

As always, the actual meaning of any Supreme Court precedent for the Court's conservatives is whatever they want it to mean, for however long it is convenient for it to carry that meaning. When the Supreme Court in Callais confirmed the continued vitality of the Allen precedent, that commitment lasted approximately two weeks. That's an anemic showing, but it is no match for the one page the ultra-right faction took to travel from insisting that Dobbs forecloses federal regulations on abortion to insisting that federal regulation already makes the distribution of abortion drugs illegal.

Fighting AI Slop in Academic Publishing

The prominent academic pre-print repository arXiv has reportedly announced stiff new penalties for authors who submit papers with AI-generated hallucinations (e.g., fake citations). Violators will be subject to a one-year outright ban on submissions, and an indefinite requirement that any future uploads must have been accepted by a "reputable peer-reviewed venue".

This is as good a prompt as any for why I am slightly -- slightly -- more optimistic about the ability of academia to fend off the tsunami of AI slop compared to other entities in the business of generating texts. One problem with AI slop in, say, the news space is that it's essentially impossible to impose meaningful sanctions on violators. It's essentially spam bots -- if one site gets delisted, another springs up in its place. The spammers don't care specifically about the reputation of this website or that (usually fake) author. The main goal is to get their text out in the world; it doesn't matter so much who it's attributed to (except insofar as that can aid the text getting more readers or otherwise embedding itself in the algorithm).

But academics are differently situated. True, an academic might have an incentive to look super-productive, and so an unscrupulous version of me might be tempted by the prospect of being to produce dozens of (low-quality, but cross-cited) papers in a short-period of time. But crucially, it's important that I be the one credited for all this productivity and all these citations. If I'm blacklisted from a bunch of journals, that's a genuine deterrent in a way that banning a spam bot is not for your typical spammer. Penalties like those that arXiv proposed exact meaningful costs that draw (ironically enough) on the self-interested nature of academics (if the only thing we cared about was getting our research into the world, without worrying about the credit, this deterrent wouldn't work). Academics need to put our own name on articles to get credit for articles, and that means that where we are found out to be misbehaving, there can be punishments which stick to us. For my part, I am generally a strong proponent of strong punishments -- including blacklists -- for academic authors who submit AI slop to journals.

This isn't to say there are no abusive uses of AI that wouldn't circumvent these reputational deterrents. I can think of two in particular.

The first is papers with fake authors which over-cite other articles by a real academic. Banning the fake authors would not exact costs on the real-world wrongdoer (the real academic whose presumably using some mill to generate the fake articles to goose his or her own citation counts). That said, where one can credibly ascertain that the over-cited scholar is the "real" author and that they've created a Potemkin article as a means of abusing a citation racket, they still can be subject to meaningful sanctions.

The second possible problem is articles which falsely claim to be authored by a real academic (who actually had no affiliation with the piece), hoping to trade on his or her genuine reputation to boost the reach of the slop article. This practice is especially dangerous because -- consistent with the above promotion of punishing the authors for bad AI practices -- it risks engendering false accusations. It appears that John Smith wrote a bogus AI-generated slop piece, so blacklist John Smith -- except John Smith actually had nothing to do with the piece; some scammers slapped his name on it. This could be a significant problem, though I'll note its scope is limited again by the fact that the main benefits of publishing a "bad" AI-generated article have to at some point accrue to a "real" author, and so eventually whichever co-author is the actual malign actor behind the charade should be able to be sussed out.

Hillel International Forbids Middlebury Chapter From Staying, Leaving

The Jewish students involved in Middlebury College's Hillel want to disaffiliate from Hillel International, citing (among other things) disagreement over implementation over the latter's "partnership policies."

Middlebury College’s Hillel student board made the decision last week after a yearlong consultation process with active participants in the campus organization, university administrators and Hillel International leadership, according to the student group’s co-presidents. The board also voted to disaffiliate from Hillel International, but were told by Middlebury’s administration that they lacked the authority to take that action, the co-presidents told the Middlebury campus newspaper.

The student group, renamed to Jewish Association of Middlebury, will continue to perform similar functions as Hillels do on hundreds of campuses around the world — holding events around Shabbat and Jewish holidays and other Jewish religious and social programming. The board says it will maintain an on-paper link with Hillel without adhering to its guidelines, and it will not receive any funding from the organization.

The response from Hillel International has been ... interesting:

Hillel International, which does not employ a rabbi or any professional staff at Middlebury, said in a statement that it was currently reviewing Hillel’s affiliation status with the college to confirm it will ensure that JAM “adheres to our mission and standards.”

“Hillel is committed to supporting all Jewish students — from all types of backgrounds and with a diversity of views and beliefs on a range of issues including Israel,” the statement in part read. “At the same time, we are a proudly Zionist organization, and do not provide a platform for programming that denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state within secure borders.

“All campus Hillels — even those that are just a student group without dedicated professional Hillel staff — are expected to operate in line with our mission, vision, values, and policies.”

[....] 

At the university’s behest, the students then met virtually with Hillel International, whose representative reiterated that the board members must universally adopt Hillel International’s political views and values about Israel, according to the Campus. But the representative also conceded that it couldn’t stop the students from changing the organization’s name.

“We said we want to disaffiliate, and they said you can’t. And we said, well, we’re going to change the name anyway. And they said, we can’t stop you,” Jaffe said.

So to recap: the Middlebury Jewish students object to following the partnership guidelines. Hillel says campus chapters have to follow the partnership guidelines. So the students say they want to disaffiliate from Hillel. They're told they can't. So the students say they won't follow the partnership guidelines. And Hillel says ... they're reviewing the chapter's affiliation status?

Forgive me, but what exactly is Hillel endgame here? Disaffiliation? That's what the students wanted to begin with! It's just a farce at this point: "We're leaving" "You can't leave" "Well we're not following your rules" "Then we'll kick you out!"

I'm a general opponent of campus witch hunts targeting Hillel, which often does essential work as a center for Jewish life on campus. But it is a case that the national office of Hillel has a tendency to forget that it ultimately serves Jewish students, not the other way around, and this is yet another instance of Hillel resisting its badly needed dose of democracy. The reason why Hillel constantly steps in it when it comes to applying the partnership guidelines (among other issues) is that it lacks meaningful democratic accountability to its students. If the Jewish students of Middlebury involved in Hillel want to raise money for World Central Kitchen's relief efforts in Gaza (the incident which apparently set this whole train in motion), that's their prerogative, and it's outrageous that the national body thinks it should be entitled to intercede against it. 

Finally, it would be easy to connect the Middlebury students' decision with broader campaigns aimed at boycotting or rejecting Hillel as a "Zionist" or "Israel-connected" institutions. However, while their problems with Hillel International are certainly related to that organization's narrowness on Israel and Zionism, it's important to stress that the Middlebury students are very much not framing their decision as a general rejection of "Israel" or "Zionism":

“Let us be clear: this decision is not a rebuke of Zionism, Zionist students, or the importance of Israel to many in the Jewish community,” a Dec. 2025 email to JAM membership read. “Rather, it reflects a desire to create the most welcoming and pluralistic space possible.”

This choice, in other words, was not made by a group of radical purists who couldn't countenance brushing up against anything associated with the "Zionist entity." Rather, it was forced by a national office made up of, well, radical purists who couldn't countenance brushing up against anything associated with support for Palestinians. The latter category includes many Jews who most certainly do not see Israel as a dirty word, but nonetheless find themselves personae non gratae in too many Jewish spaces.

How Parenting Changes Politics

It's a cliche to say that becoming a parent changes your politics. But maybe not in the same way for everyone. Parenting, I think, amplifies one's protective instincts. It accentuates vulnerability -- there's this tiny baby, who you want all the best things for, but whom you are painfully aware is dependent on not just you but the whole world to determine the trajectory of his or her life. You want to keep your child safe, and yet you know that it's not ultimately all up to you (or your child, for that matter). It's one of those banalities that feels ridiculous but is true; that it's almost impossible to imagine loving and caring about someone more than the baby in your arms.

There are some people for whom that protectiveness manifests in a form of conservatism -- suddenly becoming a lot less willing to "risk" harms befalling their child (where "risk" is less "letting them climb a tree" and more "letting them attend school with the riff-raff"). But for me, at least, this overwhelming, almost painful sense of protectiveness unlocked a new level of empathy. That feeling of terror at the thought of something terrible happening your baby -- the omnipresent Geiger counter of fear? Every parent has that. Every child (and I include here adult children) has loved ones who feel that way about them too. To see something bad happen to another person -- for them to be in a position where they need help and can't get it -- it hits me like a tidal wave; oddly, not fully on their own behalf, but on behalf of those who love them. I both can't and can imagine how that would feel if it happened to Nathaniel. And all the clever rationalizations and political machinations that explain why this suffering or deprivation or injustice or explosion is the just one wither in the face of that crushing wall of empathy.

The other day I had an idea for a painting series (that is, if I were a talented artist, which I am not), which was to take classic depictions of war and battle and replace all the faces of the soldiers with those of babies. The thought of the painting makes me want to shut my eyes to and run away from my own imagination (which, from an artistic standpoint, is a good sign -- good art makes you feel things after all -- but is less pleasant when one can't create and just has to live with it in your own mind). Each man charging, rearing, falling, crying, in agony, lying still -- they are all someone's baby. No matter what side they're on, they have loved ones grieving for them. How can we not do everything in our power to avert such grief? It is an awful experience even to imagine it, much less to live through it. Even if the rational part of me can fathom -- barely -- that this cannot always be the absolute number one priority, boy should it put one hefty thumb on the scale.

Between "One-Sided" and "Equating", Part II

A few days ago there was a dust-up at the Park Slope Food Coop after a member, during a coop meeting, stated that "Jewish supremacism is a problem in this country." Following an outcry, the store's general manager condemned the remark, along with that of a different member who decried "Arab supremacy" in the context of speaking out against October 7 and criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood.

I read that sequence and thought "that's about as satisfactory an outcome as I could hope for." Whatever theoretical or academic justifications one can use to validate either "Jewish supremacism" or "Arab supremacy", if you want to take the temperature down in these sorts of settings you have to clamp down on that sort of thing. If one isn't okay, then the other isn't either. If anything, it is nicely convenient that both phrases were used, as it lets the coop leadership make clear that there position is one of principle, not a backdoor means of showing favoritism to one group at the expense of another.

But I knew my satisfaction would be another's ill-temper, and so it is here. I wasn't surprised, of course, to see that the coop's pro-Palestinian activists were going to the mat for their right to assail "Jewish supremacism." And unfortunately, I also wasn't surprised to see others complain that to condemn the phrase "Arab supremacy" may as well have nullified the condemnation of the phrase "Jewish supremacism".

For coop member Ramon Maislen, who condemned the comments allegedly made by Huarachi last week, Szladek’s email created a false equivalency between the two remarks.

[....] 

Maislen said he believed Szladek’s email “completely minimizes what Jewish people are feeling at the coop.”

“I don’t think there’s much coded language around Arab supremacy that I’m aware of,” Maislen said. “So I think it’s very, very disappointing when you see an email go out after such a mask-off moment for the hatred within the anti-Zionist movement, and to have the general coordinators basically, completely, make it some sort of like equality between the two statements.”

On Thursday, Coop4Unity, an anti-BDS coalition at the coop that Maislen serves as an organizer of, issued a press release calling on [coop General Manager Joe] Szladek to “issue an unequivocal condemnation of antisemitism,” arguing that his previous email created a “false moral equivalence that members say dilutes the gravity of what occurred.”

“In his statement, General Manager Szladek cited a separate member’s use of the phrase ‘Arab supremacy’ — offered in the context of referencing October 7th and the Muslim Brotherhood — and presented it as a parallel offense to the ‘Jewish supremacy’ remark that drew crowd applause,” the release read. “Coop4Unity argues this is a false equivalence that obscures rather than addresses what took place.”

Ah yes, "false equivalency" -- a sin most heinous. Except, that is, when one doesn't do it -- for then one is committing the equally grievous sin of being "one-sided". I wrote on this subject five years ago, and it remains resonant today. But unfortunately, I feel as if things have gotten worse rather than better. 

And -- morality aside -- this is such a dumb hill to die on. Is it really so important that one be able to rail about "Arab supremacy" that you'll risk undermining a condemnation of people going on about "Jewish supremacism"? Take the win! This whole logic is how you get backed into a corner of being mad at people for saying the JDL is bad, when what one should do is be delighted anytime someone says "JDL is bad" and be ecstatic at the opportunity to negatively polarize your constituency against them and their apologists. The Park Slope group had the opportunity to set the polarity of the debate as "mainstream coop members versus people who are livid that they can't hurl 'supremacist' charges at ethnic minorities", and they squandered it. Again, I think the ethics are bad here, but I'm almost madder at the tactical idiocy of it all.

Prosecuting Our Military When It Murders

The United States military continues to carry out illegal strikes on civilian boats allegedly engaged in drug trafficking.

The case that this is criminal is, in my view, not close. Contrary to the President's assertions, there is no serious argument that we are in the midst of an armed conflict with ... who exactly? Drug traffickers? Their behavior (if indeed the boaters are engaged in wrongful activity at all, which is hardly assured) is the epitome of criminal misconduct, which must be dealt with via criminal proceedings. We do not get to fire rockets at the vehicles of suspected criminals. And even if one could strain to argue that this falls under a military engagement, the follow-up strikes on shipwrecked sailors violates longstanding rules in the law of warfare. We literally sentenced Nazis to death for doing this.

There is a lot of enthusiasm for "prosecutions" amongst Democrats now. I share that enthusiasm. We must make clear that, if and when Democrats retake power, there will be consequences for the criminal activities that have run rampant through this administrative. And in many ways, this represents both an easy and an important case. 

It's easy because not only is the law incredibly clear, but there's no difficulty identifying the responsible party. This isn't a situation where we have to track down a masked unknown grunt who stood out for particularly brutal aggression (as in many of the ICE cases), or alternatively, where we have to do difficult work in tying said grunt's actions to specific orders from higher-ups. Here the military context makes command responsibility obvious, and the commanding General, Francis Donovan, is named in the Pentagon press releases bragging about the "operations".

It's important because restoring the applicability of law of war principles to the U.S. military is of absolute existential importance for a nation with the most powerful military on the planet. Without downplaying the many, many breaches, there is a huge difference between a military that is internally committed to law of war rules and one that from the top decides to openly flout them. The latter situation is how you do start seeing what Trump wanted to do, but couldn't, in term 1 -- deploying the full might of the American military apparatus against the American citizenry to retain a dictatorial grip on power.

And on top of all that, of all the potential criminals one might find harbored by the Trump administration, General Donovan is probably among the most vulnerable. The president's pardon power does seem to extend at least partially into the realm of military justice (and in fact, Trump has already pardoned several war criminals). but it seems clear to me that the pardon power cannot completely obstruct a future Commander-in-Chief's power to drum out of service an officer whom the CinC lacks faith in as a legitimate holder of rank and service. Of everybody implicated in Trumpist crimes, those in the military are, formally speaking, probably the least insulated from facing accountability from a future administration.

But in spite of all that, I suspect that prosecuting General Donovan and his compatriots responsible for criminal actions on the high seas will be much more fraught and less popular than essentially any other prosecution a future administration might bring. The political gravity pulling against prosecuting members of the military -- regardless of the context -- is just going to be too strong. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect it will be insurmountable for any junior officers or enlisted men involved in the operation. And even for the senior leadership, I can't imagine it going over well even in a context where there is a significant demand to prosecute, say, ICE leaders or Trump associates found to have embezzled money.

I don't have a good answer for this because, again, the need to restore deterrence here is nothing short of existential. We've seen in the Israeli case -- it barely managed to limp across a conviction in 2016 when IDF soldier Elor Azaria shot an unarmed Palestinian, and just doing that nearly tore the country apart. That set the stage for the non-prosecution decision for soldiers accused of sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees ten years later -- a decision that again came on the heels of widespread government intervention (including joining in outright rioting) in support of the abusers. The culture of impunity that's developed in the intervening years no doubt plays no small role in the brutal devastation the IDF has wreaked against civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon (the soldiers punished for vandalizing a Jesus statute had every reasonable expectation of assuming they'd be let off scot-free were it not for the  bad fortune of angering one of the few foreign constituencies the Israeli government still cares about appeasing). As disastrous as that trajectory has been in the Israeli case, I don't think they're in any way unique -- most countries (and certainly our country) blanches at holding their uniformed military personnel accountable for misdeeds.

So I don't know. It might that these prosecutions, or other retributive measures, have to be a little less media-forward than others. They might not be political winners (and to be clear, I do think that going after corrupt Trump apparatchiks will, in general, very much be a political winner in addition to being the right thing to do). But it still needs to be done.

Seventh Circuit Accidentally Tells Truth About Voter ID Laws

There is no "right to vote" in the United States Constitution.

This is a fact that surprises many people, given the centrality of democracy to our national ethos. But it's true. The Constitution prohibits certain specific types of restrictions on the franchise -- for example, limits based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th amendment), or, in federal elections, failure to pay a poll tax (24th Amendment). However, there is no general, textual protection for a right to vote.

That said, the Supreme Court has recognized some heightened scrutiny that applies to limitations on suffrage. The "interest of the State when it comes to voting," the Supreme Court held in 1966, "is limited to the power to fix qualifications." The Court in that case concluded that wealth was not a valid qualification the state could impose on the franchise -- the state has no interest in preventing an otherwise qualified voter from casting a ballot because of his or her income. The broader principle is that the state has no valid interest in voter suppression -- preventing validly qualified voters from casting ballots. By contrast, a law which is related to enforcing a legitimate qualification -- say that the voter who presents themselves at the poll is in fact who they say they are -- may be permissible.

This distinction has been critical in more recent litigation over voter ID laws. Critics say that these laws are about voter suppression -- they are attempts to prevent lawful and qualified voters from casting their ballots by throwing up extraneous and burdensome obstacles in their path. Proponents, at least officially, deny any such motive -- they contend that such laws are simply about ensuring "election integrity" by preventing fraudulent votes from being cast. Any resident who actually is a valid voter should still be able to cast their ballot (all they need to do is show a valid ID! How hard is that?).

Now, it's always been evident that the latter, "anti-fraud" justification was a lie. The alleged "fraud" was essentially non-existent; and demanding voter ID wouldn't generally even forestall the tiny amount of fraud that did occur. But when the Supreme Court later upheld laws like Indiana's voter ID statute in Crawford v. Marion County against a facial challenge, it relied on this distinction between wrongfully trying to disenfranchise qualified voters and the legitimate state authority to fix qualifications. Voter ID laws are permissible because they are not about blocking qualified voters from voting, they are about ensuring that only qualified voters vote.

Recently, Indiana modified its voter ID law to prevent student IDs (but not VA, military, or tribal IDs) from being used as "voter ID". A district court had enjoined the law, ruling that it would unconstitutionally suppress the votes of young Indianans (and to reiterate -- young Indianans who are entirely legitimate and valid voters in Indiana elections). Earlier today, though, the Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction under the so-called Purcell principle, which cautions against court injunctions that change election rules too close to election day (ballots in Indiana's primary elections have already been mailed out).

The district court analyzed Purcell but concluded it did not apply, given that Indiana had permitted student IDs as a valid form of ID for decades and so would have to do nothing more complicated than revert to the system it had been using in every election up to the present one. But the Seventh Circuit disagreed, and in doing so it said something very revealing:

We view the risk of disruption to Indiana’s primary election as very serious. In no uncertain terms, the district court’s injunction will alter who can cast a ballot in this election (emphasis added).

This is a very revealing line. In theory (very, very naive theory), Indiana's law should not "alter who can cast a ballot in this election." The students who were eligible to vote before the ID law was passed are still fully eligible to vote after the law was passed. All Indiana is doing is tightening up security to ensure that only eligible voters vote -- but these students are eligible voters. In practice, of course, the court is absolutely right: some voters -- qualified, eligible voters -- who would be able to satisfy Indiana's voter ID law with a student ID will no longer be able to do so under the new rules, and so will not be able to cast a ballot. The function of the law is not to simply fix legitimate qualifications -- it is to prevent eligible, lawful voters from voting. The critics were right all along. 

Worse, the court's logic here manifestly treats as an injury (a "serious" injury; a "disruption" demanding emergency judicial action) the inability of Indiana to suppress valid, legitimate votes. Indiana did not change who was formally eligible to vote in its elections, meaning that the class of voters whose ability to "cast a ballot in this election" will be altered is comprised entirely of legitimate, registered voters. That cannot be stressed enough. One could imagine Purcell analysis that goes entirely to the procedural difficulties of changing voter ID eligibility rules midstream (such an argument might be plausible given that ballots had already been mailed, though the district court found that all Indiana would have to do to come into compliance is delete a single line in its election guidance documents). But that's not what the panel said. The court's articulation of the problem here is not one of administrative strain. The court's problem, "in no uncertain terms", is that certain eligible, registered voters who would be prevented (in spite of their eligibility) from casting a ballot if the student ID prohibition was in effect would now be allowed to cast a ballot in the primary. People who are eligible to vote will now not be blocked from voting. In essence, the court treats voter suppression as tantamount to a compelling state interest -- a stunning perversion of even our meager "right to vote" jurisprudence.

One might say I am reading too much into a single line in a hastily-filed emergency ruling. But I would say the Seventh Circuit's opinion is the epitome of a judicial Kinsley gaffe. Everybody knew that voter ID laws were not about concocted concerns about "fraud" but rather about trying to suppress lawful votes from Democratic constituencies. The Seventh Circuit just finally got around to admitting it.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXVIII: Lack of Pedophilic Incest Options

There is a paradox at the heart of this series. Its core premise is that if one looks hard enough (and honestly, not too hard), one can find someone blaming the Jews for anything. But precisely because of that, its almost uninteresting when the blamer is some complete internet rando. It's more "fun" when it's someone of at least marginal import or influence.

Our character today does have an X blue check, but that doesn't mean anything nowadays -- it's literally just an indicator that your content is paid promotion. So it probably is a complete rando. But some complete randos manage to transcend their humble origins and deserve their moment of spotlight. And so here, I present a man earnestly complaining that if it weren't for Israel, he'd have a baby sister he could groom.

Blech.

This also demonstrates one of the oddities of this series, which is that sometimes the Jews are falsely "blamed" for something that's actually good. Way before this series ever started, I remember finding a quote by the President of Sudan blaming Jews for ... causing people to protest against the Darfur genocide. Probably not entirely attributable to us, but also, I wouldn't ashamed if it was. Likewise, I actually don't think the Jewish State is why this man can be an incestuous pedophile, but if you're going to give away the credit, hey, I'm not going to object too loudly.

Against the World on Abbott Elementary

*Spoilers for the most recent episode of Abbott Elementary*

So we need to talk about the big plotline on this week's episode of Abbott Elementary.

I'm talking, of course, about Melissa and her former student, Jonathan.

The basic thrust is that Jonathan has supposedly become a big New York City finance guy, much to Melissa's elation, as she remembers him as a smart kid from one of her first classes. She's eager to have him visit her class to deliver an inspirational message to her current students. Unfortunately, it turns out that Jonathan actually is facing prison time for being involved in a crypto scam, and he wants Melissa to write him a character letter for the judge.

Jonathan makes clear that he assumed Melissa would be on his side as a fellow hustler. She was the one who taught him that you had to take what was yours, that it was each of them against the world, that the system was rigged so why not play dirty, and so on. He assumes he was living out her lessons, so of course she would do her part to help bend the legal process in his favor.

As Melissa realizes what's going on, it's clear she's heartbroken but also a bit rattled. She limply tells Jonathan that he taught him to punch up, not down, and tries to remind him of the sweet boy she remembers teaching who genuinely did care for others. This all falls on deaf ears though, and ultimately Melissa refuses to write the letter.

There was something about this plotline that rubbed me the wrong way. Obviously, Jonathan is an adult, and it would be juvenile and simplistic to blame the parables of his third-grade teacher for his adult exploitative choices. However, what I wish we saw, but we didn't really, was a bit more reckoning and reflection from Melissa about what message she is sending her children when she delivers these "the system is out to get you, it's you against the world" sermons, because that narrative genuinely can breed a sort of egoism and nihilism of the sort adult-Jonathan embodies. Instead, the story beat lands more on "sometimes the kids just turn out bad, and you have to accept that", which is true, and heartbreaking, but it didn't inspire much in the way of growth. 

It helps that as the episode progresses, Jonathan becomes more and more cartoonishly sociopathic. His targets were confused seniors, the "lessons" he learned centered entirely around not getting caught, and he's already plotting his next scam even before his sentenced for the current one! (For what it's worth, I also felt they kind of went this direction with Draemon Winding, another former-student-turned-minor-antagonist). That Jonathan feels so irredeemable ultimately brings the episode in for a softer landing, since surely Melissa couldn't have had any role in such a bad egg (even though Melissa specifically recalls him being a sweet kid with a good heart).

I'll also add here that while one character suggests to Melissa that his efforts to play on their past relationship is simply scammers being scammers, I actually don't think that's (wholly) true. Whatever else may be the case, Jonathan to my eyes seems to genuinely believe that Melissa would respect his hustle and be on his side (if he didn't, he'd have fed her a much more conciliatory, "I was wrong but now I see the light" story). That's more powerful evidence that she really was a (bad) influence on him --  again, not to overstate her role or culpability, but suggesting that she really should reflect a bit on what lessons she's imparting on her kids. Certainly, I can see the value of imparting to disadvantaged kids a bit of a chip on their shoulder as a motivating tool. But that medicine has side effects, and maybe it would have been valuable if Melissa realized it needed some tempering.

The BlueSky discourse of the day is the finding that GenX is by far the most resiliently pro-MAGA generational cohort. Some folks have suggested this is ironic, given GenX's paradigmatic mistrust of authority should have made them resistant to authoritarianism. But I'm not surprised at this link. My Arendtian theory of the appeal of Trumpism is that Trump is most appealing precisely to the sort of person whose ignorant cynicism styles itself as sophisticated realism -- they know that all politicians (and the entire "system") are liars and corrupt and bullshitters, and so they are unperturbed to see someone whose only sin seems to be being a bit more brazen than most (indeed, isn't that very brazenness in a sense more honest? At least Trump doesn't hide who he is!). The drumbeat of messages to the effect of "both parties are the same", "every politician is bought", "everybody is lying to you" -- all versions of "the entire world is out to get you, so go get yours" -- this mentality is a breeding ground for political fascism and social scamming. Again, without discounting intervening causes and his own agency, Jonathan Pierce is a predictable product of that worldview. And I wish the show and the character realized that.

Oh, and apparently Gregory and Janine are on the rocks? So you can talk about that too, if you want.

"Everybody Knew" vs. "Not My Story To Tell"

Earlier this week, a flurry of sexual misconduct allegations emerged against Democratic Rep. (and California gubernatorial candidate) Eric Swalwell, including at least one woman (a former staffer) who alleges that Swalwell raped her while she was intoxicated.

I don't think there's any question that Swalwell must drop his campaign for Governor and resign from the House. Testimony is evidence, and a bunch of people have now come forward to testify as to a pattern of misconduct by Swalwell. In a court of law, it's possible that more evidence would be necessary to secure a conviction, but the assignment of political power and opportunities does not and should not obey the federal rules of evidence. I have no interest in dwelling on this point beyond that.

Shortly after the story broke, I saw several journalists and DC insiders immediately chime in with some version of "open secret" or "everybody knew". And that, in turn, caused many people to emit the "hmm" emoji, since if all these journalists and insiders already knew ... why wasn't the story ever reported? To that, the counternarrative I heard (ironically, from someone who was giving "hmm" vibes but also was trying to cabin it) was a variation of "not my story to tell." The women in question had told the stories, but in confidence; they had made clear (up until now) that they did not want to go public, and the persons they told it to felt obliged to respect that choice. 

And so we face a quandary: when nobody talks about what everybody knows, therein lies the space for known abusers to run free. But to take it upon oneself to override the wishes of the victim and put them and their trauma under an inevitably horrible spotlight -- that is a great and terrible thing to do. I don't think the confidant's silence can be chalked up always or solely to a desire to preserve an omerta protecting the powers-that-be. There's more to it than that.

So how do we resolve that quandary? What are our instincts as between the competing force of "everybody knew" and "not my story to tell"? Kate Manne in her work has written about her own experience being abused by a powerful older man, how she begged those she confided in not to pursue, and how now, in hindsight, she wishes that her confidants had not listened to her and spoken out. That instinct, perhaps, is what motivates mandatory reporting laws (such as the ones professors like myself are often subject to). Without necessarily disagreeing with her stance, the issues no doubt land differently for the victim in the moment or in hindsight versus the confidant they report to.

Anyway, I'm curious what others think on this, and how it should be resolved.

Iron Dome and the Leveraging of Civilian Death

While there is by now a relatively large contingent of Democrats opposing the sale of offensive weaponry to Israel, we're also seeing a growing push to try and forestall the sale of defensive weapons to Israel as well (most notably, the Iron Dome missile defense system). Iron Dome intercepts missiles and rockets being fired at Israel by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and in doing so has saved countless civilian lives. Unsurprisingly, the endeavor to strip Israeli civilians of these protections is far more controversial than the effort to bar the sale of additional offensive weapons to Israel -- it seems to demarcate a clear difference between wanting to preserve Palestinian life versus wanting to extinguish Israeli lives.

So what is the argument against providing Israel with Iron Dome? This article in +972 provides an illustrative example of the case, which runs basically as follows: the existence of Iron Dome enables Israel to engage in military aggression without having to internalize the costs. Israel feels free to engage in military attacks basically at will, secure in the knowledge that any attempted reprisals will be blocked. By contrast, if Israel was more vulnerable to military attacks -- if it had to reckon with the reality that "the other side" really can hurt them too -- it would be more judicious about electing to commence its own military operations. An Israel which was forced to more tangibly endure the costs of the wars it started might be forced to consider other approaches to solving its various diplomatic (or even security) dilemmas beyond just bombing the problem away. And the hope is that, where all parties face real risk of injury or destruction, all parties will be more reluctant to resort to militarism in the first place.

There is a logic to this argument. But it isn't as straightforward as it sounds, and there is both a strategic and a moral objection one could level against it.

Start with the strategic objection. The above logic assumes that a country which is more vulnerable to external security threats will be less inclined to commence its own military operations (since doing so would risk triggering reprisals which, by stipulation, might cause it serious injury). Again, this logic is not implausible. But neither is it incontestable. Another story one could tell is that a country which faces substantial security vulnerabilities may become more aggressive, because the reality of a substantial security threat makes certain risks which might otherwise be tolerable become intolerable. If one gets intelligence that a militant group on your border is accumulating missiles, the way you respond if you're confident those missiles can be intercepted without causing significant harm is very different from the way you respond if those missiles pose a severe and substantial threat to your civilian population. The latter nation may be far more likely to attack preemptively in circumstances where the former country may not feel the need for an immediate proactive response.

In Israel's case, after all, the most concrete recent instantiation of Israel having to reckon with a significant security vulnerability -- a severe threat to its civilian population that it was unable to stop -- was October 7 itself. And no matter how one characterizes what happened next, the one thing that I think is entirely indisputable is that Israel reckoning with real and genuine security vulnerability did not cause it to pull back from militarism due to being forced to account for the possibility that the other side can really hurt them. Much the opposite: the concrete illustration of an acute security vulnerability made Israel lightyears more aggressive and more militaristic than it was before. A security situation it had previously thought it had "managed" now had revealed itself to be incalculably more dangerous than they realized, and the result of that realization was, to say the least, not a sober reassessment of the merits of military action.

Now, to be sure, I don't want to say that this argument is necessarily "right" either. Again, the initial critique has a logic to it as well; my suspicion is that the actual play-out will not vindicate either narrative without qualification. The point is simply to say that it is not self-evident, as it is sometimes presented to be, that taking away Iron Dome will yield a more cautious and less belligerent Israel.

But now let's go ahead and accept the premise. If we don't provide Israel with Iron Dome, it will be less militaristic, to the greater good of all. If one is in fact persuaded by this premise, I still think it is important to be very clear on what the core logic of this approach is. Clear away the rhetorical fog, and the argument here is simply this:

If more Israeli civilians were endangered or died, things would be better.

Again, I will reiterate: I accept there is an instrumental logic to this. The argument is not that Israeli deaths are good for their own sake, it's that they will prompt Israel to be more cautious and restrained, and ultimately reduce the net amount of conflict and warfare in the reason. My challenge above notwithstanding, this argument is not transparently absurd.

Nonetheless, we shouldn't obscure the point. The argument against Iron Dome is, by its nature, consciously attempting to leverage the endangerment of civilians for (noble) strategic ends. It is by no means the only argument that takes such a form: one need not venture far from Israel proper to hear other renditions of such a claim, that permitting greater endangerment of civilians will ultimately bring about peace faster. And all I will say to this is that there are good reasons why, bloodless strategic logic notwithstanding, progressives might want to draw a redline around arguments like this, and that if we do not draw such a line ourselves we cannot act too appalled when others don't draw redlines against other attempts to leverage the endangerment of civilians for good policy ends. For my part, I fully admit I lack the stomach to put innocent civilians at greater risk for the greater good, and I'm proud of my shortcoming in that respect.

I'll be honest though -- my gut sense is that the driving force behind those who want to take away Iron Dome is not any sort of assessment of the strategic debate I outlined above at all. It is a more primal rebellion against the perceived unfairness of it all: that Israel can wreak so much death and destruction on its neighbors and face comparatively little in return. I don't doubt that, for most of these people, the genuine hope really is a reduction in violence and death for everyone. But my strong suspicion is that, if that doesn't come to pass, a tolerable second-best outcome would be if Israeli civilian deaths rose to approach those of their neighbors. If it turns out that the elimination of Iron Dome does nothing other than get a bunch more Israeli civilians killed -- it does not make Palestinians safer, it perhaps even puts them in more immediate peril -- well, we still have a karmic retribution if nothing else, and that's worth it on its own. And while I guess I can wrap my head around the egalitarian sentiment behind this, once again, I lack the stomach to engineer greater civilian death, even under as noble a rubric as "fairness".

Of course, not everybody is me. But if you are inclined towards opposing Israel having the Iron Dome based on the sketch provided above, I would ask that you have the courage to own your conviction. You are okay with leveraging civilian endangerment in order to achieve your desired policy ends. You of a kind with many other people, of many other ideological persuasions and of many other partisan loyalties across many other conflicts, that hold similar beliefs. Take note of the company you keep.