The Debate Link

Go Strong or Don't Go At All

2012-01-27T18:16:00.004-06:00

An interesting letter from Zionist Organization of America hit the mailboxes of various Jewish media outlets. In it, one Robert I. Lappin declares that "Western Civilization is at war with Islam", which is "not a religion of peace". "Saying that we are at war with terror, or radical Islam, or Islamic extremists, provides American Muslims with a rationale to do nothing."

Now, it isn't exactly surprising to see ZOA descend into Islamophobia (hell, it's no longer surprising to see them endorse anti-Semites willing to sign onto their destructive, anti-Israel agenda). But contacted by the media, Mort Klein -- well, distanced himself doesn't seem quite right. He says that the email was not intended to be "from" ZOA, but that he had allowed a prominent donor (Lappin) access to it "as a favor". ZOA, he said, was neither "endorsing" nor "condemning" the letter's contents.

Oh come on, that's just weak sauce. If you're going to allow someone to send a bigoted email through to your mailing list, either stand behind it or disavow it. This whole, "it was a favor, it doesn't mean anything" nonsense isn't persuading anyone.

Attackerman Attacked for Attacking Anti-Semitism

2012-01-27T11:08:00.002-06:00

Spencer Ackerman has up a very sensible, bordering on mundane, article objecting to the use of the term "Israel-firster". The point is simple: "Israel-firster" has a sharp anti-Semitic pedigree (not to mention it might be conceptually incoherent if we're to accept the premise that even minorities are allowed to construct and forward their own conception of American "interests") and should be abandoned. It's not like it plays some critical role in buttressing the progressive argument regarding the proper US/Israel relationship or the best policies for securing a safe, democratic, Jewish state of Israel. That's a debate progressives are well-positioned to win on the merits, what with the GOP going all one-stater.

Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer whose just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).

Gingrich Scores the Coveted Duke Cunningham Endorsement

2012-01-26T14:47:00.002-06:00

Newt Gingrich -- who, let us recall, was forced to resign from Congress in disgrace after a slew of ethics scandals -- has just won the endorsement of a prominent former Congressman. Unfortunately, both the reason he's "prominent" and the reason he's "former" is because ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) is currently in prison after being convicted of bribery.

Cunningham also said Gingrich enjoyed the support of "80%" of the inmates who watched the debate. And while they can't themselves vote (being in jail and all), Cunningham thinks they might be able to sway their extended families.

(Note: This post does not reflect a change in my underlying belief that prisoners probably should be allowed to vote).

Minnesota Poll: Klobuchar Annhilates Everyone, Franken Does Well

2012-01-24T16:27:00.003-06:00

PPP has some new polling out, with the main emphasis on Sen. Amy Klobuchar's (D) 2012 reelection. And, no surprise, the insanely popular senior senator throttles everyone who could conceivably challenge her, including a whopping 15 point lead against former governor and presidential-wannabe Tim Pawlenty (who hasn't expressed any interest in the race). One might think that Klobuchar's sponsorship of SOPA might have dimmed her star a little, but apparently not.

Possibly more surprising is some early numbers for Sen. Al Franken (D), who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Franken squeaked past Norm Coleman in a 2008 nailbiter, and for that reason has long been viewed as vulnerable given his polarizing public figure and the high-water nature of 2008. But he's actually looking pretty decent, sporting a six point lead over Pawlenty (his most dangerous potential challenger) and a 15 point margin over Michele Bachmann.

I've mentioned before that, while Franken is kind of a dick, he's also been a stellar Senator. And I think a lot of Minnesotans have seen that he's serious about his job and serious about being a legislator, and that's what has him in such a strong political position even as Democratic political fortunes have taken generally taken a turn for the worse since 2008.

Jewish Newspaper Editor Who Called for Obama's Assassination Resigns

2012-01-23T16:29:00.002-06:00

Obviously good riddance. The editor, Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times, faced a torrent of criticism from all quarters for his repulsive column, including from the AJC and ADL, as well as finding his paper cut loose by the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta until Adler left the paper. Adler, who owned as well as managed the newspaper, is also looking to sell it to another owner to complete his withdrawal.

Oh, and since I've been hearing murmurings that Adler isn't being investigated by the Secret Service because Jew Jew special treatment Jew, it's worth noting that he is, in fact, being investigated by the Secret Service. Which is appropriate, but it is almost certainly the case that he didn't do anything illegal -- just repulsive (abstract advocacy of violence, particularly against public figures, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless he had an actual conspiracy in motion, which seems more than a little far-fetched, his column falls into that category).

Washington Ready To Legalize Gay Marriage

2012-01-23T16:19:00.004-06:00

The announced support of state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) provides the crucial 25th vote that will put gay marriage over the top (it already has sufficient support in the House, and Governor Christine Gregoire (D) has likewise come out in favor). Like a fellow Marylander friend of mine, I'm pouting that they beat my state to it -- and for that matter, Maryland also provides a cautionary tale to not count your chickens before they hatch. But still, things are looking good right now.

Gabby Giffords Stepping Down

2012-01-22T13:44:00.000-06:00

Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), still recovering from brain injuries after being shot by a deranged constituent, has announced she is stepping down as Congresswoman in order to focus on her recovery. She promises, however, that she will return to public life in the future.

Obviously, best wishes to Rep. Giffords as she continues her remarkable recovery.

J Street and the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Theory of Anti-Semitism

2012-01-19T13:38:00.002-06:00

As the debate over whether "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic language flares up again, J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami appears to have stepped in it:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a left-leaning voice on Israel issues, said he had no problem with “Israel-firster.”

“If the charge is that you’re putting the interests of another country before the interests of the United States in the way you would advocate that, it’s a legitimate question,” Ben-Ami said.

Ben-Ami added that Jewish groups “should tread lightly” when they make accusations of anti-Semitism. “Because when they do need to use that word, people won’t take you seriously,” he said.

Ouch. Ben-Ami immediately backtracked, calling "Israel-firster" a "bad choice of words" and saying it was a "conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty [which] must be refuted in the strongest possible way." (Headline notwithstanding, this is not "expanding" on his morning comments so much as it is reversing them, but still, it is welcome).

I've noted before that, my general affinity for J Street notwithstanding, one thing I do not like is their "mushiness" on anti-Semitism. They really seem either uninterested or incapable of taking a strong stand on the issue, and it is really alienating. I've written about the serious problems with the "dual loyalties" charge even on a conceptual level, but in a sense I'm even more concerned about Ben-Ami's demand that Jewish groups "tread lightly" in talking about anti-Semitism.

This returns us back into How Would You Like Me To Raise It Territory, of course. As usual, I think it is wrong to imply that most claims of anti-Semitism are done in bad faith or otherwise are instances of crying wolf. But beyond that, I think that there's a descriptive misapprehension here -- simply put, there is no reason to believe that "anti-Semitism" is taken any more serious when groups adopt narrow definitions and raise the alarm only in extreme cases, than when the definition is broader and more encompassing. Aside from being victim-blaming, it's not like these groups find themselves aroused from their slumber even in the "clear" cases (like Gilad Atzmon). Rather, it just turns out that nothing counts as "clear", and thus nothing is ever anti-Semitic. It becomes a wholly abstract concept (and thus quite easy to oppose, since opposition never has to be anything more than a theoretical commitment).

It's Official: Republicans are One-Staters

2012-01-19T13:17:00.004-06:00

Here's the text of the latest RNC resolution on Israel:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

This is arguably a little vague, but between the claim that Israel is not "an occupier of the lands of others" and the call for a "united Israel under one law for all people", I really don't think it admits of any other interpretation. The Republican Party has officially entered the one-state camp. To be sure, this isn't really surprising -- the GOP's anti-Israel slant has been bursting through for some time now, with folks like Huckabee and Santorum explicitly joining the one-state camp. But now we have an official resolution that, in essence, calls for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.

In other words, with respect to Israel, voters now have a clear choice between a party which supports the perpetuation of a Jewish, democratic state, and one that wishes to see that state abolished. Not a difficult call, in my book.

Con Law I Roundup

2012-01-18T20:19:00.004-06:00

I taught my first class of Constitutional Law today (thus, as one of my colleagues put it, making me officially a "professor of constitutional law"). I think it went well -- particularly the part where we had a vibrant discussion about the merits and demerits of what they did not know to be the North Korean constitution's equivalent of a bill of rights.

* * *

In shocking, shocking news, new research shows that people aren't actually any more upset when decisions they dislike come from the courts rather than the legislature.

The tide has turned: opposing the Voting Rights Act may be the new GOP consensus position.

Buy Newt, get Palin along for the ride. What could be better?

Supreme Court blocks an Alabama execution of a man who missed an appeal deadline because, unbeknownst to him, all his attorneys had stopped representing him without telling anybody (the client, the courts, the family ... anyone at all, really). Scalia and Thomas dissented. Incidentally, the elite NYC law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell does not come off looking good in all of this.

Eugene Volokh asks a fair question, which is what critics of the "corporations have First Amendment rights" folks have to say about the actions of Google, et al, in vociferously protesting SOPA.

Massive protest by Ethiopian Jews against racism in Israel.

Wikipedia's "Corporate Pawns"

2012-01-18T12:31:00.003-06:00

Large portions of the internet -- most notably Wikipedia -- have announced a "black out" today in protest of SOPA (the "Stop Online Piracy Act"), a proposed bill which they say would do massive damage to the basic infrastructure of a free internet, paving the way towards enhanced copyright trolling, reduced innovation, and even outright censorship. If you go to Wikipedia, you'll find that the site is mostly offline except for information about SOPA and why it needs to be stopped.

The social media driven backlash has begun to take its toll, as two former supporters of the bill (Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and John Cornyn (R-TX)) are now backing off, and momentum definitely seems to be in the corner of the anti-SOPA crowd (incidentally, the debate over SOPA really does seem to cross ideological borders -- while SOPA's main architects are Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the primary alternative to SOPA on the floor, the OPEN Act, is cosponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)).

And so we get this response from former Senator and current MPAA Chris Dodd (D-CT):

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.

Ah yes, the famously "corporate" wikipedia -- especially in comparison to the well-known altruists at the MPAA. This is, to say the least, impressively tone deaf. And I can't help but comment that the design of the MPAA's blog would have look dated in 2004. Is it any wonder that they're getting their heads handed to them in the public debate?

Guilty Minds

2012-01-17T13:29:00.002-06:00

I think The Economist has got the concept of mens rea wrong:

[F]ederal law has been moving away from mens rea (“guilty mind”), a common-law tradition that suggests that a person who had no idea he was breaking a law should not be accused of doing so.

I'm no criminal law expert, but I'm pretty sure this is not the correct definition of mens rea. Mens rea doesn't ask if you knew you were breaking a law. It merely asks if you knew you were undertaking the activity that is legally proscribed.

To borrow from the example in the article, let's say it's a crime to "knowingly feed whales", and you threw some substance in the water and the whales gobbled it up. "Knowingly" is the mens rea term.* The article implies that if you didn't know it was a crime to feed the whales, you should go free. But that's not what mens rea serves (indeed, it cuts against another common law tradition that has reached the point of cliche: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"). Rather, "knowingly" means that if you didn't know you were feeding whales (e.g., because you didn't realize whales were present, or you didn't realize whales would eat what you threw into the water), then you're not guilty.

* There are other mens rea standards, for example "intentionally", "recklessly", or "negligently". If there is no requirement of mens rea at all, then the crime is one of "strict liability" -- statutory rape is the most well-known example, where even an honest and reasonable belief that your sexual partner was above the age of consent will not serve as a defense..

Huntsman Ends His Presidential Campaign

2012-01-16T13:08:00.003-06:00

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, an otherwise intelligent man who thought that a man who held relatively reality-based policy positions and served in the Obama administration could win the Republican nomination for President, has dropped out of the race and endorsed Mitt Romney.

By my lights, it amazing just how little noise this tree is going to make as it falls. Start with the effect on Romney -- does Huntsman's endorsement matter? Nope. Romney already has the nomination all but locked up, and in any event where else are Huntsman voters going to go? At least with Romney one of the innumerable answers on the Multiple Choice Mitt scantron is going to be a sane one, which is more than you can say about Gingrich, or Santorum, or Perry.

Does it help Huntsman get an appointment? Maybe, though he can't possibly be Romney's VP -- Romney needs someone to help soothe a base that widely detests him, and Huntsman is the antithesis of red meat to the far-right. Maybe he could be Ambassador to the UN or even, possibly, Secretary of State, but the latter is a long-shot and the former is barely an upgrade over what Obama gave him, ironically enough.

Does it help Huntsman in 2016? I always said that was a much clearer shot for him, but I don't think this helps either. Given that he's spent most of the past few months savagely attacking Romney it reeks of cynicism, and Huntsman just can't seem to refrain from attacking the Republican base (I sympathize). And it's not clear why endorsing Romney helps cure any of Huntsman's shortfalls -- he's barely seen as a real Republican, and neither is Romney. If Romney loses in 2012, the cry will go up yet again that it's because a RINO was nominated, and that's an environment where Huntsman is dead in the water.

Atzmon and Friends

2012-01-16T12:27:00.003-06:00

Apparently the Friends Seminary in New York City is inviting notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon to come and have a visit again ("again" because apparently he's stopped by before).

I've hung out in left circles enough to know the standard response to such an action (organize some sort of letter-writing campaign or petition urging them to withdraw the invitation); I've also hung out in left circles enough to know such response will not be forthcoming in a case like this. But honestly, I'm okay with that. Why? Because cases like this demonstrate, to me, just how impoverished that response is to those of us victimized when bigotry of this sort is sanctioned.

Suppose that such a campaign was organized, and that Friends did change its mind. What's the result? Well, aside from the inevitable carping and crowing about how "the Zionists" (or "the Jews", since Atzmon tends to at least be more honest than many of his fellows in not abiding by the charade -- if, as Martin Luther King put it, "when you criticize Zionism, you mean Jews", then Atzmon has taken that message to heart in exactly the opposite of how it was intended) have "silenced" him, all we'd have proven is that given enough pressure and bad PR, Friends will not act in an overtly anti-Semitic manner.

But that's not what I want. I don't want Friends to be vulnerable to a pressure campaign. I want Friends to not have invited Atzmon in the first place. I want it to have never occurred to them that it was remotely acceptable for them to allow in an anti-Semitic bigot within their walls. Of course, it's too late for that now -- the key battle has already been lost. So now I want them to, on their own, come to the epiphany that such hatred is wrong, that Jews are equal and valued members of the political community, and to treat us accordingly even when nobody is watching; even when nobody seems to care. I'm not optimistic, but any other "victory" is hollow and without meaning.

If one only has protections because one devotes every spare vote, dollar, resource and minute to secure them, one can hardly be said to be an equal. Equality comes when equality is normal — so normal, that you don’ t have to be perpetually on your guard to defend it. So normal that it wouldn’t occur to anyone to try and take it away.

Afghanistan's Women's Boxing

2012-01-15T12:04:00.004-06:00

Cool little story on Saudi TV about women's boxing in Afghanistan, including the threats they face from the Taliban and their commitment to keep going.

One young woman is looking for gold at the 2012 Olympics in London. Best of luck!

Yes, EEOC, There is a Ministerial Exception

2012-01-12T13:51:00.003-06:00

The Supreme Court has just issued its opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 6th Circuit and held that Cheryl Perich, a "called" teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor school, was a "minister" and thus her suit was barred under the so-called "ministerial exception" (which generally exempts religious organizations from anti-discrimination laws in employment decisions relating to persons who serve in a "ministerial" role). Though the ministerial exception had universal acceptance amongst the lower courts, this actually marked the first time the Supreme Court had officially ratified its existence.

The opinion itself (written by Chief Justice Roberts) is extremely, almost comically, narrow, refusing to go much beyond a determination that Ms. Perich was a "minister" for purpose of the exception, and thus that her suit was barred. It didn't give much, if any, of a standard for how to determine if a given person counts as a minister, and even was cagey over which sorts of suits are barred by the exception. Justice Thomas' concurrence was a little more concrete, saying that courts should simply defer to a religious body's good-faith determination regarding who was playing a ministerial role, and Justice Alito (joined by Justice Kagan) cautioned against relying too heavily on whether a person went through any formal ordination process (as many religions do not have such procedures).

Faithful readers may remember I gave a brief talk on this case as part of a panel at the law school. I am pleased to report that, like any self-respecting constitutional law professor, my prediction (an affirmance on narrow grounds) was completely off the mark.

Speaking of Traitors ....

2012-01-12T11:15:00.002-06:00

The scandal over right-wing involvement in the "price tag" attack on an IDF base continues grow. First it was a National Union MK who said "If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy" (and hey, no argument from me). Now we get this charming profile of the IDF soldier who leaked much of the information (he's since been arrested), a paratrooper who likes to post about "killing" and "burning" all the leftists and Arabs in Israel. He has a propensity to refer to them as "traitors" and bemoan their presence in the IDF, which if you ask me is a bit rich coming from someone who apparently gave out confidential information to a paramilitary group which used it to attack Israel.

A Stirring Tribute

2012-01-11T13:15:00.002-06:00

There is something profoundly depressing about this:

The ANC [African National Congress -- South Africa's main political party and anti-apartheid organization] Youth League wishes to send its heartfelt condolences on the passing away of the Great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il. As we remember this revolutionary we call upon the Korean people to forge ahead with the struggle to reunify their country, to free it completely of a legacy of Colonialism left to its people by imperialists represented by the United States of America.

May the undying spirit of Comrade Kim Jong Il continue to inspire the Korean people to defend the Songhun, the idea that it is possible for the people of Korea, Asia and the world to live well alongside each other in an egalitarian society, free from poverty, joblessness, hatred of each other and the oppression of one country by another.

…

In commemorating this Great Leader we sent warnings to traitors of the people, led by Lee Myung Bak, who deliberately sunk his Cheonoan war ship and blamed it on the government of the Democratic People’s republic of Korea, to desist from an unsustainable offensive against the North of Korea and the Korean peninsula in general. His continued assault on the image of the DPRK in collaboration with the United States will not continue unabated. In this regard we support the just cause of the Korean people to defend themselves, using whatever means at their disposal, to continue struggling for a just and equal world order and to defeat Capitalism in all its facets.

…

In technology to save our climate you also excelled, as we saw the successful introduction of an air steriliser, to curb emission and related hazards from the climate, and this shows the effectiveness of the Korean nuclear technology, and this equally shames the Western and Imperialist Propaganda, that the DPRK nuclear programme is aimed at creating war in the world. “Korea is right, do not retreat”.

…

We say to all the Korean people fighting for peace and justice, Victory is Certain. Amandla, Awethu!!

All Power to the People

It's not as if members of the tripartite alliance haven't flirted with radical reactionary extremism before, but still, demoralizing.

You've Got a Deal

2012-01-09T13:48:00.002-06:00

A second Israeli MK has admitted to divulging troop movement information to right-wing extremists who used the knowledge to disrupt IDF activities.

National Union MK Uri Ariel confessed last week to giving Israeli settlers information on the Israel Defense Forces' movements, even before it was discovered Sunday that Likud MK and coalition chairman Ze'ev Elkin divulged similar information.

Ariel, during a Knesset committee meeting last Thursday, said that numerous times he had transferred information to settlers on IDF movements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

"If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy," Ariel said during a discussion on law enforcement in the settlements. "If others were arrested, I should be arrested as well.

Sure, I'll take you up on that. Someone who gives information about his own government's troop movements to paramilitary group that is trying to disrupt those movements seems pretty spy- (and traitor-)like to me.

Notice a Trend?

2012-01-09T13:32:00.004-06:00

The closest thing Israel has to a major fascist party is Yisrael Beiteinu.* Using "fascist" to describe YB isn't just my schtick -- it was applied by none other than Martin Peretz, who certainly is not unsympathetic to right-wing Israeli outlooks generally. YB is strong amongst Russian immigrants, and essentially wants to bring Putin-style "democracy" to the Jewish state -- that is to say, it wants to wreck Israeli democracy. And while Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is perhaps YB's most prominent member, nobody exemplifies its "values" better than MK Anastassia Michaeli.

A former "Miss St. Petersburg", Michaeli converted to Judaism upon marrying her husband and made aliyah to Israel in 1997. While she was listed on the Kadima slate in 2006, she did not earn a seat in the Knesset; however, after jumping ship to Yisrael Beiteinu in 2009, she was given their 9th slot and entered the Israeli parliament.

Since then, she has "distinguished" herself by informing the entire Israeli populace that they needed a lesson in "patriotism" that only she and her Russian colleagues could provide, by virtue of the infamous "NGO probe" bill. And just the other day, she tossed a cup of water at an Israeli-Arab MK during an argument about an Arab principal who had taken her students to a human rights rally in Tel Aviv (like any good Putin acolyte, Michaeli declared this "marching against the state"). This isn't even the first time that Michaeli has physically assaulted an Israeli-Arab MK -- last June she was reprimanded for trying to physically remove a colleague from the Knesset floor as the latter attempt to speak about the Gaza flotilla raid.

I mean, violent fascist racism -- it's the Yisrael Beiteinu trifecta. What could be more "patriotic" than that?

* A few minor parties -- most notably National Union -- manage to stray even further into extremism, and effectively are the official representatives of anti-Israel "price tag" terrorists.

UPDATE: Michaeli has been suspended from the Knesset for one month -- an extremely harsh sanction (normally, suspensions last only a day or two).

Vegas Highlights and Lowlights

2012-01-08T02:28:00.002-06:00

We're leaving Vegas tomorrow, thus bringing the traveling part of my Winter Break (i.e., basically all of it) to a close.

Highlights

* Being nice and disciplined in video poker by staying with a pair of jacks instead of pursuing a flush draw, and being rewarded with a four-of-a-kind.

* Jill accidentally pressing "bet max" on video poker, then flopping a full house.

* Cirque du Soleil "O" being as awesome as I remembered (if not more).

* Penn and Teller being funny and mesmerizing.

* Food. All of it, but particularly the Asian restaurant we went to for lunch in the Venetian.

Lowlights

* After playing disciplined video poker for the first day, getting cocky and deciding to play "bet max" while simultaneously playing far more recklessly, and giving back all my winnings and then some in the space of a half-hour.

* Still having a cold throughout the trip.

* Getting a great point spread on the Lions and still not seeing them beat it (sorry dad).

* Placing dad's bet in craps and watching it all be lost on the first roll (sorry again).

Navy Destroyer Rescues Iranian Fishermen from Pirates

2012-01-07T13:08:00.003-06:00

Chalk up another victory for the ~~big~~ deep* blue:

A Navy destroyer rescued 13 Iranian fishermen held hostage by Somali pirates in the Arabian Sea only days after Tehran warned the United States to keep its ships out of the nearby Persian Gulf.

Sailors from the guided-missile destroyer Kidd boarded the Iranian dhow Thursday and detained 15 Somalis after one of the fishermen was able to reveal in a radio communication that his vessel's crew was being held captive.
[...]

Faller said the decision to go to the aid of the Iranians was standard practice for the Navy when alerted that another ship needed aid. "We saw a need and moved in to help people at sea who were in distress," he said.

It is not unusual for Navy vessels to assist Iranian ships, Faller said, adding that his task force had helped an Iranian vessel last year.

Iran had been making noises about American naval presence in the area, but had only praise for the successful rescue operation.

Still, you have to wonder which will be the first GOP presidential candidate to say we should have let them die.

* I guess there is more sky than water, but water goes deeper.

Iowa Reveals the GOP's Anti-Israel Slant

2012-01-04T15:00:00.003-06:00

For the past few years, Republicans have incessantly attempted to argue that Barack Obama -- one of the most authentically Zionist politicians America has ever seen -- is "anti-Israel". It was always a laughable claim. But it's more so given the three Republican candidates who finished in an essential dead-heat for first place amongst Iowa Caucus voters: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. None of them can lay a strong claim to being "pro-Israel", and two of them I think have to be considered actively antagonistic to Israel's perpetuation as a Jewish, democratic state.

Start with Mitt Romney. Romney famously declared that Obama "threw Israel under the bus" because he said a peace agreement should be based on 1967 borders. I remain baffled by what other basis their might be for a two-state solution (The partition plan? Drawing straws?), and I doubt Romney has any better idea, because I doubt Romney actually knows or cares that much about Israel's longevity.

But you know what? Spot them Romney. Let's just look at Paul and Santorum. Paul is an easy case -- his own aides admit he's been anti-Israel, and belated efforts to describe his isolationist foreign policy as the most pro-Israel act of all notwithstanding, few in the Jewish community see him as a friend.

That leaves Santorum, who is filling the niche of this year's Mike Huckabee. And like Huckabee, Santorum has come out as a one-stater, proclaiming that everyone currently residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is an "Israeli" and thus the West Bank should be part of Israel, permanently. Since all Israelis must presumably be given equal rights of suffrage (among other things), this will render Israel's Jewish majority precarious at best and likely lead to its demise as a Jewish state.

He joins folks like Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) as part of the Hamas wing of the Republican Party, as the radical one-state policies they espouse bear far more in common with the ambitions of the Islamist terrorist movement than they do those of any Israeli government or serious political party. And what we've seen is that, amongst Republican voters, this sort of outlook -- one that is fundamentally apathetic, at best, towards Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state -- is overwhelmingly popular.

MIA

2012-01-04T14:48:00.002-06:00

A African-American teenage girl from Dallas who had been reported missing for over a year has finally been found. In Colombia. Where she was deported.

To be clear, this girl is an American citizen and speaks no Spanish. But ICE screwed up and sent her packing anyway, and she's been working in Colombia ever since. Now that her identity has finally been cleared up, negotiations are underway to bring her back to the states, but the Colombian government is currently detaining her for reasons unknown.

"Critics" of CNN Say....

2012-01-04T11:49:00.002-06:00

Reporting on the decision of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to drop out of the GOP presidential primary after getting thrashed in the Iowa Caucuses, CNN feels compelled to resort to one of my least favorite journalistic constructions:

Bachmann's withdrawal is a blow to many die-hard tea party conservatives. The congresswoman, a leading populist conservative in the House of Representatives, has often led the GOP's rhetorical charge against President Barack Obama's agenda.

Critics, however, have often accused her of playing loose with facts and making irresponsible accusations. (Emphasis added)

The problem here is that it isn't a matter of "critics" saying that Bachmann plays fast and loose with the facts. It is verifiably true that Bachmann has lied on several, high-profile occasions. Indeed, CNN details these lies in the next several paragraphs, from accusing Democrats of being responsible for the Swine Flu, to claiming an Obama trip to India cost $200 million/day (and the HPV vaccine debacle could and should have been added).

But of course, it would be partisan to simply say that a politician known to lie and toss out wild, irresponsible speculations lies and tosses out wild irresponsible speculations. So they have to hide behind "critics", so they can keep themselves safely within he said/she said land.

Israel and Palestinian Envoys Talk about Talks

2012-01-03T14:53:00.003-06:00

Israeli and Palestinian officials have been meeting in Amman, Jordan to try and reignite stalled peace talks. The talks can't actually be called "talks" because of various diplomatic corners folks have painted themselves into (most notably, Palestinian refusal to negotiate prior to a settlement freeze). But the point is it represents some sort of defrosting, and that can only be a good thing.

Of course, this means the usual suspects are trying to undermine these proto-talks. But that's always going to be part of the landscape.

Rounding the Bend

2012-01-03T01:34:00.002-06:00

Happy 2012, people!

Jill and I had college friends over for the weekend, which was a blast. They left today, and that winds us down a little bit -- though we're taking a trip to Vegas next weekend. After that, we're pretty quiet until the end of the month.

Top Ten Boxers I'm Glad Won Titles (1-5)

2011-12-30T12:30:00.007-06:00

(See Boxers #6-10 and a description of this list here).

* * *

5. David Diaz (Lightweight, 36-4-1, 17 KOs)

Hey, remember when folks were wondering whether 135 lbs was just too high for Manny Pacquiao? David Diaz does. Part of the trifecta of Diaz's (the others were Juan and Julio) who possessed lightweight titles, David Diaz was seen as the weakest of the three when he was picked as the opponent for Pac-Man's experiment with higher weight classes. In retrospect, that's probably unfair (I think his career stacks up quite well against Julio Diaz). But anyway, I get ahead of myself.

Diaz is the sort of guy who's always performed above expectations. He earned a spot on the 1996 Olympic team by upsetting far more heralded Zab Judah, losing in the second round to eventual silver medalist Oktay Urkal. Diaz started his professional campaign 26-0 before being knocked out by Kendall Holt (see below). A year later, Diaz won the interim WBC lightweight title by defeating Jose Armando Santa Cruz, then, after being elevated to full titlist, defended against what was thought to be a long-faded Erik Morales in a win that looks much better in hindsight.

That paved the way for the payday against Pacquaio, who wowed the boxing world by destroying Diaz over the course of nine rounds. That set up Pacquiao's mega-fight with Oscar De La Hoya, and the rest, as they say, is history. Though I do like to point out that Diaz gave Pacquiao more of a challenge than either De La Hoya or Ricky Hatton. Diaz lost in his attempt to get his old title back from Humberto Soto, and then was knocked out in a hellacious war this past year versus prospect Hank Lundy.

4. Luis Collazo (Welterweight, 31-5, 16 KOs)

A skilled southpaw fighter from Brooklyn, Luis Collazo has been on the short end of several close decisions where he was the short money -- something that I imagine would be particularly gnawed at him had he never managed to hoist a belt. But fortunately, that wasn't the case, as he won the WBA welterweight title in 2005 against Jose Antonio Rivera, and defended it once against Miguel Gonzalez before accepting a challenge from undefeated Junior Welterweight star Ricky Hatton, who was moving up in weight and looking to establish himself as a superstar.

Collazo lost a unanimous decision in a fight many thought he won, but in which a Collazo victory stood to lose various boxing promoters massive sums of money (it would have, for example, derailed Hatton's ability to become a viable opponent for Pacquaio and Mayweather). Collazo lost more clearly to Shane Mosley before challenging HBO blessed-son Andre Berto for his WBC belt. In a life-or-death struggle that could have gone either way, Berto escaped with an exceedingly narrow unanimous decision win.

Since then, Collazo fell virtually off the map, winning a bounceback fight immediately after the Berto loss, then taking a nearly-two year layoff. Upon his return, he lost a disappointing decision to fringe contender Freddy Hernandez (whom Berto had earlier starched in one), which may have spelled the end of Collazo's run as an elite contender.

3. Kendall Holt (Jr. Welterweight, 27-5, 15 KOs)

Kendall Holt is nicknamed "Rated R", but he might as well be nicknamed "Enigma". I'm not sure I've ever seen a fighter in as many different varieties of fights as the Patterson, New Jersey-based fighter. Sometimes he unleashes devastating, one-punch KOTY candidates like against Julio Diaz. Sometimes he wanders aimlessly around the ring and is lethargically outboxed, like against Danny Garcia. Sometimes he's involved in all-action slugfests that last round after thrilling round, like against Ricardo Torres. Sometimes, he's involved in all-action slugfasts that don't last past the first round, like against Ricardo Torres in the rematch (or Thomas Davis).

Sometimes, all these qualities manage to come together within the space of a single fight, like against Timothy Bradley. There, he alternated between being utterly dominant (knocking Bradley down twice in the first and twelfth rounds) and utterly disinterested (most of the rest of the fight). To my eyes, it looked as if Holt was thoroughly in control for any part of the fight where his head was actually in the bout -- unfortunately, that consisted of a bare handful of rounds.

And that, in a nutshell, is the Kendall Holt story. The athleticism is there. The power is there. The head is most certainly not there. The upshot is a wildly inconsistent fighter who did manage to lift the WBO Jr. Welterweight title and hold it for one defense in 2008.

2. Cristobal Cruz (Featherweight, 39-12-3, 23 KOs)

Cristobal Cruz turned pro in 1992 at age 14, winning his debut by second round knockout. His record began to reflect that of a Mexican fighter with no serious promotional backing who turned pro at 14, and in 2007 when he faced a comebacking Zahir Raheem, he sported a fugly 34-10-1.

The Raheem fight was ugly, as Zahir Raheem fights often are, but in my opinion Cruz acquitted himself quite well -- I scored the fight a draw. The judges all gave the fight to Raheem by shutout or near-shutout, which is what happens when you're a 34-10-1 fighter against a former champion in an ugly fight. And that figured to be the Cristobal Cruz story -- a journeyman guy who got on ESPN2 once as a comeback opponent, did better than expected, and was firmly not rewarded for it by judges who weren't paying attention.

But by stroke of luck, the powers-that-be brought in Cruz as opponent for Thomas Mashaba as the latter geared up for a title shot. Cruz and Mashaba went to war in an incredible fight that saw Cruz break the Compubox record for most punches thrown in a fight. But it was a tight fight, and nobody knew how the scorecards would read. As it happened, Cruz managed to squeak out the upset majority decision victory, and the title shot that would have gone to Mashaba instead was handed to Cruz.

Cruz met Orlando Salido for the vacant IBF featherweight title, in a rematch of a fight Salido had won. In an exciting match, Cruz won by split decision and approved his record to 37-11-1 in the process. Cruz defended his title three times, including a spirited match against Jorge Solis which featured new and exciting innovations in fouling, before losing it to (who else) Salido in the 2010 rubber match.

A twenty-year pro now at age 34, Cruz is still going strong, scheduled to fight Juan Carlos Burgos in February 2012.

1. Nate Campbell (Lightweight, 34-9-1, 25 KOs)

Nate Campbell is number one on my list for several reasons. He's a genuinely nice guy, and he won his titles (three at once) in a pretty sizable upset. But most importantly, Campbell tops this list because of what he would have been remembered for if he hadn't managed to finally, at age 36, win the title that had eluded him for so long.

Campbell got a late start to boxing, originally inspired to try the sport after shadow-boxing to stay awake during late shifts at his job. His career started off with 23 straight wins before losing to Joel Casamayor in a closely contested bout. But it was his next big shot, an IBF title eliminator against Robbie Peden, that nearly defined his legacy. Well ahead on the scorecards going into the 5th round, Campbell stuck his chin out, daring Peden to hit him ... and proceeding to get himself knocked out. He was knocked out again in a rematch with Peden for the IBF Junior Lightweight title, then lost again to Francisco Lorenzo. Career momentum that was regained after an upset victory over undefeated Kid Diamond seemed arrested when he lost a split decision in a title eliminator to Isaac Hlatshwayo.

Going back into the trenches, Campbell kept at it, winning another eliminator against Matt Zegan and then (because this is boxing) yet another eliminator by thoroughly beating up Ricky Quiles. This made him the mandatory for IBF lightweight champ Julio Diaz, but his shot was delayed to make way for a (Julio) Diaz vs. (Juan) Diaz unification match. The latter, younger Diaz won, and Campbell was the decided underdog against the undefeated "Baby Bull" -- a charismatic Mexican-American fighter who now held the IBF, WBA, and WBO lights and that many were heralding as the next big thing. Campbell, for his part, never blinked -- I still remember Dan Raphael describing "The Galaxxy Warrior" as "supremely confident" in the months leading up to the fight.

And he backed it up. Campbell came out aggressive and put unprecedented pressure on Diaz. A cut caused by an accidental headbutt seemed to rattle the young champion, and Campbell kept on him. Most observers thought Campbell had won, but hearts stopped when the announcer declared it a split-decision. But in the end, the right guy had his hand raised, and Nate Campbell had the victory he had been searching for his entire career.

After the Diaz fight, Campbell's characteristic bad luck reasserted itself and his career spiraled downward with astounding celerity. A big payday against Joan Guzman fell through when the latter came in grossly overweight and refused to fight. Campbell declared bankruptcy, then lost his belts on the scale in a fight against Ali Funeka. The Funeka fight was Campbell's last great hurrah, seemingly battling father time as much as the South African, seemingly falling behind the fight only to surge back on the strength of 2nd and 11th round knockdowns. His majority decision victory was the last major triumph of Campbell's career -- he was being thoroughly dominated by Tim Bradley before that fight was stopped (it was later ruled a no contest), then lost to Victor Ortiz. A defeat to journeyman Walter Estrada led Campbell to announce his retirement, but he came back to lose to Danny Garcia and Khabib Allakhverdiev.

Still, I know of not a single person in the boxing community who does not consider themselves a Nate Campbell fan. Brash and occasionally foolhardy as he may be, he just seemed to exude a likeability and professionalism that won him admirers across the sport. And while most of us wish he'd end his career, we also hope he stays in the game as an announcer (for which he's shown natural talent). And all of us remember that great day in Mexico, March 8th, 2008, when he upset an unbeaten star to finally put those belts -- those belts which fans dismiss and commentators deride, those belts which cheapen the sport and drive away new viewers, those belts which Campbell had been pursuing fruitlessly for 8 years -- around his waist.

Top Ten Boxers I'm Glad Won Titles (6-10)

2011-12-30T10:41:00.004-06:00

One of the most common complaints about the contemporary boxing landscape is the proliferation of "world titles". The WBC, WBA, WBO, and IBF all are considered "major" sanctioning organizations, each with their own champion (sometimes more -- the WBA has been known to have three in a single weight class). Add that to the legitimate Ring Magazine lineal title, and, well, that's a lot of folks who get to stroll around calling themselves "champ".

I don't necessarily disagree with this critique, but I tend to be a little more muted about it. In part, this is because the belts do sometimes (sometimes) accomplish useful things, forcing mandatories or elevating a talented but somewhat obscure fighter (often from Europe or Asia) to global prominence. But in part it's because the fighters care about them. It matters to them a great deal to be able to say they were "world champion", and I'm not from the sidelines willing to dismiss an institution that clearly means so much to the guys actually duking it out in the ring.

In this top ten (split into two posts), I give a list of ten people (in the recent past -- I only became a boxing fan in the last decade) whom I'm glad managed to win a title. Generally, this means folks who barely got over that hump -- for whom winning a title gives their career meaning it would have otherwise lacked, and legitimacy that I think their talent and dedication deserves. It's not that I'm sad Oscar de la Hoya won a title, it's just that it was never really touch-and-go for him -- he was a multi-division champ and international superstar. I'm talking about folks who scraped and clawed at the edges and, finally -- if only briefly -- managed to reach the top of the mountain. But when they retire, and talk to their grandkids, they'll be able say not "I once was a contender", but "I once was world champion".

10. Corrie Sanders (Heavyweight, 42-4, 31 KOs)

Essentially a fringe contender for his entire career, Sanders with a South African southpaw with fast hands and a vulnerable chin. He had amassed a solid 38-2 record prior to challenging Wladimir Klitschko for the heavyweight title, but was seen as a major underdog, with both of his two losses coming by stoppage and with Klitschko having the deserved reputation as a titanic puncher. Sanders also was 37 years old and had fought a mere 3 rounds in the past 2 years. Yet instead of the walkover many expected, Sanders dropped Klitshcko twice at the close of round 1 and twice at the start of round 2 to score the colossal upset. The iconic image here is a tie between Sanders screaming at Klitschko to get up after the first round knockdowns, and his trainer jumping into his arms after the fight was stopped.

Sanders immediately vacated his belt to challenge Vitali Klitschko for the WBC title, and was knocked out in 8. He never challenged for a title again, and last fought in 2008, a first round knockout loss to Osborne Machimana.

9. Carlos Quintana (Welterweight, 28-3, 21 KOs)

Despite a solid amateur background that included being a member of the Puerto Rican Olympic team, Carlos Quintana never really seemed to be in the conversation as a potential elite fighter. He first rose to prominence on an HBO card where he was intended to be the B-side showcasing far more hyped prospect Joel "The Love Child" Julio (who never did win a title). Despite suffering a flash knockdown in round one, Quintana thoroughly out-boxing Julio to win the fight and earn a shot at Miguel Cotto's 147 lbs belt. It was a competitive fight, but Cotto eventually overwhelmed Quintana with his power, knocking the younger Puerto Rican down with two painful body shots in the 5th (Quintana retired in his corner after the round).

That was the fight everyone remembered when Quintana signed to challenge unbeaten Paul "The Punisher" Williams. Williams had earned the moniker of the most-avoided fighter in boxing with his freakish, 6 foot tall frame, incessant activity, and surprisingly good inside presence, and had just won the biggest fight of his career in a slugfest against Antonio Margarito. Yet Quintana seemed to be in charge throughout the whole fight, brilliantly using his jab to control distance and keep Williams at bay. As Max Kellerman memorably put it, the story of the fight was "Carlos Quintana punches Paul Williams in the face". Yet Quintana's slick style and underdog status had people worried that a robbery was coming, and everyone was on edge when the scores were read. No need: Quintana won by unanimous decision to hand Williams his first defeat and lift the WBO welterweight crown.

The very next fight, of course, Williams knocked Quintana out in the very first round of their rematch to win the title back. Quintana then won two more fights against middling opposition before challenging Andre Berto for his title and getting knocked out in the 8th. He fought just one time in 2011, a win over journeyman Yoryi Estrella.

8. Cornelius Bundrage (Jr. Middleweight, 31-4, 18 KOs)

Cornelius "K9" Bundrage first was displayed to American boxing eyes against Sechew Powell in one of the wildest (and shortest) fights ever broadcast on ShoBox. It featured a double knockdown four seconds into the fight, followed by the Bundrage being knocked out seventeen seconds later (a confused Bundrage remarked in his corner: "I got knocked out that quick?").

Bundrage then became a contestant on Season 3 of The Contender, and was the final fighter picked to join a team. Boldly declaring that "the last shall be first", Bundrage was impressive in the tournament, beating Michael Clark, Walter Wright, and Norberto Bravo while losing to Steve Forbes and taking the bronze.

Still, Bundrage wasn't really considered to be a true contender for a title. A knockout loss to Joel Julio seemed to verify this, as Julio himself was really considered only a B+ fighter. His victory over Kassim Ouma (see below) was seen more as proof of how far Ouma had fallen, and a loss to Contender winner Grady Brewer was just icing on a bitter cake. But an upset knockout victory over previously unbeaten Zaurbek Baysangurov in Germany put Bundrage back on the IBF charts, and he was slated to face Yuri Foreman (see below) in a title eliminator. That fight ended in a no-contest due to a headbutt, but in my estimation Foreman seemed to be in charge early. Foreman elected to pursue a shot against WBA titlist Daniel Santos, which handed Bundrage a fight against reigning champ Cory Spinks in Spinks' hometown of St. Louis.

Even though Spinks was considered quite faded, Bundrage wasn't really considered an elite challenger. But he proved the skeptics wrong, knocking out Spinks in 5 (something previously done only by Zab Judah) and handing Bundrage the IBF 154 lbs title.

Bundrage is actually the only reigning titlist on this list, and has already made one successful defense of his belt. And who was his opponent? Why, none other than Sechew Powell, who had KO'd Bundrage in 21 seconds in that wild Showtime fight, so many years ago.

7. Kassim Ouma (Jr. Middleweight, 27-8-1, 17 KOs)

In a sport filled with tough stories, Ouma's may rank as among the worst. Born in Uganda, Ouma was pressed into service as a child soldier at age 6 in Uganda's civil war. He eventually left the army and joined the Ugandan national boxing team, defecting to the United States in the late 1990s (an act for which his father was killed by the government in retaliation). Despite never being wounded in his time a soldier, Ouma was shot twice in drive-by shootings upon arriving in Florida.

Ouma won his belt in 2004 against tough Verno Phillips, defending once against Kofi Jantuah before losing his crown to Roman Karmazin. Since then, Ouma has specialized in the "brave, losing effort", a skid that began in a near-suicidal performance against then-middleweight champion Jermain Taylor (albeit one that established him as among my personal favorite fighters). This wasn't actually considered to be a major hiccup, as Ouma was considered too small to be a true middleweight and was excused for his ill-advised jump up a weight class.

Unfortunately, upon dropping back to 154, he then lost what was supposed to be a bounceback fight against Saul Roman and another to Cornelius Bundrage. Then, after a win over journeyman Martinus Clay, dropped a split decision to Gabriel Rosado and a UD to prospect Vanes Martirosyan -- the last of which, in Ouma's defense, very well could have been a brave, winning effort (he dropped Martirosyan in the 9th and one could have very easily scored the fight for Ouma). This past year, he challenged emerging star Gennady Golovkin for his WBA middleweight belt, but lost in (what else) a brave effort.

6. Yuri Foreman (Jr. Middleweight, 28-2, 8 KOs)

Ah, the "Kosher Krusher". Yori Foreman was part of a trio of Jewish boxing "contenders" that most real boxing fans viewed more as marketing ploys. Roman Greenberg was knocked out by Cedric Boswell, and Dmitry Salita was annihilated in one round by Amir Khan. And Foreman -- a slick boxer who wishes he had Paulie Malignaggi's pop -- wasn't really seen as any better. He had managed to eke out split-decision victories over Anthony Thompson and Andrey Tsurkan -- both decent gatekeeper types, but neither the sort that a true title contender should be struggling with. And though he looked decent against Cornelius Bundrage before that fight was prematurely stopped on a headbutt, few -- myself included -- gave him much of a shot when he stepped up to challenge reigning WBA titlist Daniel Santos.

Boy were we in for a surprise. Not only did Foreman dominate the fight, he actually put Santos on the canvas twice (in the 2nd and 12th rounds) to win the bout handily and earn the title of world champion.

In his next fight, Foreman was matched against Miguel Cotto as the latter attempted to bounce back from his loss to Manny Pacquiao. The fight was the headliner in the first boxing match at the new Yankee stadium, and early on Foreman had decent success with his stick-and-move strategy. Unfortunately, Foreman's knee gave out in the 7th -- bad for any fighter, but disastrous for a guy like Foreman who depends on lateral movement and who has no power to speak of.

Yet Foreman bravely carried on, trying to stand in the pocket and trade with Cotto despite (a) Cotto being one of the best body punchers in the sport and (b) Foreman not having any power even when he can put weight on both legs. The result was predictable: Yankees fans were treated to an extraordinary display of boxing courage, and Foreman was treated to having the crap kicked out of him before the fight was finally stopped in the 9th. Foreman fought just won more time, losing by corner retirement in the 6th round to Pawel Wolak.

Champagne in Champaign

2011-12-29T11:30:00.002-06:00

Going back to Champaign today, after a lovely trip to Minnesota. And then tomorrow, a bunch of college friends of ours are coming out for New Year's celebration (Champagne in Champaign, 2011-12. Clever, right?). So the streak of good days is looking to continue.

Are You Calling Me a Racist!?!?!?!

2011-12-28T20:50:00.002-06:00

Ta-Nehisi Coates really gets at the heart of the phenomenon:

As an aside, I think there's an essay to be written about why any accusation of a racial offense is so often reduced to "Are you a racist?" It would be as if my wife said, "You forgot to check Samori's homework" and I responded, "I'm not a bad father."

That. Times a thousand.

It's Always Funny in Philadelphia

2011-12-28T17:10:00.003-06:00

Former Senator Arlen Specter (R, then D-PA) tries his hand at stand-up comedy. And I'll be honest -- he's surprisingly funny. My favorite:

“I called [Bill] Clinton up on his 65th birthday and said, ‘Bill, congratulations on being 65. How do you feel?’ He said, ‘Oh, I feel like a teenager, the problem is I can’t find one.”

Solid stuff, particularly given that Specter is nearly 82 years old.

Pryor Restraint, Part II

2011-12-26T18:03:00.003-06:00

What is going on in Birmingham? I just wrote a post about how Judge Bill Pryor, known as one of the more conservative judges on the 11th Circuit, keeps on joining surprisingly liberal opinions (I attributed this to the presence of a friend of mine who is currently clerking for him). And here is another one, perhaps the most shocking of all, since it flatly reverses an opinion by the same panel.

The case is one I commented on before, centering around whether calling a Black employee "boy" is evidence of racial animus in an employment discrimination case. The 11th Circuit had previously ruled "no", and was reversed by the Supreme Court. Then on remand, it answered "no" again (with respect to the facts of this case), and remanding the case for a new trial. And now, the trial having been completed again, with another verdict for the plaintiff, the 11th Circuit has finally caved, vacating its last opinion and upholding the verdict (save for the punitive damage award).

The New York Times observes that the opinion of the court reads more than a little begrudging (Pryor did not author this opinion), taking it upon itself to chastise an amicus brief by a group of civil rights leaders and concluding that the "verdict could have gone either way, and it went Hithon's way." But still, wow. It's rare to see a panel reverse itself like this, and a serious pattern with Pryor is emerging.

The question is whether it will continue without my secret agent in his chambers. Only time will tell.

New Year's Resolutions 2012

2011-12-25T20:39:00.003-06:00

It's a Debate Link tradition: New Year's Resolutions! Here are my previous resolutions for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007. But first, we appraise my performance on last year's resolutions:

Met: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15.

Missed: 2 (through no lack of effort, unfortunately), 3, 10, 11, 14.

Pick 'em: 1, 4, 5.

And now, to 2012!

(1) Get at least one scholarly article published.

(2) Recover my copy of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood.

(3) Successfully move to Minneapolis.

(4) Don't embarrass myself as a law clerk.

(5) Create more crossword puzzles.

(6) Go to a University of Illinois sporting event.

(7) (Continue to?) succeed as a teacher.

(8) Solidify post-clerkship plans.

(9) Visit Carleton.

(10) Find a new television show to watch.

(11) Be more Jewish with Jill, wherever we are.

(!2) Use my punching bag (or otherwise exercise) more.

(13) Try to get some writing done while clerking (aside from that which is professionally required, of course).

(14) Read more books.

(15) Take this blog's upcoming involuntary sabbatical with grace and poise.

That last one, of course, needs some explanation (unless I already made this announcement, in which case, sorry, I forgot). Once I start my clerkship, the canons of judicial ethics will severely circumscribe my ability to comment publicly on legal or political issues -- i.e., do much of what this blog does. Hence, I will in effect have to take a sabbatical from blogging.

This won't happen until right before I start in Minnesota (and I'll announce it in a proper goodbye post). And I still haven't quite decided on the logistics -- I might simply refrain from posting (or perhaps only on completely safe topics like boxing), or I might make the site "private" (password-protected). But regardless, this is quite bittersweet. The blog will celebrate its 8th birthday in June, which, when you think about it, is a very impressive run. It's been a very important part of my life for (wow) almost a third of my life, and it will be no small thing to not be able to write anymore. It really feels like I'm losing something very special.

You'll note that I'm calling this a "sabbatical", and I hope that makes clear my intention to return. Which is my intention, though of course a year long break can change many things. In any event, we still have quite a few months of posting before then. So no sense dwelling on it. In the meantime, happy holidays and happy new year!

The Parallels are Astounding

2011-12-25T19:27:00.003-06:00

It's amazing how much the internal dynamics of Israel and the Palestinian Authority remind me of each other right now.

For example, one constant refrain about the PA is that it isn't a "partner for peace." Though there are Palestinian leaders who talk the talk, and may even be willing to walk the walk. the PA is internally divided, and many key members of Fatah and other constituent PA elements have no interest in pursuing a peace deal with Israel.

Now compare that to this article where Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman declares that "now isn't the time" for negotiations with the Palestinian, versus this article from the same day where Netanyahu says he's willing to negotiate with Abbas "anytime, anywhere". Obviously, on one level this is yet another example of Lieberman being a massively destructive loose cannon. But on another, it's a symbol that the Israeli government, like its Palestinian counterparts, may be too fractured to be able to make a credible commitment to any serious peace agreement.

Meanwhile, in the Lieberman article he talks about how Israel doesn't need any lectures on how to deal with violent "price tag" settlers. And while I'm not sure I think they need a "lecture", again, Israel and Palestine seem to have a remarkable similarities in terms of how they deal with their homegrown terrorists. In both cases they'll capture them, sometimes, and hold them, sometimes, but not consistently or reliably, and their hearts don't really seem into it. And, surprise, surprise, that breeds mistrust amongst their counterparts.

Unfortunately, matching dysfunctions don't lead to a happy, productive relationship, so I don't expect any progress in the near-future.

Failed System

2011-12-24T20:30:00.002-06:00

After Newt Gingrich (along with Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann) failed to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, the Gingrich campaign had sharp words for Virginia's "failed system":

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates. We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice."

As the article observes, Virginia doesn't allow write-ins for its primary ballots, so it will be an uphill slog for Gingrich indeed.

But seriously -- how pathetic is this? One can understand how Huntsman and Bachmann failed to qualify in Virginia, since Bachmann's lost all her supporters and Huntsman never had any to begin with. And the Perry campaign was probably stymied by the literacy requirement latent in any signature-gathering drive (it's just like Jim Crow!). But for Gingrich, this is just a colossal failure in basic campaign organizing. I mean, if he can't organize a basic signature drive effort, how can he manage a job like being the President?

Come to think of it, that seems like a pretty solid rationale behind Virginia's system for getting candidates on the ballot. Way to go, Old Dominion!

How Would You Like Me To Raise It?, Part II

2011-12-23T13:13:00.003-06:00

Several years ago, I wrote an open call inviting people who say they oppose anti-Semitism, but think many claims that something is anti-Semitic (or raises the specter of anti-Semitism) are done in bad faith, to explain how one who genuinely believes that a given statement had anti-Semitic overtones should raise that issue without being summarily dismissed.

This question returns to the fore of my mind with the news that the progressive Truman National Security Project has expelled Joshua Block for his role in a spat where he said certain statements by Center for American Progress bloggers were "borderline anti-Semitic". I'll refrain from commenting on the substance of that particular dispute, save to note again my belief that the term "Israel-firster" does carry with it anti-Semitic overtones (and one of the authors who used that language has since apologized for it). Rather, I want to focus on the tropes of what arguments are permissible and which ones are "silencing", and how that impacts our broader state of discourse about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In the email informing Block of his expulsion, Truman National Security Project head Rachel Kleinfeld wrote:

"This has nothing to do with your policy views, and is a decision solely made on the basis of the need for this community to privilege the ability to debate difficult topics freely, without fear of mischaracterization or character attacks," she said in the email. "Your actions outside the community have caused too many to fear conversation within the community. That fear is not baseless, given your own actions. As the point of the Truman Fellowship is to help the next generation of leaders think about hard topics together, we need people to feel that they can debate with security."

One certainly understands what Kleinfeld is getting at here. It is damaging to be called an anti-Semite, or be told that one's writings echo anti-Semitic themes. It makes people nervous. And given some of the background on Block's behavior, where he was accused of specifically shopping "oppo research" on his colleagues to conservative outlets, one can understand how this comes off as a breach of trust between Block and his fellows.

Yet still, left unsaid in this report is how it would be appropriate to raise the issue of anti-Semitism, if one genuinely believes that it is in play within certain rhetorical tropes or arguments being played out amongst ones colleagues. Clearly, the answer can't be "never" -- that would be a form of silencing far more egregious than even the worst spin on what Block is accused of. If the goal of the Truman Project is to "debate difficult topics freely", well, how anti-Semitism interacts with global perceptions of Israel and its conduct is the very embodiment of such a "difficult topic".

What's needed, and what I think would be a very salutary development by Kleinfeld if she was able to put it together, is some set of guidelines delineating how one can appropriately raise the specter of anti-Semitism without it being automatically dismissed as a "personal attack" or a "mischaracterization". After all, this is an issue that is dogging progressives, not because they're more prone to anti-Semitism, but because of the dissonance between an intellectual tradition that (rightfully) leans towards hearing the complaints by minority groups that they face prejudice and discrimination, and a growing structural unwillingness to actually engage with those complaints (the right has the latter characteristic but not the former). This would also help dissipate the cynicism some hold that there is no such mechanism for raising the issue of anti-Semitism, that it will always be derided and dismissed, that it will always been seen as in bad faith.

One thing that makes the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so difficult to discuss is that there are a ton of very complicated, controversial issues that one needs to have a handle on before any conversation can even begin without it dissolving into gibberish. One issue is the very real, very salient hardships and injustices the occupation imposes upon Palestinians on a daily basis. Another is the very real, very salient security threats Israel faces from its neighbors who continue to yearn for its destruction. And a third is the very real, very salient specter of anti-Semitism, which doesn't just magnify the threat that Israel faces in the Jewish mind's eye, but also has noticeable and concrete consequences with respect to how Israel is treated, perceived, and evaluated in the global sphere. Discussing that can be difficult, and I don't envy Kleinfeld for having to navigate this very difficult terrain. But it's the project she's laid out for herself, and it's an important one.

Into the Whirlwind

2011-12-23T11:24:00.004-06:00

This book looks absolutely fascinating:

God deserves obedience simply because he’s God—or does he? Inspired by a passion for biblical as well as constitutional scholarship, in this bold exploration Yale Law Professor Robert A. Burt conceptualizes the political theory of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. God’s authority as expressed in these accounts is not a given. It is no less inherently problematic and in need of justification than the legitimacy of secular government.

In recounting the rich narratives of key biblical figures—from Adam and Eve to Noah, Cain, Abraham, Moses, Job, and Jesus—In the Whirlwind paints a surprising picture of the ambivalent, mutually dependent relationship between God and his peoples. Taking the Hebrew and Christian Bibles as a unified whole, Burt traces God’s relationship with humanity as it evolves from complete harmony at the outset to continual struggle. In almost every case, God insists on unconditional obedience, while humanity withholds submission and holds God accountable for his promises.

Contemporary political theory aims for perfect justice. The Bible, Burt shows, does not make this assumption. Justice in the biblical account is an imperfect process grounded in human—and divine—limitation. Burt suggests that we consider the lessons of this tension as we try to negotiate the power struggles within secular governments, and also the conflicts roiling our public and private lives.

The book is Robert Burt, Into the Whirlwind: God and Humanity in Conflict (Harvard UP). Via Rick Garnett.

UPDATE: Oh, and incidentally, if an intrepid Book Review editor out there is looking for a reviewer....

Just the Latest Victim of the Gay Agenda

2011-12-22T23:36:00.002-06:00

A gay activist has sent an open letter to former Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R), formally apologizing for destroying the sanctity of her marriage after she admitted to an affair with a younger (male) subordinate. Koch had been a critical figure in Minnesota Republican's quest to bar gay marriage, and now its evident why -- her own marriage was teetering on the precipice, and even the slightest breeze that marriage equality might bring could push her over the edge.

The Next Leg

2011-12-21T23:17:00.000-06:00

I elongated my DC trip to cut out the intervening stop back in Champaign. But tomorrow, that comes to an end, and I fly out to Minnesota to spend time with Jill and her family. Blogging will be appropriately sparse tomorrow, and perhaps for the next week or so as well through New Year's.

Paul's Folly

2011-12-21T13:40:00.003-06:00

Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that, even taking Paul's excuses for his racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, all-around-nutty "Rom Paul Newsletter" at complete face value, it still would be enough to render him unfit for the Oval Office: "You need not be a racist to be disqualified for the presidency; a truly stunning level of incompetence will do in a pinch."

On the other hand, my dad is actively rooting for Paul to win the Iowa Caucuses -- not because he supports Paul (lord no), but because, in his words, "it will sow chaos".

Even the Liberal!

2011-12-21T13:34:00.003-06:00

Arutz Sheva, media arm of the Israeli settler movement, sets a new record in "even the liberal"-ism:

[Friedman's] snipe at Israel, which also was an insult to the Congress, was widely criticized both in Israel and the United States. Even the liberal Washington Post’s columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote that Friedman hit “rock bottom.”

"Even the liberal Washington Post" is nothing new -- but using Jennifer Rubin as your specific source for bipartisan condemnation crosses into a whole new level of hackery.

(Oh, and FYI, I'm exceptionally dubious that Friedman has called "settlers", writ large, "terrorists". Settlers who commit terrorist acts, perhaps, but then, that's what they are).

A Movement of Lone Wolves

2011-12-20T14:50:00.006-06:00

Tom Friedman has written to the Washington Jewish Week to express regret over saying that congressional applause for Bibi Netanyahu was "bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby". He acknowledged that the rhetoric he used suggested a "grand conspiracy theory" that he does not endorse, and said in retrospect he should have used alternative language like "engineered".

I was alerted to the apology column by Israeli peace activist Didi Remez, who called it an "unconditional surrender". Upon reading the column though, I thought that was a pretty odd characterization. Friedman specifically said he stood "by 100 percent" the argument in the column, which is that Israel's growing right-ward tilt is alienating American Jews and endangering the safety and longevity of the Jewish state and its democracy. For an "unconditional surrender", that's pretty, well, conditional.

The point is not to knock on Remez, who quickly and to his credit conceded that he was off the mark in characterizing the column the way he did. But his instinct is reflective of a broader trend I see a lot in people who occupy the niche held by Remez and others like him. It is a tendency to view themselves as isolated, perpetually on the defensive -- solo Jeremiahs who against overwhelming odds are trying, perhaps futilely, to get Israel to change its path.

I can see the appeal of this outlook. Obviously, there is something uniquely exhilirating about being the lone wolf -- fighting the good fight against a numerically superior foe with all the resources and all the advantages. It's like being part of the Rebel Alliance or the Polish Underground. Moreover, it comes fit with its own excuse for failure: if you're up against overwhelming odds, then any victory (no matter how small) is an extraordinary accomplishment and, if defeat comes, it is only what is already expected.

But this description is of only limited accuracy. There are, in fact, a great many people who, in their own way and to varying degrees, have concerns about Israel's directions and policies, and wish to push it towards what they see as a more salutary direction. Friedman and his column exemplify that. Why, then, the instinct to presume defeat -- not to embrace the fact that Friedman remained steadfast in his broader critique of the Netanyahu government, but to reflexively engage in lamentation at another warrior's fall?

One gets the sense, sometimes, that these activists are almost afraid to make progress. Progress brings pressure -- a larger movement requires more negotiation internal to the group, and if one has a serious cadre of support, suddenly defeat is not expected but represents an actual failure. Once you're off the fringe, there are no more participation badges. And that's a scary thing.

I had this same thought while reading this post about the stagnation of the OWS movement. It seems like the movement can't bring itself to exert actual influence, because taking a step like that would imply the possibility of failure. So they come up with elaborate justifications to remain vague and amorphous and disengaged from the nitty-gritty of politics, and then when change doesn't happen they can freely blame the system's stacked odds.

OWS is fading out, but not because it didn't tap into something real. It's starting to disintegrate because it couldn't bring itself to actually flex its muscle in any meaningful sense. They say it's because doing so would betray the principles of the movement, or sacrifice moral purity, or reinforce the system they're trying to undo, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy it. Maybe they believe it, but I think the real thing here is fear that if they really go balls-to-the-wall, they might fail anyway, and will have to reckon with that. So they bask in the dignity of having not really tried in the first place. It's the fantasy of "I coulda been a contender".

I don't want the movement to redress growing economic inequality in America to suffer that fate. And nor do I want it to happen to the movement that is trying to save Israel's status as a Jewish, democratic state. But one of the first things we have to do is break the reflex that says we're outsiders, that we have no friends in power, that we're all lone wolves. We're not. It's not the case that we dominate the power structure either, to be sure. But we have our friends in high places. We have sympathizers with influence. We have a solid base of support in Israel, and a solid base of support amongst American Jews. They might not always bear the recognizable marks of the hardest of the hardcore, but they're there, and they can be mobilized. But it can't happen so long as we interpret every event as if it demonstrates our own marginal status.

UPDATE: If you're looking for an example from the flip side, check out this tweet by Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah: "Hey @RJCHQ d'ya hear about the Israeli family in NH who made 10,000 phone calls for Ron Paul? They must hate Israel lol." I find this very perplexing. Abunimah's politics would suggest he'd be happy both at the prospect of an American President who took a less friendly line towards Israel (as Paul would), as well as a slackening of Jewish support towards Israel (as Jewish Paul supporters probably already have). But the tenor of this tweet suggests the exact opposite instinct: Obviously Paul can't really be hostile to Israel, because he has some committed Jewish supporters (fun fact: Pat Buchanan had Jewish supporters too!), and there's no way that any American Jews could possibly have views on Israel remotely in accord with Abunimah's. If Jews are acting politically, the only logical explanation is that they're doing it to make Abunimah miserable.

Now, most of the time it is true that Jews hold views on Israel which are well out of sync with Abunimah's (which is a very good thing). But the instinct to assume it's just impossible that somewhere, politics might be playing out in your favor for once, is of a kind with the phenomenon I identified in this post.

South Juba Leader Travels to Israel

2011-12-20T14:19:00.002-06:00

The President of newly independent South Sudan has traveled to Israel and had warm words for the Jewish state, describing it as a steadfast ally of South Sudan's aspirations of independence and offering a model for how to survive as a young nation with hostile neighbors.

The alliance makes some sense -- Sudan and Israel are not friends, and South Sudan and Sudan obviously aren't either. In any event, hopefully this is the start of a long and mutually beneficial relationship.

Pryor Restraint

2011-12-20T11:57:00.003-06:00

Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit is perhaps most well-known in these parts for casting the critical 6th vote which upheld Florida's ban on gay adoption. That was a low point for the federal judiciary. But he's been showing some signs of independence these past few weeks -- first joining an opinion that held transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and now upholding a judgment that a student who refused to follow professional guidelines when they conflicted with her personal views on homosexuality could be expelled from a state university's counseling degree program (Pryor wrote an interesting concurrence to the latter which I encourage you to read).

What's changed? Well, one of my close law school friends is currently serving as Pryor's clerk. So I'll just credit her with all the good coming out of Birmingham

Robo-Hillary

2011-12-19T14:02:00.004-06:00

I just got a robo-call urging me to support a "draft Hillary Clinton" movement for 2012. The message was brief, and assured us that if Secretary Clinton were President right now, unicorns would frolic and manna would be falling from the sky as we speak (it was actually something to the effect of "banker robber barons would be in jail and all young people would be able to find jobs". So not too far off). The message didn't say who it was from, but directed me to this website, which also doesn't reveal who is backing it.

So there's the question: Is it a GOP dirty trick? Or is this yet another play by some exceptionally bitter bitter-ender like noted woman-of-the-people Lady Lynn de Rothschild (who's currently supporting Jon Huntsman, so we can rule out an aversion to quixotic campaign strategies)? Obviously, it's not Clinton herself, who has made no motions indicating the slightest interest in challenging President Obama. So who?

Place your bets in comments.

The Newt Republic

2011-12-18T21:37:00.003-06:00

I'm not sure how you can read about Newt Gingrich's proposal to arrest judges who issue rulings he disagrees with without feeling a deep, shivering terror at the state of American democracy.

What's most amazing is that, even after saying stuff like this, we'll still be treated to beltway claptrap about how Newt is the "thinker" of the Republican field; that he's "visionary" and that at least he "has ideas". How those "ideas" deviate from Michele Bachmann's or, for that matter, Hugo Chavez is entirely unclear. But being a raging lunatic has never stopped anyone from seizing momentum in a GOP primary.

Wake Up Call

2011-12-16T11:34:00.004-06:00

Two good columns went up yesterday regarding the state of Israel's belated awareness of the danger it has created via the settlement monster. Lara Friedman of APN takes on a slightly more lecturing tone, noting that prescient individuals had been warning of this outcome -- a radicalized group of religious fanatics with no loyalty to the state and no regard for either Jewish or democratic values -- for quite some time. Only now, after years of coddling the settlement project and dismissing its violence as isolated or aberrational, are Israelis finally realizing what is before their eyes.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Goldberg hopes that the settler's attack on the army -- far and away, the most venerated institution in Israel -- will finally mark a sea change in how the state treats these homegrown terrorist agents. In fact, Goldberg has a recommendation on just where these thugs can settler if they're so bent on filling the land -- Ketziot, in the Negev, which has the twin advantages of being near a Biblically significant location and also being the home of Israel's largest prison camp for violent terrorists.

UPDATE: Whoops -- posted an update to this article rather than the one before. My bad!

Tikvah Scrubs False Claim Against J Street

2011-12-15T22:24:00.003-06:00

Reporting on the J Street/Berkeley controversy, and specifically the opposition of a possibly-pro-Israel, possibly-not group called Tikvah, I noted that they claimed that J Street had hosted BDS chieftain Omar Barghouti. This was a key part of their claim that J Street was secretly pro-BDS and thus beyond the pale. The claim that J Street would have hosted Barghouti rang false to me, as they are of radically different political persuasions, so I looked into it. And unfortunately for Tikvah, it turns out there is no record of any such hosting -- indeed, googling "J Street" and "Omar Barghouti" reveals a story where Barghouti was actively spurned by J Street. I dropped them a comment asking for documentation of this claim, since as best I can tell it appeared to be made out of whole cloth (it never made it past moderation).

Well, the good news is that Tikvah changed their post and deleted that claim. The bad news is that they left no indication that the post had been modified or that a significant factual statement they had made turned out to be erroneous and was deleted.

Not to go all blogger ethics panel, but there is a pretty commonly accepted norm of behavior in the situation: You put the retracted claim in strike-out form (~~like this~~) and then post an update explaining the correction. See here for an example. That's the difference between admitting a mistake and transparently correcting it, and trying to play cover-up and pretend like nothing had been wrong in the first place. It's unbecoming (and dare I say unjewish) behavior, but given what limited experience I have with this particular group, I can't say I'm surprised that their standards of professional conduct are as lax as their support for Israel's status as a Jewish, democratic state.

UPDATE: A Berkeley J Street organizer contacted me regarding a similar piece posted up on the Hasbara Fellowship website, which also apparently originally had the false Barghouti claim and also has been scrubbed without comment. More interestingly, to me anyway, is what replaced it: a link to a "a list of additional questionable actions taken by JStreet." The piece is authored by Lenny Ben-David, and for the most part it is an incoherent mess of innuendo and hand-waving, with a fair bit of guilt-by-association-by-association thrown in (Tikvah, being in quite the glass house on this score, may not wish to throw stones). But you may recall Ben-David from an earlier anti-J Street hit piece arguing that the organization can't be trusted because it receives support from Arabs. He returns to that theme in this article, and it is racist and counterproductive now as it was then.

To repeat: Peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors means Jews and Arabs are going to have to agree on things. If the fact that an Arab person agrees with a position is enough to per se discredit it, that's another way of saying peace is definitionally impossible (since any position an Arab agrees to -- even if 20 minutes ago it was precisely what Israel claimed to want -- is now rendered suspect). People like Ben-David and, it seems, Tikvah, are not primarily concerned with Israel's security, or its longevity, or its democracy, or the safety of the Jewish people. What seems to scare them most, and motivate them the most, is the possibility that they might have to agree with an Arab. Just like the "pro-Palestinian" protesters I saw who booed the proposal for a Palestinian state because it meant having to agree with a Zionist, Tikvah and Ben-David are fearful of an Israel at peace with its neighbors because it means having to agree with Arabs. They're manifestations of the same disease, and one that neither Israel nor Palestine can afford right now.

Military Courts To Try Violent Settler Extremists

2011-12-15T13:50:00.002-06:00

Among several measures aimed at combating a spike in extremist "price tag" settler activity, Bibi Netanyahu has announced that settlers arrested for these sorts of crimes will be tried in military courts, same as violent Palestinian militants (one measure Bibi rejected, over the protests of quite a few members of his cabinet, was officially charging the extremists with terrorism). This created an amusing strange-bedfellows scenario between far-right settler nationalist parties like National Union, and left-wing human rights groups like B'Tselem, both of which are uncomfortable with the usage of military courts (though for the former, of course, it's only a problem when the settlers are subjected to it).

My own position on this is somewhat similar to the stance I took when Iran sentenced a man who had blinded a woman with acid to be himself blinded. As I said then, clearly I think putting out someone's eye as a punishment is barbaric. But there are plenty of attributes of Iran's judicial system I find barbaric, and certainly I don't find it any worse when they're used to punish crimes against women as opposed to punishing women themselves. And in general one of the ways one sees reforms of unjust practices is by ensuring they're enforced against the majority as well as the minority. Here, I'm generally uncomfortable with over-reliance on military courts and am sympathetic to the notion that they do not provide fully fair trials. But if they're going to be the forum by which violent Palestinian attacks against the IDF are tried, then I see no reason to treat violent Israeli settlers any differently.

Chinese Village of Wukan Revolts

2011-12-14T13:47:00.002-06:00

A small fishing village of about 20,000 in southern China has effectively revolted, chasing out its Communist Party leadership and resisting efforts by riot police to reassert control. Tensions originally started when the local Communist Party began selling off their land to developers, and escalated once the local police kidnapped village representatives who had been invited to help mediate the dispute (one later died in police custody).

The village has food and water for 10 days, as well as a pharmacy, but it is effectively being blockaded (including along its harbor). While I wish them the best of luck, I'm dubious this ends well for them. But perhaps some sort of flotilla like thing could be organized to relieve them? Thinking outside the box here.

Post-Travel Mini-Roundup

2011-12-13T22:50:00.002-06:00

Settled into Maryland. I'm thinking of staying for awhile, then going directly to Minnesota (instead of flying back to Champaign in the interim). I just can't handle all this travel.

* * *

The IDF is thinking of expelling "price tag" settlers from the West Bank (they apparently are having difficulty mustering up enough evidence to charge them with crimes).

Meanwhile, the Jersualem Post notes that if it had been 50 Palestinians who infiltrated and attacked an army base, the outcome would have been far different (and far bloodier). The fact is, these "price tag" thugs are terrorists and should be treated accordingly.

If I were a poor Black kid, I'd magically become insanely technologically literate through sheer force of will. I'd also simply think away all the other constraints upon my life chances -- hunger, gangs, health care.... whatever. I'd basically be Superman. It'd be awesome. Damn it, now it's all I want to do. Where do I sign up?

Speaking of the above, the Onion beat them to it. Seriously, the parallels are scary (Via).

Mega Travel Roundup

2011-12-12T19:22:00.003-06:00

I'm going to Maryland, and then to Illinois, and then to Minnesota, then back to Illinois, then to Nevada, then back to Illinois, then to New York! Yeaargh. (This is over the next month and a half, starting tomorrow).

* * *

Do teachers dislike creativity?

Poor Mitt Romney. Every time he has to converse with actual human beings, the threat of disaster looms.

Fascinating article about the Black QB at a private Virginia school that was founded as part of massive Southern resistance to school integration.

Jeffrey Goldberg explains why the support of Christian "Zionists" won't sustain an US-Israeli alliance in the event American Jews are permanently alienated from the Jewish state.

Israelis look on nervously as GOP candidates race to be further right-wing than the Israeli right.

Russell Simmons urges Americans of all stripes to protest Lowes' decision to give in to anti-Muslim bigotry and pull their advertising from "All-American Muslim". Also, Adam Serwer points out that the attack on shows like "All-American Muslim" demonstrates that -- shock of shock -- Islamophobes have a problem with Muslims, not "radical Muslims".

I hate having to link to Commentary, but there is a point that "Israel-firster" (used by some CAP folk as well as M.J. Rosenberg) has uncomfortable anti-Semitic overtones. Of course, this from the magazine that posted Jennifer Rubin's anti-Semitic article on why Jews dislike Palin, so, you know, pot and kettle (it only adds to the irony that Rubin herself has been at the forefront of attacking CAP).

Good post on False Dichotomies regarding how the nature of anti-Zionist rhetoric poisons any possibility of a one-state solution where Jewish citizens are viewed as equal. Simply put, if you view essentially all of Israel's Jews as colonialist Nazi interlopers, the odds that you're going to tolerate them wielding any sort of substantial political power or autonomy is relatively small. Which, come to think of it, characterizes a lot of anti-Zionist rhetoric towards Jews worldwide now.

Alabama discovers some foreigners aren't Latino -- indeed, some are executives at factories employing countless Alabamans -- panics about its anti-immigrant law.

We Have Always Been At War with, er, "Asia"

2011-12-12T12:46:00.005-06:00

A local news channel is aghast that Sidwell Friends school (where Sasha and Malia Obama attend) served (gasp) Asian food on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor:

What are President Obama's kids eating at school on Pearl Harbor day? Japanese food and other Asian items.
[...]
Here are the options for Malia Obama and her sister, Sasha on the "Day that will live in Infamy:"

Asian Mushroom Soup
Oriental Noodle Salad
Classic Spinach Salad
Teriyaki Marinated Chicken Strips
Szechuan Tofu & Veggies
Garlic Roasted Edamame
Vegetable Fried Rice
Fortune Cookies

One might note that while Teriyaki chicken is Japanese, Szechuan Tofu is in fact Chinese. And while yes, one can lump them all together as "Asian" cuisine, believe it or not Pearl Harbor was not an attack on America by the entire Asian continent. It's true. In fact, I have credible sources that tell me we were allied with the folks who gave us Szechuan Tofu & Veggies in that very conflict! True story.

(Via, with the original pointer from my former history Professor, Harry Williams).

Peterson/Khan Recap

2011-12-11T11:46:00.003-06:00

Last night, Lamont Peterson won a close split-decision victory over titlist Amir Khan in Peterson's hometown of Washington, DC, lifting two belts in a massive upset and a beautiful fight. There was some controversy over the refereeing, and that has some validity, as I'll discuss below. But the first thing that has to be said is that it was a great fight, and a career-defining performance by Peterson, who was a massive underdog going in. I told my girlfriend before the match started that "one of my favorite fighters is on tonight, and he's going to lose." Boy, did he prove me wrong.

Unfortunately, there are questions about the referee. What I think is clear is that he didn't seem ready for a fight of this magnitude. He seemed jumpy, was often out of position, and was extremely unclear about when he was breaking the fighters. But the controversy stems from deducting two points from Khan for pushing off -- which is a foul, but one that is rarely penalized. Rarely isn't never -- Mayweather was penalized against Castillo for much the same infraction -- but it isn't common. I'm not wild about the deductions, but that comes with a ton of caveats. "Not wild" isn't the same as outraged. Khan committed a foul, he was warned about it, he kept doing it, and eventually he got penalized. Then he did it some more, and got penalized again. The point Max Kellerman made about the lack of a "hard warning" I see, but only for the first deduction (I think deduction #1 counts as the quintessential "hard warning" before deduction #2). There's no disputing that Khan was pushing off, and there was no disputing he was warned about it. This isn't a case where there was a phantom low-blow or anything like that.

The other thing this wasn't, despite Khan's incessant attempts to claim otherwise, was a fight where Peterson's infractions were ignored while Khan's were jumped on. Did Peterson come in with his head low? Yeah, sometimes, but never in a way that led to any headbutts. And plenty of times Khan was holding his head down entirely of his own volition. Those, to me, washout. And while Khan claimed he "had to" push off because Peterson's head was low is simply bogus -- Khan was pushing Peterson off because Peterson was effectively ripping him up in close. A low head doesn't require pushing.

Meanwhile, Khan was the beneficiary of a borderline knockdown call in the first round. The first time Peterson tasted canvas in the first was ruled a slip because he was caught in the referee's legs. Bad positioning by Joe Cooper, but the right call. The second time, which was scored a knockdown, Peterson's legs were tangled with Khan's. Was it a blown call? I don't think so, not the least because tangled feet are very hard to spot, but it may have been the wrong one (Max Kellerman tried to sneak in that observation in the midst of several righteous tirades by Jim Lampley, mostly without success). Take away the two point deductions, and Khan wins by UD. Take away the two deductions and the knockdown, and it's a majority draw.

And speaking of that, let's talk about the scores. The two judges who gave it to Peterson scored in 113-112, which translates to each fighter getting six rounds apiece. That sounds about right to me (I had it 114-112 Peterson, or 6-5-1). The one judge who gave the fight to Khan had it 115-110. All the points shenanigans make that deceptive, so let me break that out for you -- that's a 9-3 Khan advantage. Does anyone think Amir Khan won nine rounds in that fight? 7-5 in either direction I can absolutely see, but 9-3? Come on. (Some folks made hay about the time it took to add up the cards. I don't think that signifies anything -- I can tell you what 7 rounds to 5 adds up to in my sleep, when there are no knockdowns or point deductions. When those come into play, then I actually have to do the addition. And when it's as close as this fight was, I do the addition slowly).

Hopefully, that dispenses with the refereeing section of the discussion, because I would really we rather focus on the fight itself. The story was actually pretty simple: Khan won on his front foot, Peterson won when he could force Khan on his back foot. And how did Peterson create the latter situation? Body work. Virtually everything good Peterson did started with the same thing -- a ripping one-two combination to the body which I found myself yelling at the TV for Peterson to throw more. Those two body shots -- which always seemed to land with wicked force -- force Khan up, allowing Peterson to get in his grill and hammer him on the inside until Khan was able to scamper (or push) off. The rounds where Peterson was able to do that for any significant portion of time were the rounds Peterson won, and the rounds he won clean.

It's easy to say Peterson could have put this fight beyond doubt by being more willing to press the action in that vein in some of the slower rounds. It is true what Max was saying, that Peterson has a tendency to keep his hands in his pocket until he thinks everything is lined up perfectly, and I think it's equally true that the special moments in last night's fight occurred because Peterson was able to overcome that instinct and throw with more abandon. But I also think it doesn't give Khan enough credit. He was genuinely elusive moving around the ring, and those four punch combinations he'd stop and throw, though mostly caught on the gloves, did have the effect of stopping Peterson from coming in. It's also worth noting that in the last round, where Peterson really did get a little reckless trying to rush Khan, Khan was mostly able to pick him off and move away. While aggression is the order of the day against Khan, he's a good enough fighter to force you to be intelligent about it.

The final thing I want to say is that I absolutely understand why Khan is upset. It was a close fight that went against him, in his opponent's hometown. My conspiracy-o-tron is not buzzing too loudly, because Khan had the money behind him, which counterbalances the hometown edge, but in the heat of the moment that's going to rankle. I'm sympathetic. But I don't think he was robbed, and I think acting as if that was the story of the fight doesn't give due credit to an outstanding performance by Lamont Peterson, who turned in the fight of his life.

Congrats, champ.

* * *

I couldn't figure out where to add this in, but another congrats is due to Maryland heavyweight Seth "Mayhem" Mitchell, who made a huge impression with a second round TKO of Timor Ibragimov. Mitchell, a converted football player, looks like he may have the goods. He had been getting along on natural athleticism, and there was a question about how he would handle someone who really did know his way around the ring. Ibragimov, an amateur standout and a solid pro, was a legitimate test. And boy did Mitchell ever pass -- hammering Ibragimov (who'd never previously been stopped) with right hands until the ref stepped in at the close of round two.

Mitchell looked outstanding to me, throwing in combinations beyond the classic heavyweight 1-2, and showing a good finishing instinct when he had Ibragimov hurt. He reminds me a bit of Chris Arreola, except unlike Arreola Mitchell is in impeccable condition. I'm excited to see more. We had a great card tonight featuring "Havoc" (Peterson) and "Mayhem" (Mitchell), and I think few DC fight fans would say no to more cards featuring them in the future.

Take It Down From the Inside

2011-12-10T15:53:00.003-06:00

Everyone is so focused on Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) complaining about the "eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges" on the Supreme Court, that they overlooked his proposal to abolish the federal government. To wit: That the Supreme Court prohibited mandatory, state-sponsored prayer in school is "one of the reasons I’ve called for doing away with the federal government."

Well, that's proportionate.

Qatar Depicts "Palestine" as West Bank and Gaza

2011-12-10T13:19:00.003-06:00

Maps of Israel and Palestine are touchy subjects. Partisans tend to get angry at maps which don't depict the land in question in the form they like. Sometimes, this leads to hilarity, as when the Palestine Solidarity Committee complained about an Israeli map which did not separate out Israel from the West Bank and Gaza ... same as the PSC's own logo which also presents the territory undivided. Or when a flight to Tel Aviv didn't include Israel on its inflight map, and instead told bewildered passengers they were going to Mecca.

In any event, at the 2011 Arab Games in Doha, "Palestine" was depicted as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. Which to my mind is a positive development -- building a consensus around two-states is always a good thing, and it's particularly good coming from a nation that currently does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Of course, I heard about it from a very upset blogger at Electronic Intifada -- the "upset" part is unsurprising, since EI is a critical player in the irredentist faction of Palestinian politics. Not being a fan of either Jewish or Palestinian irredentism, though, I'm glad on the occasions where I can see it marginalized.

So good on Qatar. While who controls what particular patch of land will ultimately be decided by negotiations, in broad strokes there is no solution but one predicated on 1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps. The more people who endorse that basic vision, the better off we are. It was gratifying to see a majority of Palestinians endorse that vision this past April, and it's gratifying to see Qatar sign on as well.

Offend Better!

2011-12-09T16:44:00.001-06:00

In what might be a first, home improvement company Lowe's has pulled its advertisements from a television program due to complaints over its portrayal of Muslims. Specifically, that it portrayed them in too positive a light. Apparently, depicting Muslims in ways other than "blood-thirsty terrorist" or "stealth threat to the American way of life" does "not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines."

Berkeley Hillel Urges Berkeley JSU to Reconsider

2011-12-08T12:36:00.003-06:00

Ha'aretz reports that the local Hillel has belatedly entered the fray in support of J Street after the university's Jewish Students Union controversially voted to exclude them from membership. Hillel had been sharply criticized for its lack of leadership on the issue, but now has come down rather decisively on J Street's side:

"We respect the right of the Jewish Student Union, an organization sponsored by UC Berkeley student government, to make its own decisions, but we encourage JSU to reconsider its vote and include JStreetU as a member," wrote Board of Directors President Barbara Davis and Executive Director Rabbi Adam Naftalin-Kelman in a letter to Haaretz and the Northern California Jewish Weekly.

"Berkeley Hillel is committed to creating a pluralistic community that embraces the diversity of our Jewish tradition," added the Hillel directors. "At a time when Jewish students are seeking community, we are careful not to exclude Jewish students, and we embrace the wisdom of our namesake Hillel by embodying the value of an inclusive community."

The letter continued: "Berkeley Hillel is steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State with secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations. Berkeley Hillel supports a range of student groups whose activities advance our mission. The JStreetU chapter adheres to our Israel policy and Hillel International’s Israel Guidelines and will receive the support of Berkeley Hillel as do the broad spectrum of other Israel-focused groups working with Berkeley Hillel including, Bears for Israel (AIPAC group), Tikvah: Students for Israel, Israel Action Committee, Tamid, and Kesher Enoshi."

Tikvah also came out with a defensive post where they claimed they hoped to be "proven wrong" about J Street. That, I suspect, will be a difficult task, since their original belief that J Street is secretly anti-Israel is so devoid of factual analysis that I'm not entirely sure how it could be falsified at all. The claim that J Street supports BDS appears to be entirely fabricated,* and the claim that J Street is only critical of Israel and lets the PA and Arab actors off the hook entirely is obviously, completely, wildly, flagrently false. So that leaves the speaker who said that Jerusalem has become a "symbol of violence", which is a remarkably thin reed to rest on (even if the comment is objectionable, which I'm not sure it is -- the ongoing struggle regarding who is allowed to live in what neighborhood in Jerusalem surely is symbolic of the broader conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples). Again, to be frank, I think Tikvah has far more work to do in proving its pro-Israel bona fides than does J Street. Step one would be to disassociate itself from groups which give prizes to anti-Semites like Glenn Beck.

One wag on twitter characterized Tikvah as having a policy encouraging Jews to be apathetic about Israel. While, as I noted in my last post, Tikvah's claims to be neutral on any question regarding Israel beyond basic acknowledgment of its right to exist as a Jewish state is performatively false, that's almost a relief, because actually taking that stance seriously would be catastrophic. Caring about something means having opinions about it. J Street cares about Israel, which means they have opinions about what actions it should take and what actions it shouldn't. Those beliefs put them in line with some Israeli leaders (like Tzipi Livni and Kadima) and against others -- which is how it works in a pluralistic political environment.

* Not only have they not given any sources about J Street's alleged hosting of BDS kingpin Omar Barghouti, they didn't even let my comment asking about it through moderation. So I remain convinced it didn't happen. But hey, maybe Max Blumenthal has the scoop!

Yesterday's News Roundup

2011-12-08T10:28:00.005-06:00

I went to bed last night before I could do a roundup, so much of this stuff is from yesterday.

* * *

Is Israel responsible for the OWS crackdowns? No. But is Max Blumenthal lying about his sources? In all likelihood, yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg agrees with Peter Beinart that the settlements are slowly making a "one-state solution" inevitable, and if Israel wants to survive, it has to muster the balls to cut them loose.

11th Circuit decides that discrimination on basis of transgender status is sex discrimination. Arch-conservative Judge Bill Pryor surprises by joining the opinion.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' overruling of the FDA on P;an B is a complete and utter disgrace.

Palestinian poet successfully gets Jewish Israeli Arab writer booted from a panel.

Tim Kaine and George Allen are already trading shots as they chase Virginia's open Senate seat.

Finally, someone from Berkeley has linked through Facebook to my discussion of their JSU's appalling decision to exclude J Street. I'm just curious about the context (is it someone's wall, or is it a Facebook page for one of the relevant orgs?). So if someone knows and wants to drop a comment to satiate my curiosity, I'd be grateful [UPDATE: Mystery solved, I think!].

Blogger as Media

2011-12-07T14:43:00.004-06:00

A federal district court judge in Oregon has just held that a blogger is not a member of the "media", at least if she is not affiliated with a more "traditional" media source such as a newspaper or television station. The case involved a defamation suit against a blogger, Crystal Cox, who had posted allegedly false information about a corporation. She attempted to defend herself by invoking a media shield law which would have protected her from divulging her sources. The court held that

although defendant is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" and defines herself as "media," the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.

Cox represented herself in court, which is nearly always a bad decision, and she so far is indicating she'll represent herself on appeal, which is even worse.

The decision itself strikes me as wrongheaded on a host of levels, being in accord neither with what I understand to be the original understanding of what "media" is, nor the animating values that cause us to provide media actors with enhanced protections. This is demonstrated by the courts' own list of archetypical media outlets -- how does one "affiliate" with a "pamphlet"? Pamphlets, of course, were a key aspect of public communication at the time of the founding, and they bear much in common with modern blogs -- they were produced individually, with varying degrees of professionalism, and were circulated organically and haphazardly. Their status as "media" stems not because they approximate newspapers, but because they are opining to the public about public affairs in an intentionally public manner.

Indeed, the court's list doesn't really articulate a standard for when something is media or not -- it simply gives a list of entities which assuredly are media, finds that Cox isn't a part of any, and thus assumes she isn't. That doesn't provide any real basis for adjudicating future cases. What it does do is sharply limit "media" to mostly corporate actors -- businesses and institutions that can afford to set up large printing presses or television networks. This is sharply contrary to the democratic understanding of "media" present throughout our nation's history, which allowed for and encouraged mass participation in the conversation.

Hopefully Cox can be persuaded to attain counsel or, at the very least, some public interest organizations can intervene to make sure this issue is argued fully.

UPDATE: An important update to this story.

Putting the "Buster" in "Mythbusters"

2011-12-07T12:28:00.002-06:00

Oops:

One of the zany experiments staged by the "Mythbusters" television show nearly turned into a suburban tragedy Tuesday afternoon in Dublin when the crew fired a homemade cannon toward huge containers of water at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb disposal range.

The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said.

There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust.

The ball wasn't done bouncing.

It exited the house, leaving a perfectly round hole in the stucco, crossed six-lane Tassajara Road, took out several tiles from the roof of a home on Bellevue Circle and finally slammed into the Gill family's beige Toyota Sienna minivan in a driveway on Springvale Drive.

That's where Jasbir Gill, 42, who had pulled up 10 minutes earlier with his 13-year-old son, Manvir, found the ball on the floorboards, with glass everywhere and an obliterated dashboard.

Since thankfully nobody was hurt, I'm free to marvel at the incredible "my poor meatball" trajectory of this cannon shot.

Berkeley JSU Rejects J Street U

2011-12-06T15:40:00.004-06:00

Last year, Jewish organizations at UC-Berkeley barely staved off an effort to get the student government to divest from Israel. Apparently on the theory that what Berkeley needs is fewer outspoken Jewish opponents of the BDS movement, the university's Jewish Student Union has voted to exclude the local campus chapter of J Street from membership (Bradley Burston has good commentary). Instead of following in the footsteps of the British UJS, which elected to take the lead in pushing for a peaceful, two-state solution which preserves Israel's Jewish, democratic (and thus Zionist) character, the Berkeley JUS instead apparently is looking to sabotage that vision.

One of the "nay" voters, identified as "co-president of the pro-Israel student group Tikvah", explained his vote by saying "J Street is not pro-Israel but an anti-Israel organization that, as part of the mainstream Jewish community, I could not support." This position was expanded on at Tikvah's site, which, while conceding that J Street talks the talk of being "pro Israel, pro peace", argues that its actions speak otherwise. The indictment is rather brief and exceedingly unpersuasive -- deciding whether talks or greater sanctions on Iran is the quintessential embodiment of a tactical question which people can and are likely to disagree on, and the claim that J Street has hosted BDS chieftain Omar Barghouti is one I have not seen verified or even mentioned anywhere else on the internet (a Google search reveals an apparently much-discussed instance of Jeremy Ben-Ami rebuffing Barghouti, but nothing about hosting him -- I dropped a comment on Tikvah's site asking for clarification).

Nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to the claim that not all those who proclaim themselves to be "pro-Israel, pro-peace" really deserve the moniker. For example, Tikvah claims to be a pro-Israel organization and their blogger says he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, thus preserving Israel's Jewish and democratic character and with it the Zionist vision. But I'm dubious -- to wit, I'm skeptical that any group which would act so aggressively to exclude J Street actually is either "pro-Israel" or "pro-peace". Just as Tikvah is entitled to be skeptical of J Street's bona fides, I'm entitled to be skeptical of theirs.*

For example, on their website Tikvah proclaims its agnosticism to any question relating to Israel save "the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland." We can note immediately that their claim of neutrality on other issues appears to be fictitious -- after all, one's beliefs on the tactical question of sanctioning Iran are clearly quite severable from one's beliefs about Jewish self-determination, yet they explicitly use it as a litmus test for "pro-Israel" in opposing J Street.

But, more to the point, Tikvah's one issue does not -- or at least does not clearly -- commit itself to defending Israel as a Jewish, democratic state. Since, as expressed earlier, my understanding of Zionism is as the Jewish iteration of liberal nationalism, the agnosticism towards Israel's democratic character could easily render Tikvah a non-Zionist organization (while Tikvah has a section on its site that asks the question "What is Zionism", it doesn't provide answer, instead providing a history of the Jewish presence in what is today Israel). Meanwhile, their apparent endorsement of the Zionist Organization of America provides a clear link to what at this point is an anti-Zionist organization that hands out awards to raging anti-Semites -- a far clearer link that J Street's, at best, nebulous contacts with the BDS crowd.

I don't have a problem with line-drawing in the Jewish community, and I specifically don't have a problem with declaring out-of-bounds positions inconsistent with maintaining Israel's position as a Jewish, democratic state. But that standard has to cut both ways, and while there certainly left-wing Jewish groups that don't meet it (not J Street, but the JVP springs to mind), there are right-wing groups that also cannot honestly state they are committed to that vision. Is Tikvah one of them? I'm not sure, and my default would be to be inclusive rather than exclusive. But if they want to play hardball, then that's the way the game should be played, and in a world where J Street isn't pro-Israel, then neither is Tikvah.

* For clarity, I'm not and have never been a member of J Street, though I'm sympathetic to their aims. I'd characterize myself probably as more as an Ameinu (formerly known as the Labor Zionist Alliance) guy, as I think they've done a better job firmly locating themselves as "Zionists" in the way that I understand the term.

Bitch, Please!

2011-12-05T19:23:00.002-06:00

In happy blogging news, Tedra Osell, better-known to blogosphere veterans as "Bitch, Ph.D", will make her return to the medium as a co-blogger at Crooked Timber. An outstanding pickup for CT (which already is a great group blog), and equally outstanding for the rest of us who missed Bitch, Ph.D's fantastic blog.

Yitzhar Settlers Abduct Palestinian Shepherd

2011-12-05T14:13:00.004-06:00

Ha'aretz reports that a group of Israeli settlers from Yitzhar have abducted a 60-year old Palestinian shepherd (as well as his flock). Apparently negotiations are ongoing with Israel to secure the man's release (Ha'aretz does say it is having trouble corroborating the report).

Assuming the report is true -- and Yitzhar is a hotspot of terrorist "price tag" activity, so it's well within the realm of possibility that it is -- well, let's just say priority one is getting this person back to his family. Priority two is bringing his kidnappers to justice. Priority three is accomplishing priority two without hurting any of the abductors. Hopefully they can resolve this without violence, but it sounds to me basically like a hostage-situation, and the hostage-takers should be treated like any others. If they have to send in a team, that's what they have to do. And if the rescuers are attacked, well, sometimes the IDF has to kill violent terrorists. I'd rather they be arrested and imprisoned, but that's only a preference.

In Every Word

2011-12-04T15:38:00.003-06:00

Likud MK Ofir Akunis, who is promoting a controversial bill sharply circumscribing the foreign funding of Israeli NGOs -- earning criticism from Abe Foxman, among others -- now is under fire for saying Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) "was right in every word." He later backtracked, claiming "I didn't say McCarthyism was right, or that every word that McCarthy said was right." (I'm curious as to the difference between saying McCarthy "was right in every word" and "every word that McCarthy said was right", aside from sentence construction).

Akunis then proceeded to describe his "right and just" bill as saying "that a foreign country will not transfer money to another country." Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is basically a request for Israel to be boycotted? Obviously that's not what Akunis means either, but this is still impressively bad phraseology (One caveat: English may not be his first language and I do not know if these comments were made in English).

Mis-Match Mish-Mash, Part II

2011-12-04T12:41:00.002-06:00

Via Ilya Somin, George Will forwards the "mis-match" hypothesis as an argument for abandoning race-based preferences in education admission. Argued most forcefully by UCLA law professor Richard Sander, the mis-match hypothesis argues that race-based affirmative action places minority applicants in schools above their level, at which point they struggle mightily. Someone who would have been a B+ student at the University of Iowa becomes a C- student at the University of Michigan. This has the effect of discouraging minority students, leading to worse rates of employment and bar passage than we would see in absence of affirmative action.

The first thing that has to be said about these studies is that they are deeply controversial, not in the "their conclusions are uncomfortable way", but in the "the data doesn't support the conclusions" sort of way. That's always important to note before we cede too much terrain to this argument off the bat.

But putting that aside, it is an argument I continue to find very, very strange. The basic thrust of the argument is that it is worse for a student to attend a better school. That's counter-intuitive to begin with, but one can see Sander's logic. Where it starts to crumble a bit is that nobody seems to notice or worry about "mis-match" in any other situation but race-based preferences.

Legacy admissions are the obvious control case, as they offer a situation where (mostly) White students are admitted to a school they likely otherwise would not have been in absence of the preference. Two things jump out here. First, I've yet to hear anyone say these students are "mis-matched". People argue against legacy preferences on the grounds that they are unfair to the marginal candidate not admitted to the university, but I've yet to hear anyone argue they hurt the legacy beneficiary. Second, if we're to take mismatch seriously, we'd have to come to the hard-to-swallow conclusion that wealthy, well-connected parents -- the epitome of the sophisticated education consumer -- are deliberately sabotaging their children's academic futures. Someone should tell them.

On a smaller scale, Sander's hypothesis indicates that all the steps law school applicants take to improve their profile without actually becoming smarter (e.g., LSAT prep courses) are actually self-destructive. I took an LSAT prep course and my LSAT score went up four points. Since my LSAT score basically was carrying my GPA on its back, that may have been no small thing in getting admitted to the schools I was. Was I shooting myself in the foot? Oh cruel world, if only I had been placed properly, at the appropriate law school, my life probably wouldn't be such a dismal failure right now.

The other oddity about this, particularly stemming from someone like Somin, is how openly paternalistic it is. Somin writes that he is "pessimistic about the ability of government to institute compensatory justice preferences that are simultaneously equitable and effective in accomplishing their objectives." This is purely an attempt to harmonize some cognitive-dissonance, because it is Somin who is taking the interventionist, big-government approach here. He promotes a one-size-fits-all government mandate which stifles local innovation and prevents schools from adopting the admissions policies they think are optimal for creating the best possible incoming classes.

Public universities are essentially market participants -- they for the most part act similarly to their private counterparts, except when some state law or regulation constrains them or otherwise forces them to modify their behavior. When it comes to affirmative action, it is pretty clear that most state universities, left to their own devices, would practice it. They don't because some law or regulation or court decision forbids it. To test this hypothesis, imagine if tomorrow the University of California, or Michigan, or Nebraska was cut loose and went private. Would they utilize affirmative action for their next incoming class? I think the answer is obviously yes -- in all these controversies, the university administration wants to have such programs and it is some act of government which forbids it.

Somin's argument, hence, is clearly a plea for greater government intrusion in the field of admissions policy -- it replaces what is in essence quasi-private market competition amongst universities (each university decides its own policy, and presumably the one with the best admissions policy is rewarded by having better students, more successful alumni, greater prestige, etc.) with a blanket legal rule. And the "why" is even more embarrassing: First, because he, in his judgment, thinks that the admissions directors and college administrators are so bad at managing these programs that it is better for a government power (the Supreme Court) to make the decision for itself (a command-and-control model); and second, because he is worried for the sake of the students who are being given the opportunity to attend their dream school (i.e., naked paternalism).

The cop-out here is to just say government should get out of the field of education entirely. That's a cop-out because it doesn't answer how we should structure legal rules in a world where that's a pipe dream. It would seem the answer, from a libertarian perspective, would be to have the rules governing these schools approximate a free market regime as much as possible -- to wit, allow the schools to implement whatever admissions standards they want, and certainly don't step in as a paternalistic measure to protect admitted students from their allegedly unwise choices.

It Bears Repeating

2011-12-02T18:15:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, I commented on how Ta-Nehisi Coates' site is one of the very few with a large, worthwhile comments section. Today, I will comment on a very different aspect of his site -- that he is a damn good writer. I'm envious.

A Killer Crossover, Among Other Things

2011-12-01T21:07:00.002-06:00

My rule of thumb about comments sections is this: If threads regularly top a dozen commenters, it will be a cesspool. I can think of two exceptions to this rule. The first is Alas, a Blog. And the second is Ta-Nehisi Coates' site.

In that vein, I agree with Ta-Nehisi that this comment is excellent and illuminating. It's from a White guy who grew up in an overwhelmingly Black neighborhood in DC:

Speaking to the "at a young age" point, for me that brings up the asymmetry with how I experienced being a "minority" at a young age. At a pretty young age (8 to late teens), I was the only white kid in my neighborhood, and really the only non-black person. Being in DC public schools, I was also a minority at school, but not as much so. I spent 3-4 hours many days at the basketball court a block away (Hamilton, between 13th and 14th, for any DC peeps) where my nickname was "white boy" because that was sufficient to distinguish me. I had a great time and got to be a pretty good playground basketball player. My race was often a thing, whether when an opponent ribbed his teammate who was checking me after a three-pointer ("that's what they do!") assigning me a NBA nickname (my mop of hair doomed me to John Paxson, who I hated), or sometimes worse. I got called a "KKK m**f*r" for no reason other than the kid was having a bad day and I was having a good one. New people to the court often got frustrated and looked to single me out, aggressively. I backed down from many eager combatants, and I rarely called fouls. My friends the other regulars often protected me, but sometimes not, and I chose to prostrate myself in whatever way would allow the game to keep on going, and me not to get my ass kicked.

While this experience has shaped my attitudes on race (and given me a killer crossover and a preference for 33 instead of 21) it hasn't left any legacy of fear or alienation. This, to me, is not a testament to my own courage (clearly lacking, or at least not deployed in this arena) or any great personal conviction, but that I could go home and go out into the wider world with the confidence that any racial resentment I experienced there wouldn't follow me or affect me. When a playground friend asked if I was going to college, and I told him yes, and the name of my very well-regarded destination, he said "Where's that?" This was not my bubble, it was his, and there was a big world waiting for me.

I'd be fine with being corrected on this, but this to me is the essence of white privilege from my experience. Not only do I get to feel "raceless" for most of my life and just be "psychologist," "father," "coach" or "teacher," but even those moments when my race was clearly a hindrance to people seeing me as a person, I could rest assured that this was temporary. In college and elsewhere, that part of my upbringing was essentially optional to share with people, which is not true for someone with different colored skin than I.
Totally off topic, but since people seem to be sharing. And now... back to being the central casting aloof academic...

That's a better comment than you'll find on the main page at most sites. It's worth reading on its own, but it's testament to the sort of site TNC runs that he's able to get these sorts of discussions rolling on a regular basis.

New Israel Poll

2011-12-01T20:55:00.004-06:00

The University of Maryland has released a new poll documenting the attitudes of Israelis, broken down between Jews and Arabs. There's lots of interesting data in there, but three things jumped out at me:

(1) Barack Obama's approvals have recovered and are now quite strong -- he's at 54/39 split amongst Jewish Israelis. That's a gain of 25 points from last year.

(2) Jews and Arabs are mostly in agreement when describing the situation of Israeli Arabs: Formal equality, but with institutional and social discrimination. 52% of Jews and 57% of Arabs agree with that statement, as against "full equality" (a third of Jews and a handful of Arabs) and "apartheid" (a third of Arabs and a handful of Jews).

(3) There was a precipitous fall in the number of Israeli Arabs who see "right of return" for Palestinian refugees as a redline issue. Whereas in 2010 57% of Arabs viewed it as an important issue on which no compromise could be broached, now, that same number still call it important but say a compromise should be reached.

Anyway, all the findings are interesting. I encourage you to check it out.

Dual Loyalties, Part Who The Hell Knows Anymore

2011-12-01T15:15:00.003-06:00

A British Labor MP, Paul Flynn, accuses the UK's envoy to Israel of possessing dual loyalties, because he's Jewish and "proclaimed himself to be a Zionist". UK foreign service employees need to be "someone with roots in the UK [who] can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty." Well alright then.

But what is the best part of this story? There are so many candidates! Is it:

(1) The classic "I have Jewish friends!" defense?

(2) Flynn prefacing his comments with "I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories...." (Because you sure jumped headfirst into this one!)?

(3) Flynn's appended proclamation as an equal opportunity racist -- he thinks all Brits with non-British ancestry should be suspected of divided loyalties (e.g., since Foreign Minister Denis MacShane's father was Polish, MacShane may have a conflict in loyalty between the UK and Poland)?

(4) Flynn being turned onto this whole "issue" because of a complaint from a neo-fascist anti-Israel activist who broadly waved the flag of Syria's Social Nationalist party and asks "who can blame" Hamas leaders for being "anti Jew" (the woman was upset because she was arrested after trying to break Israel's blockade, and didn't feel like the government did enough to represent her in her flouting of both Israeli law and British foreign policy priorities)?

Cast your votes now!

On Liberal versus Left Zionism, Part II

2011-11-30T19:56:00.003-06:00

Abir Kopty has a post up attacking the entire concept of "liberal Zionism" (reposted here). In fairness, it is responding to a pretty impressively bad "defense" of liberal Zionism from Larry Derfner (for a much, much better one, see David Hirsh). But even granting that, I'm left, well, kind of relieved to be honest. While in a sense it's unnerving that someone could put up what is essentially a warrantless repetition of the phrase "Zionism is not liberal" for a dozen paragraphs and find it persuasive, the part of me that still thinks arguments matter is pleased to see what I'm up against.

The only argument Kopty explicitly makes against the possibility of Zionism being liberal is that "what matters is the implementation of this ideology on the ground." That is to say, because Zionism is and has been implemented in illiberal ways, it is congenitally incapable of being liberal.

This is, to be generous, gibberish -- and counterproductive gibberish at that. I could just as easily respond that Palestinian nationalism is congenitally anti-Semitic and illiberal. That would be true to the same degree, which is to say, not very. While it is true that the dominant "on the ground" manifestations of Palestinian national aspiration have been characterized by bigotry, violence, and so far mostly futile eliminationist desires towards Jews, that does not exhaust all the "live" renditions of Palestinian nationalism, much less all it could be. There are many Palestinians who forward visions of Palestinian nationalism and self-determination that have none of these qualities, and absolutely recognize and defend the equal status of Jews locally and globally. The whole point is to try and make it so they win the day. It would be both ridiculous and foolish of me to try and argue that the history of Palestinian nationalism as played out through anti-Semitic violence permanently corrupts the entire enterprise. And so it is with Zionism: there are a host of live schools of what Zionism is, some morally defensible (some I'd say morally obligatory), others not, and the whole point is to ensure that the former defeat the latter. I mean, I suppose I could rename these concepts "Xionism", but I don't think that would remove the problem in Kopty's eyes.

That being said, Kopty does sort of gesture in the direction of some bigger claims about liberalism and its demands, which could arguably sustain an assertion that liberalism and Zionism are intrinsically incompatible. Much of the "debate", such as it is, is a reprise of issues I talked about in this post -- specifically, slippage in the use of the word "liberal". That pops up here as well, as Kopty doesn't actually give us a definition of what "liberal" means. For example, "liberal" can simply mean left-of-center. Or it can mean "as agnostic as feasible between competing conceptions of the good life". Or it can mean "viewing its constituent parts as individuals, and taking no notice of 'identity' characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or nationality." It is a fundamentalist account of the last that seems to be in play here.

It is true that this version of liberalism cannot be reconciled with Zionism. That's because it is opposed to all nationalism -- Jewish, Palestinian, French, Chinese -- as well as affirmative action, historically Black colleges, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But as I wrote in my other post, finding through "liberalism" that Howard University to be the moral equivalent of Jim Crow Ole Miss is no more a strike against Howard than finding through libertarianism that the Civil Rights Act is unjust indicts anti-discrimination law. The arrow goes the other way. Hence why I rearticulated my Zionism as "left" rather than "liberal", though this is more to avoid confusion, since I don't think the very particular form of liberalism I'm reacting against is the essence of liberalism.

I do not believe it intrinsically wrong for people to organize around identities (race, sex, class, religion, nationality), nor do I think it's wrong for a state (or other entity) to take note of them. As one might guess from the above paragraph, I do not find Howard University or affirmative action morally problematic at all. Nor do I find national self-determination to be inherently problematic. Indeed, I think it can be a very good thing; I think it is a positive good when national groups are able to find a space where they are relatively autonomous and in control of their own destiny. And I am optimistic that such spaces can be created while still respecting the rights and equality of people who don't identify as part of the group -- Howard University is a Black college that nonetheless has White students and faculty members who don't seem to view themselves as second-class members of the Howard community. Which is why I support the existence of a Jewish state, and why I support the existence of a Palestinian state.

Since, for me, "Zionism" is simply the Jewish rendition of "liberal nationalism" (different definitions of liberal strike again!), supporting Zionism flows out of and commits me to two principles: (1) democracy, and (2) national self-determination. The first holds that all citizens in a given territory are given the equal ability to influence via the ballot box the governing authority; the second asks that national groups be given space where they are in control of their own destiny; where they are the norm.

In pursuit of those goals, I am willing to sacrifice another potential moral principle, one which Kopty seems to hold in much higher esteem: the right of people to live on the particular parcel of land they wish. And I apply this even-handedly -- there are many Jewish families that very much wish to live in certain settlements in the West Bank, and I think they will have to let that go; no matter that they view that lands as "home", no matter that they may have deep historic and familial connections to it.

Now, she might protest that she doesn't support the principle that anyone can live anywhere, bur rather that "native people" ought to be allowed to live on (or return to) "their land". But this gets us virtually nowhere. After all, a major part of Jewish history is precisely analogous to her own account of the Palestinian experience: that Jews lived in what is now Israel, were expelled, and now want to come back. That they were expelled for longer can't affect the sort of moralistic, first-principles argument Kopty is making, and if she's actually putting forward a statute of limitations on these sorts of claims -- after a certain amount of time in the diaspora, "return" becomes "colonization" -- I'm sure the Israeli government would like to know about it so they can run out the clock.

Even if we restrict the conversation to land where a person has a familial claim to a particular deed, it doesn't get us that far (though it does get us further). First, there's ample ground to be suspicious that this actually is a universal principle: I see very few right of return advocates protesting in favor of the Jewish family over in Sheikh Jarrah,who are seeking to reclaim land they were expelled from in the War of Independence (as indicated above, I absolutely think the Jewish family at issue in Sheikh Jarrah should not be permitted to live there, as I care more about protecting Jewish and Palestinian national self-determination rights and democracy than I do about letting every person live on the precise acre they wish).

Second, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, possessing a deed is hardly a conversation-stopper regarding the justness of owning that plot of land -- much Jewish-owned land prior to Israel's establishment was purchased, but from absentee landlords who held title rather than from the peasant farmers who actually lived there. But either actually occupying the land in question trumps deed ownership or it doesn't (universal principles are tricky that way).

Third, to the extent Kopty is making a backwards-looking argument, it doesn't have a logical stopping point, and that raises the question of why the Jewish people can't raise a prior claim of ownership stemming from their (much earlier) exile. The answer being, of course, that it is impossible to trace lineage, much less figure out how to reallocate resources so as to "remedy" the original injustice. The egg is hopelessly scrambled (this is a problem that hardcore "liberals" of the vein we're talking about, like Nozick, recognize as potentially fatal -- the inviolability of property claims is predicated on that property being justly attained, a characteristic that describes precisely no property). It would be wildly unjust to tell Palestinians that their entire history of living in this area is unjust because it all happened on top of prior Jewish dispossession. This doesn't mean historic injustices are irrelevant, it just means that they can't be remedied via an expectations damages model.

More likely, Kopty could also explicitly jettison the importance of national self-determination as a value. That is, whereas I'm saying "we can't allow everyone to live on the precise parcel of land they wish and still respect the national self-determination aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians, therefore, we must sharply limit Palestinian 'right of return' to Israel and Jewish settlement of the West Bank and Gaza," she could say "we can't allow everyone to live on the precise parcel of land they wish and still respect the national self-determination aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians, therefore, we must abandon the pursuit of national self-determination for Jews and Palestinians". Again, from this "fundamentalist" version of liberalism, this is probably the position she should be taking -- nationalism is not liberal in this sense. But as I wrote in my prior post, taking that view is a very reactionary form liberalism that I think is politically dominative and at this point better thought of as conservative.

One of the perks of being a dominating majority is that an entity which is "nothing" is, in effect, "you". American doesn't need to be a "Christian Nation" to be a Christian Nation. One does not have to create a White congressional district to have a Congress full of White people. This is Anatole France's neutrality -- it forbids rich as well as poor to beg, steal bread, or sleep under bridges. It is a state of affairs guaranteed to oppress minorities, and there are excellent reasons for progressives to oppose it. Which is one of the reason this sort of "neutrality" which studiously ignores the differentiated histories and positions of various social groups doesn't interest me. Those groups have justice claims too, and we should absolutely listen to them and give them space. Often times, this means creating nation-states. The moral ground that is good for all is trying to create a pluralist global order where various national groups -- even relatively small ones with severe histories of persecution and oppression -- are given a few acres that is to be theirs. Surely both Jews and Palestinians can see the appeal in that.

* Kopty actually writes: "[W]hat will you do if a given country decides today that the land of 'Israel' belongs to its nation, and brings its people to occupy and ethnically cleanse those who have lived here for 60 years." It almost feels unsporting to take a swing at a pitch just lobbed over the plate like that.

In a related vein, she asks "Shall we go through history and examine the many cases of nations who were at war, but were allowed back to their homes when it ended?" Umm, sure, but I think it will lose out rather dramatically to the many more cases where they weren't.

My Thanksgiving Break: A Pro/Con List

2011-11-30T17:37:00.003-06:00

They say when you're having trouble making a decision, you should make a pro/con list. Well, I'm having trouble deciding how to blog about my Thanksgiving break. So let's give it a shot, in chronological order.

Thursday

Pro: Going to visit my mom's family in Newport, RI for Thanksgiving. My relatives are great and I always love seeing them. Plus, it's Jill's big rollout to that side of my family.

Pro: Thanksgiving was delicious and my family loved Jill. And she liked them back. Success all around!

Pro: Was actually hungry at around 11:30 PM Thanksgiving night. Ordered online from a pizza place in town, and had to create a profile with my address. When I showed, the guy behind the counter was surprised -- he assumed the order from "Champaign, IL" was a prank. But he had made our pizza anyway, just in case! It was delicious.

Hey, this is going pretty well so far! Let's keep up the momentum!

Friday

Con: Travel home to Maryland, and am assigned the dreaded "pack up or give away your treasured childhood toys" project. I'm very sentimental and I seriously anthropomorphized my toys as a kid, so this sort of thing devastates me (I refuse to watch Toy Story 3, which I'm pretty sure would emotionally shatter me beyond repair).

Saturday

Pro: It's my mom's birthday! And she likes the gifts Jill and I bought (jewelry). We're going to Morton's for dinner, too.

Pro: Jason's gift for mom is even better than mine, but I love my mom so this counts as a "pro" too. Besides, Virginia got slaughtered by Virginia Tech, so he needed the pick me up.

Con: Morton's was delicious, but I actually ate myself sick, which I don't think I've ever done before.

Sunday

Pro: See a bunch of old high school friends, one of whom is now a law student and wanted my advice. Office hours practice! Also try Settlers of Catan for the first time. It was a lot of fun, even if I did get blown out (stupid ore).

Con: Have to drive up to Annapolis for an all-day professionalism course to be admitted to the MD bar. I hate driving. Even when I don't get lost. Which I did. And I had to rent a car, which turned out to be a Kia Soul. I feel like a massive tool.

Con: I just can't be trusted around food this weekend. Get Ledo Pizza for dinner, another favorite of mine, and eat myself sick again. What is wrong with me?

Monday

Con: Hey, you know what takes the sting off a 7:30 AM wakeup call? A 2 AM fire alarm! Thanks, Sheraton!

Con: Professionalism course actually isn't as boring as I had feared, but it doesn't matter because the aforementoned fire alarm means I'm nodding off through the entire morning session anyway.

Pro: Afternoon session is a little better. I teach myself to make crosswords puzzles. It's a completely different skill set than filling them in. Mine aren't symmetrical, and have some two letter clues. But they're still pretty good for first efforts.

Con: Finally done! Roll back into Bethesda at around 6 PM, and check my cellphone (no electronic devices allowed at the professionalism course). My character interviewer called. Apparently about half of materials never arrived. He tells me to look into it. My interview is at 11 AM Tuesday. FML. Frantic phone calls ensue.

Tuesday

Con: It's rainy and otherwise miserable. Get to interviewer's office 10 minutes earlier, wait around for 45. My flight back to Illinois departs at 2:30, so I'm a little antsy.

Pro: Interviewer is really nice, and the whole thing takes about 5 minutes. Missing materials are apparently no problem -- just have folks fax him a letter. He also says "good, you're not an idiot" when I refrain from offering "any additional positive or negative things you want the character committee to know about your fitness to practice law?"

Pro: Tell the people who need to fax things to do so, and get to the airport in plenty of time. Things are looking up! And we're actually flying into Champaign (with a connection through Chicago), rather than having to take a train for once. My excitement at this fact will turn into bitter irony soon enough.

Con: Half a hamburger and my stomach starts aching. Oh come on.

Con: Flight from DC to Chicago is delayed an hour due to high winds in Chicago. Uh-oh.

Con: Flight from Chicago to Champaign canceled entirely. Double uh-oh.

Con: Gate agent puts me standby for the next flight to Champaign, which leaves O'Hare at 6:15. Also informs me it's booked solid.

Pro: Realize that there is no way we'll actually get on the Champaign flight, seize on the brilliant idea to just bail in Chicago and take the 8 PM train to Champaign. I'm so clever. I even get the gate agent to pull our bags and retag them to go to Chicago, so we can claim them at the Chicago carousel when we arrive.

Pro: 3:00 rolls around and we're boarding the plane.

Con: 3:30 rolls around and we're instructed to all get off the plane. The gate agent, with a keen insight on passenger psychology, informs us that if she hadn't deplaned us, we would have been stuck on the tarmac for 3 and a half hours. This staves off the torches and pitchforks.

Con: Flight is delayed indefinitely. Suddenly worried that it will get in too late to catch the 8 PM train. Also find out that there is another, 8:15 flight to Champaign which we probably could have gotten on if we missed the 6:15 flight. Curse myself for having "brilliant" ideas.

Con: It's about 5 PM, and we are about to start a half hour of being "just a few minutes away" from boarding.

Pro: It's 5:30 PM, and we've started to board. Hurray! Gate agent says the boarding process will be sped up if people volunteer to gate check their baggage. Nobody volunteers.

Pro: Gate agent gets back on the mic and informs us that if we don't push off the gate by 6 PM, the flight will be canceled outright. Repeats whether anyone is willing to gate check; swarmed by volunteers. She has a very keen grasp on passenger psychology.

Con: Everyone is on the plane by 5:40. We're just sitting here, waiting, at the gate. I wish there was a big red clock giving a countdown until 6 PM.

Pro: We push off at 5:55 PM. Awesome!

Pro: Flight is pretty smooth, but on the approach to O'Hare our jetliner is getting tossed around pretty bad by the wind. Suddenly glad I'm not flying on the 23-seat turboprop that would be going to Champaign.

Con: Land at about 6:30, central time. Frantically doing calculations about how long it will take to get our bags and catch a cab from O'Hare to Union Station. Compare this to the alternative plan of getting our bags, going back through security, and rebooking ourselves on the 8:15 Champaign flight. Not only do we really only have time to pursue one option, but again grapple with possibility that my "brilliant" idea will mean we miss both the plane and the train.

Con: Waiting at baggage, bags start coming off at around 6:50. Ours don't come. At 7:10 I go up to the lost baggage counter.

Pro: Our baggage is indeed lost. This counts as a "pro" because it means we no longer have to wait at O'Hare, and can high-tail it to Union Station. I fill out a quick form telling them where to ship the bags and ask them whether they think we'll make it to Union Station ontime for an 8 PM train. Fraught glances are exchanged.

Pro: Catch a cab, tell the driver our situation. He promises he'll try, then proceeds to weave through rush hour Chicago traffic like a fucking boss. I love him right now. We get to Union at 7:45 PM, joke we could have dawdled and seen the sights. I tip nearly 30%.

Pro: We just make the train. Text that we've "made it", even though "it" means being 3 hours from our final destination.

Pro: Get to Champaign and it's almost 11. Go to the 24-hour diner for dinner. Did I mention I haven't eaten since the half-hamburger at DCA approximately 11 hours ago? Famished. Scarf down two chili dogs with fries.

Con: Feel sick again. This whole concept of food is starting to unnerve me.

Tuesday

Con: Get "good news!" from American Airlines. They've found one of our two bags! I'm so proud, and cannot fathom why they're bankrupt.

Pro: Call them back and manage to track down bag #2. They're both in Champaign. She asks if I want them shipped or if we'll pick them up at the airport. Select "ship", refrain from mentioning that I already told them that back at O'Hare. Am informed I'll be called when they're on the way.

Con: Phone rings in class, so I ignore it, but figure it's AA telling me my bags are on the way. Wrong. It's AA telling me (again) they have my bags and want to know if I'd like them shipped or pick them up myself. If I call them back in five minutes (which is to say, 1 hour and 30 minutes ago), they can send them out at 3 PM!

Pro: Call AA back at around 5 PM, select the "ship" option. Am told they'll get to me in about an hour and a half. We elect to stay in for dinner as a result.

Con: Get another "good news" call from AA, which is behaving a little too much like Hubert Farnesworth for my tastes. They tell me that my bags are scheduled to be sent out at 8 PM, but that it might take longer for them to get to me.

....and that's where we're at now. Good to get that off my chest. Thanks for listening!

The Not Good News and the Bad News

2011-11-29T11:21:00.002-06:00

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is retiring, and that's not good news. Rep. Frank has been one of the more vocal and passionate voices for financial sector reform, and his vigor and assertiveness will be sorely missed in the chamber.

In line to be Frank's replacement as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). And that's bad news -- Waters not only has a ton of corruption allegations swirling around her, but those corruption allegations are specifically tied to banks. To be sure, while Waters is next in line on a seniority basis, no decision has been made on this question as of yet.

The Unbearable Boldness of Andrew Sullivan

2011-11-28T23:13:00.004-06:00

Ta-Nehisi Coates is in rare form taking on Andrew Sullivan's obsession with the alleged race/IQ link. I particularly loved Coates' explanation for why he, unlike Andrew, tended to avoid this topic, to wit: "because I have a bias toward knowing what I'm talking about." (For someone who actually does know, see here).

But Coates' also taps into an aspect -- can we call it a character flaw? -- of Sullivan and his writing that bears mentioning again. Sullivan really is wedded to a self-image as a bold crusader who is willing to say the hard truths society needs to hear but refuses to say. The problem is that what he believes to be unsaid, rarely is. To the contrary, it is often the tritest conventional wisdom, dressed up in "forgotten man" language that was dated when William Graham Sumner was doing it.

That Blacks are biologically inferior to Whites along the axes of intelligence is not cutting edge. It is not the brave frontier of social science research. It has been, for most of our nation's history, the (nakedly ideological and poorly argued) default position, and the effects of that persist to this day. Similarly, after 9/11 America was not oblivious to the threat of Islamic extremism -- and informing us of that peril was not the bold, stand-alone position. Neither is Sullivan's sharply critical stance towards Israel the sort of silenced taboo that only a brave rebel like Andrew can shatter.

All of these positions command a solid and influential following in the circles Andrew runs in and in our media. That doesn't mean one shouldn't say them (though one should probably adopt Coates' bias in favor of having actual subject-matter knowledge), but it does mean one probably should cease trumpeting one's bravery and maverickness. It's self-congratulatory without actually having anything done anything laudatory.

Eat Darling Eat!

2011-11-27T23:42:00.002-06:00

Sorry I've been quiet these past few days. I've been doing a lot of Thanksgiving traveling ... and a ton of Thanksgiving eating. I'm not sure I've ever had more food over a four day period. It's so good, but I feel so sick.

Anyway, the relative silence will continue for a few days still. I have my Maryland professionalism course tomorrow, and then my character interview Tuesday ... a few hours before my flight back to Champaign. Busy busy busy.

But it was a great few days seeing family and friends. And for those who are wondering, Jill's rollout to my mom's family went great!

The New Definition of Zionism

2011-11-25T21:13:00.004-06:00

"Zionism" is one of those terms that gets bandied about a lot, but doesn't seem to have much of a stable definition. The one I forward (inspired if not outright stolen from Phoebe Maltz Bovy, though I can't remember exactly where), and still think is pretty good, is "the belief that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state was a good idea and it should stick around." That's deliberately quite broad, and is also deliberately agnostic to a whole range of Israeli policies. For obvious reasons, I reject the claim that the settlements are "Zionist" at all, much less intrinsic to the definition as some of their proponents claim. Zionism, at core, is about granting Jews national self-determination -- there is no rule that we have to use it to occupy the West Bank.

But of late, I think there is another definition of "Zionism" rising to prominence -- at least in some quarters. A "Zionist" is anybody who speaks out against anti-Semitism, no matter their politics on Israel. The CST blog forwards this claim with respect to the rhetoric employed by defenders of rabid anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon, in a post titled "You're all Zionists now". Atzmon has long been condemned even by Jewish anti-Zionists, and it's not hard to understand why, for the target of his vitriol is not (or not just) Israel, but "Jewishness" as a whole. That includes Jewish anti-Zionists, because for Atzmon the core sin that he opposes is "acting politically under a Jewish banner", and insofar as Jewish anti-Zionists identify as Jewish anti-Zionists, they qualify.

But when these anti-Zionist speakers speak out against Atzmon's inclusion in a "progressive" cultural festival called "Raised Your Banners", suddenly -- presto! They're "Zionists". The one thing I will say is that the CST is, if anything, too generous in calling this a "new low". It isn't particularly new at all: brushing aside accusations of anti-Semitism as "Zionism", even when the complainant is anti-Zionist, has a much longer pedigree (of course, the idea that only anti-Zionists have standing to have their claim of anti-Semitism taken seriously is itself a deeply reactionary position predicated upon denigrating Jews and enforcing the third rule of racial standing). Steve Cohen, introducing his classic text That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic, recounts an early review his pamphlet received in a putatively "left" magazine:

There was a particular review—in Searchlight—one sentence of which I will never forget. 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. Which is one reason why I call myself an Anti-Zionist Zionist—at least that should confuse the bastards. Anyhow this particular review, noting that my book actually did attack Zionism, said "It is not enough to trot out platitudes, as he does, about being against Zionism and in support of the Palestinian struggle". So I'm not allowed into the club even though I fulfil the entry requirements. I'm not allowed in because I recognise and oppose the existence of anti-Semitism on the Left—and this therefore renders all support for Palestinians a "platitude". Well it ain't me who's here confusing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Once you speak out against anti-Semitism, boom -- Zionist. But this is useful knowledge! As it happens, I am a Zionist (based on my own definition given at the start), and I feel no need to apologize for that. But it is important to know that when I say something is anti-Semitic, and it is dismissed as "Zionist", all we have is a tautology. My complaint against anti-Semitism is "Zionist" because it was a complaint against anti-Semitism. Nothing more is needed than that.

Happy Turkey Day!

2011-11-24T10:46:00.004-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving! Today we commemorate the perseverance of illegal immigrants who came to these shores in the face of incredible hardship in order to pursue a better life.

I'm in Newport, Rhode Island with my mom's family, who are getting the irreplaceable opportunity to meet Jill for the first time. It's very exciting. Personally, I'm thankful for Jill, my family, this wonderful job I have, and the fact that, though I probably won't be eating it today, I do know what "mac 'n cheese" is.

ZOA: Honoring One-Staters and Anti-Semites Alike

2011-11-22T13:43:00.004-06:00

The Zionist Organization of America is having its annual gala, and the theme seems to be "revealing ourselves to be a parody". Their first award went out to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You may remember the good Representative from such pro-Israel actions as kneecapping efforts to improve relations between Israel and Cuba, apparently on the theory that what Israel needs most of all is more countries for it to be in an inexorable state of hostility. During her speech, Ros-Lehtinen proceed to hop into one-stater land, declaring that building settlements is "not an impediment, that’s the solution." The solution to what problem, exactly? Oh yes, the problem of a two-state solution where the same nation is not in control of Tel Aviv and Nablus. Which, in turn, can be recharacterized as the problem of there existing a Jewish, democratic state at all. Ros-Lehtinen and ZOA are now official members of the Hamas wing of the "pro-Israel" camp.

Oh, but it gets better. The next honoree was none other than Glenn Beck. The Forward informs us that part of the reason for his award was Beck's flagrantly anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros, so it is good to see that the ZOA also endorses that sort of behavior. Beck, for his part, went on one of his typical reality-deprived tirades about how the status of Jews is more precarious now than it was in 1939. Such a serious organization they're running.

Eat Your Veggies!

2011-11-22T12:39:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, in response to the UC-Davis pepper spraying incident, Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted "Pepper spray is made from peppers, peppers are a vegetable, kids need vegetables, therefore schools should pepper-spray kids."

Hahaha! Oh that's hilarious. And as if on cue, we turn to Fox News' Megyn Kelly: "I mean, [Pepper Spray is] like a derivative of actual pepper. It's a food product, essentially."

Life imitates parody, brought to you daily on Fox!

Kauft Nicht Bei Araber!

2011-11-20T23:56:00.003-06:00

I don't like adopting Nazi analogies. I really don't. And people who assert that Israel is a Nazi state are, I think, suffering from -- being generous -- a gross lack of proportion. Less generously, they're simply being anti-Semitic.

But to say that Israel is not the sum of its worst elements is not to say that its worst elements don't exist. Israel has its fascists, same as everywhere else. And right now, a group of far-right extremists are mapping out businesses in Jerusalem which employ Arabs, the goal being "to warn the public" against buying from them. In every respect, it is reminiscent of the anti-Semitic boycotts against Jewish shops that were Nazi bread-and-butter (and live on in the BDS movement).

The persons behind this boycott call hail from the Yitzhar settlement -- a center of Jewish extremist activity and noted terrorist hotspot. Indeed, many of the activists are currently in Jerusalem because they've been barred from the West Bank, on suspicion that they were plotting terrorist attacks. So they likely aren't just racist extremists, but violent racist extremists too.

I ask again -- what is the policy for excommunication? How do we formally expel these insults to Judaism from the faith? They don't deserve to be considered part of our people, and if the Israeli government isn't willing to crackdown against "price tag" fanatics, then its the religious bodies that are going to have to step up to the plate.

The End of the World Draws Nigh

2011-11-20T22:47:00.002-06:00

I don't drink coffee, so it is tempting to just snicker at the coming apocalypse of rapidly increasing coffee prices. But if this is what it takes to get conservative folks to recognize that global climate change is a threat, so be it. On the other hand, since the most common coffee bean in the world is named "Arabica", perhaps they'll simply retreat to the old "blame the Muslims" standby.

Close That Gap

2011-11-20T17:12:00.002-06:00

The NYT has a good profile on Elizabeth Warren, the highlight being this:

Congress remains only 16 percent female, and Massachusetts has an especially long and rotten history of women in politics. Since Puritans settled there in the early 17th century, more Massachusetts women have been hanged in the Salem witch trials (14) than have been elected to the House of Representatives (4), the Senate (0) or the governor’s mansion (0, though Jane Swift served as acting governor from 2001 to 2003)

I think Warren has to be favored against Brown. Because he's a Republican who won in Massachusetts, Brown has the rep as a great politician, but I think he benefited from a perfect storm of (a) a historically good year for Republicans and (b) an incredibly uninspiring Democratic opponent in Martha Coakley (see also: Robert Ehrlich winning the Maryland governor's mansion in 2002 against Kathleen Kennedy Townsend). Obviously, he's component, but I don't think he's anything special. And while inexperienced candidates always have the potential to flame out in spectacular fashion, I think Warren has a ton of upside. And in this time of economic crisis, it'd be good to have one of America's foremost experts on bankruptcy in a position of influence.

Thanksgiving Starts Early Roundup

2011-11-18T17:52:00.005-06:00

The law school is already starting to empty out in anticipation of Thanksgiving.

* * *

Martin Luther King, Jr., was no fan of anti-Zionism. While some quotes to this effect have been fabricated, the famous one ("When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.") is quite real.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) defends the traditional definition of vegetable.

New Mexico Secretary of State becomes the latest pol to wildly inflate the existence of voter fraud, only to find that it remains a minuscule problem. Unfortunately, rather than conceding error, she just retreats into ever-more ludicrous bluster about how her opponents are "partisan" and how even one instance of fraud is too many. Can't somebody teach conservatives the meaning of efficiency?

The Harvard Law Review's Supreme Court Foreword -- this year by Dan Kahan -- is up. It focuses on motivated cognition as a barrier to "neutral" constitutional decisionmaking, looks very interesting.

Gaddafi helps sow a society-wide ethos of anti-Semitism in Libya. Gaddafi is overthrown. People throw off anti-Semitism? Nope -- people call Gaddafi a Jew. Sigh.

Party of Lincoln!

2011-11-18T17:37:00.002-06:00

PPP just did a polling grab bag in Mississippi, but their most interesting question was a hypothetical presidential match-up between Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Lincoln prevails by a 55/28 margin -- buoyed by a sterling 76/10 showing margin amongst Democrats. Republicans are somewhat less keen to support the founder of their own party against the man who led a treasonous government in defense of slavery, giving Lincoln only a narrow 45/36 plurality (independents actually split even 44/44). Oddly, this is not paired with any noticeable desire to actually secede -- only 10% of all voters wish to leave the union, 4 points lower than those in Hawaii and Texas (both formerly independent countries).

On the other hand, Mississippi GOP voters have finally cracked 50% support for legal interracial marriage, jumping to 52% from a poll earlier in the year finding only 40% support (overall Mississippi breaks down 60/23 in favor of keeping interracial marriage legal). So things are looking up, albeit slowly.

Progress is Progress

2011-11-18T11:10:00.003-06:00

Making a movie out of Ender's Game has always a little like the cinematic version of Duke Nukem Forever -- it has been "in the pipeline" basically for as long as I can remember, without any noticeable progress. On the one hand, DNF did eventually come out; on the other hand, it was apparently terrible. So there's room for optimism and pessimism.

On the optimistic side, apparently the name of the actor playing Ender has been released, which seems like an important first step. On the pessimistic side, the article describes the "game" the children play as "a cross between the Quidditch matches of Harry Potter and the Jedi light saber battles from Star Wars." Umm, only in the sense that it has nothing to do with either. The game is essentially zero-g laser tag, where the laser's actually can freeze you in place. Nothing like Quidditch, nothing like light sabers.

AZ Sup. Ct. Reinstates Redistricting Chair

2011-11-17T22:32:00.002-06:00

I mentioned earlier that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) had threatened to impeach Colleen Mathis, the chair of the state's independent redistricting committee, nominally for relatively non-specified malfeasance, in reality because the commission produced a map that was "only" slanted 4-2 in favor of Republican safe seats over Democratic ones (with another 3 seats competitive). Well, she followed through with their threat and the Republican-controlled state senate impeached Mathis. Mathis and the commissioned then sued, and today the Arizona Supreme Court just ordered her reinstated. The order is here, with a fuller opinion to follow.

Like David Nir, I am a bit surprised by this decision -- not because I didn't think the move by the Arizona state senate was a reckless abuse of power (it was), but because I thought this could easily be considered a non-justiciable political question. The Court concluded that it was not (not being particularly knowledgeable about Arizona state law, I have no idea whether they are correct or not), and found that the letter Brewer sent to Mathis spelling out her "allegations" did not rise to the level of offenses warranting impeachment.

A Chink in their Armor

2011-11-17T13:34:00.002-06:00

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this seems like it would create a rather severe weakness in the IDF, no?

Israel Defense Forces soldiers should choose death before they remain at army events which include women's singing, a top settler religious leader said in an interview on Thursday.
[...]
[I]n a radio interview on Thursday, Rabbi Levanon criticized a possible ruling that would forbid religious soldiers from leaving events over women's singing, saying that IDF soldier should choose death before complying with such an order.

"[The IDF] is bringing close the day in which rabbis will have to say to soldiers 'you have to leave those events even if there's a firing squad outside, and you'll be shot to death," Levanin said.

I have to say that a soldier who can be driven to suicide by the sound of a woman singing probably isn't that useful to a modern military. Or perhaps Palestinian militants can just replace rockets with boomboxes of Lady Gaga.

Reflecting on the Race Card

2011-11-17T10:03:00.006-06:00

In class yesterday, we discussed "the race card" and its counterpart, "the 'race card' card". To say that someone played "the race card" is to say they made an accusation that something or someone is racist maliciously, in bad faith, or (perhaps) with insufficient evidence. "The 'race card' card", then, is complaining that a statement which allegedly makes an accusation of racism is illegitimate or out-of-bounds as a tool for shunting the discussion away from the merits of the claim.

We talked in class about how the fears which undergird the race card were legitimate. Given (a) the widespread belief that racism is deeply, gravely wrong, and (b) the lack of widespread agreement on what racism is, being tagged with the charge of "racist" has the twin properties of being potentially career-ending and extremely unpredictable. I analogized it to how the death penalty was described in Furman v. Georgia -- akin to being struck by lightning. It is no wonder that people are very anxious around the subject. "The 'race card' card" is an attempt to defuse this seemingly dangerous power.

On the other hand, the attempt to silence "the race card" via "the 'race card' card" is severely problematic on its own. Most obviously, questions about whether something is racist or supports racial inequality are really important, and it is a discussion that needs to be had. We can't say we're trying to build the best, most just country America can be while effectively exiling a huge area of moral dispute from critical inquiry. And while there are legitimate reasons why people are wary of that conversations (see above), there are also illegitimate ones -- namely, people content with the status quo who would rather not see it challenged, rightly or not. The potency of "the 'race card' cad" allows them the ability to permanently defer and thus suppress that discussion.

One bit of evidence for the latter effect is that "the 'race card' card" is deployed exceptionally broadly, even in situations where nobody is being called a racist, even in situations where the prospect of racial injustice isn't on the table. I thought of this while reading this analysis of President Obama's recent polling. The poll notes that Obama's approval ratings are quite low amongst Whites (36/61), while still being relatively high amongst non-Whites (67/32). The piece doesn't say "thus, Whites are racist." It doesn't even really say anything about racial justice issues at all. The only normative conclusion it draws is that, in a country that has a lot of White people, losing Whites badly is not a good sign for one's re-election prospect.

And yet, what was the first response that got broadcast on CNN?

Well, Jack, it’s nice to see CNN is still a valued member of the president’s re-election campaign. Let’s just further divide an already divided country by trying to make this about race. The president is in over his head and people are beginning to realize this administration has only made a bad economy worse.

In effect, this is accusing CNN of playing the "race card" for Obama, simply by virtue of the article making note of a demographic split. That is less indicative of someone genuinely worried about being "hit by lightning", and more someone who wants to shut down a discussion before it starts.

My own views on this topic are close to those expressed by Professor Hirsch, encouraging a default towards discussion and a presumption of good faith. That cuts both ways -- we should assume that a person advocating a policy we believe to have racially unjust effects does not consciously harbor malicious thoughts towards the group in question, but we should also assume that the person making the accusation of potential racial problems is doing so honestly and because the legitimately believe there is a problem that needs addressing.

Our Eyes Turn Eastward....

2011-11-16T12:59:00.002-06:00

Occupy Judaism bigwig Daniel Sieradski analogizes the eviction of Occupy Wall Street to Jewish exile, noting, of course, that "As Jews we know: Exile is not nearly the end." Yet all I could think of was that, having been exiled, perhaps Occupy Wall Street will share too in the Jewish experience of having many folks believe that exile was just, proper, and should be permanent, and express outrage and fury if Occupy Wall Street ever tries to return to New York or, indeed, exert any sort of political influence whatsoever.

In related news, the JTA has a good piece up on the continued marginalization of anti-Zionist groups as they attempt to hijack Occupy Wall Street for their own agenda. You can sense their frustration: one anti-Israel OWS member was furious that Stuart Appelbaum (president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and of the Jewish Labor Committee) was coordinating efforts to connect OWS with organized labor, and another complained of how "[v]ocal members of what many know as the 'progressive except Palestine'* demographic take over and obstruct expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians even when the majority in the larger group supports it."

This, of course, is simply self-aggrandizing -- Americans of all political stripes tend to consider themselves supporters of Israel, and the more radical one gets in opposing the Jewish state, the more one's positions tend to approximate those held by, well, about 1% of the population. When the claims are more modest (e.g., supporting the creation of a Palestinian state side-by-side Israel), they maintain much greater support -- but that includes the very mainline Jewish organizations these groups claim to be acting against (like the AJC). It is a bit of a shell game -- redefine radically polarized and fringe positions (like one-stateism, or support for BDS, or belief that the entirety of the present conflict is Israel's fault) as generic "criticism of Israeli policies", and use that to try and claim sweeping popular support. In reality, the third camp still dominates amongst Jews, and is disinclined to support the agendas of, much less be co-opted by, those inhabiting the radical left or right.

Obviously, the entire "99%" mantra is somewhat of a fiction, but OWS has done a decently good job of keeping its focus on issues that are directly related to the massive wealth disparities in this country and the effects that has on equal opportunity and achievement (the metric by which "the 99%" is measured), which carry with them consensus in the movement. There is no such consensus around the notion that Jewish self-determination is a radical injustice, nor is it clear that the 99% are particularly interested in obstructing that project, which diminishes any argument that either OWS or its Jewish subset should feel compelled to step aside on these issues.

* I really do love this term, mostly because I think the same thing about the speakers as they of me. Since we agree on things like "Palestinians deserve a state of their own", my so-called heresies are things like thinking that there should be both a state where Jews are the majority and one where Palestinians are, and that unique (and uniquely strident) opposition to Jewish self-determination (or even wrongs committed by Jewish institution) can be signs of anti-Semitism. In all other cases but Israel/Palestine, they recognize such standard anti-racist tropes like "letting historically marginalized groups define their own experience" and "minority groups can rightfully claim spaces of their own where they're in charge of their own destiny." When the topic turns to Jews, though, that progressive understanding magically evaporates.

New Paper Posted: Post-Racialism and the End of Strict Scrutiny

2011-11-15T14:50:00.002-06:00

I've just put a new paper up on SSRN, "Post-Racialism and the End of Strict Scrutiny". The paper is, obviously, still a draft, but of course I'd love to hear your comments if you have time to read it. The abstract is below:

In recent years, a growing social consensus has emerged around the aspiration of a “post-racial” America: one where race is no longer a fault line for social strife or, perhaps, a morally significant trait whatsoever. This ambition, however, lies in tension with the most basic constitutional principle governing our treatment of race in the public sphere: that of “strict scrutiny.” Post-racialism seeks to diminish the salience of race to near-negligibility. The strict scrutiny of racial classifications, by contrast, significantly enhances the salience of race by treating it differently from virtually every other personal attribute or characteristic—including hair or eye color—extant in our society.

This article examines both the emergence of post-racialism and the development of the strict scrutiny doctrine in an attempt to resolve the underlying conflict. It concludes that the motivator behind both post-racialism and strict scrutiny is to remove the fear that race carries with it as a concept—fear that it any time race appears in our society it necessarily is the harbinger of ethnic strife or the resurrection of Jim Crow. The model for race should follow that of religion or indigenous status. In both cases, the identity axis has been the subject of severe conflict and oppression. Yet the effort to get “beyond” religion or indigeneity does not focus on, or even countenance, permanent suppression of these identities. Rather it seeks to remove the fear that when we do use these elements of our identity, we are necessarily inviting catastrophe.

As the saying goes, "download it while it's hot!"

Problem Solved

2011-11-14T08:57:00.006-06:00

When Hillary Clinton was cropped out of a photo in an orthodox Jewish newspaper, I tweeted the following:

Problem: Hasidic men cant see pics of women w/out it being "sexually suggestive". Solution: Dont let Hasidic men read newspapers #thatwaseasy

As Haredi influence in Israel is growing, they're beginning to press such reactionary gender norms on the entirety of Israeli society. It is a huge problem, and quite scary actually, to see Israel starting to degrade from its pole position in terms of protecting liberal egalitarian values (on a different topic, see also).

Jewlicious just launched a "women's voice" movement, which encourages women in Israel to sing and hum in public, directly as a challenge to Orthodox groups who wish to see them (literally) silenced. And while I sign onto that project (the women's project, not the Orthodox silencing one), I'd add what I wrote in the comments over there, to wit:

If the problem is that Orthodox Jewish men can't hear or see women without being plagued by impure thoughts, then the solution is that Orthodox Jewish men shouldn't be allowed to leave the house.

Problem solved.

UPDATE: And now the problem is crossing over to the IDF, where members of the military's old guard are urging the Israeli armed forces to check forces that threaten women's equal stance in the military.

My Big Fat Gay Orthodox Jewish Wedding

2011-11-12T18:25:00.003-06:00

The very first, in fact, officiated by the first openly gay Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, Steven Greenberg. While gay weddings have been done for some time in the Reform, Reconstructionist, and (more recently) Conservative Jewish communities, this marks a milestone amongst Orthodox Jews.

Congratulations to the happy couple!

Yes, It's Cliched

2011-11-11T11:11:00.002-06:00

But I'm as tickled as anyone about the whole 11:11:11 on 11/11/11 thing.

Though it also is one of those "grappling with my mortality" things when I remember that this is the last time something like this will happen in my lifetime (I am pessimistic at my ability to survive to the year 2111 -- though I guess making it to 2:22:22 on 2/22/22 is pretty likely).

Narrow Interests

2011-11-10T13:10:00.004-06:00

The Washington Jewish Week has a new piece up on the ongoing skirmishes between the liberal J Street and conservative Emergency Committee for Israel. The story's focus is on the ECI taking credit for reducing the number of congressional signatures on a J Street-backed letter -- even though everyone agrees that the letter is "staunchly pro-Israel". In fact, the ECI hasn't quibbled with the letter's content at all. It simply is wreaking havoc for havoc's sake -- and declaring victory because fewer legislators are putting their names on a document defending Israel's security.

And so a J Street spokesperson replied "It's a sad day when ECI puts narrow partisan interests over Israeli security and calls it a victory." To which I say that's far, far too kind. The ECI's entire raison d'etre is to put narrow partisan interests over Israeli security. I asked some veteran Jewish journalists whether they could think of a single instance where the ECI hadn't done this -- where it had acted to put Israeli security over narrow GOP partisan interests. So far, no response -- but it's a fun parlor game you can play with the whole family.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise us that the ECI's commitment to Israel is so thin. That's what happens when you let the notoriously mercurial Noah Pollak be Executive Director of your allegedly "pro-Israel". What you get is a group that cares a lot about seeing Democratic politicians defeated, and very little about seeing Israel survive and thrive as a secure, Jewish, democratic state.

Another Hajaig-Style Apology

2011-11-10T11:37:00.006-06:00

After a speech where she darkly warned about "Jewish money" controlling America, South African official Fatima Hajaig issued an "apology" that somehow managed to be more offensive than the original statement. Its hallmarks included claiming that the statement was only anti-Semitic in the minds of the beholder (alongside the classic I-apologize-if-you-were-offended structure), and spent the vast majority of her time reassuring everyone that she would not be cowed in expressing anti-Israel rhetoric or her belief that the evil hyper-sensitive Jewish Zionists were the real problem in any way, shape, or form.

Union activist Steve Hedley apparently was taking notes. We reported on him for referring to a Jewish interlocutor as a member of the "chosen people", implying in the course of it that this would cause the Jew to feel better than him. Now he's, well, sort of apologized (via TULIP):

The phrase “chosen people” refers to the Jewish people, comes from The Torah and is repeated in The Bible (Deuteronomy 14:2. It has been adopted by right-wing Zionists as a Biblical justification for the seizure of Palestinian land, which they see it as their God-given right. However, I accept that my use of the phrase in the context of the highly inflammatory argument with aggressive and disruptive intruders trying to wreck a public meeting and provoke a reaction, was unwise and I regret using the phrase. I apologise to anyone who may have been offended by this remark.

I have never been, nor will I ever be, anti Jewish, or racist against any nationality or ethnicity. Neither will I refrain from criticising Israeli state policy towards the Palestinian population where that policy is discriminatory, oppressive and racist. I regret that I was provoked into making statements that could be deliberately and maliciously miscontrued by right-wing Zionists who are openly hostile to trade unions, openly consort with the neo-fascist EDL and who wish to smear my reputation and that of my union.

"I'm sorry that I let evildoers provoke me saying into something that they were able to manipulate." My heart just wrenches. It is worth noting that I know of no evidence that "chosenness" is an important or even noticeable part of right-wing Israeli rhetoric justifying seizure of Palestinian land. I'm dubious given the actual religious meaning and pedigree of the term, and suspect that Hedley is simply lying here, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

The apology, incidentally, is prefaced by several paragraphs of accusation that paints the victim of his anti-Semitic assault as a consort of the EDL who was there to disrupt the meeting in service of an anti-union agenda, as well as the classic "can't tolerate criticism of Israel charge". You can read the victim's account of the story here, as well as his response to Hedley's faux-apology, which he calls "defamatory".

But Once You Get To Know Her!

2011-11-09T20:24:00.002-06:00

SurveyUSA has a new Minnesota poll out, mostly testing the numbers of Amy Klobuchar (D). As expected, she throttles her GOP competition by 30 points or so (and beats several bigger name GOPers who aren't in the race by double-digit margins as well).

The poll also tests Barack Obama, and things are a little tighter there -- he's up 6 over Romney, and 13 over Cain, Perry, and Paul. As for native daughter Michele Bachmann? She's down a whopping 28 points to the President.

Ouch -- that stings.

Only a Select Few Can Be Truly Authentic....

2011-11-09T13:13:00.005-06:00

Adam Serwer has some well-deserved fun at The National Review's Victor Davis Hanson's attempt to declare what is and isn't authentically Black (Herman Cain, yes; Barack Obama, no).

Of course, the assumption that it's within Hanson's authority to police whom black people accept as a member of the community is itself a noxious form of paternalism. His argument doesn't actually work if white people don't get to decide for black people what being black means. It is perhaps, the first time ever that someone has argued that being "at ease" with white conservatives is proof of how authentically black you are, but you work with what you got.

The comparison between Cain and Obama isn't so much "volatile" as it is flattering to conservatives who, having latched onto Cain as a racial alibi, an explanation for the fact that the party of Lincoln hasn't broken 20 percent of the black vote since Richard Nixon, desperately need a symbolic figure of racial absolution. The only time conservatives aren't using trite arguments about black authenticity as an explanation for ongoing racial disparities is when they're relying on them to show everyone how well they understand the soul of the Negro. Hanson doesn't bother to explain how it is that the overwhelming majority of black people haven't discerned that Barack Obama is a fraud and that Herman Cain is the second coming of Marcus Garvey, but that's because their "brainwashed" opinions don't actually matter. The sole purpose of establishing Cain's racial authenticity, premised as it is on Hanson's rather limited view of what constitutes "the black experience," is for Hanson to flatter himself and his ideological allies as racially enlightened.

As we know, the relevant locus point for thinking about Blackness in America is a Black politician whose support amongst the Black community hovers around the Planck Constant.

Technical Error Roundup

2011-11-08T22:18:00.005-06:00

This one might be a bit more haphazard than most, as it incorporates some election night celebration. As for the title, my laptop had its hard drive replaced, and in the middle of doing so my wireless card somehow snapped. So that has to get fixed too.

* * *

My comment to this post set of a twitter war between myself and the Republican Jewish Committee, centered around my observation that if disliking Bibi means hating Israel, then disliking Obama means hating America. Why do Republicans hate America so much, anyway?

Occupy movement inspires unions to get bolder.

Andre Berto is dropping his belt to pursue a rematch against Victor Ortiz, which may pave the way for a match between Randall Bailey (42-7, 36 KOs) and Carson Jones (32-8-2, 22 KOs) to claim the vacant belt. I like both guys, but I'm a particularly fervent Jones fan, so I approve. Bailey is average at best in all dimensions of the sport save one: concussive, brutal, devastating, one-punch power. So it should be good.

Though Blacks are far more likely to be imprisoned for it, it's White kids who actually are more likely to use drugs.

Mostly a good election night for Team Blue: Maine voters reinstated same-day voter registration, Ohio voters tossed Gov. John Kasich's (R) anti-union law, Mississippi(!) voters decisively rejected a "personhood amendment" that would declare life begins at conception, and won massive victories in most Kentucky statewide races as well as an Iowa State Senate election that preserves their control of the chamber. Also, one of the chief xenophobes in the Arizona State Senate, Senate President Russell Pearce, was successfully recalled by another (more moderate) Republican.

On the negative side, the Virginia state Senate will likely flip by an agonizingly small margin (86 votes in the pivotal race) and Mississippi approved a voter ID law (and elected a new GOP governor -- no shock there).

UPDATE: Another bit of good news: Dems have retaken the Wake County (NC) school board. That's a big deal: Wake County had been one of integration's few true success stories, and the GOP board that swept to power last cycle was looking to undo that.

DC Circuit Upholds ACA

2011-11-08T12:47:00.003-06:00

And like the 6th Circuit, it was a high-profile conservative stalwart (actually, two) who took the lead. Judge Brent Kavanaugh found that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under the Anti-Injunction Act, while Judge Laurence Silberman (joined by Judge Harry Edwards) reached the merits and upheld the act. The opinion is here, with Silberman ultimately declaring that "appellants cannot find real support for their proposed rule in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent" (incidentally, only in the legal arena can a panel release opinions totaling 103 pages and declare that they are being "sparing in adding to the production of paper.").

It is worth emphasizing who these judges are. Silberman is a Reagan appointee and Kavanaugh was put on the bench by George W. Bush. Kavanaugh, like Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit, is considered a rising star amongst right-wing judges. And with respect to Silberman, there's no "rising" about it -- he's been among the most high-profile conservative judges in the country for decades now (Edwards, for his part, is a liberal stalwart). Perhaps for this reason, Stuart Benjamin expects Judge Silberman's opinion to serve as a template for a majority opinion upholding the ACA from either Justice Scalia or Kennedy.