What Fools They Were To Trust The Website I Write For

In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod scandal, it became known that Noah Jonathan Joel (so many Pollaks!) Pollak -- the soon to be crushed election opponent of Rep. Jan Schkowsky (D-IL) -- is a contributor to Andrew Breitbart's website. Schkowsky, seeking to make some hay, asked Pollak to stop writing for Breitbart. Pollak demurred, saying he would continue his association, but released this statement:

"Andrew [Breitbart] used intemperate language in his debate with the NAACP, which was wrong," Pollak said in a statement. "It was even more wrong for the White House and the NAACP to punish a woman for alleged racism without conducting a full and fair investigation."

Beautiful. "Sure, the website I write for released a spliced-up, wildly misleading video in order to smear a woman and a prominent civil rights organization as racist," (I assume that's what "intemperate language" means, though Lord knows that's an A+ demonstration of weasel-wording). "But even worse was that the White House and NAACP were dumb enough to trust that something posted on it can be taken at face value. I mean, come on!"*

Honestly, I need to genuflect for a moment at this, because ... wow. It's just in a class of its own, isn't it?

* Not that I disagree entirely -- it is bad that the Department of Agriculture rushed to fire Ms. Sherrods without fully investigating the charge, particularly given that the source was, um, Andrew Breitbart. But it is a bizarre standard that the entity that initiated the lie should be judged less harshly than the entity that got taken in by it.

In any event, we've all learned a valuable lesson in trusting things posted on Andrew Breitbart's website -- including those, I imagine, posted by Noah Jonathan Joel Pollak. As Pollak has reminded us, we'd be fools to trust anything he says at this point without undertaking an independent investigation of our own.

A Model to Emulate

When Sarah Palin announced her desire that "peaceful" Muslims "refudiate" a proposed Mosque to be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was stunned at her brazen devolution into religion demogoguery. Put aside the fact that the organization building the group is the epitome of a "peaceful" Muslim group. As Adam Holland observes, there really isn't any other way to characterize the opposition of Palin and her ilk other than as naked religious bigotry.

A law school friend of mine was defending Palin, and I told him that the argument (such as it is) against the Mosque reminded me of a decision by the Egyptian government to forbid Jews from utilizing a recently restored synagogue in retaliation for Israeli "aggressions" against Muslim holy sites. When I read that story, I saw a human rights violation. Sarah Palin, I said, saw a model to emulate.

I didn't mean it farcically, but I hardly expected Palin or one of her allies to actually consciously admit that they viewed religious discrimination the Middle East as a guide for us to follow. Yet here's Newt Gingrich, explicitly pointing to Saudi bans on synagogues and churches as a reason to bar a Mosque in New York. What I see as barbaric, Gingrich apparently sees as pathbreaking. If only we could be as humane and open-minded parochial and bigoted as the Saudis! What a great vision for America!

The similarity between Palin (and Gingrich) and the bigoted policymakers in the Egyptian and Saudi government doesn't surprise me, as Palin clearly cut from the same cloth as those who would render me a second-class citizen -- perhaps why she is one of the most singularly unpopular politicians amongst American Jews (others have alternative explanations).

The Redemption Scenario

Cross-posted to The Moderate Voice

The scandal of the day was the story of a USDA employee who appeared to indicate that she gave less than full help to a White farmer in an incident over 20 years ago, on account of his race. She told the story at an NAACP dinner, hence the contemporary hook -- conservatives (or at least segments of them) are still on their kick that the NAACP is the true racist organization in America. As it turns out, the employee was actually telling the tale as a redemption scenario -- she realized her prejudice was wrong, threw her full support to the White family, and ended up saving the farm. Hence why the family has consistently intervened to give her their full support.

When I first saw the story this afternoon, I didn't have time to blog about it, which is good, because I didn't know the full context and, like the NAACP, would have been at risk of getting "snookered". But I did know that the incident happened over 20 years ago. And that got me to thinking.

When the United States finally repudiated Jim Crow in the 1960s and 70s, it did not come with any purges. By and large, the same bureaucrats who managed our racist system in 1950 still managed the more egalitarian system that had emerged by 1970. There are lots of reasons for this, starting with the fact that firing every single person who had participated in America's brand of racial apartheid would have effectively left us without a civil service, and ending with the fact that America never really has managed to wrap its head around just how deeply the sins of racism had enmeshed itself in the system -- a full accounting of which would have extracted its pound of flesh from virtually each and every man and woman alive in this nation.

In any event, these bureaucrats took many forms. Some undoubtedly had opposed racism even at its apex, others really didn't care about it one way or the other. Some were loyal disciples of Jim Crow who later realized the error of their ways, and some had no guilt at all regarding their role as agents of apartheid, but adjusted to the new social order all the same. And some, of course, were entirely unrepentant and maintained a belief in White supremacy, but suppressed that outlook just enough to keep their job.

The point being -- this nation has a long history of employing the formerly racist. The best case scenario for such employees, usually, is that they come to see the light and dedicate the remainder of their professional lives towards remedying racial inequality and securing racial justice. And that story -- a story of redemption -- appears to be the story of Shirley Sherrod. It's not the worst tale in the world. To the extent that this country has moved forward on matters of race, it is, in fact, the quintessential American tale.

But Will It Be Enough?

Solicitor General and SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan advanced out of committee today, garnering the surprise support of South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Some commentators are now wondering whether Graham will face a backlash from the far-right base over the lethal apostasy of not filibustering each and every Obama-led initiative that comes down the pike (Erick Erickson -- best known for calling David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester" -- said not filibustering Kagan would constitute "a high act of confirmation treason"). In response, a Graham consultant argued that Senator Graham is "a thinking person's conservative. I expect him to do well among voters with IQ's in triple digits."

Steve Benen took note of that passage and observes that any Democrat who essentially called opposing voters idiots would be tarred and feathered as an elitist. Fortunately, since I'm not really a public figure, I'm simply free to wonder whether the class of voters with IQ's over 100 is sufficient to cobble together a winning coalition in a South Carolina GOP primary (ask Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about that).

The Grand Except

Arizona Law Professor Jack Chin is far, far more charitable than I'm inclined to be towards UMKC Law Prof Kris Kobach, a principal drafter of the Arizona anti-immigrant law who is falsely claiming in bars racial profiling. Of course, it doesn't -- the bill says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Which, under Arizona and federal law, they can -- at least to some extent. Professor Kobach simply omits the qualifier at the end of the passage.

Professor Chin graciously accepts that "the misleading quotation reflects Prof. Kobach's honest [though incorrect] recollection of the law", and urges him to go back to the legislature and get them to fix the language so it actually bars racial profiling. But, "[o]n the other hand, on the off chance that the law was actually intended to" sanction racial profiling, Professor Chin rightfully says the law's proponents should acknowledge that it does so.

Pope and Anti-Pope

A leader of the National Tea Party Federation has announced they are expelling Mark Williams and his "Tea Party Express" from the movement, after he published a "satirical" letter wherein the "coloreds" complained to Abraham Lincoln that slavery was better than having to think for himself (this was hardly an isolated incident for Williams).

And while that is very much a good thing, who knows who has authority to expel whom? Is the National Tea Party Federation the real movement and the Tea Party Express the splinter? Or vice versa? I have no idea. Williams' group is still leading the charge for Sharron Angle -- maybe somebody can ask her which wing of the movement she represents.

UPDATE: This Steve Benen post demonstrates some of the shuffling of Williams' affiliations in the wake of the controversy. His roles have definitely been reduced across the board, but he certainly hasn't been cut out of the movement entirely.

Mixed Boxing Results

Just some brief thoughts to keep the blog posts rolling ....

... Tim Bradley was simply way, way better than Carlos Abregu. I figured it would be a skill mismatch, and it was. But I didn't think the disparity would be so great that Abregu would effectively stop trying. Anyway, Bradley tried to call out Pacquiao after the fight, but Max Kellerman not-so-subtly said "good luck, who else you want?", at which point Bradley called out the entire 140 lbs. division.

... Alfredo Angulo isn't exactly the most versatile fighter in the world, but what he does, he does very well, and when Joachim Alcine let him start working on the inside, that was it. The stoppage came at the last moment of the first round, but it was good stoppage -- Alcine was out on his feet against the ropes and was at risk of serious injury.

... Somebody just won a ton of money by picking "over" for the David Tua/Monte Barrett fight. Everybody, and I mean everybody, was picking Tua KO1. After all, he's a gigantic puncher, and Barrett's chin has looked, well, less than stellar of late. But apparently Barrett fought his heart out, even knocking Tua down for the first time in his career in the 12th round, and many folks thought he deserved the nod. Barrett had already announced he was retiring after this fight regardless of the outcome, and it's a promise I hope he keeps. He seemed like a nice guy, always tried his best, and had a perfectly respectable career. Now he enjoy his retirement.

... Ishe Smith continues his streak of losing agonizingly close decisions, in large part because he doesn't have a high enough work rate. I had him winning the fight narrowly, but like basically every other Smith fight it could have gone either way (the 97-91 card was absurdly wide though). He did score a nice knockdown though. Also, towards the end of the fight when he did open up, he was astonishingly good at it, which makes me wonder why he doesn't do it more often. So frustrating.

... It's hard to say whether Zab Judah is "back" or not after his knockout win over Jose Armando Santa Cruz, but he certainly looked pretty sharp, and I think folks were a little too harsh ragging on the talent level of Santa Cruz. The big difference was that Judah actually finished Santa Cruz -- the last time I saw him on FNF, he was doing stupid little "throat slash" gestures instead of actually fighting his staggered opponent, so that's a step in the right direction. The hand speed is still mostly there, and it is still blinding, which would make Judah an intriguing match-up against anyone at 140. Khan, particularly, would be a battle of the blazers, but unfortunately Judah can punch, so that fight likely won't happen any time soon.

The Tea Party Resolution

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good take on it. And like I pointed out yesterday, nothing has done more to legitimize the NAACP resolution than the response of the TP leadership. It is unbelievably outrageous.

Negotiated Roundup

You'll get it, but you got to give me something in return.

* * *

For the record: That North Korea published this propaganda picture does not in any way constitute an admission that they sunk the Cheonan.

The judge as defense counsel.

Ta-Nehisi Coates on the culture of excessive force.

The IDF specifically lauded B'Tselem for its assistance in providing information leading to the indictment of several IDF officers for war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor, a frequent B'Tselem critic, also acknowledged that "B’Tselem really does have a credible research capability."

There is no such thing as too conservative to get on TV. Birtherism, rampant racism, conspiratorial paranoia -- it's free range out there!

Star Wars subway action.

Argentina considering legalizing gay marriage.

The Tea Party Has Always Been Against Racism

As many of you know, the NAACP recently passed a resolution criticizing the Tea Party for tolerating racism in its movement. Top Tea Party leaders insist the charge is bogus. They are loud and vociferous in condemning racist organizations in America. Look at how they reacted to one of the most notorious racist organizations in America, the, um, NAACP:

[MARK] WILLIAMS: You’re dealing with people who are professional race baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It’s time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history.

Would a racist organization have said something like that? I don't think so! They don't pull any punches when it comes to opposing racism.

Mr. Williams, who is perhaps best known for saying Muslims worship a "monkey god" (then apologizing to Hindus for the slight), also declared that he was "disinclined to take lectures on racial sensitivity from a group that insists on calling black people, 'Colored,'" once again showing the deep, sophisticated grasp of racism and prejudice possessed by the American right.

Wild Fantasies

The Onion makes my life: "Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize."

Monday Evening Roundup

Forgive me, I've been busy.

* * *

A host of leftist luminaries, including Noam Chomsky, have lent their imprimatur to a book which, among other things, effectively denies the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Well, let nobody accuse folks of singling out the Jews anymore, at least.

The internal IDF probe of the Gaza flotilla incident (distinct from the independent Terkel commission) has found mistakes in the operation, but fully sanctioned the use of force by the commandos. One of its observations was that there aren't really that many ways to stop a ship from going someplace without boarding it, and there aren't that many ways to board a ship whose crew is violently resisting without yourself using some violence.

Whoever wrote the screenplay for this World War II thing I keep seeing on the History Channel needs to find a new profession. I mean, sheesh.

It's not nice to kick folks while they're down, but Matt Yglesias I think is appropriately harsh to journalists just now discovering that John McCain is 95% hack. He didn't really change, you just weren't paying attention.

Switzerland refuses to extradite Roman Polanski, bowing to an international outcry that punishing a convicted child rapist is a gross injustice when the rapist is friends with important to people.

Adam Serwer has a good post on the Justice Department dropping voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

The NAACP is considering a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party movement.

The Oscar Grant Verdict

As nearly all of you know, Johannes Mehserle, the White BART police officer who fatally shot an unarmed, restrained Black man who was lying face-down on the ground, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter but acquitted of the more serious charges of voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. Oakland residents reacted with outrage at the perceived lenient verdict, with several riots breaking out.*

It seems difficult to understand how a jury could refrain from judging Mehserle guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter (Having read the jury instructions given for voluntary manslaughter, I'm not longer willing to state that. This, nonetheless, simply raises the level of abstraction when we're talking about injustice). Nonetheless, part of me was surprised that there was a conviction at all. I am, in fact, that cynical. Look at the history. A Texas cop was recently acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed Black man, lying face down in his own driveway, because the cop thought he was stealing his own car. Bernard Goetz was acquitted of everything but unlawful possession of a firearm after brutally massacring four Black men on a subway train. And of course, we all remember the Rodney King verdicts. Given these precedents, any form of homicide conviction is at least partial justice. But then, I don't really expect the people of Oakland to settle for partial justice.

* The Root has a good piece on those. Also worth noting is that a significant portion of the rioters were White anarchists. And on that front, I agree with Myca and others in the comments, which is that these folks who just like to use political discord as an excuse for smashing shit are remarkably blind to their own privilege. Not only are they appropriating the miscarriage of justice in the Grant case for their own ideological ends (which I imagine is some ill-thought out version of "smash capitalism"), but even though their faces are White, the media narrative will be all about savage Black folks who run rampant through the streets when the legal system utterly fails them they don't get their way.

Where's Your Federalism Now?

A federal court has just struck down Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. There are actually two decisions here: the first holding that DOMA violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution, and the second claiming it violates the 10th Amendment.

I don't have time to give these cases my full attention right now, but obviously this is very exciting. And of course, it is particularly exciting to see the 10th Amendment angle, as I greatly look forward to conservatives dropping their commitment to state's rights like a bad habit in the coming, well, minutes.

A European Problem

The Forward has a stellar, if chilling, article on growing anti-Semitism in Malmo, Sweden, which is driving the Jewish population away from the city and into Israel. But buried inside, they also quote from some downright scary polling done inside Europe:

A continentwide study, conducted by the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence at the University of Bielefeld in Germany, released in December 2009, found that that 45.7% of the Europeans surveyed agree somewhat or strongly with the following statement: “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.” And 37.4% agreed with this statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.”

“[There is] quite a high level of anti-Semitism that is hidden beneath critics of Israel’s policies,” said Beate Kupper, one of the study’s principal researchers, in a telephone interview with the Forward, citing this data and a tendency to “blame Jews in general for Israel’s policies.”

Kupper said that in places where there is a strong taboo against expressions of anti-Semitism, such as Germany, “Criticism of Israel is a great way to express your anti-Semitism in an indirect way.”

That 37.4% figure seems like a perfect match of folks whose "anti-Israel" politics is leading directly into anti-Semitism, or at least "understanding" it. The 45.7% figure, by contrast, overlaps nicely with folks who have lost all sense of perspective or proportion (and what might be the cause of that?). Given these findings, I find it hard to disagree with Kupper that anti-Israel politics is often (not always) simply a socially acceptable way of operationalizing anti-Semitic attitudes.

Put a Price on It

Nick Kristof has a column up about Israeli human rights activists who are protecting Palestinians from the violent predations of settler extremists, who think (with reason) that they can generally assault Palestinian residents immune from legal repercussions.

I've written several posts urging that the Israeli government initiate a crackdown on settler violence against Palestinians. The most prominent, Ending the Culture of Impunity, observed that such a crackdown would be in Israel's best interests too, as "[a]side from the fact that stirring up animosity in the Palestinian population, natch, harms Israel's security, more broadly Israel really doesn't want essentially a separatist extremist right-wing militia that's already proven itself willing to attack Israel when upset running wild on its frontier."

That being said, Matt Yglesias is absolutely right that the likelihood of Israel acting is reduced insofar as it is accountable to Israelis and not Palestinians -- in other words, the problem of settler violence against Palestinians is likely intractable so long as the occupation continues.

The reason I'm a democrat is because history tells us that even folks with good intentions are unlikely to be particularly responsive to the concerns of constituencies to which they are unaccountable. The fact that Israel has some interest in curbing settler violence does mean something, but it doesn't mean everything. The full rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike are unlikely to be respected but in a situation where each is governed by an authority that is democratically accountable to their concerns. In other words: two states.

I support deferring to democratic majorities when they're enacting policies that bear primarily upon themselves. Israel deserves plenty of deference in how it manages its own security. It deserves considerably less in terms of how it protects the rights of Palestinians under its domain. Often these considerations overlap, and then we have a tough problem. But there is no element of Israel's security which is strengthened by letting settlers beat people up with impunity. The rule of law must be respected, and settlers enacting the "price tag" policy must be made to pay their piper. If Israel can't muster the will to do that on its own, then perhaps they could use a little push from the US government.

Is It Too Much To Ask That Middle East Correspondents Not Be Fans of Folks Who Want Me Dead?

CNN's Senior Editor on Mideast Affairs, Octavia Nasr, has stepped down after writing about her "respect" for Sayyed Fadlallah, a top Hezbollah spiritual leader.

Ms. Nasr explained that her respect did not mean a whole-hearted endorsement of everything Mr. Fadlallah stood for -- including his claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated and his desire to exterminate the Jewish state. Rather, she believed that Mr. Fadlallah had, with regards to women's rights, been forwarded a more moderate vision of Shi'ite Islam that condemned "honor killings" and abuse against women. To call him "progressive" on women's rights would be a gross exaggeration, but he was perhaps notably less retrogressive, and grading on a curve I guess that counts for something. And I don't doubt that Ms. Nasr is being totally honest in stating that her feelings of respect stemmed from these issues.

But it doesn't obviate the tiny detail that the organization he was affiliated with, you know, wants Israel to be annihilated (and possibly wants me, personally, dead as well*). As Ms. Nasr admits, Mr. Fadlallah was marginalized in Hezbollah because he was too aggressive in demanding that Hezbollah focus solely on destroying Israel. Given that, I'm frankly stunned by the reaction in some liberal quarters to the news -- essentially alleging that this was kowtowing to a requirement in the media that all figures by biased in favor of Israel. "Bias", here, means a requirement that one not praise folks actively wishing for Israel to be obliterated. That alone demonstrates just how far the plaintive whine about how "the Israel Lobby" suppresses all dissent has extended itself. Why, you can't even praise folks who want to see Israel completely destroyed, and who think its completely okay to murder Israeli civilians (and possibly Jews worldwide), without facing their wrath. Oh, the muzzling! Oh, spare me.

Hezbollah generally, and Sayyed Fadlallah particularly, promote a radical anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda which is quite well-known. It is not whitewashed just because Fadlallah supports some progressive less retrogressive reforms inside Shi'ite Islam. I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's hideous reaction to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Durban II speech, which conceded that it was anti-Semitic, but nonetheless that Jews dared protest it because it distracted from other progressive goals of the conference. Progressivism, here, simply means Jews have to take it in the teeth, because paying attention to our concerns might distract from those of real human beings.

And yes, it's pretty clear that CNN (and other media giants) have a bevvy of rather appalling figures on their payrolls. It's obviously a blot on CNN that it hired someone who referred to a Supreme Court Justice as a "goat f@$king child molester", but I hardly think a universal reduction in standards is the way to solve the issue. I likewise think anyone who thinks Palestine should not exist does not deserve a place on CNN, and certainly not in a senior position in CNN's Mideast desk. If such people are currently working in such a position at CNN, they should step down as well (make me a list -- I'll sign a petition). But it isn't right to ask Jews to play the sacrificial pawn in your media wars. If your progressivism means ignoring equal Jewish rights, it ain't progressivism to me.

* From the New Yorker article:

On the killing of Israeli civilians, Fadlallah said, "In a state of war, it is permissible for Palestinians to kill Jews. When there is peace, this is not permissible." He does not believe in a peaceful settlement between two states, one Palestinian, the other Israeli; rather, he favors the disappearance of Israel.
[...]
"We are against the killing of Jews outside Palestine," Fadlallah said. "Unless they transfer the war outside Palestine." When I asked if they had, Fadlallah raised an eyebrow, and let the question go unanswered.

To Have a Trial After an Investigation

Following a lengthy investigation, an Israeli soldier will be formally tried for the killing of a Palestinian woman during Operation Cast Lead (right now the charge looks like manslaughter).

The incident was one of several specifically mentioned in the Goldstone report. Military Advocate General Avihai Mandelblit, in charge of investigating those allegations, is pursuing action in three more cases, and has elected to close the investigation into the remaining 19 events mentioned in the report.

I'm curious about what Judge Goldstone thinks of all this. After all, Goldstone was quite adament that the goal of his commission was not to convict anyone, but rather trigger an investigation by the parties themselves. And Israel, at least, has done this, and issued several indictments. Is this enough to satisfy him? Who knows. Normally, the standard of review in these instances (to justify pulling a case out of national and into international jurisdiction) is rather stringent -- it certainly isn't "what I would have done if I were doing the investigation myself". But without knowing the facts of the relevant cases, it's hard for me to evaluate.

It obviously is a good sign that Israel is willing to initiate prosecution against soldiers who violate the rules of war (assuming, of course, that the evidence here supported a prosecution). I've been pretty consistent, I think, in asserting that credible investigations ought to be taken and perpetrators of crimes (on all sides) should be punished -- but that taking this position was entirely inconsistent with shouting "savage war criminal Nazis" from moment zero. Hopefully, my patience has been vindicated, as we are getting a trial after the investigation, rather than watching as a verdict comes down first, with a pro forma inquiry following.

The Politics of Fandom

A new study indicates that the success of local college sports teams in the weeks preceding an election has a measurable effect on the electoral prospects of incumbents. Basically, when the local team wins, voters are happier, and thus are more inclined to look favorably on entities representing the status quo. (Sorry, but voters are that stupid).

This does raise some interesting rooting conundrums, though. After all, sometimes teams from two competitive districts will be competing against each other. Suppose Ole Miss (Travis Childers) plays the University of Virginia (Tom Perriello). Who do you root for? Who is more football crazy (or at least more likely to be influenced by the outcome of a football game) -- the Rebels or the Wahoos (Ole Miss)? Which incumbent would be more of a loss (Perriello)? Should the DNC dispatch operatives to critical games to give the "right" team a critical boost? Lots of tough calls here.

Happy Birthday America!

Mmmm ... hot dogs and liberty are my favorite parts about being an American.

Have a happy Fourth, people!