I had been a happy AT&T customer for this year -- in part on the theory that anything is better than Comcast, but in part because they had been decently reliable for the year we had used them. So when Jill called to tell them we were moving and ask if they had service in Champaign, we were happy to find out that they did. And even better -- they said that the service would not be DSL but fiber-optic, at the same price for what we're paying now. Hurray! They just had to ship us some equipment (which would arrive at our current apartment), and then we had an installation appointment on Tuesday at the new place.
Today, Jill calls AT&T back to check on the status of the equipment that was being shipped. Turns out, it's not coming. In fact, everything in the entire last paragraph was apparently a complete fabrication. They have no service in Champaign. There is no equipment being sent. There is no installation appointment. It was all a lie. I have no idea what motivated them to create such an elaborate concoction (I mean, it was pretty intricate), but alas.
So thanks, AT&T. If you had just told us originally you didn't provide internet in our new building, then we'd have been unhappy because we'd have been satisfied customers who happened to be moving out of your service area. Instead, in the space of 15 minutes you've turned us into angry customers who have learned not to trust your customer service representatives. An excellent day's work, in my book.
This also means we apparently have to go back to Comcast. It's just one nightmare to another here....
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Friday, August 05, 2011
The Kadima Line
Jeffrey Goldberg has a wonderful interview up with Tzipi Livni, leader of the largest opposition party in Israel. As usual, she makes it clear that she "gets it" in a way that Bibi simply doesn't. And, notably, she was very much in favor of Obama's pressure on Netanyahu, which, she claims, caused him to take necessary steps towards peace that he wouldn't have done on his own.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
I Can't Wait To Hear What Else About the Holocaust the NYT Thinks is "Disputed"
New York Times: American Family Association's Bryan Fischer "trumpets the disputed theory that Adolph Hitler was a homosexual and that the Nazi Party was largely created by 'homosexual thugs.'"
Put That In Your Ad and Smoke 'Em
House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) on Medicare: "promises have been made that frankly are not going to be kept."
Oh for the love of God, he just lobbed that one right in the wheelhouse. That should be on every single ad Democrats run from now until 2012.
Oh for the love of God, he just lobbed that one right in the wheelhouse. That should be on every single ad Democrats run from now until 2012.
Who Even Needs Enemies?
When I first saw this Ha'aretz article, on a new Knesset bill which would drop Arabic as one of the state languages of Israel and, more disturbingly, officially subordinate "democracy" to Jewishness in Israel's basic law, I mentally located the bill as part of the aforementioned right-wing crackup -- the new "Russian right" against old-school Likudniks like Reuven Rivlin.
It is so much worse than I thought.
The initiators of the bill include a member from Likud (Zeev Elkin), Yisrael Beiteinu (David Rotem), and Kadima (Avi Dichter). Elkin and Rotem have been the devil's pair responsible for much of the recent anti-democratic legislation floating through the Knesset, including the infamous anti-boycott law (which passed) and the anti-NGO committee (which didn't). But Kadima! And it's not just one rogue member, either: Ha'aretz claims twenty of Kadima's twenty-eight MKs have signed on as supporters (I'm assuming Livni isn't one of them, since you'd think that'd be mentioned). The law has supporters from a range of Israeli political parties, and not just the right-wing ones: Labor and Atzamaut have members who have expressed support, and Ha'aretz has sources in the Knesset who think it is likely to pass this Winter.
Okay, but surely the Israeli Supreme Court will strike it down? Doubtful: the law is actually cast as an amendment to Israel's "Basic Law", the equivalent to the Israeli constitution. The basic law sets out the basic principles which govern the Israeli state -- it is what the courts use to strike down other, offending pieces of legislation. Let's repeat that: If this bill passes, the basic law of Israel -- it's fundamental organizing precept -- will now explicitly label democracy as a subordinate value. As Elkin puts it (in support of the law!): the goal is for the judiciary to support "the state as the Jewish nation state in ruling in situations in which the Jewish character of the state clashes with its democratic character." The "only democracy in the Middle East" may be about to vote to put itself out of business.
I'm sitting here in shock. Kadima's roots are primarily Likudniks who "recognized reality", that is, who recognized the long-term untenability of maintaining Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But I guess I had convinced myself that their flight from Likud also signaled that they weren't part of the extremist anti-Arab, anti-democratic wing of that party (I figured the hardliners in that camp would have never left). Apparently not. That a reported two-thirds of Kadima's caucus supports this law is nauseating.
Meanwhile, Elkin confidently is declaring that "today the world is ready to accept this." I have no idea what he is smoking. There is precisely one country I can think of which might have an affinity for this law, because there is one prominent nation which also maintains a quasi-democratic superstructure but explicitly subordinates democratic values to those of the dominant religious faith. That would be Iran. This law, if it passes, would be a giant leap towards an Iranian-style theocracy.
Honestly -- half the time it seems like Israel doesn't even need enemies. Its own MKs are perfectly capable of taking the democratic Zionist dream and slashing it to ribbons on their own.
Somebody, please tell me I'm missing something here, because I am sick to my stomach right now.
UPDATE: It appears that most of the Kadima supporters of the bill (but not Dichter) are retreating. Dichter, for his part, appears to cast this proposed law as an alternative to demanding Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state (to wit: "[W]ith the Basic Law we can finally denote Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and not need the Palestinians' favors and recognition of us as a Jewish state.").
It is so much worse than I thought.
The initiators of the bill include a member from Likud (Zeev Elkin), Yisrael Beiteinu (David Rotem), and Kadima (Avi Dichter). Elkin and Rotem have been the devil's pair responsible for much of the recent anti-democratic legislation floating through the Knesset, including the infamous anti-boycott law (which passed) and the anti-NGO committee (which didn't). But Kadima! And it's not just one rogue member, either: Ha'aretz claims twenty of Kadima's twenty-eight MKs have signed on as supporters (I'm assuming Livni isn't one of them, since you'd think that'd be mentioned). The law has supporters from a range of Israeli political parties, and not just the right-wing ones: Labor and Atzamaut have members who have expressed support, and Ha'aretz has sources in the Knesset who think it is likely to pass this Winter.
Okay, but surely the Israeli Supreme Court will strike it down? Doubtful: the law is actually cast as an amendment to Israel's "Basic Law", the equivalent to the Israeli constitution. The basic law sets out the basic principles which govern the Israeli state -- it is what the courts use to strike down other, offending pieces of legislation. Let's repeat that: If this bill passes, the basic law of Israel -- it's fundamental organizing precept -- will now explicitly label democracy as a subordinate value. As Elkin puts it (in support of the law!): the goal is for the judiciary to support "the state as the Jewish nation state in ruling in situations in which the Jewish character of the state clashes with its democratic character." The "only democracy in the Middle East" may be about to vote to put itself out of business.
I'm sitting here in shock. Kadima's roots are primarily Likudniks who "recognized reality", that is, who recognized the long-term untenability of maintaining Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But I guess I had convinced myself that their flight from Likud also signaled that they weren't part of the extremist anti-Arab, anti-democratic wing of that party (I figured the hardliners in that camp would have never left). Apparently not. That a reported two-thirds of Kadima's caucus supports this law is nauseating.
Meanwhile, Elkin confidently is declaring that "today the world is ready to accept this." I have no idea what he is smoking. There is precisely one country I can think of which might have an affinity for this law, because there is one prominent nation which also maintains a quasi-democratic superstructure but explicitly subordinates democratic values to those of the dominant religious faith. That would be Iran. This law, if it passes, would be a giant leap towards an Iranian-style theocracy.
Honestly -- half the time it seems like Israel doesn't even need enemies. Its own MKs are perfectly capable of taking the democratic Zionist dream and slashing it to ribbons on their own.
Somebody, please tell me I'm missing something here, because I am sick to my stomach right now.
UPDATE: It appears that most of the Kadima supporters of the bill (but not Dichter) are retreating. Dichter, for his part, appears to cast this proposed law as an alternative to demanding Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state (to wit: "[W]ith the Basic Law we can finally denote Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and not need the Palestinians' favors and recognition of us as a Jewish state.").
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Wealth Circles
One of the interesting factoids about race in American life is the degree to which even relatively well-off Black and Hispanic Americans are still deeply tied into structures and neighborhoods we associate with poverty. Some new census data helps paint the picture:
Ta-Nehisi Coates has some great analysis.
On the one hand, this is obviously pertinent to the typical "it's not race, it's class!" rejoinder deployed against those who still think that racial injustice is a serious problem in America. I've already explained the most basic flaw in this analysis -- that race is not an independent source of disadvantage in American life -- but the continuing fact of segregation also reminds us that part of the benefit of wealth is being surrounded by wealth.
My family was quite well off. And that was very advantageous for me! But a goodly portion of that advantage also came from the fact that we lived in a wealthy, well-connected neighborhood. The fact that the whole area was well off meant that the schools had a larger than average tax base. The fact that families had considerable disposable income meant that there were more resources to support extra-curriculars. The fact that I was surrounded by high-performing individuals meant I had potential role models for virtually any high-end career I possibly could have imagined. And so on and so forth. Wealth is good on its own, but its utility multiplies dramatically when it isn't lonely. That many people of color, even those who are well off, still live in much poorer neighborhoods, with much worse services, and much fewer connections, is a detriment.
But Ta-Nehisi also points out the need not to pathologize everything. There are benefits to growing up and being able to walk in more than one world. And even if life circumstances aren't ideal, people value where they came from. I don't have much to say about that side of his post, other than recognizing its import and not wanting it to get lost.
The average affluent black and Hispanic household -- defined in the study as earning more than $75,000 a year -- lives in a poorer neighborhood than the average lower-income non-Hispanic white household that makes less than $40,000 a year.
"Separate translates to unequal even for the most successful black and Hispanic minorities," says sociologist John Logan, director of US2010 Project at Brown University, which studies trends in American society.
"Blacks are segregated and even affluent blacks are pretty segregated," says Logan, who analyzed 2005-09 data for the nation's 384 metropolitan areas. "African Americans who really succeeded live in neighborhoods where people around them have not succeeded to the same extent."
Ta-Nehisi Coates has some great analysis.
On the one hand, this is obviously pertinent to the typical "it's not race, it's class!" rejoinder deployed against those who still think that racial injustice is a serious problem in America. I've already explained the most basic flaw in this analysis -- that race is not an independent source of disadvantage in American life -- but the continuing fact of segregation also reminds us that part of the benefit of wealth is being surrounded by wealth.
My family was quite well off. And that was very advantageous for me! But a goodly portion of that advantage also came from the fact that we lived in a wealthy, well-connected neighborhood. The fact that the whole area was well off meant that the schools had a larger than average tax base. The fact that families had considerable disposable income meant that there were more resources to support extra-curriculars. The fact that I was surrounded by high-performing individuals meant I had potential role models for virtually any high-end career I possibly could have imagined. And so on and so forth. Wealth is good on its own, but its utility multiplies dramatically when it isn't lonely. That many people of color, even those who are well off, still live in much poorer neighborhoods, with much worse services, and much fewer connections, is a detriment.
But Ta-Nehisi also points out the need not to pathologize everything. There are benefits to growing up and being able to walk in more than one world. And even if life circumstances aren't ideal, people value where they came from. I don't have much to say about that side of his post, other than recognizing its import and not wanting it to get lost.
Migron Settlement Ordered Dismantled
The Israeli Supreme Court has ordered that the Migron settlement in the West Bank be dismantled by April 2012. This is interesting, though it is also a dance we've seen before. Indeed, part of the reason the Court is so upset with the Israeli government is that they've promised to take down Migron before and have yet to do so (indeed, the settlement has expanded). Their earlier reticence, of course, makes it more difficult to take it down now -- an argument the Court was appropriately unsympathetic to.
Migron is one of those settlements without even a figleaf to hide behind. It's unauthorized by the Israeli government. It's very close to Ramallah, making it an unlikely candidate for eventually being absorbed into Israel as part of a land swap deal. And, most importantly, it's built on privately-owned Palestinian land (making it nothing more than a blatant theft).
This does, apparently, mark the first time the Court has directly ordered a specific settlement dismantled. So it will be interesting to see how the government responds (the settler leaders themselves are expected to pitch a fit). Various Likud hardliners are already speaking out against the decision.
Migron is one of those settlements without even a figleaf to hide behind. It's unauthorized by the Israeli government. It's very close to Ramallah, making it an unlikely candidate for eventually being absorbed into Israel as part of a land swap deal. And, most importantly, it's built on privately-owned Palestinian land (making it nothing more than a blatant theft).
This does, apparently, mark the first time the Court has directly ordered a specific settlement dismantled. So it will be interesting to see how the government responds (the settler leaders themselves are expected to pitch a fit). Various Likud hardliners are already speaking out against the decision.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
The Hidden Fraternity
New polling finds massive overlap between American Jews and Muslims on issues important to the two communities. Some highlights:
* 81% of Muslims and 78% of Jews support a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
* Jews and Muslims are the only two religious groups currently supportive of Barack Obama.
* Jews are the group least likely (after Muslims) to question Muslim loyalty to the United States.
* Jews are actually slightly more likely than Muslims to believe that Muslims face significant prejudice in the United States.
Good news all around.
* 81% of Muslims and 78% of Jews support a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
* Jews and Muslims are the only two religious groups currently supportive of Barack Obama.
* Jews are the group least likely (after Muslims) to question Muslim loyalty to the United States.
* Jews are actually slightly more likely than Muslims to believe that Muslims face significant prejudice in the United States.
Good news all around.
Cleanup Roundup
We're moving next week, and so the slow process of cleaning and organizing our apartment begins.
* * *
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) may be one of my all-time favorite Republican crazies. Here, he frets that women who have access to free birth control will never birth again. Ain't no pregnancy like an involuntary pregnancy!
Lithuanian mayor runs over luxury car parked in a bike lane with a tank. Bring him stateside.
FYI: Black family life in the antebellum south really sucked.
The other day, Jon Chait raised a specter of hope regarding the debt compromise, arguing that the "default" cuts in defense spending will cause lobbyists to work feverishly to avert them via revenue increases. Today, Matt Yglesias puts the kiboosh on it.
Eating while Black.
Frankly, I think Jennifer Rubin's Norway post scarcely makes the top ten reasons she should be axed from the WaPo. Alas, the ombudsman disagrees.
* * *
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) may be one of my all-time favorite Republican crazies. Here, he frets that women who have access to free birth control will never birth again. Ain't no pregnancy like an involuntary pregnancy!
Lithuanian mayor runs over luxury car parked in a bike lane with a tank. Bring him stateside.
FYI: Black family life in the antebellum south really sucked.
The other day, Jon Chait raised a specter of hope regarding the debt compromise, arguing that the "default" cuts in defense spending will cause lobbyists to work feverishly to avert them via revenue increases. Today, Matt Yglesias puts the kiboosh on it.
Eating while Black.
Frankly, I think Jennifer Rubin's Norway post scarcely makes the top ten reasons she should be axed from the WaPo. Alas, the ombudsman disagrees.
Recall Madness
Is there any chance that the Wisconsin electoral system won't be permanently rejiggered so that recall elections are always happening one year after someone is elected? I'm not saying the challengers will always win, but it's just not that hard to muster the signatures to get a recall race on the ballot.
Anyway, we're reaching the home stretch of the Wisconsin State Senate recall elections. Democrats need to win a net three seats to take back the chamber; my original prediction was that they'd get two. Dan Kapanke has been a dead man walking since the race started, and Randy Hopper is scandal-plagued and thus unusually vulnerable. The question is who would get them over the hump.
If internal polls are to be believed, the answer is Luther Olsen. Along with Kapanke and Hopper, reports are the Democrats polls have the good guys ahead against him as well. The same story also indicates that things are razor-thin against Robert Cowles, Sheila Harsdorf, and Alberta Darling. I don't have the specific numbers in front me, so I don't know how close is close, but unlike many of her peers Darling started off the recall campaign with her head above water, topping her hypothetical challenger 52/44. But she's been shooting herself in the foot with statements like claiming that people making over $250,000 "aren't wealthy people".
It's definitely the case that Republicans are nervous, as they've been hard at work trying to suppress the vote by sending out false information to Democratic voters about voting absentee while posing as a government agency. Sounds like a decent place for the DOJ to throw an elbow to me.
Anyway, we're reaching the home stretch of the Wisconsin State Senate recall elections. Democrats need to win a net three seats to take back the chamber; my original prediction was that they'd get two. Dan Kapanke has been a dead man walking since the race started, and Randy Hopper is scandal-plagued and thus unusually vulnerable. The question is who would get them over the hump.
If internal polls are to be believed, the answer is Luther Olsen. Along with Kapanke and Hopper, reports are the Democrats polls have the good guys ahead against him as well. The same story also indicates that things are razor-thin against Robert Cowles, Sheila Harsdorf, and Alberta Darling. I don't have the specific numbers in front me, so I don't know how close is close, but unlike many of her peers Darling started off the recall campaign with her head above water, topping her hypothetical challenger 52/44. But she's been shooting herself in the foot with statements like claiming that people making over $250,000 "aren't wealthy people".
It's definitely the case that Republicans are nervous, as they've been hard at work trying to suppress the vote by sending out false information to Democratic voters about voting absentee while posing as a government agency. Sounds like a decent place for the DOJ to throw an elbow to me.
Monday, August 01, 2011
I Can't Look
I can't even bring myself to look at the details of the debt ceiling "compromise". It infuriates me that we had to give into a bunch of immature thugs who decided holding the country's economy hostage was the best way to secure draconian cuts to government while the working class continues to struggle.
And it could have been avoided if we simply were willing to realize that one major political party is not comprised of members fit to govern. As Paul Krugman points out, the reason the President didn't get a debt ceiling extension in December was because he was convinced Republicans would act responsibly. Hind-sight may be 20-20, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that that's always the wrong answer.
The debt ceiling scandal (and frankly, that's what this is -- a scandal) has revealed a Republican Party split into three branches:
(1) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe but were too spineless to stand up to the rest of their party. Exemplified by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).
(2) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe and who relished the idea of exploiting that fact for their own political gain. Exemplified by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).
(3) Those who really didn't grasp that voluntarily defaulting on our debt would be the economic equivalent of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Exemplified by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
The cowardly, the avaricious, and the delusional. Ladies and gentlemen, your modern GOP.
Boehner is bragging at the massive success Republicans reaped for these tactics -- and he's right. When one party cares about the economic future of the country, and one party made it abundantly clear they're willing to shoot the hostage if it comes to that, what can you do? How do you stop yourself from getting rolled again?
The only thing I can think of is for Obama to start throwing elbows. The Senate can't do squat with McConnell's auto-filibuster policy, so it has to come from the White House. And I don't mean Oval Office speeches with a slightly raised voice. I mean the force of the executive branch. Recess appointments, new agency regulations designed to piss of the right, and take the leash off the DOJ on politically sensitive topics like corruption and the VRA. The minute this deal is signed -- because, horrible as I'm sure it is (any deal that isn't "a clean increase" is horrible to me), it has to be signed -- it's time to send a message back. You pull a knife on the American economy, we pull a gun on Republican priorities.
No more mister nice President.
And it could have been avoided if we simply were willing to realize that one major political party is not comprised of members fit to govern. As Paul Krugman points out, the reason the President didn't get a debt ceiling extension in December was because he was convinced Republicans would act responsibly. Hind-sight may be 20-20, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that that's always the wrong answer.
The debt ceiling scandal (and frankly, that's what this is -- a scandal) has revealed a Republican Party split into three branches:
(1) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe but were too spineless to stand up to the rest of their party. Exemplified by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).
(2) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe and who relished the idea of exploiting that fact for their own political gain. Exemplified by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).
(3) Those who really didn't grasp that voluntarily defaulting on our debt would be the economic equivalent of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Exemplified by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
The cowardly, the avaricious, and the delusional. Ladies and gentlemen, your modern GOP.
Boehner is bragging at the massive success Republicans reaped for these tactics -- and he's right. When one party cares about the economic future of the country, and one party made it abundantly clear they're willing to shoot the hostage if it comes to that, what can you do? How do you stop yourself from getting rolled again?
The only thing I can think of is for Obama to start throwing elbows. The Senate can't do squat with McConnell's auto-filibuster policy, so it has to come from the White House. And I don't mean Oval Office speeches with a slightly raised voice. I mean the force of the executive branch. Recess appointments, new agency regulations designed to piss of the right, and take the leash off the DOJ on politically sensitive topics like corruption and the VRA. The minute this deal is signed -- because, horrible as I'm sure it is (any deal that isn't "a clean increase" is horrible to me), it has to be signed -- it's time to send a message back. You pull a knife on the American economy, we pull a gun on Republican priorities.
No more mister nice President.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Different Places
Physically, I'm flying back to Chicago tomorrow, and moving down to Champaign the following week. Virtually, I'll be visiting at Concurring Opinions for the next month. I don't anticipate any reduced blogging over here, since I have a very specific agenda for my time at Co-Op (the secret inner workings of the law review process, mostly), but if there is a drop off, that might explain it.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Enforceability of the BBA
I never really thought of this, but how exactly would a Balanced Budget Amendment be enforced?
I don't think proponents of the BBA anticipate or would be satisfied with options two or three. But with respect to the first, it is worth noting that -- unless the amendment contained specific language privileging spending cuts over all other tactics that could be used to balance a budget -- judicial enforcement could easily include injunctions to raise taxes or sell off government property.
And if they do cut spending, how exactly would they determine which programs to cut? Would it just be the ones the judge disliked the most? Finally, a way for Jack Weinstein to get us out of Iraq!
I can think of three models that make sense. The first would involve judicial enforcement. In other words, if the budget is not balanced under whatever specific language is adopted, someone would have standing to sue and stop money from being spent. The second would be self-enforcing. In other words, the amendment could contain a legislative trigger that would be activated if the budget was unbalanced, saying, for instance, that any additional spending would have to approved by a supermajority of Congress.
The third view would treat the amendment as aspirational. Advocates of including positive rights in the text (the right to housing, the right to education, or the right to a job) often say that the point is not to make these rights judicially enforceable. Instead, the idea is that their codification will change the political culture and exert a strong pull on elected officials. The same could be true for a balanced budget amendment.
I don't think proponents of the BBA anticipate or would be satisfied with options two or three. But with respect to the first, it is worth noting that -- unless the amendment contained specific language privileging spending cuts over all other tactics that could be used to balance a budget -- judicial enforcement could easily include injunctions to raise taxes or sell off government property.
And if they do cut spending, how exactly would they determine which programs to cut? Would it just be the ones the judge disliked the most? Finally, a way for Jack Weinstein to get us out of Iraq!
Friday, July 29, 2011
Random Connection of the Day
Two years ago, I posted a baller ad by a New Orleans mayoral candidate named James Perry. It shows his fellow candidates at a public forum answering a question about the "Youth Study Center". Clearly not knowing what it was, the candidates assumed it was something nice, like a library, and started extolling its virtues, saying things like "we need more of them" and "put them in the schools". It was left to Mr. Perry to inform his fellows that "the Youth Study Center is a jail." Love.
Anyway, turns out James Perry is the "Perry" in Melissa Harris-Perry. No wonder he was so awesome!
Anyway, turns out James Perry is the "Perry" in Melissa Harris-Perry. No wonder he was so awesome!
Debtpocalypse Watch: Day Two
As we move into the second day of Speaker John Boehner's furious negotiations with the far-right fringe to secure the votes needed to pass his debt ceiling plan, which would solve this crisis once and for all is a massive waste of time because it's DOA in the Senate, let's examine what is sticking in the right-wing's craw:
"Hmmm ... I could vote to save the country from economic ruination. But then poor people might go to college. I hate these tough, grueling political choices."
Meanwhile, word is that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has flipped to "yes" on the Boehner plan. Flake had called the negotiations over this bill "refreshing" because nobody's children were threatened. Folks think Flake is exaggerating about the bad old days. Tell that to former Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI).
I have to admit, having basically resigned myself to debtpocalypse, I know find this whole charade to be uproariously funny. Boehner is killing himself to crawl across the finish line of a bill which stands no chance of ever becoming law. As Jon Chait points out, Republicans are delusional if they think this will ever pass. It is "like a kidnapper demanding for the release of your child $100,000 and your other child." It's a terrible plan, that will likely be made worse by whatever Boehner will have to do to wrangle those last couple extremist votes, and isn't going anywhere.
The inclusion of the extra money for Pell Grants could cost Republican votes.
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) has compared Pell Grants to “welfare”.
"So you can go to college on Pell Grants — maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," Rehberg told Blog Talk Radio in April. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, Section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don’t have to graduate from college.”
"Hmmm ... I could vote to save the country from economic ruination. But then poor people might go to college. I hate these tough, grueling political choices."
Meanwhile, word is that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has flipped to "yes" on the Boehner plan. Flake had called the negotiations over this bill "refreshing" because nobody's children were threatened. Folks think Flake is exaggerating about the bad old days. Tell that to former Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI).
I have to admit, having basically resigned myself to debtpocalypse, I know find this whole charade to be uproariously funny. Boehner is killing himself to crawl across the finish line of a bill which stands no chance of ever becoming law. As Jon Chait points out, Republicans are delusional if they think this will ever pass. It is "like a kidnapper demanding for the release of your child $100,000 and your other child." It's a terrible plan, that will likely be made worse by whatever Boehner will have to do to wrangle those last couple extremist votes, and isn't going anywhere.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
All Teed Up
Dear Anderson Cooper,
I know it was an eventful night what with the Republican Party being massive fuck-ups, but you can't interview Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and not ask him whether he's massively delinquent on child support. I mean that story just broke! Do you think that if the Democrats anointed Rep. David Wu (OR) to speak for them tonight, folks wouldn't ask about his alleged sexual assault? Trick question -- David Wu would never take on the voice of a leading Democrat right now.
Meanwhile, my dad says that if Boehner can't rustle up the votes for this plan, he's got to resign as Speaker. Not in the "out of shame" sense (though sure), but in the "he clearly doesn't have the ability to control his own caucus anymore" sense.
I know it was an eventful night what with the Republican Party being massive fuck-ups, but you can't interview Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and not ask him whether he's massively delinquent on child support. I mean that story just broke! Do you think that if the Democrats anointed Rep. David Wu (OR) to speak for them tonight, folks wouldn't ask about his alleged sexual assault? Trick question -- David Wu would never take on the voice of a leading Democrat right now.
Meanwhile, my dad says that if Boehner can't rustle up the votes for this plan, he's got to resign as Speaker. Not in the "out of shame" sense (though sure), but in the "he clearly doesn't have the ability to control his own caucus anymore" sense.
Duke It Out
Marc Tracy is scoring the Twitter war between Atlantic (soon to be Tablet) columnist Jeffrey Goldberg and Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. He's got Goldberg up 78-73 after eight rounds (including a seventh round knockdown). Incidentally, I agree with Goldberg that the most newsworthy thing about their exchange might be Ayalon furiously denying he wants Israel to maintain control over the West Bank.
Meanwhile, Hussein Ibish recaps his debate with far-right settler activist David Ha'ivri. Ibish accurately characterized the debate as not between "Israelis" and "Palestinians" per se, but rather between "modernists" and "medievalists" on both sides:
Extreme revanchist settlers like Ha'ivri have far, far more in common with Hamas supporters than they do with mainstream liberal Zionists. And Ibish has far more in common with the average Kadima voter than he does with Islamic Jihad. One can recognize that there needs to be considerably more work in building a political constituency for the modernist perspective (at least as applied to Jews) amongst Palestinians, without deluding ourselves into thinking that folks like Ha'ivri even remotely resemble a friend of the Israel most Jews wish to support.
Meanwhile, Hussein Ibish recaps his debate with far-right settler activist David Ha'ivri. Ibish accurately characterized the debate as not between "Israelis" and "Palestinians" per se, but rather between "modernists" and "medievalists" on both sides:
Modern thinking, I explained, recognizes both the inherent rights of individuals as human beings and the rights of self-defined peoples to national self-determination. Medieval thinking, on the other hand, relies on holy texts and symbols, and conceives of people not as individuals and groups of individuals, but as fixed categories in a divinely ordained hierarchy.
Extreme revanchist settlers like Ha'ivri have far, far more in common with Hamas supporters than they do with mainstream liberal Zionists. And Ibish has far more in common with the average Kadima voter than he does with Islamic Jihad. One can recognize that there needs to be considerably more work in building a political constituency for the modernist perspective (at least as applied to Jews) amongst Palestinians, without deluding ourselves into thinking that folks like Ha'ivri even remotely resemble a friend of the Israel most Jews wish to support.
Shuler's New Seat?
DKos elections wonders if Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), widely rumored to be retiring in order to take a position as Athletic Director at Tennessee but who just issued a statement nixing that, may run in the newly drawn NC-10? That district is currently represented by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R), one of the dimmest bulbs in the House (and that's saying something) who declared his vote against the Voting Rights Act a strike against "political correctness".
I'm not the biggest Shuler fan (I am from DC, after all), but I would be willing to forgive a lot if he was able to knock off McHenry.
I'm not the biggest Shuler fan (I am from DC, after all), but I would be willing to forgive a lot if he was able to knock off McHenry.
Sleep Chronicles, Part II
Like most people, I sleep differently in different beds. Most of the time, it's obvious that I like some beds better than others. But there are two types of sleep patterns I experience where I'm honestly unsure which one is superior.
Imagine a typical, decent night's sleep. Not absolutely blacked-out bliss, but pretty solid. And when you wake up, you feel relatively awake -- not Woody Woodpecker-on-meth chipper, but in a good spot to start the day.
The only difference is that in bed X you naturally wake up relatively early (say, 8 AM) and in bed Y you naturally wake up relatively late (say, 11 AM).
So, which is better? On the one hand, you could say that bed X gave you the same level of restfulness, but in a shorter time period. It's more efficient! On the other hand, bed Y gave you the same degree of restfulness for longer. It's sustained quality!
Obviously, one way to check this would be to see how you feel at the end of the day. But that's tough to do, given that one's tiredness at the end of any given day is reliant not just on the quality of sleep you got before, but also what time you woke up and, oh yeah, the activities you engaged in that day. So I'm trying to rely on intuition, and it is failing me.
Imagine a typical, decent night's sleep. Not absolutely blacked-out bliss, but pretty solid. And when you wake up, you feel relatively awake -- not Woody Woodpecker-on-meth chipper, but in a good spot to start the day.
The only difference is that in bed X you naturally wake up relatively early (say, 8 AM) and in bed Y you naturally wake up relatively late (say, 11 AM).
So, which is better? On the one hand, you could say that bed X gave you the same level of restfulness, but in a shorter time period. It's more efficient! On the other hand, bed Y gave you the same degree of restfulness for longer. It's sustained quality!
Obviously, one way to check this would be to see how you feel at the end of the day. But that's tough to do, given that one's tiredness at the end of any given day is reliant not just on the quality of sleep you got before, but also what time you woke up and, oh yeah, the activities you engaged in that day. So I'm trying to rely on intuition, and it is failing me.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Perfect Bar Question
"Is the statute unconstitutional?"
(A) Yes, because of the non-delegation doctrine.
(B) Yes, because of the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause.
(C) Yes, under the 3rd Amendment.
(D) No.
And with that, I hereby resolve to not think of the bar again (until I find out if I pass -- which won't be for months).
(A) Yes, because of the non-delegation doctrine.
(B) Yes, because of the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause.
(C) Yes, under the 3rd Amendment.
(D) No.
And with that, I hereby resolve to not think of the bar again (until I find out if I pass -- which won't be for months).
Monday, July 25, 2011
Ding Ding Ding!
I believe Ellie Merton wins the prize for being the first to claim the Norwegian massacre was an Israeli government plot! Congratulations -- though I'm sure you'll soon have plenty of company.
Meanwhile, while it is true that Breivik claimed to be pro-"Zionist" ... not really. Breivik is philo-Semitic the same way that the KKK became friends with the Nation of Islam. They both liked the idea of Black people being separate from White people. Breivik, for his part, likes the idea of Israel because he likes the idea of Jews being somewhere else. His critique of the Nazis was that they should have expelled the Jews, not killed them. He currently thinks that Europe's Jewish population is small enough so as to not constitute a problem, but that America might need to start thinking about getting rid of us. And where better place to put us than in Israel? But while, yes, one of the justifications for Israel's existence is to serve as a haven for when folks like Breivik advocate our expulsion (or worse), that hardly means it is supportive of the Zionist vision to overtly promote said expulsions.
Finally, Glenn Beck compared the slaughtered children in Norway to the Hitler Youth. So folks are just covering themselves in glory all over.
Meanwhile, while it is true that Breivik claimed to be pro-"Zionist" ... not really. Breivik is philo-Semitic the same way that the KKK became friends with the Nation of Islam. They both liked the idea of Black people being separate from White people. Breivik, for his part, likes the idea of Israel because he likes the idea of Jews being somewhere else. His critique of the Nazis was that they should have expelled the Jews, not killed them. He currently thinks that Europe's Jewish population is small enough so as to not constitute a problem, but that America might need to start thinking about getting rid of us. And where better place to put us than in Israel? But while, yes, one of the justifications for Israel's existence is to serve as a haven for when folks like Breivik advocate our expulsion (or worse), that hardly means it is supportive of the Zionist vision to overtly promote said expulsions.
Finally, Glenn Beck compared the slaughtered children in Norway to the Hitler Youth. So folks are just covering themselves in glory all over.
The Israeli-Russian Right
Bradley Burston has a great piece up on the fracturing of the Israeli right-wing, separating the "old-guard" Likud from incoming Russian immigrants (mostly represented by Yisrael Beiteinu). Basically, the "old" right is founded on a two-pronged dream:
Needless to say, those two goals are in considerable tension, and in general the folks who have recognized that the tension is unsustainable already bolted to form Kadima. But delusional as it might be, there are folks in Likud for whom respect for minority rights and democratic values is quite genuine, such as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin.
The Russian right, by contrast, is more or less a set of transplanted Putin clones, and the right they are trying to build in Israel is scarcely different from unrepentant fascism.
At some point, the old right is going to have to realize that the new right isn't compatible with the vision of Israel they think they're defending. And then they'll need to make a choice.
First, a vision of Israel as an authentic democracy, sensitive to and respectful of minorities, governed by principles of civility, diplomacy, freedom of expression, and mamlachtiyut, statesmanship.
Second, doing everything possible to see to it that the West Bank and East Jerusalem remain in Israeli hands forever.
Needless to say, those two goals are in considerable tension, and in general the folks who have recognized that the tension is unsustainable already bolted to form Kadima. But delusional as it might be, there are folks in Likud for whom respect for minority rights and democratic values is quite genuine, such as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin.
The Russian right, by contrast, is more or less a set of transplanted Putin clones, and the right they are trying to build in Israel is scarcely different from unrepentant fascism.
At one almost frighteningly revealing moment, MK Anastasia Michaeli of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu, speaking of herself and her many party colleagues born in the U.S.S.R., declared that the NGO probe bill "shows how patriotic we are."
"We grew up on values of patriotism. We arrived in this country, and we want to teach the citizens of Israel what patriotism is, what love of country and loyalty to a country are."
Michaeli, named to serve on one of the proposed NGO probe panels, spoke over widespread interruptions from both Arab and centrist Jewish MKs. Ordered to leave the podium (by an Israeli-born party colleague chairing the session) because of what she called "propaganda" pictures she displayed in contravention of Knesset rules, she dug in for one final full-throated blast.
"You have to learn how Israeli Arabs conduct propaganda against the People of Israel, the way Goebbels built up Nazi Germany, the same way you [Arabs and the left] are continuing to use fascism. You are knocking us down … using democracy and nice words. The real fascist is he who doesn't want the State of Israel to exist.
"Beware! Shame on you! Learn patriotism!"
At some point, the old right is going to have to realize that the new right isn't compatible with the vision of Israel they think they're defending. And then they'll need to make a choice.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Who We Thought They Were
Spencer Ackerman has a provocative post arguing that Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the Norwegian terror attack, is, in effect, a member of al-Qaeda. Not because he's a closet sympathizer with Islamic terror. But because the "critique" he levels at Western society is, effectively, the same as the one al-Qaeda levels at the Muslim world. That he happens to have a different definition of who the purists and who the apostates are is essentially a matter of happenstance. The ideology is more or less the same.
Ackerman also argues that the ideology espoused by folks like Pam Geller is more or less identical to that held by Breivik. You could see that in this panicked post at Pajamas Media worrying that Breivik's massacre would discredit the cause of Islamophobia.
Now Ackerman is clear -- and I agree entirely -- that this is not to say that Geller and her ilk are on the verge of becoming violent terrorists. This is a common misunderstanding -- that noxious ideologies are repellent because they're violent, and that anyone who supports a terrible ideology that has violent supporters is someone who believes in violence themselves.
But this is not the case. The world al-Qaeda wants to build is a terrible world, and it wants to reach that world through violent means. There are plenty of people who support al-Qaeda's vision of the future, but do not support violence to get there. It is obviously better to not support violent action against innocents than to support it, but not endorsing violence does not cleanse the sins of the worldview. And so it is with Breivik and his cousins -- violent and non-violent. We shouldn't impute violent instincts on persons just because their ideological compatriots commit violent acts. On the other hand, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking non-violent Islamophobes or non-violent Islamic supremacists represent anything other than a disgusting perversion.
UPDATE: I think the rightfully-condemned Jerusalem Post editorial is a good example of this. Folks are saying that they're defending Breivik. Well, no, they're not -- they're quite clear that they abhor violence against civilians, and there is no reason to doubt them on that. The problem with the JPost editorial -- aside from being utterly tasteless -- is that the substantive vision it promotes is risible even if the Jerusalem Post wishes to pursue it non-violently. It confuses two separate criticisms to protest an entity's support for violence against innocents in support of contemptible policies, and their support for those policies themselves.
Ackerman also argues that the ideology espoused by folks like Pam Geller is more or less identical to that held by Breivik. You could see that in this panicked post at Pajamas Media worrying that Breivik's massacre would discredit the cause of Islamophobia.
Now Ackerman is clear -- and I agree entirely -- that this is not to say that Geller and her ilk are on the verge of becoming violent terrorists. This is a common misunderstanding -- that noxious ideologies are repellent because they're violent, and that anyone who supports a terrible ideology that has violent supporters is someone who believes in violence themselves.
But this is not the case. The world al-Qaeda wants to build is a terrible world, and it wants to reach that world through violent means. There are plenty of people who support al-Qaeda's vision of the future, but do not support violence to get there. It is obviously better to not support violent action against innocents than to support it, but not endorsing violence does not cleanse the sins of the worldview. And so it is with Breivik and his cousins -- violent and non-violent. We shouldn't impute violent instincts on persons just because their ideological compatriots commit violent acts. On the other hand, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking non-violent Islamophobes or non-violent Islamic supremacists represent anything other than a disgusting perversion.
UPDATE: I think the rightfully-condemned Jerusalem Post editorial is a good example of this. Folks are saying that they're defending Breivik. Well, no, they're not -- they're quite clear that they abhor violence against civilians, and there is no reason to doubt them on that. The problem with the JPost editorial -- aside from being utterly tasteless -- is that the substantive vision it promotes is risible even if the Jerusalem Post wishes to pursue it non-violently. It confuses two separate criticisms to protest an entity's support for violence against innocents in support of contemptible policies, and their support for those policies themselves.
Blessed be the Fools, For They Are Loved Most of All
Today, I received resounding proof that God watches over and loves me -- or at least loves me when I'm an utter idiot.
First, some background. As you may know, I'm taking the bar exam on Tuesday. However, in what is probably best described as equal parts loyalty and hubris, I spent this past weekend in Casper, Wyoming to be a groomsman in my college roommate's wedding (Congrats, Bob and Sarah!). This entailed flying to Denver, renting a car, driving four hours to Casper, partying all night long like a good Carleton alum, then waking up at 8 AM this morning to drive back to Denver and fly into DC (by way of Chicago).
A lot could go wrong there. But, amazingly, nothing did! The flights were smooth and on-time, the road trip went perfectly fine (given that I hadn't driven a car for any trip longer than a grocery run in several years, no small thing), the wedding was fantastic -- I even managed to strike a decent balance between sleep and celebration.
Indeed, everything was going great when I landed in Chicago's Midway airport for a layover on the way to DC. I called my mom to let her know where I was, and she told me that she had some roast beef waiting for me as well as a packet of bar materials on my desk.
"Packet of bar material." That rang a bell. I knew that it had been sent to Bethesda. I also knew that she had forwarded some of it to me in Chicago. It was the usual informational material: Directions to the site, how to use your laptop -- and a little slip of paper that says "TO TAKE THE MULTISTATE BAR EXAMINATION (MBE) YOU MUST DISPLAY THIS CARD AT YOUR SEAT NUMBER."
Oh shit.
That card was still sitting in my apartment in Chicago.
I thought frantically. Could we scan the letter? I was doubtful they would accept that. Could we FedEx it overnight? Still probably wouldn't get here on time. My last, best hope was to call Jill and see if she could bring the material to me at the airport.
I call Jill. She doesn't answer. I leave a message that was probably incomprehensible. I then text message her, trying to balance between conveying the urgency with which I needed to speak with her without causing her to worry I'd been shot. I call Jill back. She picks up.
"Are (gasp) you (gasp) at the apartment?"
"No, I'm at Potbelly's."
That's okay. That's not far from the apartment. I explain to her the situation, and she rushes home. Long story short, she finds the materials, and catches a cab to the airport. I meet her outside, grab the paper and kiss her while yelling "I always love seeing you but I particularly love seeing you now!", rush back through security, and am back at the gate with 30 minutes before my flight departs. All is good.
Now, let's pause to reflect on just how many ducks had to line up here such that complete disaster was evaded:
(1) It was essentially an off-hand remark that caused me to remember I needed this slip of paper in the first place. Had my mom not mentioned a different packet of paper, or had I had not called her when I landed in Chicago, I wouldn't have remembered at all.
(2) Jill could have not picked up the phone. Or she could have been having dinner across town. Or she could not have been able to find the papers. Or she could have had trouble finding a cab. Or there could have been a traffic jam (it was rush hour).
(3) I had no reason to be in Chicago! I happened to have a layover there. But there are direct flights from Denver to DC. Hell, there are plenty of other cities one can stop in on the way to DC. That I happened to stop in this one, and have a layover long enough for Jill to get home, pick up the papers, and get to the airport without me missing my flight, is nothing short of amazing.
So yes, I credit some Divine Intervention. Which makes Jill -- literally -- a heavenly messenger (not that I needed any proof of that).
And how will this effect the actual taking of the bar, you ask? Well, I guess I could let it rattle me. But I prefer to analogize it to that scene in The West Wing where, just prior to the presidential debate, Abby cuts off Jed's tie. The frenzied chaos that ensued to avert catastrophe gave President Bartlet the adrenaline rush he needed to have a brilliant performance.
So it is only appropriate the words Jill left me with: "Game on, boyfriend."
First, some background. As you may know, I'm taking the bar exam on Tuesday. However, in what is probably best described as equal parts loyalty and hubris, I spent this past weekend in Casper, Wyoming to be a groomsman in my college roommate's wedding (Congrats, Bob and Sarah!). This entailed flying to Denver, renting a car, driving four hours to Casper, partying all night long like a good Carleton alum, then waking up at 8 AM this morning to drive back to Denver and fly into DC (by way of Chicago).
A lot could go wrong there. But, amazingly, nothing did! The flights were smooth and on-time, the road trip went perfectly fine (given that I hadn't driven a car for any trip longer than a grocery run in several years, no small thing), the wedding was fantastic -- I even managed to strike a decent balance between sleep and celebration.
Indeed, everything was going great when I landed in Chicago's Midway airport for a layover on the way to DC. I called my mom to let her know where I was, and she told me that she had some roast beef waiting for me as well as a packet of bar materials on my desk.
"Packet of bar material." That rang a bell. I knew that it had been sent to Bethesda. I also knew that she had forwarded some of it to me in Chicago. It was the usual informational material: Directions to the site, how to use your laptop -- and a little slip of paper that says "TO TAKE THE MULTISTATE BAR EXAMINATION (MBE) YOU MUST DISPLAY THIS CARD AT YOUR SEAT NUMBER."
Oh shit.
That card was still sitting in my apartment in Chicago.
I thought frantically. Could we scan the letter? I was doubtful they would accept that. Could we FedEx it overnight? Still probably wouldn't get here on time. My last, best hope was to call Jill and see if she could bring the material to me at the airport.
I call Jill. She doesn't answer. I leave a message that was probably incomprehensible. I then text message her, trying to balance between conveying the urgency with which I needed to speak with her without causing her to worry I'd been shot. I call Jill back. She picks up.
"Are (gasp) you (gasp) at the apartment?"
"No, I'm at Potbelly's."
That's okay. That's not far from the apartment. I explain to her the situation, and she rushes home. Long story short, she finds the materials, and catches a cab to the airport. I meet her outside, grab the paper and kiss her while yelling "I always love seeing you but I particularly love seeing you now!", rush back through security, and am back at the gate with 30 minutes before my flight departs. All is good.
Now, let's pause to reflect on just how many ducks had to line up here such that complete disaster was evaded:
(1) It was essentially an off-hand remark that caused me to remember I needed this slip of paper in the first place. Had my mom not mentioned a different packet of paper, or had I had not called her when I landed in Chicago, I wouldn't have remembered at all.
(2) Jill could have not picked up the phone. Or she could have been having dinner across town. Or she could not have been able to find the papers. Or she could have had trouble finding a cab. Or there could have been a traffic jam (it was rush hour).
(3) I had no reason to be in Chicago! I happened to have a layover there. But there are direct flights from Denver to DC. Hell, there are plenty of other cities one can stop in on the way to DC. That I happened to stop in this one, and have a layover long enough for Jill to get home, pick up the papers, and get to the airport without me missing my flight, is nothing short of amazing.
So yes, I credit some Divine Intervention. Which makes Jill -- literally -- a heavenly messenger (not that I needed any proof of that).
And how will this effect the actual taking of the bar, you ask? Well, I guess I could let it rattle me. But I prefer to analogize it to that scene in The West Wing where, just prior to the presidential debate, Abby cuts off Jed's tie. The frenzied chaos that ensued to avert catastrophe gave President Bartlet the adrenaline rush he needed to have a brilliant performance.
So it is only appropriate the words Jill left me with: "Game on, boyfriend."
Friday, July 22, 2011
Sleep Chronicles
I've come to the realization that the problem with this wedding is going to be less the lack of sleep and more the time zone differential. Going to bed at 4 AM and waking up at 11 AM isn't the worst amount of sleep one could have. But since I'm in Mountain Time, that translates to going to bed at 6 AM and waking up at 1 PM Eastern Time, which is not precisely compatible with the bar schedule. Oy.
Other observation: You ever have that thing happen where you have to wake up by a certain time, and you wake up a little before then, look at the clock, and calculate how much sleep you have left? But sometimes, you're so addled, you completely misremember what time it was you woke up. This is sleep roulette, because it is equally possible that you thought you had one more hour of sleep when you really had five minutes, or vice versa. Today, I won the roulette (I thought I woke up a little before 11, but really had woken up a little before 10). So that was good.
Other observation: You ever have that thing happen where you have to wake up by a certain time, and you wake up a little before then, look at the clock, and calculate how much sleep you have left? But sometimes, you're so addled, you completely misremember what time it was you woke up. This is sleep roulette, because it is equally possible that you thought you had one more hour of sleep when you really had five minutes, or vice versa. Today, I won the roulette (I thought I woke up a little before 11, but really had woken up a little before 10). So that was good.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tripping
Lots of travel in the coming days. Tomorrow I fly out for my college roommate's wedding in Casper, Wyoming (the bride is also a college friend of mine -- it's going to be a fantastic Carleton reunion). This entails flying into Denver, renting a car, and then driving four hours. On Sunday, I'm flying back to DC (again, through Denver) to take the Maryland bar exam (Tuesday and Wednesday). I will then take some very deserved days of doing nothing. And then sometime the week following, I will fly back to Chicago, to prepare to move to Champaign (that will go down August 8th).
Uf-da. There was a time in my life I liked traveling, too.
Uf-da. There was a time in my life I liked traveling, too.
Franken Finds Focus on the Family Flub
You know, this is funny and all, but it also characterizes why Senator Al Franken (D-MN) is such a good public servant. He does the work. He looks into the studies in the testimony. And here, it turns out the Focus on the Family (surprise!) was blatantly lying about the facts, and it led to them getting called out in public.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) took on a representative of the conservative group Focus on the Family for mis-characterizing a study on "nuclear families" at a hearing on a bill which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"I actually checked it out," Franken said in reference to a study cited by Focus on the Family's Thomas Minnery at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.
"Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?" Franken asked.
"I think that the study, when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife," Minnery said.
"It doesn't," Franken said, getting laughs from the audience.
"The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family," Franken continued. "And I frankly don't really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."
Perversions
A Rick Santorum fundraiser email complains that "[Dan] Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father's name." Which is sad, I guess. On the other hand, Santorum and his perverted sense of ethics is the reason why some of my friends can't get married, don't enjoy anti-discrimination protections, and are otherwise second-class citizens. Which, in the scheme of things, is a far bigger deal, I think.
UN Resolution 181, Baby!
Glenn Beck at his Israel CUFI rally: "When, when has a state been declared a state by a global body?"
Oooh -- I know this one!
Oooh -- I know this one!
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Masterchef/Hell's Kitchen Combined Thoughts
It's summer time, and that means a double dose of Gordon Ramsey for Jill and I. Masterchef has been chugging along, but Hell's Kitchen has just started. Some early (for Hell's Kitchen) and late (for Masterchef) thoughts on the two shows thus far.
Masterchef
* When they showed Erryn for the first time on Monday, Jill and I cheered. When they showed him for a second time, we said "uh-oh". By the third time, we knew he was a goner.
* And the week didn't get better with Giuseppe going home today. It was obvious that he was the "dad" of this crew (Alejandra is the mom -- Erryn confirms this), and everyone was clearly devastating to see him go home.
* The challenge today was to cook for the three judge's moms. Which, frankly, is a little unfair to Gordon and Fluffy's mothers. Lidia Bastianich is a world-famous chef -- putting two essentially random people on a panel with her is like having a judging panel of Gordon Ramsey and Jill and I.
* Alejandra's accent seems to vary wildly, not just from show to show, but from paragraph to paragraph. Sometimes it is "just off the boat", sometimes it is "I've spent my entire life in Illinois". It's bizarre.
* I couldn't care less if she wins MasterChef -- any show with Christine on it, I'll watch.
* Suzy may have peaked too soon. She's been having a rough go of it for awhile, and doesn't seem to realize what she's doing wrong.
* Chicago had four people in the finals (five if you count Tony, who was from Grant Park), but only Suzy is left. A shame -- I liked all of them. I wonder if any of them will cook for me before I move to Champaign?
Hell's Kitchen
* Jason was this season's medical casualty; a shame because he seemed nice enough. He also looked like a cross between Paul Kinsey of Mad Men and a Canadian lumberjack.
* Steven was forgettable. But Jill and I literally high-fived when Brendan was eliminated. He demonstrated himself to be a cocky jackass with impressive celerity.
* Speaking of Brendan, Carrie, your taste in men is appalling. You managed to squander the goodwill Jill and I had for you as the target of Elise's bitchiness, and believe me, that was a lot of goodwill.
* Just because Carrie has squandered her goodwill doesn't mean any reverts back to Elise. That woman appears to be nuts.
* The men thus far are far more memorable than the women, who are mostly indistinguishable blondes. This is not necessarily an advantage for the men.
* That being said, Will so far is easily the front-runner. He's very good, very committed, and appears to have a good head on his shoulders. He's a nice guy without being a sycophant. I really like him. Plus, he's got a great nickname: "Pizza bagel" (he's half-Italian, half-Jewish).
* Speaking of nicknames, we've labeled Jonathon "Boomhauer". That boy is unintelligible.
* You cannot tell me that Tommy was not addicted to heroin in the very, very recent past.
* Krupa is the only true standout on the women's team. Though Amanda looks kind of like if you took Amanda from Season 6, aged her a few years, and then dyed her hair. Wait a minute ....
Masterchef
* When they showed Erryn for the first time on Monday, Jill and I cheered. When they showed him for a second time, we said "uh-oh". By the third time, we knew he was a goner.
* And the week didn't get better with Giuseppe going home today. It was obvious that he was the "dad" of this crew (Alejandra is the mom -- Erryn confirms this), and everyone was clearly devastating to see him go home.
* The challenge today was to cook for the three judge's moms. Which, frankly, is a little unfair to Gordon and Fluffy's mothers. Lidia Bastianich is a world-famous chef -- putting two essentially random people on a panel with her is like having a judging panel of Gordon Ramsey and Jill and I.
* Alejandra's accent seems to vary wildly, not just from show to show, but from paragraph to paragraph. Sometimes it is "just off the boat", sometimes it is "I've spent my entire life in Illinois". It's bizarre.
* I couldn't care less if she wins MasterChef -- any show with Christine on it, I'll watch.
* Suzy may have peaked too soon. She's been having a rough go of it for awhile, and doesn't seem to realize what she's doing wrong.
* Chicago had four people in the finals (five if you count Tony, who was from Grant Park), but only Suzy is left. A shame -- I liked all of them. I wonder if any of them will cook for me before I move to Champaign?
Hell's Kitchen
* Jason was this season's medical casualty; a shame because he seemed nice enough. He also looked like a cross between Paul Kinsey of Mad Men and a Canadian lumberjack.
* Steven was forgettable. But Jill and I literally high-fived when Brendan was eliminated. He demonstrated himself to be a cocky jackass with impressive celerity.
* Speaking of Brendan, Carrie, your taste in men is appalling. You managed to squander the goodwill Jill and I had for you as the target of Elise's bitchiness, and believe me, that was a lot of goodwill.
* Just because Carrie has squandered her goodwill doesn't mean any reverts back to Elise. That woman appears to be nuts.
* The men thus far are far more memorable than the women, who are mostly indistinguishable blondes. This is not necessarily an advantage for the men.
* That being said, Will so far is easily the front-runner. He's very good, very committed, and appears to have a good head on his shoulders. He's a nice guy without being a sycophant. I really like him. Plus, he's got a great nickname: "Pizza bagel" (he's half-Italian, half-Jewish).
* Speaking of nicknames, we've labeled Jonathon "Boomhauer". That boy is unintelligible.
* You cannot tell me that Tommy was not addicted to heroin in the very, very recent past.
* Krupa is the only true standout on the women's team. Though Amanda looks kind of like if you took Amanda from Season 6, aged her a few years, and then dyed her hair. Wait a minute ....
One Week Out Roundup
I'm one week away from the bar exam. My strongest area is constitutional law. My weakest area is everything else.
* * *
Soccer clubs often break along broader cultural and national faultlines, and certain clubs are typically identified with various political movements. In Israel, for example, Hapoel Tel Aviv is identified with the Israeli left, and Beitar Jerusalem representing the nationalist right. Two liberal American Jews have now bought the team; hopefully, they'll help clean up its act (an interesting fact for folks not privy to how Israeli society divides -- Beitar supporters hail overwhelmingly from Israel's large Mizrachi [Arab] Jewish population).
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Yesh Din a "terrorist organization". Board member Shlomo Gazit notes it's a label he's borne before.
That far-right Iowa "marriage" petition also calls for "robust childbearing". How exactly does one birth "robustly"?
Good post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on people feeling a connection to where they're from, even it is a place that is considered a "problem".
A Columbia professor writes a book on how to resolve (or at least ameliorate) intractable conflicts. One notes that his advice could succinctly be summarized as "the opposite of what anti-Israel BDS campaigners propose".
Hussein Ibish underestimates the proportion of the BDS movement which targets Israel as a whole (the UCU academic boycott being perhaps the most prominent case), but he's absolutely right that the Israeli anti-boycott law itself is not designed to protect Israel but protect its settlements.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) flips out at fellow Floridian Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D). Lest we forget, West is a war criminal.
* * *
Soccer clubs often break along broader cultural and national faultlines, and certain clubs are typically identified with various political movements. In Israel, for example, Hapoel Tel Aviv is identified with the Israeli left, and Beitar Jerusalem representing the nationalist right. Two liberal American Jews have now bought the team; hopefully, they'll help clean up its act (an interesting fact for folks not privy to how Israeli society divides -- Beitar supporters hail overwhelmingly from Israel's large Mizrachi [Arab] Jewish population).
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Yesh Din a "terrorist organization". Board member Shlomo Gazit notes it's a label he's borne before.
That far-right Iowa "marriage" petition also calls for "robust childbearing". How exactly does one birth "robustly"?
Good post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on people feeling a connection to where they're from, even it is a place that is considered a "problem".
A Columbia professor writes a book on how to resolve (or at least ameliorate) intractable conflicts. One notes that his advice could succinctly be summarized as "the opposite of what anti-Israel BDS campaigners propose".
Hussein Ibish underestimates the proportion of the BDS movement which targets Israel as a whole (the UCU academic boycott being perhaps the most prominent case), but he's absolutely right that the Israeli anti-boycott law itself is not designed to protect Israel but protect its settlements.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) flips out at fellow Floridian Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D). Lest we forget, West is a war criminal.
Maryland Redistricting
Maryland already possesses some of the most bizarrely gerrymandered congressional lines in the country. Some of that is due to the Chesapeake Bay making any line look fuzzy, but not all of it -- the bizarre quad-helix thing going on in Baltimore is truly a gem of the genre. Currently, it has produced a 6-2 Democratic split in the congressional delegation, which, to be fair, isn't totally out of line given the sharp Democratic bent of the state.
But Democratic leaders are going to the drawing board in an effort to make it 7-1. The presumed target had been freshman Rep. Andy Harris (R) of the 1st District (Eastern Shore), but Josh Kurtz is reporting that intense lobbying from Rep. Donna Edwards (D) has instead caused state lawmakers to shift their aim towards the 6th District's Roscoe Bartlett (R), representing the western part of the state.
I like ex-Rep. Frank Kratovil (D), who won the 1st District in an upset in 2006 and seems like a nice enough guy. But Bartlett is going to be 86 years old, and folks raise a good point when they note that the exurbs which would anchor a reformulated 6th district are trending our way. Edwards herself volunteered to take on some deep-red territory (no skin off her back, she won with 83% last time out), and the 8th District (Chris Van Hollen -- and my home turf) probably could do so as well, as we no longer need to pack Democrats in to oust Connie Morella.
The only question is whether the lines can be drawn in a way that looks a little more sane than they do now.
But Democratic leaders are going to the drawing board in an effort to make it 7-1. The presumed target had been freshman Rep. Andy Harris (R) of the 1st District (Eastern Shore), but Josh Kurtz is reporting that intense lobbying from Rep. Donna Edwards (D) has instead caused state lawmakers to shift their aim towards the 6th District's Roscoe Bartlett (R), representing the western part of the state.
I like ex-Rep. Frank Kratovil (D), who won the 1st District in an upset in 2006 and seems like a nice enough guy. But Bartlett is going to be 86 years old, and folks raise a good point when they note that the exurbs which would anchor a reformulated 6th district are trending our way. Edwards herself volunteered to take on some deep-red territory (no skin off her back, she won with 83% last time out), and the 8th District (Chris Van Hollen -- and my home turf) probably could do so as well, as we no longer need to pack Democrats in to oust Connie Morella.
The only question is whether the lines can be drawn in a way that looks a little more sane than they do now.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Anti-Gay, Or Kinda-Gay, or Sorta-Looks-Gay, Discrimination
A 22-year old Indiana man was prevented from donating blood because officials at the donation center informed him he "appear[ed] to be a homosexual".
Unbelievably, the center's undoubtedly highly attuned gay-dar misfired, as the man is in fact straight. Of course, the blanket ban on gay men donating blood (first put in place in the early 1980s at the height of the HIV-panic) has long since passed into insanity, but a federal committee upheld it as recently as 2010, provoking protests from gay rights organizations as well as the American Red Cross.
Unbelievably, the center's undoubtedly highly attuned gay-dar misfired, as the man is in fact straight. Of course, the blanket ban on gay men donating blood (first put in place in the early 1980s at the height of the HIV-panic) has long since passed into insanity, but a federal committee upheld it as recently as 2010, provoking protests from gay rights organizations as well as the American Red Cross.
Betraying the Holy Mission
Jeffrey Goldberg has a solid piece up on the dangers of Israel getting too snuggly with its evangelical Christian friends. He sounds some of the traditional refrains: that making foreign policy based on presumptive knowledge of divine revelation is generally unwise, and that the particular policy prescriptions evangelicals often support with respect to Israel may very well prove quite dangerous for that state's well-being.
But his final point may be the most important one -- at least rhetorically. While right-wing Christians often like to cast themselves as "unconditional" supporters of Israel, in contrast to their wishy-wash liberal peers, this is hardly the case. Just like the liberals, they have a particular vision of what they want Israel to do. And when Israel doesn't adopt positions consistent with those policies, they tend to lash out:
There's no need for conjecture on how some religious conservatives will react if Israel "betrays" them -- Pat Robertson famously declared that Ariel Sharon's coma was divine punishment for dividing the land of Israel (by withdrawing from Gaza).
In any event, the point is that both pro-Israel liberals and pro-Israel conservatives have policies they prefer that the state adopt, and ones they oppose the state adopting. Which is fine -- that's sort of the point of having a political ideology. But casting it in terms of unconditional love or support is simply a misrepresentation. Indeed, in a lot of ways, it is the opposite -- conservative support for Israel is not generally predicated on a fundamental commitment to Zionist principles (a Jewish democratic homeland), with policy preferences flowing out of what they honestly believe will best buttress that dream. Rather, support for Israel is instrumental to goals external to the Zionist vision, e.g., "to thwart the global jihad" or "to create conditions for the return of Jesus."
But his final point may be the most important one -- at least rhetorically. While right-wing Christians often like to cast themselves as "unconditional" supporters of Israel, in contrast to their wishy-wash liberal peers, this is hardly the case. Just like the liberals, they have a particular vision of what they want Israel to do. And when Israel doesn't adopt positions consistent with those policies, they tend to lash out:
How will the Christian right feel if Israel does, in fact, make compromises for the sake of peace by “betraying” its biblical birthright? Some pro-Israel evangelical leaders already blame Jewish stiff-neckedness for the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.
In his book “Jerusalem Countdown,” Hagee writes: “It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.” The Jews’ own rebellion, he writes, “had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism.”
I’ve met evangelical leaders who share an unpleasant tic with Israel’s critics on the far left: They all hold Israel to an impossible standard of moral and political behavior. To much of the Christian right, Israel isn’t a real nation-state facing a series of painful choices. It is, instead, a biblical fantasyland, and an instrument of Christian salvation. In Bachmann’s case, it’s a living test of America’s fealty to God.
There's no need for conjecture on how some religious conservatives will react if Israel "betrays" them -- Pat Robertson famously declared that Ariel Sharon's coma was divine punishment for dividing the land of Israel (by withdrawing from Gaza).
In any event, the point is that both pro-Israel liberals and pro-Israel conservatives have policies they prefer that the state adopt, and ones they oppose the state adopting. Which is fine -- that's sort of the point of having a political ideology. But casting it in terms of unconditional love or support is simply a misrepresentation. Indeed, in a lot of ways, it is the opposite -- conservative support for Israel is not generally predicated on a fundamental commitment to Zionist principles (a Jewish democratic homeland), with policy preferences flowing out of what they honestly believe will best buttress that dream. Rather, support for Israel is instrumental to goals external to the Zionist vision, e.g., "to thwart the global jihad" or "to create conditions for the return of Jesus."
Choices, Choices
Tablet Magazine has an interesting story up about abortion politics in Israel. Historically, abortion has not been the hot-button topic in Israel that it has been in the United States, but the issue is slowly rising in prominence, as conservative groups in the country argue that abortion conflicts with both classical and post-Holocaust Jewish mandates to bring more children into the world.
The story centers around Efrat, which appears to be a cross between a Crisis Pregnancy Center and what a Crisis Pregnancy Center would be if it wasn't purely evil. Like CPCs, Efrat is quite high on manipulative imagery and purported pleas from the fetus to "let me live". Though they purport to be about "education" and present themselves as pro-"choice", they are deeply tied to movements in Israel which seek to make abortion significantly more difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, Efrat's officially stated mission is in fact deeply tied to issues of "choice": it is "founded on the belief that no Jewish woman should have to abort a child because of money troubles." That, of course is quite true (and true of any woman) -- while I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose, a women who would rather carry her child to term but feels compelled to abort because of financial insecurity should not be presented with that choice.* And Efrat does appear to put its money where its mouth is, providing needy mothers with cribs, strollers, baby food, diapers, and a cash stipend.
Of course, there is a question how much the tail is wagging the dog here. As noted, like American CPCs (which also sometimes provide similar financial assistance to pregnant mothers), Efrat appears to mostly operate as an adjunct to a broader anti-choice movement in Israel that is not about giving women choices, but rather about channeling them into their preferred outcomes. But that notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly true that the long-term goal of the pro-choice movement should be (and, as best as I can tell, is) to create a world in which every reproductive decision a woman makes is their first-best choice.
* I think a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-choice movement promulgated by their opponents is that pro-choice woman are totally psyched about abortion -- because, you know, invasive surgical procedures are how kids these days cap off a night of clubbing. Nobody wants to have an abortion, in the sense that it is their first best choice -- something they dream about from the time they were a little girl. They'd rather that their contraception didn't fail, or that they were in position to access contraception in the first place, or that they weren't raped, or that the fetus didn't have health problems, or that they felt financially secure enough to carry their child to term. Abortion is often a welcome relief as an important second-choice option; a fall-back because the best-case scenario didn't happen. And thus, it is wrong to assert that abortion represents some sort of "tragedy"; though it can often be precipitated by one, abortion is no more tragic than surgery is (nobody wants to be in a situation where they need an operation, but if they do need one, it is far better that surgery be available to them). But by necessity, an abortion implies that something happened that one did not want to happen.
So in the case of a woman who would like a child, but does not feel financially secure enough to have one now, the first-best solution is to shift to a world where one's financial wherewithal does not materially impede one's ability to have and effectively raise children. In a world where that is not the case, however, the right to an abortion is an important fallback.
The story centers around Efrat, which appears to be a cross between a Crisis Pregnancy Center and what a Crisis Pregnancy Center would be if it wasn't purely evil. Like CPCs, Efrat is quite high on manipulative imagery and purported pleas from the fetus to "let me live". Though they purport to be about "education" and present themselves as pro-"choice", they are deeply tied to movements in Israel which seek to make abortion significantly more difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, Efrat's officially stated mission is in fact deeply tied to issues of "choice": it is "founded on the belief that no Jewish woman should have to abort a child because of money troubles." That, of course is quite true (and true of any woman) -- while I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose, a women who would rather carry her child to term but feels compelled to abort because of financial insecurity should not be presented with that choice.* And Efrat does appear to put its money where its mouth is, providing needy mothers with cribs, strollers, baby food, diapers, and a cash stipend.
Of course, there is a question how much the tail is wagging the dog here. As noted, like American CPCs (which also sometimes provide similar financial assistance to pregnant mothers), Efrat appears to mostly operate as an adjunct to a broader anti-choice movement in Israel that is not about giving women choices, but rather about channeling them into their preferred outcomes. But that notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly true that the long-term goal of the pro-choice movement should be (and, as best as I can tell, is) to create a world in which every reproductive decision a woman makes is their first-best choice.
* I think a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-choice movement promulgated by their opponents is that pro-choice woman are totally psyched about abortion -- because, you know, invasive surgical procedures are how kids these days cap off a night of clubbing. Nobody wants to have an abortion, in the sense that it is their first best choice -- something they dream about from the time they were a little girl. They'd rather that their contraception didn't fail, or that they were in position to access contraception in the first place, or that they weren't raped, or that the fetus didn't have health problems, or that they felt financially secure enough to carry their child to term. Abortion is often a welcome relief as an important second-choice option; a fall-back because the best-case scenario didn't happen. And thus, it is wrong to assert that abortion represents some sort of "tragedy"; though it can often be precipitated by one, abortion is no more tragic than surgery is (nobody wants to be in a situation where they need an operation, but if they do need one, it is far better that surgery be available to them). But by necessity, an abortion implies that something happened that one did not want to happen.
So in the case of a woman who would like a child, but does not feel financially secure enough to have one now, the first-best solution is to shift to a world where one's financial wherewithal does not materially impede one's ability to have and effectively raise children. In a world where that is not the case, however, the right to an abortion is an important fallback.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Usain Bolt: The Tea Party's Worst Enemy
The Tea Party is launching a new chapter in South-Central Los Angeles, to battle "the meme repeated and supposedly proven by a series of Racers, Racists and Race-hustlers" that the movement is infected by racism. I'm not sure what a "Racer" is other than someone who runs for a living, but whatever.
Interesting trivia note: Barack Obama got 84% of the vote in California's 35th congressional district, anchored in South-Central LA. Hey, best of luck to the new chapter, which is being led by a man who alleged that the Black community suffers from a "lack of moral character". "Look what they did to the [New Orleans Super]Dome [after Katrina]. In three days they turned the Dome into a ghetto."
H/T: Balloon Juice.
Interesting trivia note: Barack Obama got 84% of the vote in California's 35th congressional district, anchored in South-Central LA. Hey, best of luck to the new chapter, which is being led by a man who alleged that the Black community suffers from a "lack of moral character". "Look what they did to the [New Orleans Super]Dome [after Katrina]. In three days they turned the Dome into a ghetto."
H/T: Balloon Juice.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Left Resurrects?
Bernard Avishai is optimistic about a new protest movement in Israel, that has unified Jews and Arabs together to peacefully promote a vision of peace and equality.
Meanwhile, Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin has an editorial in Ha'aretz where he declares himself "ashamed and mortified" that he was unable to stop the boycott bill from passing. Rivlin is a member of the right-wing Likud Party, but he's also always been particularly attentive to minority rights.
Meanwhile, Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin has an editorial in Ha'aretz where he declares himself "ashamed and mortified" that he was unable to stop the boycott bill from passing. Rivlin is a member of the right-wing Likud Party, but he's also always been particularly attentive to minority rights.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Cracks in the Coalition
The major point behind this story is that Yisrael Beiteinu is largely composed of nutcases. And that's nothing new. But insofar as cracks are beginning to form in Israel's governing coalition, maybe the government will fall, and they'll have to hold new elections. And maybe the results will enable a new governing coalition that's less prone to massively self-destructive behavior.
Or maybe the new elections will make things worse -- heaven forbid I dare express optimism about anything in this region of the world.
Or maybe the new elections will make things worse -- heaven forbid I dare express optimism about anything in this region of the world.
You've Got a Lot of ....
Tablet Mag: Rep. Michele Bachmann tackles Yiddish; Yiddish wins:
You know what's, er, choot-spa? Trying to drop in Yiddish without having the foggiest idea of how to say it right.
You know what's, er, choot-spa? Trying to drop in Yiddish without having the foggiest idea of how to say it right.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Considering Michele Bachmann Wants To Use Jewish Eyeballs For Soup....
Desperate again to believe that Jews are abandoning Obama, Republicans are now touting (and not even accurately touting) a laughably bogus push poll that attempts to, er, "document" Jewish views. Take this question:
Why yes, if I "consider" naked lies about candidates (by all means, tell me where Obama has proposed a right of return for Palestinian refugees!), I guess that would raise some "concerns". I have to admit, being a pathological liar makes everything easier.
Considering what President Obama has proposed for Israel just over a year before his 2012 re-election campaign — a return to the 1967 borders, dividing Jerusalem, and allowing the right of return for Palestinian Arabs to Israel — how concerned would you be about President Obama’s policies towards Israel if he were re-elected and did not have to worry about another election?
Why yes, if I "consider" naked lies about candidates (by all means, tell me where Obama has proposed a right of return for Palestinian refugees!), I guess that would raise some "concerns". I have to admit, being a pathological liar makes everything easier.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
More on Israeli Morons
Israel's anti-boycott law is most obviously a huge win for the boycotters. But it also has accomplished something observers might have thought impossible -- united all branches of the American Jewish community in a chorus of condemnation. In my original post in the matter, I noted the ADL's statement expressing discontent with the law's impingement on free expression norms. Commentary Magazine called it an "unforced error" and a "mistake". And obviously more progressive Jewish organizations have been vociferous in their critiques.
But the true stunner is that it looks like this law is even too much for ZOA's Mort Klein, who said "Nobody was more appalled by the boycott of Ariel theater than me, but to make it illegal? I don't think so."
I mean, seriously? How badly do you have to fuck up for Mort Klein to attack you from the left? Mort Klein criticizing Israel for being too harsh on its critics is like hearing Pat Robertson condemn a "family values" org for being too homophobic. It's a sign that you didn't just go off the deep end, but cracked your head open on the side of the pool mid-leap.
But the true stunner is that it looks like this law is even too much for ZOA's Mort Klein, who said "Nobody was more appalled by the boycott of Ariel theater than me, but to make it illegal? I don't think so."
I mean, seriously? How badly do you have to fuck up for Mort Klein to attack you from the left? Mort Klein criticizing Israel for being too harsh on its critics is like hearing Pat Robertson condemn a "family values" org for being too homophobic. It's a sign that you didn't just go off the deep end, but cracked your head open on the side of the pool mid-leap.
Boycotting Democracy
The Israeli government just voted to pass a law exposing those who call for a boycott of Israel (or just Israeli settlements) to civil liability (without requiring proof of damages). A Yisrael Beiteinu MK is already promising to sue another MK under the law who called for a boycott of the Ariel settlement. Meanwhile, the Israeli left now appears to mobilizing behind a boycott of settlement goods in order to protest the new law. Finally, the ADL, typifying the American Jewish inability to criticize Israel, released a statement that the law may "impinge on the basic democratic rights of Israelis to freedom of speech and freedom of expression." Wait ... that sounds like a statement critical of Israel! Perhaps they tripped. Or perhaps the meme that they're unable to do so is stupid.
Anyway, and speaking of stupid, one thing we have to remember is that Israel has a government. That, pretty much by necessity, means that some of the people in the government will be stupid, and it also means that sometimes those stupid people will even gain a majority. I'm not sure how anyone in the United States could fail to realize that possibility -- look at our own House of Representatives. Sometimes circumstances conspire so that a Michele Bachmann is a bona fide political force. One hopes that such times are rare, but one cannot hope to extinguish them completely. And when the nuts do take over the asylum, they pass constitutionally dubious (I'm skeptical this one will survive review by the Israeli judiciary) laws that turn out to be massively counterproductive.
Israel's problem isn't that it has a higher propensity for electing stupid legislators than other countries (particularly those who use proportional electoral representation). All countries have their share of idiots, and all experience times when their electorate wafts in favor of unreflective populism. Israel's problem is that it is more vulnerable than most other countries, and thus is less able to afford periodic flights of madness.
Anyway, and speaking of stupid, one thing we have to remember is that Israel has a government. That, pretty much by necessity, means that some of the people in the government will be stupid, and it also means that sometimes those stupid people will even gain a majority. I'm not sure how anyone in the United States could fail to realize that possibility -- look at our own House of Representatives. Sometimes circumstances conspire so that a Michele Bachmann is a bona fide political force. One hopes that such times are rare, but one cannot hope to extinguish them completely. And when the nuts do take over the asylum, they pass constitutionally dubious (I'm skeptical this one will survive review by the Israeli judiciary) laws that turn out to be massively counterproductive.
Israel's problem isn't that it has a higher propensity for electing stupid legislators than other countries (particularly those who use proportional electoral representation). All countries have their share of idiots, and all experience times when their electorate wafts in favor of unreflective populism. Israel's problem is that it is more vulnerable than most other countries, and thus is less able to afford periodic flights of madness.
A Success Story's Last Chapter?
Dana Goldstein reports on going-ons in Northern Virginia, where shifts in student population may cause district lines to be redrawn, moving a largely White and wealthy subdivision (Wakefield Chapter) from Annandale High School (49 percent low-income and about one-third Latino, 29 percent white, 23 percent Asian, and 15 percent black) to Woodson High School (Two-thirds white and 6 percent low-income).
The interesting part of the debate is how it is shaking out within Wakefield Chapter. Parents of younger students support the move, believing that their students will benefit from it. But parents of students already in Annandale High -- and those students itself -- are stridently opposing it, pointing out to the immense benefits they've received from attending a diverse (and academically very successful high school).
This tracks findings common amongst scholars who study integrated schools (something becoming rarer and rarer as resegregation accelerates) -- products of these schools are consistently laudatory of their experience and how it helped enable them to be at ease in multi-racial settings (or where they themselves are in the minority), preparing them for an increasingly globalized and multi-cultural workforce. The major blight on such schools was that minority students were dispirited by the contrast between their integrated educational lives and their lives outside the school doors which remained largely separate and unequal.
The interesting part of the debate is how it is shaking out within Wakefield Chapter. Parents of younger students support the move, believing that their students will benefit from it. But parents of students already in Annandale High -- and those students itself -- are stridently opposing it, pointing out to the immense benefits they've received from attending a diverse (and academically very successful high school).
This decision has opened up an interesting rift in the neighborhood. Parents of younger kids --those currently attending whiter, wealthier elementary and middle schools--are in favor of the switch to Woodson. They assume that their own already-privileged children will get more out of a high school experience learning alongside similar peers. But current Annandale High students and parents who live in Wakefield Chapel oppose the move, saying Annandale's diversity, school spirit, and challenging curriculum have shaped their lives in positive ways. In an online petition, they also mention that Wakefield Chapel parents are active volunteers at Annandale, and that rezoning those families to another high school would negatively impact the entire Annandale student body, especially low-income kids whose own parents aren't able to get involved at school.
Dozens of Annandale High families are actively opposing this rezoning, even though current students would all be allowed to finish their high school careers at the school. These parents and teens believe that keeping Annadale integrated is the right civic decision, the best policy for future generations.
This tracks findings common amongst scholars who study integrated schools (something becoming rarer and rarer as resegregation accelerates) -- products of these schools are consistently laudatory of their experience and how it helped enable them to be at ease in multi-racial settings (or where they themselves are in the minority), preparing them for an increasingly globalized and multi-cultural workforce. The major blight on such schools was that minority students were dispirited by the contrast between their integrated educational lives and their lives outside the school doors which remained largely separate and unequal.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Gingrich's Infidility Saves His Bacon
Newt Gingrich refrained from signing a conservative Iowa group's "Marriage Vow" pledge, probably because he recognized that -- as a prominent serial adulterer -- he'd be a national laughingstock if he did (well, more so). Gingrich instead gingerly offered to help "sharpen" the language so he could sign.
But fortunately for Gingrich, the delay probably evaded a serious gaffe. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum -- who already signed the pledge, are now scrambling after folks pointed out the pledge implied that family dynamics for Black children were better under slavery than they are today (Robert George: "Black unemployment? Also low then, too!"). The specific claim -- that "a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household" than a Black child today -- is, in addition to being offensive on face (as the "two-parent household" here typically involved a slave woman and the master who raped her), also wrong on the facts.
Bachmann's damage control included a claim she didn't endorse the slavery portion of the four-page document (which was part of the preamble), wrongly explaining that in the antebellum south marriage was common and recognized amongst slaves, as well as a campaign release telling us that Rep. Bachmann "believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible". That's definitely going to extinguish the fire alright.
So yeah: Lucky Gingrich.
But fortunately for Gingrich, the delay probably evaded a serious gaffe. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum -- who already signed the pledge, are now scrambling after folks pointed out the pledge implied that family dynamics for Black children were better under slavery than they are today (Robert George: "Black unemployment? Also low then, too!"). The specific claim -- that "a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household" than a Black child today -- is, in addition to being offensive on face (as the "two-parent household" here typically involved a slave woman and the master who raped her), also wrong on the facts.
Bachmann's damage control included a claim she didn't endorse the slavery portion of the four-page document (which was part of the preamble), wrongly explaining that in the antebellum south marriage was common and recognized amongst slaves, as well as a campaign release telling us that Rep. Bachmann "believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible". That's definitely going to extinguish the fire alright.
So yeah: Lucky Gingrich.
Not-So-Hypothetical Question
If I go to bed too early ("too early" defined relative to how early I've been getting to sleep on the surrounding days), my body interprets it as a nap instead of actual full-night's sleep. The upshot is that, instead of sleeping for, say, 10 hours (I like to sleep in), I end up sleeping for more like four. And, since I'm already going to bed "early", that means I wake up at around 3:45 in the morning.
Now, I know me, and I know that four hours is sleep is not enough to keep me functional for the entire day. But I also know I'm not going to get back to sleep anytime soon. So most of the time, I just lie there with my eyes closed and hope that it at least counts as a sort of half-sleep. But does it? Is there any somnolent value to lying in bed while conscious with one's eyes closed? Or might I just as well get up, write a blog post (again, oh-so-hypothetically), and just suffer through the day (or take a nap when I'm tired again, probably around noon)?
UPDATE: For those of you who care, the eventual resolution was falling back asleep from 9 AM until 1 PM. Efficient!
Now, I know me, and I know that four hours is sleep is not enough to keep me functional for the entire day. But I also know I'm not going to get back to sleep anytime soon. So most of the time, I just lie there with my eyes closed and hope that it at least counts as a sort of half-sleep. But does it? Is there any somnolent value to lying in bed while conscious with one's eyes closed? Or might I just as well get up, write a blog post (again, oh-so-hypothetically), and just suffer through the day (or take a nap when I'm tired again, probably around noon)?
UPDATE: For those of you who care, the eventual resolution was falling back asleep from 9 AM until 1 PM. Efficient!
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Weekend Boxing Roundup: 7/9/11
I actually had some trouble figuring out what date to put up top. Today's the tenth, the weekend's action started on the eighth, but ultimately I figured the main events were on the ninth. So there you go.
Friday, July 8th
Jesus Gonzalez (27-1, 14 KOs) UD12 Francisco Sierra (24-4-1, 22 KOs)
Former can't-miss prospect Jesus Gonzalez, trying to reach his former potential in a comeback bid, took a nice step forward in a grueling fight against Mexican slugger Sierra. Sierra is alternatively best known for being blown out by Edison Miranda in one, or for laying a hellacious beat-down of Donovan George that ended with George out cold from a shot that landed a split-second after the bell (the referee ended up docking Sierra two points, and he won a technical decision). He also was a full weight class heavier than Gonzalez, as he could "only" drop 12 pounds in the week's notice he received for the fight, coming in 8 pounds over the 168 lbs contract weight.
This fight was mostly controlled by Gonzalez, but it was a ton of fun the whole way through and saw both fighters on the canvas (Sierra in the fourth, Gonzalez in the fifth). It's easily Gonzalez's best win of his comeback, and he looked pretty good, but also like someone who still was a long way away from Andre Ward quality. Why mention Ward particularly? Because Gonzalez actually is the last man to beat Andre ... when they were 12. Fun trivia fact, but Ward would obliterate Gonzalez in any rematch.
Yuandale Evans (15-0, 11 KOs) TKO6 Emmanuel Lucero (26-7-1, 14 KOs)
Evans scored four knockdowns en route to a stoppage win over former title challenger Lucero. Lucero is the midst of a comeback of his own after struggles with alcohol, and while he was never particularly competitive, he was game as all get out and kept trying to take the fight to the younger man. Evans looked like someone with promise -- if nothing else, he has the physique of a bona fide contender -- but while Lucero was a decent next step, he isn't big enough or good enough to give us a real feel for the Cleveland-based fighter's potential.
Also, Evans' nickname is "Money Shot". Really.
Janks Trotter (5-0-1, 5 KOs) TKO2 Arturo Crespin (6-2-1, 2 KOs)
This was a rematch of Trotter's one blemish (a technical draw after a headbutt), and it was clear that Trotter -- the fighter with a name voted most likely to be shared by a Jedi Knight -- made it evident that he was the dominant force in the ring. Again, Crespin gave it his all, but he was knocked down in the first and then utterly starched in the second. Trotter was a former Canadian amateur standout before he decided he wanted to work on an oil rig for awhile, but now he is apparently back in the game. Who knows -- he could have the tools to actually make some noise.
Saturday, July 9th
Lucian Bute (29-0, 24 KOs) TKO4 Jean Paul Mendy (29-1-1, 16 KOs)
As expected, Bute annihilated Mendy, who got this shot after getting the shit kicked out of him by Sakio Bika, who then proceeded to get himself disqualified hitting Mendy while he was down. I love Bika, but he does have a habit of being his own worst enemy sometimes. Anyway, Bute has already beaten Bika, and Bika was obliterating Mendy, so this wasn't expected to be particularly competitive. And it wasn't -- after three easy rounds, Bute knocked Mendy out cold in the fourth. He's now looking at a likely match against Kelly Pavlik back in Montreal in what I think may prove to be Pavlik's last stand -- Bute is just too good at 168, and Pavlik (a) isn't a true Super Middleweight and (b) isn't what he used to be, unfortunately.
Carson Jones (31-8-2, 21 KOs) TKO6 Germaine Sanders (27-10, 17 KOs)
Two of my personal favorite spoiler-types squared off in Oklahoma last night, with Jones -- who was slated to be Antonio Margarito's comeback opponent before Texas remembered that he was still suspended -- coming away with the knockout victory. Sanders has been around for a long time, mostly as a gatekeeper sort. Though he's now lost seven straight, they've been against brutal competition, including Shamone Alvarez, Jesus Soto-Karass, Mike Jones, and Randell Bailey. It was also only his second stoppage loss (the other coming in 2002 against famous banger Teddy Reid).
Jones, for his part, feels like he's been around forever, but he's actually only 24. That's probably because he's in the ring so often -- a whopping 24 fights since 2008 (he turned pro in 2004, so it wasn't just puffball fights for a new guy either). He's probably best known for busting the bubble of knockout artist/hype job Tyrone Brunson, but has been quietly putting together a decent resume. He's an honest, hardworking sort who comes to fight. He can be maddeningly inconsistent -- there are some really shaky losses amongst those eight defeats -- but he's also got some decent wins and I've seen him flash real skills. I root for him because any break he gets will be entirely of his own doing. This was a solid win over a solid gatekeeper, and I'd like to see him step up again.
Carlos Molina (19-4-2, 6 KOs) UD10 Kermit Cintron (32-4-1, 28 KOs)
Speaking of hard-working guys you can't help but root for. I love Carlos Molina. He only had six amateur fights, and he could easily be 24-1 instead of 19-4-2. His draws are against exceptionally talented Erislandy Lara (in a fight I and most others thought he won) and Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. (in a fight I assume Molina won because in any JCC fight I automatically give the other guy an extra two rounds compared to the judge's scorecards). His losses include a majority decision loss to JCC in the rematch (see above for what I think of that), and another majority decision and a split decision loss. Meanwhile, he's unbeaten since 2008 and just notched up a career best victory.
And it's not luck. He's a very active fighter, but it isn't just swarming -- he varies his punches very well, really commits to the body, and is defensively quite slick and tricksy. He has a little more power than his KO percentage would suggest, but still not much -- enough to buzz a guy if he catches him flush, but not enough to KO anybody by anything other than an accumulation of punches. But that's really the only aspect of his game that isn't a solid B+. I'd love to see him against Pawel Wolak or Cornelius Bundrage (some folks mentioned Alfredo Angulo, but I think that's an awful style match-up for Molina).
As for Cintron, he did not look good at all coming off a 14-month layoff. He couldn't get his punches off, on the rare occasions that he did they didn't land, and even when he did connect they just didn't seem to carry that concussive force they used to when Cintron was fighting at welterweight. It is a big step back for Cintron, even granting that Molina should be seen as a bona fide contender now, and I'm not sure where he goes from here. It's true to that Molina looked good last night, but Cintron also looked bad. It's that simple.
Brandon Rios (28-0-1, 21 KOs) TKO3 Urbano Antillon (28-3, 20 KOs)
Can you say Hagler/Hearns? I can. Three rounds of non-step, punishing action that ended when Rios caught Antillon early in the third. Antillon got up and bravely tried to keep fighting, but he was never able to shake-off the effects of the knockdown, was put down again, and the fight was stopped shortly thereafter as Antillon wobbled around the ring while breaking from a clinch. Prior to that, though, we had nine minutes of sustained, in-the-trenches action that lived up to expectations. It's greedy of me to wish it could have gone longer, but I do -- it was that much fun.
Both fighters deserve to and assuredly will grace our TV sets in future fights. But Rios in particular may well be the best lightweight in the world out there. And you couldn't pick a more exciting fighter to hold the label. The kid loves to bang, and you know in any Brandon Rios fight he will be there to hit and be hit.
Rico Ramos (20-0, 11 KOs) KO7 Akifumi Shimoda (23-3-1, 10 KOs)
I didn't see this fight, but what I heard Ramos was fighting tentatively and being thoroughly beaten in the first half of the fight, only to turn it around with a sensational one-punch knockout to take the title from Shimoda. That, to me, sounds like Gerry Penalosa's similar one-punch knockout over Jhonny Gonzalez, except that "Penalosa" and "fighting tentatively" ought never be seen in the same paragraph as one another (Penalosa was getting beaten handily in that fight, but not for lack of effort).
Max Kellerman declared "all sins are forgiven", but I'm not sure about that -- it could have been a lucky punch. Credit to Ramos for having the ability to throw it, and for hanging in there and turning it up in the seventh round, but I'd still be worried about the lackluster performance during the rest of the fight.
Paul Williams (40-2, 27 KOs) MD12 Erislandy Lara (15-1-1, 10 KOs)
Folks are saying this is a robbery, and from what I saw they're right. I missed the first three rounds, but from what I'm told those were all clear Lara rounds, and making that presumption I had it nine rounds to three for Lara. I don't think Williams looked "shot", but I don't think he looked great either, and that overhand left by a southpaw is apparently his permanent kryptonite.
There's just not that much to be said about the fight itself. Lara looked stronger, faster, more powerful, and slicker in there. He deserved the "W". He didn't get it. The three judges at ringside were relatively inexperienced and did not have a good reputation in the major fights they have scored. The nicest thing you could say was that they were mesmerized by Williams' typical volume, even though most of those punches didn't land or had no snap. Meanwhile, Lara landed overhand left after overhand left to noticeable effect.
Unfortunately, you can't overturn decisions just because the scorecards are substantively appalling. But one hopes that the New Jersey commission looks into this and takes a hard look at whether any of these three judges deserve to be ringside in the future. The boxing public and, especially, the boxers themselves, deserve better.
Friday, July 8th
Jesus Gonzalez (27-1, 14 KOs) UD12 Francisco Sierra (24-4-1, 22 KOs)
Former can't-miss prospect Jesus Gonzalez, trying to reach his former potential in a comeback bid, took a nice step forward in a grueling fight against Mexican slugger Sierra. Sierra is alternatively best known for being blown out by Edison Miranda in one, or for laying a hellacious beat-down of Donovan George that ended with George out cold from a shot that landed a split-second after the bell (the referee ended up docking Sierra two points, and he won a technical decision). He also was a full weight class heavier than Gonzalez, as he could "only" drop 12 pounds in the week's notice he received for the fight, coming in 8 pounds over the 168 lbs contract weight.
This fight was mostly controlled by Gonzalez, but it was a ton of fun the whole way through and saw both fighters on the canvas (Sierra in the fourth, Gonzalez in the fifth). It's easily Gonzalez's best win of his comeback, and he looked pretty good, but also like someone who still was a long way away from Andre Ward quality. Why mention Ward particularly? Because Gonzalez actually is the last man to beat Andre ... when they were 12. Fun trivia fact, but Ward would obliterate Gonzalez in any rematch.
Yuandale Evans (15-0, 11 KOs) TKO6 Emmanuel Lucero (26-7-1, 14 KOs)
Evans scored four knockdowns en route to a stoppage win over former title challenger Lucero. Lucero is the midst of a comeback of his own after struggles with alcohol, and while he was never particularly competitive, he was game as all get out and kept trying to take the fight to the younger man. Evans looked like someone with promise -- if nothing else, he has the physique of a bona fide contender -- but while Lucero was a decent next step, he isn't big enough or good enough to give us a real feel for the Cleveland-based fighter's potential.
Also, Evans' nickname is "Money Shot". Really.
Janks Trotter (5-0-1, 5 KOs) TKO2 Arturo Crespin (6-2-1, 2 KOs)
This was a rematch of Trotter's one blemish (a technical draw after a headbutt), and it was clear that Trotter -- the fighter with a name voted most likely to be shared by a Jedi Knight -- made it evident that he was the dominant force in the ring. Again, Crespin gave it his all, but he was knocked down in the first and then utterly starched in the second. Trotter was a former Canadian amateur standout before he decided he wanted to work on an oil rig for awhile, but now he is apparently back in the game. Who knows -- he could have the tools to actually make some noise.
Saturday, July 9th
Lucian Bute (29-0, 24 KOs) TKO4 Jean Paul Mendy (29-1-1, 16 KOs)
As expected, Bute annihilated Mendy, who got this shot after getting the shit kicked out of him by Sakio Bika, who then proceeded to get himself disqualified hitting Mendy while he was down. I love Bika, but he does have a habit of being his own worst enemy sometimes. Anyway, Bute has already beaten Bika, and Bika was obliterating Mendy, so this wasn't expected to be particularly competitive. And it wasn't -- after three easy rounds, Bute knocked Mendy out cold in the fourth. He's now looking at a likely match against Kelly Pavlik back in Montreal in what I think may prove to be Pavlik's last stand -- Bute is just too good at 168, and Pavlik (a) isn't a true Super Middleweight and (b) isn't what he used to be, unfortunately.
Carson Jones (31-8-2, 21 KOs) TKO6 Germaine Sanders (27-10, 17 KOs)
Two of my personal favorite spoiler-types squared off in Oklahoma last night, with Jones -- who was slated to be Antonio Margarito's comeback opponent before Texas remembered that he was still suspended -- coming away with the knockout victory. Sanders has been around for a long time, mostly as a gatekeeper sort. Though he's now lost seven straight, they've been against brutal competition, including Shamone Alvarez, Jesus Soto-Karass, Mike Jones, and Randell Bailey. It was also only his second stoppage loss (the other coming in 2002 against famous banger Teddy Reid).
Jones, for his part, feels like he's been around forever, but he's actually only 24. That's probably because he's in the ring so often -- a whopping 24 fights since 2008 (he turned pro in 2004, so it wasn't just puffball fights for a new guy either). He's probably best known for busting the bubble of knockout artist/hype job Tyrone Brunson, but has been quietly putting together a decent resume. He's an honest, hardworking sort who comes to fight. He can be maddeningly inconsistent -- there are some really shaky losses amongst those eight defeats -- but he's also got some decent wins and I've seen him flash real skills. I root for him because any break he gets will be entirely of his own doing. This was a solid win over a solid gatekeeper, and I'd like to see him step up again.
Carlos Molina (19-4-2, 6 KOs) UD10 Kermit Cintron (32-4-1, 28 KOs)
Speaking of hard-working guys you can't help but root for. I love Carlos Molina. He only had six amateur fights, and he could easily be 24-1 instead of 19-4-2. His draws are against exceptionally talented Erislandy Lara (in a fight I and most others thought he won) and Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. (in a fight I assume Molina won because in any JCC fight I automatically give the other guy an extra two rounds compared to the judge's scorecards). His losses include a majority decision loss to JCC in the rematch (see above for what I think of that), and another majority decision and a split decision loss. Meanwhile, he's unbeaten since 2008 and just notched up a career best victory.
And it's not luck. He's a very active fighter, but it isn't just swarming -- he varies his punches very well, really commits to the body, and is defensively quite slick and tricksy. He has a little more power than his KO percentage would suggest, but still not much -- enough to buzz a guy if he catches him flush, but not enough to KO anybody by anything other than an accumulation of punches. But that's really the only aspect of his game that isn't a solid B+. I'd love to see him against Pawel Wolak or Cornelius Bundrage (some folks mentioned Alfredo Angulo, but I think that's an awful style match-up for Molina).
As for Cintron, he did not look good at all coming off a 14-month layoff. He couldn't get his punches off, on the rare occasions that he did they didn't land, and even when he did connect they just didn't seem to carry that concussive force they used to when Cintron was fighting at welterweight. It is a big step back for Cintron, even granting that Molina should be seen as a bona fide contender now, and I'm not sure where he goes from here. It's true to that Molina looked good last night, but Cintron also looked bad. It's that simple.
Brandon Rios (28-0-1, 21 KOs) TKO3 Urbano Antillon (28-3, 20 KOs)
Can you say Hagler/Hearns? I can. Three rounds of non-step, punishing action that ended when Rios caught Antillon early in the third. Antillon got up and bravely tried to keep fighting, but he was never able to shake-off the effects of the knockdown, was put down again, and the fight was stopped shortly thereafter as Antillon wobbled around the ring while breaking from a clinch. Prior to that, though, we had nine minutes of sustained, in-the-trenches action that lived up to expectations. It's greedy of me to wish it could have gone longer, but I do -- it was that much fun.
Both fighters deserve to and assuredly will grace our TV sets in future fights. But Rios in particular may well be the best lightweight in the world out there. And you couldn't pick a more exciting fighter to hold the label. The kid loves to bang, and you know in any Brandon Rios fight he will be there to hit and be hit.
Rico Ramos (20-0, 11 KOs) KO7 Akifumi Shimoda (23-3-1, 10 KOs)
I didn't see this fight, but what I heard Ramos was fighting tentatively and being thoroughly beaten in the first half of the fight, only to turn it around with a sensational one-punch knockout to take the title from Shimoda. That, to me, sounds like Gerry Penalosa's similar one-punch knockout over Jhonny Gonzalez, except that "Penalosa" and "fighting tentatively" ought never be seen in the same paragraph as one another (Penalosa was getting beaten handily in that fight, but not for lack of effort).
Max Kellerman declared "all sins are forgiven", but I'm not sure about that -- it could have been a lucky punch. Credit to Ramos for having the ability to throw it, and for hanging in there and turning it up in the seventh round, but I'd still be worried about the lackluster performance during the rest of the fight.
Paul Williams (40-2, 27 KOs) MD12 Erislandy Lara (15-1-1, 10 KOs)
Folks are saying this is a robbery, and from what I saw they're right. I missed the first three rounds, but from what I'm told those were all clear Lara rounds, and making that presumption I had it nine rounds to three for Lara. I don't think Williams looked "shot", but I don't think he looked great either, and that overhand left by a southpaw is apparently his permanent kryptonite.
There's just not that much to be said about the fight itself. Lara looked stronger, faster, more powerful, and slicker in there. He deserved the "W". He didn't get it. The three judges at ringside were relatively inexperienced and did not have a good reputation in the major fights they have scored. The nicest thing you could say was that they were mesmerized by Williams' typical volume, even though most of those punches didn't land or had no snap. Meanwhile, Lara landed overhand left after overhand left to noticeable effect.
Unfortunately, you can't overturn decisions just because the scorecards are substantively appalling. But one hopes that the New Jersey commission looks into this and takes a hard look at whether any of these three judges deserve to be ringside in the future. The boxing public and, especially, the boxers themselves, deserve better.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Bidding War
I was definitely in the camp of those who thought the mini-flap over Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) ordering an expensive bottle of wine was silly. The problem with Paul Ryan is that he promotes policies which would be utterly disastrous for the vast majority of people in this country while enabling the very rich to get richer. That Rep. Ryan is, in fact, in the rarefied class of persons who would benefit from his policies is already well-known and hardly relevant.
But kudos to Matt Yglesias for at least making a decent segue from expensive bottles of wine to a real policy point. I didn't think it could be done, but it's actually a solid observation.
But kudos to Matt Yglesias for at least making a decent segue from expensive bottles of wine to a real policy point. I didn't think it could be done, but it's actually a solid observation.
By Grace of God
Top Nancy Grace-inspired tweets about the Casey Anthony verdict. My fave: "Remember, folks: in America, you're innocent until Nancy Grace spends every night for 3 years saying you're guilty."
Friday, July 08, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
The "Constitutional" Option
With all due respect to Jack Balkin, who is a fine scholar, the new claim that the debt ceiling might be unconstitutional under Section IV of the 14th Amendment ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.") strikes me as akin to the right-wing's novel commerce clause claim against the individual mandate. That is, the debt ceiling, like the individual mandate, was seen as incontestably constitutional right up until the moment that it became politically expedient for it not to be. At which point, suddenly, controversy! Forgive me for being skeptical of the development.
Now, maybe the debt ceiling is different because -- until now -- nobody had been dumb enough to make a credible threat to actually follow through on defaulting the American economy. So it never came up until now. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that. Still, I'm very dubious.
Now, maybe the debt ceiling is different because -- until now -- nobody had been dumb enough to make a credible threat to actually follow through on defaulting the American economy. So it never came up until now. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that. Still, I'm very dubious.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
The Cultural Cognition of Climate Change
A new paper coming out of Yale's Cultural Cognition project (led by Professor Dan Kahan) is getting some blogger buzz. Unfortunately, it's for all the wrong reasons.
Folks are seizing on the finding that more scientifically-literate respondents are less likely to believe that Global Warming represents a serious threat. This is true, but overstated -- the difference between high- and low-literacy respondents is extremely small. Kahan et al use it to refute the presumption that greater scientific education is likely to cause the average person's views on global warming to converge on the scientific consensus on the matter, but that's all.
Rather, the real action is that increased scientific-literacy increases the divergence in opinions on the matter amongst members of groups whose narratives predispose them to look with more favor on the scientific-consensus about climate change (that it is dangerous) versus those whose cultural narratives instruct them to view that consensus skeptically. Over the course of several experiments, Kahan et al have divided persons along two axes -- hierarchical/egalitarian, and individualist/communitarian. Persons with egalitarian, communitarian outlooks -- hypothesized to be favorable to believing claims of dangerous climate change -- were more likely to say climate change is dangerous, and this belief rose moderately as scientific literacy increased. Persons with hierarchical, individualist outlooks -- forecast to be skeptical of climate change data -- were accordingly less likely to view it as dangerous, and this risk-assessment dipped sharply as scientific-literacy increased (that the hierarchical, individualist risk assessment fell by considerably more than the egalitarian, communitarian one rose is what accounts for the small negative association between levels of scientific literacy and belief in the dangers of global warming). This is the main conclusion of the paper -- not about how scientific literacy impacts one's assessment of climate change risk (at least not directly), but whether scientific-literacy diminishes the salience of one's prior social narratives. And the answer was not only, "no", it was "no, increased scientific literacy enhances the polarizing impact of these priors."
This finding is part of a larger set of conclusions formed through the Cultural Cognition project's research -- to wit, that increased information does not create consensus amongst politically polarized groups (by directing everyone to the "right" outcome), but rather fosters divergence as each side is able to access bits of fact and information that help them create a coherent narrative that binds together their preferred value priors with experiential data. Discussing other research by Professor Kahan and his cohors, I wrote:
So persons already predisposed to believe in global climate change, upon gaining more information, have more access to bundles of facts and arguments that help buttress and amplify that belief. But persons predisposed to disbelieve in climate change, in turn, also have more access to arguments and facts that support that worldview as they become more informed. Presumably, less-informed voters -- while still likely to adhere to their predispositions, are more likely to stake a more relatively moderate path, as they have fewer narrative resources at their disposal to explain away counterarguments (and thus are more likely to admit some level of doubt in their beliefs).
There might be, in other words, an intractable barrier facing fact-based democratic policy-making in situations where the underlying policy question is normatively polarizing. The presumption was always that greater education -- greater grasp on the facts -- would overcome these divides as people discovered what the best policy option is. But Kahan's work has thrown a serious wrench in this presumption -- as it turns out, normative interpretation governs factual interpretation, not the other way around. At best, we could hope that direct experience might modify norms (if New York does end up under two feet of water, that might convince some climate change skeptics). But that's pretty drastic, and doesn't give us that much hope for normal policy disputes.
Folks are seizing on the finding that more scientifically-literate respondents are less likely to believe that Global Warming represents a serious threat. This is true, but overstated -- the difference between high- and low-literacy respondents is extremely small. Kahan et al use it to refute the presumption that greater scientific education is likely to cause the average person's views on global warming to converge on the scientific consensus on the matter, but that's all.
Rather, the real action is that increased scientific-literacy increases the divergence in opinions on the matter amongst members of groups whose narratives predispose them to look with more favor on the scientific-consensus about climate change (that it is dangerous) versus those whose cultural narratives instruct them to view that consensus skeptically. Over the course of several experiments, Kahan et al have divided persons along two axes -- hierarchical/egalitarian, and individualist/communitarian. Persons with egalitarian, communitarian outlooks -- hypothesized to be favorable to believing claims of dangerous climate change -- were more likely to say climate change is dangerous, and this belief rose moderately as scientific literacy increased. Persons with hierarchical, individualist outlooks -- forecast to be skeptical of climate change data -- were accordingly less likely to view it as dangerous, and this risk-assessment dipped sharply as scientific-literacy increased (that the hierarchical, individualist risk assessment fell by considerably more than the egalitarian, communitarian one rose is what accounts for the small negative association between levels of scientific literacy and belief in the dangers of global warming). This is the main conclusion of the paper -- not about how scientific literacy impacts one's assessment of climate change risk (at least not directly), but whether scientific-literacy diminishes the salience of one's prior social narratives. And the answer was not only, "no", it was "no, increased scientific literacy enhances the polarizing impact of these priors."
This finding is part of a larger set of conclusions formed through the Cultural Cognition project's research -- to wit, that increased information does not create consensus amongst politically polarized groups (by directing everyone to the "right" outcome), but rather fosters divergence as each side is able to access bits of fact and information that help them create a coherent narrative that binds together their preferred value priors with experiential data. Discussing other research by Professor Kahan and his cohors, I wrote:
Providing additional facts and information doesn’t cause policy convergence, it causes policy polarization. The reason is that most fact patterns contain narratives, inferences, and interpretations which plausibly can be deployed to support diverse policy positions. Facts, alone, can never by themselves tell us anything about fundamentally value-based policy judgments, even under ideal deliberative conditions. People accordingly interpret the information they receive in manners which support their prior dispositions, only now they feel more comfortable in these beliefs because they have “facts” to back them up. Given this latent ambiguity, there is no incentive to agree, and lots of psychological incentives to latch on to friendly fact stories in order to preserve ones preexisting beliefs.
So persons already predisposed to believe in global climate change, upon gaining more information, have more access to bundles of facts and arguments that help buttress and amplify that belief. But persons predisposed to disbelieve in climate change, in turn, also have more access to arguments and facts that support that worldview as they become more informed. Presumably, less-informed voters -- while still likely to adhere to their predispositions, are more likely to stake a more relatively moderate path, as they have fewer narrative resources at their disposal to explain away counterarguments (and thus are more likely to admit some level of doubt in their beliefs).
There might be, in other words, an intractable barrier facing fact-based democratic policy-making in situations where the underlying policy question is normatively polarizing. The presumption was always that greater education -- greater grasp on the facts -- would overcome these divides as people discovered what the best policy option is. But Kahan's work has thrown a serious wrench in this presumption -- as it turns out, normative interpretation governs factual interpretation, not the other way around. At best, we could hope that direct experience might modify norms (if New York does end up under two feet of water, that might convince some climate change skeptics). But that's pretty drastic, and doesn't give us that much hope for normal policy disputes.
Polls Show Jewish Opinion of Obama Unchanged
A Gallup poll pegs Jewish support for President Obama at 60% -- 14 points higher than the general population, which is the typical margin. This figure was statistically unaffected (note the wide margin of error, however, due to the small sample size) by President Obama's May 19 Middle East policy speech which called for '67 based-borders in a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Arm-chair analysis of Jewish voters tends to make some rather elementary mistakes about how Jews will think in the voting booth. Basically, the stock assumption behind GOP efforts to break into the Jewish voting bloc is that they are single-issue Israel voters. Which, by and large, isn't true -- polls consistently demonstrate that while Israel matters to many Jewish voters, it is subordinated to other issues -- the big ones all voters care about, like the economy and education.
Of course, there are Jewish voters for whom Israel is a more prominent voting issue. But for these voters, that greater attachment also comes with a more involved opinion on the matter. They don't just "support Israel", they have particular policy options or politicians they think are good or bad. So some might identify as Likudniks, but others might identify more with Kadima, or Labor, or Meretz. Whether or not that enhanced involvement translates to Republicans is not going to be dependent on how high Republicans dial up the volume on the "WE ARE PRO-ISRAEL" megaphone -- it will depend on the affinity between the Republican's specific policy agenda with respect to Israel, and that held by each individual Jewish voter. If one of these voters thinks that a two-state solution is critical and the United States needs to throw its weight around to make it happen sooner rather than later, obviously that won't help the GOP one bit.
With regards to Netanyahu in particular, Bibi has never been particularly popular amongst American Jews -- a lot Jewish voters who know a lot about Israel believe he's a nutjob, and this dates back to his first tenure as Prime Minister well before his spats with President Obama. There's no reason to suspect, in other words, that amongst high-information, high-passion Jewish voters, a battle between Obama and Netanyahu is one that Netanyahu would win.
Arm-chair analysis of Jewish voters tends to make some rather elementary mistakes about how Jews will think in the voting booth. Basically, the stock assumption behind GOP efforts to break into the Jewish voting bloc is that they are single-issue Israel voters. Which, by and large, isn't true -- polls consistently demonstrate that while Israel matters to many Jewish voters, it is subordinated to other issues -- the big ones all voters care about, like the economy and education.
Of course, there are Jewish voters for whom Israel is a more prominent voting issue. But for these voters, that greater attachment also comes with a more involved opinion on the matter. They don't just "support Israel", they have particular policy options or politicians they think are good or bad. So some might identify as Likudniks, but others might identify more with Kadima, or Labor, or Meretz. Whether or not that enhanced involvement translates to Republicans is not going to be dependent on how high Republicans dial up the volume on the "WE ARE PRO-ISRAEL" megaphone -- it will depend on the affinity between the Republican's specific policy agenda with respect to Israel, and that held by each individual Jewish voter. If one of these voters thinks that a two-state solution is critical and the United States needs to throw its weight around to make it happen sooner rather than later, obviously that won't help the GOP one bit.
With regards to Netanyahu in particular, Bibi has never been particularly popular amongst American Jews -- a lot Jewish voters who know a lot about Israel believe he's a nutjob, and this dates back to his first tenure as Prime Minister well before his spats with President Obama. There's no reason to suspect, in other words, that amongst high-information, high-passion Jewish voters, a battle between Obama and Netanyahu is one that Netanyahu would win.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Happy 4th of July!
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." -- Bill Clinton.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
The Insufficiently Downtrodden
Phoebe makes a good point on the nature of anti-Semitism and why it sometimes doesn't get the attention it deserves on the left:
One of the things I think is important to reiterate about anti-Semitism (or any -ism, really) is that it is inextricably connected to what one thinks Jews are owed. If one thinks the Jews already have too much -- too much wealth, too much power, too much influence, too much security -- then it will hardly seem like anti-Semitism to urge stripping it away from them. That will instead seem like a return to fairness (compare complaints about gays seeking "special rights").
This is in part why anti-Semitism can't be reduced to simple questions about malign intent -- if one honestly believes that Jews only deserve X, but that they have X + infinity, then one won't think one's desire to return Jews to X is malicious. Equal rights, not special rights. Nonetheless, whether that position is justifiable depends on the propriety of X itself -- and that's a normative question that exists quite independent of the good or bad faith of the proponent.
[T]he reason liberals today aren't shouting from the rooftops about anti-Semitism is the same as why they weren't long ago: Jews aren't, or more accurately aren't viewed as, marginalized. Being on the left has always been about supporting the downtrodden, and since anti-Semitism is and always was about accusing Jews of being insufficiently downtrodden, there are only these rare moments when the obvious left-wing position is to get worked up about anti-Semitism - moments when anti-Semitism's on-the-ground influence is so great (think the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust) that thinking of Jews as victims becomes uncontroversial.
[...]
Anyway. Ideally those on the left would see that anti-Semitism is an odd kind of bigotry that surfaces the most when its victims seem to be doing the best, i.e. when they seem the least underdog-ish. And there's no reason understanding this wouldn't be compatible with more straightforward social-justice advocacy, including for the Palestinians.
One of the things I think is important to reiterate about anti-Semitism (or any -ism, really) is that it is inextricably connected to what one thinks Jews are owed. If one thinks the Jews already have too much -- too much wealth, too much power, too much influence, too much security -- then it will hardly seem like anti-Semitism to urge stripping it away from them. That will instead seem like a return to fairness (compare complaints about gays seeking "special rights").
This is in part why anti-Semitism can't be reduced to simple questions about malign intent -- if one honestly believes that Jews only deserve X, but that they have X + infinity, then one won't think one's desire to return Jews to X is malicious. Equal rights, not special rights. Nonetheless, whether that position is justifiable depends on the propriety of X itself -- and that's a normative question that exists quite independent of the good or bad faith of the proponent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
