A Killer Crossover, Among Other Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Israel Poll

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

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

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

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

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

Dual Loyalties, Part Who The Hell Knows Anymore

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cast your votes now!

On Liberal versus Left Zionism, Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Thanksgiving Break: A Pro/Con List

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

Thursday

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

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

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

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

Friday

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

Saturday

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

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

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

Sunday

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

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

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

Monday

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

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

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

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

Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Not Good News and the Bad News

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

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

The Unbearable Boldness of Andrew Sullivan

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

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

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

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

Eat Darling Eat!

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

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

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

The New Definition of Zionism

"Zionism" is one of those terms that gets bandied about a lot, but doesn't seem to have much of a stable definition. The one I forward (inspired if not outright stolen from Phoebe Maltz Bovy, though I can't remember exactly where), and still think is pretty good, is "the belief that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state was a good idea and it should stick around." That's deliberately quite broad, and is also deliberately agnostic to a whole range of Israeli policies. For obvious reasons, I reject the claim that the settlements are "Zionist" at all, much less intrinsic to the definition as some of their proponents claim. Zionism, at core, is about granting Jews national self-determination -- there is no rule that we have to use it to occupy the West Bank. But of late, I think there is another definition of "Zionism" rising to prominence -- at least in some quarters. A "Zionist" is anybody who speaks out against anti-Semitism, no matter their politics on Israel. The CST blog forwards this claim with respect to the rhetoric employed by defenders of rabid anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon, in a post titled "You're all Zionists now". Atzmon has long been condemned even by Jewish anti-Zionists, and it's not hard to understand why, for the target of his vitriol is not (or not just) Israel, but "Jewishness" as a whole. That includes Jewish anti-Zionists, because for Atzmon the core sin that he opposes is "acting politically under a Jewish banner", and insofar as Jewish anti-Zionists identify as Jewish anti-Zionists, they qualify. But when these anti-Zionist speakers speak out against Atzmon's inclusion in a "progressive" cultural festival called "Raised Your Banners", suddenly -- presto! They're "Zionists". The one thing I will say is that the CST is, if anything, too generous in calling this a "new low". It isn't particularly new at all: brushing aside accusations of anti-Semitism as "Zionism", even when the complainant is anti-Zionist, has a much longer pedigree (of course, the idea that only anti-Zionists have standing to have their claim of anti-Semitism taken seriously is itself a deeply reactionary position predicated upon denigrating Jews and enforcing the third rule of racial standing). Steve Cohen, introducing his classic text That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic, recounts an early review his pamphlet received in a putatively "left" magazine:

There was a particular review—in Searchlight—one sentence of which I will never forget. Every Jew on the left will know that terrible syndrome whereby, whatever the context and wherever one is, we will be tested by being given the question "what is your position on Zionism?" Wanna support the miners—what's your position on Zionism? Against the bomb—what's your position on Zionism? And want to join our march against the eradication of Baghdad, in particular the eradication of Baghdad—what's your position on Zionism? And we all know what answer is expected in order to pass the test. It is a very strong form of anti-Semitism based on assumptions of collective responsibility. Denounce Zionism, crawl in the gutter, wear a yellow star and we'll let you in the club. Which is one reason why I call myself an Anti-Zionist Zionist—at least that should confuse the bastards. Anyhow this particular review, noting that my book actually did attack Zionism, said "It is not enough to trot out platitudes, as he does, about being against Zionism and in support of the Palestinian struggle". So I'm not allowed into the club even though I fulfil the entry requirements. I'm not allowed in because I recognise and oppose the existence of anti-Semitism on the Left—and this therefore renders all support for Palestinians a "platitude". Well it ain't me who's here confusing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

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

Happy Turkey Day!

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




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

ZOA: Honoring One-Staters and Anti-Semites Alike

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

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

Eat Your Veggies!

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

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

Life imitates parody, brought to you daily on Fox!

Kauft Nicht Bei Araber!

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

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

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

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

The End of the World Draws Nigh

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

Close That Gap

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

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

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

Thanksgiving Starts Early Roundup

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

Party of Lincoln!

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

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

Progress is Progress

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

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

AZ Sup. Ct. Reinstates Redistricting Chair

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

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

A Chink in their Armor

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

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

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

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

Reflecting on the Race Card

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Eyes Turn Eastward....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem Solved

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

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

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

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

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

Problem solved.

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

My Big Fat Gay Orthodox Jewish Wedding

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

Congratulations to the happy couple!

Yes, It's Cliched

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

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

Narrow Interests

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

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

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

Another Hajaig-Style Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Once You Get To Know Her!

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

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

Ouch -- that stings.

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Error Roundup

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

* * *

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

Occupy movement inspires unions to get bolder.

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

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

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

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

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

DC Circuit Upholds ACA

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

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

Kirkland's Back

I thought it was wishful thinking.

A few years ago, James Kirkland was fast becoming one of my favorite fighters. He had impressed me in fights against Eromosele Albert and Brian Vera, and a knockout victory over Columbian slugger Joel Julio had him in line for a break-out fight. But it wasn't just that he won, it was how he did it. Kirkland fought with a raw passion and almost animalistic hunger I have never seen in another contemporary fighter. Some fighters have that look in their eyes like they're there to win a fight. Some fighters have that look that says "I'm going to knock you out". With Kirkland, it was different. His look said "I'm here to inflict pain". It made for a series of brutal, savage, thrilling fights.

Then Kirkland got sent away to prison for a parole violation (possession of a firearm). There are a lot of boxers who are troubled in various ways, but this seemed like a genuine case of just a poor choice -- Kirkland didn't attain the gun surreptitiously or in any context suggesting he had malign intent -- and a lot of folks in the industry backed him up come sentencing.

Still, Kirkland went away to prison, and there was no telling how that might change him. When he got out, he split with long time trainer Ann Wolfe and looked subpar in several comeback performances. Then came the shocker -- a first round knockout loss to unheralded, light-punching Nobuhiro Ishida. It was the sort of outcome that seemed to confirm everyone's worst fears. Kirkland wouldn't be the same after prison. His chin wouldn't hold. His once bright star seemed faded.

Of course, one could try to explain it away. Kirkland just needed to get back together with Wolfe. His chin couldn't be that bad -- after all, he'd beaten some big bangers, such as Julio. But to my ears, as someone who desperately wanted to see the old Kirkland, it rang hollow. You can't train chin. The Ishida loss wasn't on a fluke shot -- Kirkland just looked bad in there.

It felt like wishful thinking.

The match-up against Alfredo Angulo was one that had been on many a fan's wish list before Kirkland went to prison. Both were come-forward brawlers who thrived on pressure and packed a punch. But after Ishida, how much could the fight really promise? Kirkland and Angulo both had pressure and both had power, but only one, it seemed, had a chin. Angulo -- never down as an amateur or a pro -- was known as someone who could take a wallop. It seemed like only a matter of time, and possibly not much of it, before he simply overpowered Kirkland and ended the night.

And at first, it looked exactly like it would follow that script. Both men came out firing at the bell, and the brawl was on. But thirty seconds in, Kirkland was dropped by a rocket right hand that would have ended most men's nights. He beat the count, but proceeded to be on the receiving end of a pounding for the next 1:30, with the referee almost stopping the fight.

Kirkland was barely hanging on, and I was silently pleading Don't stop it. Let me have my war. Kirkland can still come back. There can still be the fight I dreamed of tonight.

With the punches Angulo was landing, it seemed like wishful thinking.

But Angulo finally punches himself out. And Kirkland -- showing incredible recuperative powers -- turned the tables, stunning Angulo and dropping him at the end of the round to even the score. It was the first time Angulo had ever been down, and he was hurt.

Round one was a round of the year candidate. From then on though, the old Kirkland was back.

Angulo was still hurt going into round two, with Kirkland applying monstrous pressure. The fight became a savage affair, but Kirkland's training with Ann Wolfe paid off, as he showed incredible endurance and tenacity as Angulo slowly began to break. After a 10-10 first round, I scored the fight a shutout for Kirkland who -- it must be said -- was still taking plenty of shots that would have been lights-out for many fighters. It was an incredible display.

By round six, Angulo's legs were gone and he had slowed nearly to a crawl. He was showing incredible heart, but it was getting close to the "physical safety" point for him. Finally, trapped against the ropes and eating punches, the referee stepped in. It was a good stoppage, giving James Kirkland a TKO6 victory.

Whenever you turn on the television to watch a boxing match, you dream you'll get to see a fight like this. Most nights, it's just wishful thinking.

Most nights, but not every night. Congratulations, and welcome back, James Kirkland.

Canadian Boxer or Jedi Knight?

I just put this up at Bad Left Hook, but I'll repost here as well (and if you prefer, here it is in Sporcle form):

(1) Bardan Jusik

(2) Janks Trotter

(3) Schiller Hyppolite

(4) Kyle Katarn

(5) Arash Usmanee

(6) Corran Horn

(7) Manolis Plaitis

(8) Ghislain Maduma

(9) Even Piell

(10) Denton Daley

* * *

ANSWERS: (1) JK (2) CB (3) CB (4) JK (5) CB (6) JK (7) CB (8) CB (9) JK (10) CB.

Huntsman Girls, Part II

Ryan Lizza profiles Jon Huntsman's three daughters (@Jon2012Girls). They just seem like really cool, smart, well-adjusted human beings. I like them. The story about the youngest one dating the son of Huntsman's Democratic opponent in the 2004 gubernatorial race is particularly hilarious.

Almost a Point!

Kentucky GOP gubernatorial candidate David Williams, on his way to a truly embarrassing thrashing at the hands of incumbent Democrat Steve Beshear, has decided to take the truly low road, attacking his opponent for participating in a Hindu prayer ceremony at a factory ground-breaking that was bringing desperately needed jobs to the state. The company which owns the factory is based out of India, hence the ceremony, and Williams proceeded to attack the proceedings as "idolatry", "prayers to false gods", and urged Hindus to "come to Jesus".

Now, in the course of all that Williams almost brushes up against a legitimate point. He said that he's a Christian, and thus he would not feel comfortable participating in religious ceremonies of other religions -- be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. I empathize with that: as a Jew, I feel very uncomfortable when asked to partake in Christian religious ceremonies -- though I note that my discomfort in this respect would likely spell the end of any political ambitions I harbor, as I doubt Williams' tolerance extends towards non-Christians who want the option to opt-out of Christian ceremonies (a confidence I'd have even without Williams oh-so-stereotypical foray into "isn't it time that someone stood up for (Christians) for a change?" victimology). But sure, in abstract, I think it is perfectly legitimate for Williams not to want to engage in religious ceremonies of non-Christian religions.

The problem is that obviously, Williams' objection goes not to his own (dis)comfort level, but that Beshear didn't share it -- and more specifically, that he didn't share the proper degree of revulsion to that strange religion practiced by those foreigners over yonder. The overall tenor was of rank religious bigotry; the sad flailing attacks of a man who is already on his way to a humiliating defeat.

Israel as Political Issue, Part II

Given his position he has to be more delicate about it, but I think the AJC's David Harris' clarification of using Israel as a "wedge issue" is roughly in line with how I described it.

The examples Harris gives are not of honest disagreements about policy. They're cases where the tail is clearly wagging the dog -- where President Obama's opponents are looking for something to bash him with and just concoct frivolous objections in the hope that if they sneer enough, it will cause "the controversy brews!" style reporting. And that, for the reasons I expressed, is something qualitatively quite different from honest debate over various policies the US can take towards Israel (or that Israel can take towards Palestinians).

Stand Out

I'm not sure what it is about women's boxing that inspires paroxysms of ridiculous sexism. The 2-minute round rule in women's boxing seems inexplicable to me but as an expression of sexism. We have Cuba, home of the best amateur boxing program in the world, announcing that it would not allow women to participate because "Cuban women should be showing off their beautiful faces, not getting punched in the face." Now, the AIBA is floating a plan to force female boxers to wear mini-skirts in the ring.

The claim is that the, er, distinctive uniform will help women "stand out" from their male counterparts. I have to admit, I didn't realize it was that difficult to tell women apart from men without the help of a skirt. Oddly enough, some male boxers do wear skirt-style trunks in the ring, which only makes the "stand out" point more absurd (my point being that boxers should -- within rules of safety and fairness -- be able to wear whatever style of trunks they like. But a mandatory va-va-voom rule for female boxers is absurd and prejudiced).

The Resistable Force vs. The Moveable Object

That was the joke moniker given to the 2010 Junior Welterweight clash between Amir Khan and Paulie Malignaggi. The title played off the fact that Khan had a notoriously weak chin, while Malignaggi is one of the most feather-fisted fighters to make it to boxing's elite echelons. As it happened, Khan completely overpowered Malignaggi offensively, stopping him in the 11th round (later, Khan even managed to rehabilitate his chin by winning a brawl with Argentine slugger Marcos Maidana).

But this title also may apply to the 2012 presidential election, argues Jon Chait. We have an unpopular incumbent presiding over a weak economy. On the other hand, he'll be facing off against a Republican who will likely be reviled by much of the electorate. It's hard to know how that will shake out -- reelection is often just a referendum on the incumbent, but Obama -- as much as his popularity has taken a hit -- still starts at a noted advantage over Romney and a gaping one over anyone else the GOP might put up.

Interfaith Dialogue: The Good and the Bad

The good: An interesting conference brought together various Imams and Rabbis to explore the commonalities between Shariah and Halacha.

The bad: The Vatican's new liaison to the Jewish community is very much getting off on the wrong foot.

Cribbing Hate

There is an annoying trend one can spot occasionally that declares Islamophobia to be the new anti-Semitism. The implication is that anti-Semitism is mostly a thing of the past, no longer a problem, and that the attention paid to it should now shift to prejudice and bigotry against Muslims. Of course, anti-Semitism is not over and vigilance is still required against it -- the effect of the meme is less to encourage attention to Islamophobia than it is to encourage ignoring anti-Semitism.

What is true, though, is that many of the tactics and mechanics of Islamophobia have clear, obvious parallels to anti-Semitism. This is a theme discussed in detail by Hussein Ibish, and an interesting new post at Middle Class Dub hits it home by pairing up quotations from Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher with contemporary anti-Islam extremist Robert Spencer. They make effectively identical claims using effectively identical styles. It's very eye-opening.

Israel to Accelerate Self-Dismemberment....

In response to Palestine's successful bid to gain membership in UNESCO, Israel has approved a wave of new settlement construction, apparently on the theory that hacking off one's own nose is worth it to spite someone else's face. Seriously, one gets the sense that radical Palestinians can just play Israel like a flute at this point. Do something Israel doesn't like, and watch as they furiously self-destruct.

Feedback Loop

Sometimes, the breathtaking dimness just bedazzles me:

So far this week, four of the world's top five oil companies have announced more than $24 billion in third quarter profits. And by the logic of Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), that should mean those oil companies deserve more subsidies, not less.

Speaking at a town hall meeting Oct. 22 in his home state of Florida, Stearns displayed a very sketchy grasp on how subsidies should work, explaining to Climate Progress that incentives should be given to mature companies, not early-stage companies.

"When somebody is successful, then you give them the subsidies and the tax credit," explained Stearns, talking to Climate Progress. In short, the rich get richer. This is how the 1% operate. No wonder income inequality is growing in this country.

For those in the slow section of the class, that's the exact opposite of how subsidies are supposed to work. Now, ideally, in a pure capitalist society there are no such thing as subsidies. But I'm not a pure capitalist, and subsidies often make sense as a way to get a new industry off the ground in the face of entrenched competition (e.g., environmental energy), or to maintain a public service that wouldn't be able to fund itself (roads, other public transportation options). The one area where subsidies make no sense is as some sort of governmental bounty for the already-profitable.

Death To....?

The Times Higher Ed has a piece up on the recent outburst by a Kent State history professor who yelled "death to Israel!" after a fierce exchange with a Bedouin Israeli ex-diplomat. The remark was swiftly condemned by the university President, and I'm reasonably content with that outcome. Unlike the recent UCI case, the remark was neither intended to nor had the effect of permanently disrupting the diplomat's event. And while this particular professor's record isn't exactly unblemished (he wrote a column praising a suicide bomber, and is alleged to contributed to a Jihadist website), there isn't the sort of pattern or practice of behavior that would lead, in my view, to a hostile environment. At the end of the day, he behaved like a dick, and was called out on it by the President of the university. Can't ask for more than that.

But AAUP President Cary Nelson (and my Illinois colleague, in the English department) disagrees with me, and I found his statement somewhat interesting:

Calling out a political slogan during a question period falls well within the speech rights of any member of a university community,” he said. “Expressive outbursts do not substitute for rational analysis, but they have long played a role in our national political life. More surprising, to be sure, is President Lefton’s invention of an absurd form of hospitality: you must not question the moral legitimacy or the right to exist of a guest’s home country. Awareness of history would suggest such challenges are routine elements of international life.

The first half of this is true, but also somewhat besides the point. Obviously, expressive outbursts can be a part of national discourse. So too are critiques of those outbursts. Academic freedom doesn't mean freedom from criticism; to the extent the university president thinks this professor acted like a jerk, he shouldn't be immunized from being told so.

The second half, by contrast, just strikes me as strange. It's a "routine element of international life" for persons to have the very existence of their home states be challenged as a moral affront? I'm genuinely curious what other examples Mr. Nelson has in mind. After all, one thing one often hears from folks who think anti-Zionism plays by its own rules is that one essentially never hears the call "death to China" or "death to France." It isn't just guests from those countries which are spared the indignity -- such rhetoric isn't part of our discursive vocabulary at all for other countries.

I'm a little baffled, then, at what Nelson is referring to that he thinks is such a routine part of being part of international life. Any ideas?

The Changing DC Region

The Washington Post has a pair of fascinating articles on shifting residential demographics in the DC area. The first documents the decline of White enclaves in the region. The second looks at the rise of the overwhelmingly Black and very wealthy Prince George's County.

How does this work? Well, it seems that (at least in the DC area), barriers to minority groups moving to White neighborhoods are finally starting to crumble, and when members of other racial groups move in, Whites aren't moving out. That being said, Whites still aren't willing to affirmatively move into neighborhoods that are predominantly non-White, which allows spaces like PG County to continue serving as Black enclaves.

Anyway, they're both good reads. Highly recommended.

UPDATE: Ta-Nehisi Coates has characteristically great thoughts.

Huntsman Girls

(A) Why does Jon Huntsman have to be a Republican and (B) Why does he have to run this year?



I still am baffled by why Huntsman is running this time around. But he is one of the last men standing in the "not insane" wing of the GOP, and to his immense credit, he's mostly managed to hold that line while running this time around (of course, that probably has something to do with his less than scintillating poll numbers).

Israel as Political Issue

There's been a recent spurt of chatter around an ill-fated "civility pledge" promoted by the ADL and AJC that some conservative groups claim is an attempt to stifle criticism of President Obama's policies on Israel. The pledge worries about increased attempts to "politicize" the support of Israel.

Obviously, it is absolutely true that in a deliberative system, there must be free reign to criticize policies one finds disagreeable. Conservatives who have genuine concerns about the President's policies regarding Israel should of course be free to make their case -- if they think Obama is bad for Israel, they're entitled to say so. And of course, by the same token, if I think various conservative political leaders are bad for Israel, I have the right to say that too (this, of course, also goes for judgments on the advisability of Israeli policy positions too -- whether in the form of critiques of the Shalit deal or critiques of settlement expansion).

But there is something else going on here, related to the idea of politicization. In the arena of politics, many issues are taken not because one is firmly attached to a particular stance, but simply because they're the opposite of one's opponent. Say I'm a Democrat running for office against an incumbent Republican, and that incumbent gives a speech on foreign policy. I'm never going to come out and say "That was a really great speech. I think we're more or less on the same page on these issues -- good job, buddy!" That's not my job. My job is to try and defeat my opponent. So of course I'm going to try and create a narrative where the speech was bad and promised bad things for America or our allies.

This sort of politicization, though, is obviously a very bad thing, because it means significant portions of the public debate on Israel are not occurring because of genuine disagreements on the merits of our policies towards Israel, but rather are simply fig leaves for a political campaign against the President. With regards to politicians, it's probably unavoidable. But where we do have the right to vigorously police the line is on ostensibly "pro-Israel" organizations that are really just stalking horses for a given political party. The Emergency Committee for Israel clearly meets this description. When it releases a statement on Israel, it is not because it has made a considered judgment that a given action is in Israel or America's best interests. It makes its statement because it has made a political calculation that it can do damage to the President with it.

The problem with the ECI, in other words, isn't that they have disagreements with the Obama administration on Israel and the temerity to express them. The problem is that, in effect, they don't have disagreements with the Obama administration on Israel because they don't have a stable or coherent position on Israel at all. Israel is a tertiary concern for them; just a useful rhetorical tool for trying to secure a domestic political victory. And using Israel as that sort of political football is something that the Jewish and pro-Israel community absolutely should be opposing, vigorously.